Saturday, April 30, 2005
French Teenagers
I'm currently surrounded by them. They must be returning from their American safari. They appear to be about as spotty as the homegrown variety, as well as having the same mix of cool/geeky/clueless/shy/bully/etc...
Foul
Yglesias is right. You can't compare a plan which doesn't include a transfer of $2 trillion from the general fund to one that does. The Pozen plan only achieves solvency by transferring $2 trillion from the general fund, and that's on top of whatever additional infusion that private accounts would require. If a Democrat came out tomorrow and propose closing a lot of the funding gap simply by diverting general revenues they'd be roundly mocked by the axis of Russert. But, this appears to be an overlooked feature of numerous Republican plans that are floating around out there. As we know, IOKIYAR.
Good News
Clear Channel:
Though not talked about quite as much, a huge problem with Clear Channel has been the cross-promotion of their concerts on their radio stations, putting non-Clear Channel artists/venues at a distinct disadvantage...
Clear Channel Communications, the world's largest radio broadcaster, will spin off its live-entertainment unit and sell shares in the billboard business after a radio-advertising slump caused the stock to drop 25% in the past year.
Though not talked about quite as much, a huge problem with Clear Channel has been the cross-promotion of their concerts on their radio stations, putting non-Clear Channel artists/venues at a distinct disadvantage...
Please Kill Me
It's now apparently strange that a woman carries money with her.
It's apparently a crime for an adult woman to cross state lines without informing her parents and husband-to-be.
The "kidnapping story" was operative for 3 hours in reality in the wee hours of the morning but operative for a week in the alternative reality of cable news.
CNN now plans to become the 24 hour local news channel, nationalizing every local interest story. Car chases, missing young white women, cats up trees, ...
... and, what must the families of the "4 soldiers killed in Iraq today" think of this being CNN's "top story of the day" and every day...
...now the CNN anchor is wondering if maybe, just maybe, there could be federal charges filed...federal charges? for what?
It's apparently a crime for an adult woman to cross state lines without informing her parents and husband-to-be.
The "kidnapping story" was operative for 3 hours in reality in the wee hours of the morning but operative for a week in the alternative reality of cable news.
CNN now plans to become the 24 hour local news channel, nationalizing every local interest story. Car chases, missing young white women, cats up trees, ...
... and, what must the families of the "4 soldiers killed in Iraq today" think of this being CNN's "top story of the day" and every day...
...now the CNN anchor is wondering if maybe, just maybe, there could be federal charges filed...federal charges? for what?
Friday, April 29, 2005
Fareed, What Have You Done...
Damn. I think the list of conservatives I can still respect is now the empty set.
I much preferred his essay on the wet martini.
The metaphor of a flat world, used by Friedman to describe the next phase of globalization, is ingenious.
I much preferred his essay on the wet martini.
Expensive
I'm surprised by the number of people in comments below who have signalled that they think it's ludicrous that a family of four can find it hard to live on $90,000. There are several housing markets where they would certainly find it difficult to buy anything resembling a 4 bedroom house - San Francisco area, Orange County, San Diego, increasingly the DC area, Boston, etc... In my post below I meant to write:
which explains some of the response. And, I'm not saying that they couldn't afford to rent something that their family could survive quite comfortably in. But, the original point was that this family certainly wouldn't be "well off" or "rich" or even "upper middle class" by the standards we usually set for these things in terms of media images. We're at the top of a housing bubble (it may not pop, but I can't see it continuing to rise), so it's generally cheaper to rent in these areas than to buy. But, a household income of $90,000 in Orange County, CA at absolute best affords you a "middle middle class" lifestyle, due to the cost of housing (unless, of course, you bought into the market decades ago. )
- There are still many parts of Philly metro area in which "upper middle class" is certainly achievable for $90,000 in household income. Not true for SoCal, or NY, or Boston, or SF,a stretch for Chicago, etc. In much of America 90,000 is more than enough, of course.
which explains some of the response. And, I'm not saying that they couldn't afford to rent something that their family could survive quite comfortably in. But, the original point was that this family certainly wouldn't be "well off" or "rich" or even "upper middle class" by the standards we usually set for these things in terms of media images. We're at the top of a housing bubble (it may not pop, but I can't see it continuing to rise), so it's generally cheaper to rent in these areas than to buy. But, a household income of $90,000 in Orange County, CA at absolute best affords you a "middle middle class" lifestyle, due to the cost of housing (unless, of course, you bought into the market decades ago. )
The Middle Class
I posted (a version of ) this in comments, but I suppose it's worth its own discussion. What is the Middle Class?
To me, "middle class" is a 4 person two income family with health insurance who can afford a 4 bedroom suburban home in a neighborhood where there's a half-decent public school, and one car for each adult. At the lower end it's a shittier house, in a less desirable school district, and shittier cars. At the upper end it's a small mcmansion with some extra doo-dads and a bigger plot of land and more expensive cars.
That's the image of Middle Class in America. Anything below that may not be "living in poverty" or "starving to death" or "homeless" but it doesn't fit within the paradigm of American Middle Class. One doesn't necessarily have to be part of the AMC to have a decent life, either, depending on taste and circumstance.
I said "metro area" and not "city." There are still many parts of Philly metro area in which "middle class" is certainly achievable for $90,000 in household income. Not true for SoCal, or NY, or Boston, or SF,a stretch for Chicago, etc. In much of America 90,000 is more than enough, of course.
Discuss...
...To be clear, I don't think one needs to be living this type of suburban life to qualify as "middle class," although there's a cultural aspect perhaps to our perception of "middle class" which includes that. What I wrote is "who can afford." One can also choose to forego one of the cars and live in the city, or forego an income and a car voluntarily, or various other possible arrangements. It's the affordability of the arrangement, not whether one embraces it in the particulars. That is, if you wanted given your current job prospects you could obtain the scenario I described.
Certainly there are large numbers of people who don't fit this middle class description who lead relatively comfortable lives by many standards (and large numbers of people who don't). A family of 4 can survive in more modest circumstances and be quite happy. Or not. Depending. But just because they aren't under the poverty line or one paycheck away from eviction doesn't make them "middle class."
To me, "middle class" is a 4 person two income family with health insurance who can afford a 4 bedroom suburban home in a neighborhood where there's a half-decent public school, and one car for each adult. At the lower end it's a shittier house, in a less desirable school district, and shittier cars. At the upper end it's a small mcmansion with some extra doo-dads and a bigger plot of land and more expensive cars.
That's the image of Middle Class in America. Anything below that may not be "living in poverty" or "starving to death" or "homeless" but it doesn't fit within the paradigm of American Middle Class. One doesn't necessarily have to be part of the AMC to have a decent life, either, depending on taste and circumstance.
I said "metro area" and not "city." There are still many parts of Philly metro area in which "middle class" is certainly achievable for $90,000 in household income. Not true for SoCal, or NY, or Boston, or SF,a stretch for Chicago, etc. In much of America 90,000 is more than enough, of course.
Discuss...
...To be clear, I don't think one needs to be living this type of suburban life to qualify as "middle class," although there's a cultural aspect perhaps to our perception of "middle class" which includes that. What I wrote is "who can afford." One can also choose to forego one of the cars and live in the city, or forego an income and a car voluntarily, or various other possible arrangements. It's the affordability of the arrangement, not whether one embraces it in the particulars. That is, if you wanted given your current job prospects you could obtain the scenario I described.
Certainly there are large numbers of people who don't fit this middle class description who lead relatively comfortable lives by many standards (and large numbers of people who don't). A family of 4 can survive in more modest circumstances and be quite happy. Or not. Depending. But just because they aren't under the poverty line or one paycheck away from eviction doesn't make them "middle class."
Better Off
As Think Progress points out, Bush is now defining people who are "better off" as anyone earning over $20,000/year. When selling his tax cuts, he defined people who were the "lowest income taxpayers" as anyone earning under $100,000.
Look, this is important. Our media is running around talking about how "rich people" are going to have their benefits cut, as if Bush's cunning plan to save Social Security is to take away Bill Gates's check. Social Security benefits currently max out at $90,000 salary. People who earn $90,000/year are generally not portrayed by the kool kids in the media as "rich" or "wealthy" or even "upper income." Obviously people who earn that much are at the higher end of the income distribution, but especially for such people who live in high cost metro areas, they don't have lives which are noticeably distinguishable from what we think of as "middle class.'
Look, this is important. Our media is running around talking about how "rich people" are going to have their benefits cut, as if Bush's cunning plan to save Social Security is to take away Bill Gates's check. Social Security benefits currently max out at $90,000 salary. People who earn $90,000/year are generally not portrayed by the kool kids in the media as "rich" or "wealthy" or even "upper income." Obviously people who earn that much are at the higher end of the income distribution, but especially for such people who live in high cost metro areas, they don't have lives which are noticeably distinguishable from what we think of as "middle class.'
More Plan
The Pozen plan maintains solvency in part by mandating about $2 trillion in transfers from general funds. Note, this does not include any sort of private account plan which would be also require significant up front borrowing in order to cover current beneficiaries.
Disability AND Dependent Benefits
Yglesias is hammering home the point that absent some clearly defined other plan, disability benefits would of course be cut in a Pozen-related plan. But, more than that, dependent benefits for widows and widowers with dependent children would also be seriously slashed, as they too are formula-linked to retirement benefits.
The dependent benefits has been the most ignored aspect of social security during this entire discussion, as the bamboozlers want to pretend that the big tragedy is the person who dies when their children are adults. But, for people who have dependent children, when one spouse (even in many cases divorced spouses) dies, social security really does frequently allow the rest of the family to maintain their current economic status. Cuts in retirement benefits would cut these benefits as well, plunging middle class people into poverty when a parent dies.
The dependent benefits has been the most ignored aspect of social security during this entire discussion, as the bamboozlers want to pretend that the big tragedy is the person who dies when their children are adults. But, for people who have dependent children, when one spouse (even in many cases divorced spouses) dies, social security really does frequently allow the rest of the family to maintain their current economic status. Cuts in retirement benefits would cut these benefits as well, plunging middle class people into poverty when a parent dies.
Bamboozled
Josh gives us a bit from CNN:
This just simply isn't true. Bush has not proposed increasing benefits for very low income workers. He's just proposed not cutting them - and cutting everyone else's a lot.
Progressive indexing might not sound sexy. But the idea (developed by financier Robert Pozen) of offering bigger checks to low-income retirees, and cutting benefits for the middle class and wealthy, is the most dramatic move Bush has made to broaden his reform plan's appeal since he publicly embraced the largely unappealing private accounts last year. Bush may have addressed millions of TV viewers last night, but his remarks were narrowly targeted to people named Snowe, Chafee, Nelson and Lincoln -- moderates in both parties who say they want Bush to focus less on private accounts and more on shoring up the system's long-term solvency.
This just simply isn't true. Bush has not proposed increasing benefits for very low income workers. He's just proposed not cutting them - and cutting everyone else's a lot.
The Plan
In one paragraph:
Let's be clear, by "low income" we're really talking about "low income." Everyone else gets big benefit cuts. Here's the CBPP analysis of the Pozen plan, which is basically what Bush is embracing.
A "medium" earner, one earning $36,507 in 2005, would see benefits cut by 16% in 2045 and 28% in 2075.
A "high" earner, one earning $58,411 in 2005, would see benefits cut by 25% in 2045, and 42% in 2075.
By 2100, basically everyone earning above $20,000 would earn exactly the same benefit, no matter how great their tax contribution was. You think Social Security provides a poor rate of return now? Just wait.
This turns the system into a modest welfare program.
And, let me add, for most workers this is worse in the long run than the "do nothing" plan - the one which assumes given current projects benefits would have to be cut 28% or so starting somewhere between 2040-2050.
President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances.
Let's be clear, by "low income" we're really talking about "low income." Everyone else gets big benefit cuts. Here's the CBPP analysis of the Pozen plan, which is basically what Bush is embracing.
A "medium" earner, one earning $36,507 in 2005, would see benefits cut by 16% in 2045 and 28% in 2075.
A "high" earner, one earning $58,411 in 2005, would see benefits cut by 25% in 2045, and 42% in 2075.
By 2100, basically everyone earning above $20,000 would earn exactly the same benefit, no matter how great their tax contribution was. You think Social Security provides a poor rate of return now? Just wait.
This turns the system into a modest welfare program.
And, let me add, for most workers this is worse in the long run than the "do nothing" plan - the one which assumes given current projects benefits would have to be cut 28% or so starting somewhere between 2040-2050.
Worst Metaphor Ever
Doesn't anyone (cough editors cough) have the guts to tell Friedman that his new central metaphor is his worst one yet?
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Craptacular!
Well, right out of the gate the media go-a-whoring.
Actually, Josh's criticism may (may not?) be too strong. I think he was actually talking in real terms. But, the important issue is that Bush, who is very critical of the rate of return on the Social Security program (conveniently ignoring the insurance benefits), is proposing to drastically reduce the rate of return by making middle and upper income people receive less in benefits per dollar in taxes paid.
Actually, Josh's criticism may (may not?) be too strong. I think he was actually talking in real terms. But, the important issue is that Bush, who is very critical of the rate of return on the Social Security program (conveniently ignoring the insurance benefits), is proposing to drastically reduce the rate of return by making middle and upper income people receive less in benefits per dollar in taxes paid.
Document the Atrocities
From the guy behind the podium, and those in front of it...
...okay, here's the basic deal with what Bush is outlining. The Pozen plan cuts benefits for middle and upper income people a lot, not so much for low income. But, over time what will happen is that benefits will converge. Eventually, the link between income/taxes paid and benefits will be totally gone - everyone will receive the same benefit level. For upper income people, this will be a tiny part of their overall retirement income, and Social Security will be fully transformed into a welfare system.
congrats for that douchebaggery. "Are you frustrated?" What kind of question is that.
Why does George II hate George I? Poppy:
...okay, here's the basic deal with what Bush is outlining. The Pozen plan cuts benefits for middle and upper income people a lot, not so much for low income. But, over time what will happen is that benefits will converge. Eventually, the link between income/taxes paid and benefits will be totally gone - everyone will receive the same benefit level. For upper income people, this will be a tiny part of their overall retirement income, and Social Security will be fully transformed into a welfare system.
congrats for that douchebaggery. "Are you frustrated?" What kind of question is that.
Why does George II hate George I? Poppy:
Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Big Ass Benefit Cuts
Word is Bush is going to endorse the Pozen plan for cutting the shit out of your Social Security benefits. Newman gives a taste here...
Maybe God Likes Me After All
I'm not sure which day was my favorite in recent times - when the Limbaugh scandal broke or the O'Reilly one. But, the Limbaugh one is the one which keeps on giving...
Like most evil liberals, I object to harsh sentencing for drug offenders and certainly think treatment is preferable to jail. But, Limbaugh has a very prominent platform which he could be using to advocate changes to the laws along these lines, which he doesn't do. Go here and scroll around the page for some of Rush's deep thoughts on drug users.
The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday declined to consider an appeal from commentator Rush Limbaugh claiming his privacy was violated when his medical records were seized for an investigation of whether he illegally purchased painkillers.
The 4-3 order did not explain the court's reasoning.
Limbaugh's attorney had also objected to the use of search warrants to obtain the medical records in 2003. The documents have remain sealed, pending the outcome of Limbaugh's appeals.
A prosecution spokesman declined to say when his office might begin reviewing the records.
It was unclear whether Limbaugh has any more legal options to stop the investigation. Limbaugh's spokesman, Tony Knight, said attorneys were considering their options.
Like most evil liberals, I object to harsh sentencing for drug offenders and certainly think treatment is preferable to jail. But, Limbaugh has a very prominent platform which he could be using to advocate changes to the laws along these lines, which he doesn't do. Go here and scroll around the page for some of Rush's deep thoughts on drug users.
What Would You Ask Bush Tonight?
Snark welcome, but serious questions welcomed more. If you got to play Jeff Gannon or any of the other distinguished members of the WH press corps for a day, what would you ask the preznit?
Tools
Yglesias has this right:
Exactly. Let's stop defining centrism downwards. I'm a centrist on several issues myself. But centrism is not about supporting the latest Republican giveaway to favored corporate donors. There are lots of centrist positions that I disagree with, and there are lots of Democrats in conservative leaning districts who side with such things either because they're true believers or because they feel the need to pander to more conservative voters. I'm fine with that. But, no one can defend the bankruptcy bill on the merits. More importantly, no one can defend it on the basis that supporting it is a vote winner.
There was no better opportunity than the bankrtupcy bill for the Democrats to make a clear stand. This wasn't right versus left, conservative versus liberal. This was whore versus not whore. If Hoyer can't recognize the opportunity such a bill presents, then he's unfit to be Minority Whip.
I'll take Roll Call's report that Nancy Pelosi tried to build bridges with House moderates by holding a meeting and that the moderates in question aren't mollified to basically repeat what he said the other day: Can the centrists here please explain what they're doing? I'm leery of efforts to drive people out of the party, and principled disagreement about the issues and tactical opportunism on the part of vulnerable members is a necessary feature of political life. But I've yet to hear a good explanation -- or even an attempt at an explanation -- from anyone in the "centrist" faction as to what the New Dem Caucus was doing on the bankruptcy bill. Make your case on the merits and perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree. Or try to give some kind of explanation as to why it is that you can't preserve electability in Blue Dog districts without helping credit cards companies squeeze unfortunate consumers to the bone.
Exactly. Let's stop defining centrism downwards. I'm a centrist on several issues myself. But centrism is not about supporting the latest Republican giveaway to favored corporate donors. There are lots of centrist positions that I disagree with, and there are lots of Democrats in conservative leaning districts who side with such things either because they're true believers or because they feel the need to pander to more conservative voters. I'm fine with that. But, no one can defend the bankruptcy bill on the merits. More importantly, no one can defend it on the basis that supporting it is a vote winner.
There was no better opportunity than the bankrtupcy bill for the Democrats to make a clear stand. This wasn't right versus left, conservative versus liberal. This was whore versus not whore. If Hoyer can't recognize the opportunity such a bill presents, then he's unfit to be Minority Whip.
Wankers of the Day
These people are really the biggest bunch of whining losers on the planet.
Call the offices of Steny Hoyer (202) 225-4131, John Tanner (202) 225-4714, and Ron Kind at (202) 225-5506, and tell them to apologize to Pelosi for being babies and apologize to America for voting for and vocally supporting that bankruptcy bill. Remind them that they did indeed sell out to special interests, we know they did, and we will not stop pointing that out. If they make these decisions, they will be called on it.
Hoyer is minority whip. He's obviously unsuited for the job, as he seems uninterested in doing it. Ask him to resign.
In an acknowledgement that fences within her Caucus need mending, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) scheduled private meetings Wednesday evening with leading House Democratic moderates, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.).
Pelosi was set to sit down individually with Hoyer, while a similar meeting with Rep. John Tanner (Tenn.), long a leading figure among conservative Blue Dog Democrats, was being rescheduled because of Wednesday evening’s ethics vote. She also had asked for a meeting with Rep. Ron Kind (Wis.), a leader of the centrist New Democrat Coalition.
...
Sources at last week’s meeting said Pelosi didn’t help repair the rift, and perhaps even inflamed it, when they said she accused moderates of selling out to special interests on the bill and betraying the party by urging the GOP leadership to bring the measure to a vote. Several of those sources said Pelosi has an obligation not only to bring Members together, but also to apologize to the moderates.
“Actions speak louder than words,” said one source from the conservative wing of the party. “No meeting will undo what she did, and it will take a while for her to repair the damage with Democratic centrists.”
Call the offices of Steny Hoyer (202) 225-4131, John Tanner (202) 225-4714, and Ron Kind at (202) 225-5506, and tell them to apologize to Pelosi for being babies and apologize to America for voting for and vocally supporting that bankruptcy bill. Remind them that they did indeed sell out to special interests, we know they did, and we will not stop pointing that out. If they make these decisions, they will be called on it.
Hoyer is minority whip. He's obviously unsuited for the job, as he seems uninterested in doing it. Ask him to resign.
OOOOIIILLLLL
The precious.
BAGHDAD, April 28 (Reuters) - Iraq's parliament approved a cabinet of ministers on Thursday, forming Iraq's first democratically elected government in more than 50 years.
By an overwhelming majority, the 275-seat National Assembly approved the list of names put forward by Shi'ite Islamist Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari.
However, several of the 36 ministries will be occupied by acting ministers until final names are decided. Jaafari will be acting defence minister and Ahmad Chalabi will be acting oil minister, the parliamentary speaker said.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Heh-Indeedy
Orcinus:
Of course, most Americans tend to take a right to privacy for granted, but little realize that it exists almost solely, according to Supreme Court rulings, as a Ninth-Amendment "natural right" not enumerated by the Constitution, or as a "penumbra" of other rights that have been written out.
Likewise, they understand that "separation of church and state" -- like "religious freedom" -- exists as a principle of the Constitution, even though the phrase doesn't appear written there. (The educated among us are even aware of the use of the phrase by founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in later explanatory letters.)
But what they little understand, for now, is that those rights are in the gunsights of the religious right -- and they are zeroing in even now.
Cower, My Pretties
Submit before my will! Suckle at the presidential teat, oh Gannon! oh Bumiller! Bow before my presidential charm! Dare not question me! For I AM BUSH! And I WILL PRE-EMPT THE O.C., winning me fans nationwide! Fans of Will & Grace will be forced to WATCH ME! For I am the PREZNIT! YOU MUST LISTEN!
Sweet Sweet Fidel
I know I saw this somewhere around the internets a couple of days ago, but the photos available online weren't good enough for verification. From Time:
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."
DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
LIIAAAARRRS
Just when you think they can't get any worse, they think of new and even more creative ways to be Douchebags of Democracy....
Robes
He no likey the black ones, but he likey the white ones.
Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
As the emcee of Justice Sunday, Tony Perkins positioned himself beside a black preacher and a Catholic "civil rights" activist as he rattled off the phone numbers of senators wavering on President Bush's judicial nominees. The evening's speakers studiously couched their appeals on behalf of Bush's stalled judges in the vocabulary of victimhood, accusing Democratic senators of "filibustering people of faith."
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
More on the Internets
Most (all, really) media outlets have a major online presence now (including, of course, several internet only outlets). It would really benefit them all to understand that special internet requirements would require them all to subscribe to internet disclosure rules. Joe Trippi appears on Scarborough? MSNBC posts the transcript? MSNBC has to post his client list online.
Or, who knows, the rules may not work this way, but fuck if I can figure out why not.
Or, who knows, the rules may not work this way, but fuck if I can figure out why not.
Crappy Journal
At some point readers of the WSJ are going to start revolting against the serious misinformation about important economic issues they get from the editorial board. It's one thing for them to make up shit which is basically political, and another for them to wade into the sphere of EconoBollocks. It isn't what their readers pay for.
Anyway, I take a swipe at Media Matters and Drum has a very good complementary piece. Between the two you'll get smarter, unlike those who are only subject to the nonsense from the editorial board.
Anyway, I take a swipe at Media Matters and Drum has a very good complementary piece. Between the two you'll get smarter, unlike those who are only subject to the nonsense from the editorial board.
The Internets
A bit behind here, but I want to highlight something Markos wrote:
This is the key issue. It isn't about whether the internet should have some sort of exception that the rest of the media doesn't enjoy - the rest of the media already enjoys it. The question is why the internet should be singled out for disclosure requirements that other outlets for expression aren't subject to. The consultant/pundit class would be shut down if they had to list off all their conflicts of interest every time they appeared in print or on radio/tv. I think transparency is always a good thing, but that's very different from having a legal disclosure requirement which only applies to internet activities.
To put it another way, let's say I turn my blog over to Joe Trippi for a few weeks. Would he have to post up his full client list on the blog? Doesn't sound unreasonable, except for the fact that he never had to do so when appearing on MSNBC or any other outlet. Not picking on Trippi, just making the point that these kinds of disclosure requirements would be, contrary to what seems to be conventional wisdom, unique to the internet.
Right now campaigns can, in theory, hire thousands of people to spend their time calling talk radio programs, writing letters to the editor, etc... None of these activities currently would require disclosure, other than the normal FEC filing requirements of the candidates. However, people think that paying someone who runs a blog or paying people to troll message boards somehow is more important - that every message board poster affiliated with a candidate should put a disclosure after every post, when that same talk radio caller would not have any legal obligation to do so.
Astroturf type campaigns of all sorts are a little seedy, but they're not new to the internets.
...one more thing -- I don't think the internet should be exempt from all FEC regulation. I think a blog which was essentially an extension of a campaign - that is, someone is hired to blog to elect a candidate would qualify as an explicit advertisement, and requiring disclosure on advertisements is fine by me. Sure, there are potential grey areas here, but that's always the case. But, the idea that internet speech which isn't explicit advertising should have disclosure requirements which don't exist anywhere else is just ridiculous.
I don't understand how he can say that blogs should be able to "do whatever they like, say what they want, and link to whoever and whatever they want, with no interference", when just a sentence or two later he says that bloggers should have to disclose ties to campaigns. That's unacceptable, and something that applies to no other medium. There is an issue of fairness involved. Because last time I checked, I didn't see Luntz disclosing his clients while on TV, or Carville. Or any of the lot with their tangled conflicts of interest.
This is the key issue. It isn't about whether the internet should have some sort of exception that the rest of the media doesn't enjoy - the rest of the media already enjoys it. The question is why the internet should be singled out for disclosure requirements that other outlets for expression aren't subject to. The consultant/pundit class would be shut down if they had to list off all their conflicts of interest every time they appeared in print or on radio/tv. I think transparency is always a good thing, but that's very different from having a legal disclosure requirement which only applies to internet activities.
To put it another way, let's say I turn my blog over to Joe Trippi for a few weeks. Would he have to post up his full client list on the blog? Doesn't sound unreasonable, except for the fact that he never had to do so when appearing on MSNBC or any other outlet. Not picking on Trippi, just making the point that these kinds of disclosure requirements would be, contrary to what seems to be conventional wisdom, unique to the internet.
Right now campaigns can, in theory, hire thousands of people to spend their time calling talk radio programs, writing letters to the editor, etc... None of these activities currently would require disclosure, other than the normal FEC filing requirements of the candidates. However, people think that paying someone who runs a blog or paying people to troll message boards somehow is more important - that every message board poster affiliated with a candidate should put a disclosure after every post, when that same talk radio caller would not have any legal obligation to do so.
Astroturf type campaigns of all sorts are a little seedy, but they're not new to the internets.
...one more thing -- I don't think the internet should be exempt from all FEC regulation. I think a blog which was essentially an extension of a campaign - that is, someone is hired to blog to elect a candidate would qualify as an explicit advertisement, and requiring disclosure on advertisements is fine by me. Sure, there are potential grey areas here, but that's always the case. But, the idea that internet speech which isn't explicit advertising should have disclosure requirements which don't exist anywhere else is just ridiculous.
Oops
Shocked. Just shocked.
Lobbyist Jack Abramoff gave expensive gifts to key members of then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's staff, which the aides accepted in apparent violation of House ethics rules, according to two sources who worked at Abramoff's law firm at the time Abramoff made the gifts. The gifts included high-end golf equipment, tickets to sporting events and concerts and, in the case of one high-ranking DeLay staff member, a weekend getaway paid for by Abramoff's own frequent flyer and hotel points, two sources who had direct knowledge of the transactions tell TIME.
The two sources say that one recipient of the gifts, including the weekend trip and expensive golf clubs, was Tony C. Rudy, who worked for DeLay for five years and served at various times as DeLay's press secretary, policy director, general counsel and deputy chief of staff when DeLay was House Majority Whip. When Rudy left DeLay's office in 2002, he joined Abramoff at Greenberg Traurig, the firm that hired Abramoff in December 2000. Rudy now works at Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm headed by former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham.
Liars
This is quite fascinating. I don't find the actual result surprising, but I think it's yet another indictment of our media. They've all collectively agreed to pretend there was no dishonesty, despite all evidence to the contrary.
NEW YORK Half of Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Poll organization reported this morning.
“This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003,” Gallup observed. “At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004.”
Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.
Responsibility
Phil Carter is all over the latest absolution of senior officers over Abu Ghraib. Something Carter hints at is worth expanding upon:
Isn't this really going to do incredible long term damage to our military? Changing the culture in this way - transferring responsibility from the top to the bottom - will chip away at the willingness of soldiers to trust and obey orders. I'm sure there are plenty of bad orders out there, and they certainly shouldn't be obeying clearly illegal orders, but even I recognize that the integrity of the entire system requires soldiers to obey orders absent some clear and obvious illegality.
We trust commanders to do the right thing, and to make sure their units do the right thing. And we impose a very high legal standard on them when they fail to do so — we hold them liable for the actions of their subordinates — both for what they knew about, and what they should have known about as commanders.
Isn't this really going to do incredible long term damage to our military? Changing the culture in this way - transferring responsibility from the top to the bottom - will chip away at the willingness of soldiers to trust and obey orders. I'm sure there are plenty of bad orders out there, and they certainly shouldn't be obeying clearly illegal orders, but even I recognize that the integrity of the entire system requires soldiers to obey orders absent some clear and obvious illegality.
Bill Gates Hearts Ralph Reed
Reed's one of the most odious men on the American political scene. Maybe I'll switch to Mac after all...
Monday, April 25, 2005
Important
As Sam Rosenfeld explains, there's a different between the corporate whore caucus and legitimate ideological disagreements by centrist Democrats. I can see the "moderate" or "centrist" label being applied to a bunch of positions on economic policy questions, such as opposing increases in the minimum wage or supporting passing general business friendly laws (As opposed to industry or company specific giveaways). I may or may not agree with any of these things, but I'd be willing to say that those Democrats who vote for them could be legitimately called "centrists." But, for something like the Bankruptcy Bill, we're just talking about a split between Whores and NotWhores.
Nucular
Our media is so in the tank.
If I were the Dems, I'd start insisting that it be called the "fetus destruction option." Or, maybe, just for giggles, the "David Broder fellatio option."
If I were the Dems, I'd start insisting that it be called the "fetus destruction option." Or, maybe, just for giggles, the "David Broder fellatio option."
Stunning
If this previously mentioned WaPo poll is not a serious statistical outlier it's really stunning. Only 26% of the country support "changing the Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?"
I'm one who pegs Bush's base support at about 35%. By base, I mean "would rather eat shit and die than oppose dear leader." So, to get anything falling below that is truly stunning.
I'm one who pegs Bush's base support at about 35%. By base, I mean "would rather eat shit and die than oppose dear leader." So, to get anything falling below that is truly stunning.
Bad Judges
According to Drudge, a new poll has 60% siding with Dems on the filibuster issue. This is very good news, because it most likely isn't the result of some deep understanding of or fondness for Senate procedures, but instead means that 60% of people have internalized the idea that Bush is trying to appoint some scary judges.
Bring 'Em On
Reid today:
Armando has more. I was deep inside the mother ship so I couldn't be on the call sadly.
They’re great with names… On Social Security, they’ve been trying to call private accounts “personal accounts.” They can talk about the constitutional option all they want. It’s privatization, and it’s the nuclear option. They created those terms, and they’re going to wear them around their necks from now till Doomsday.
Armando has more. I was deep inside the mother ship so I couldn't be on the call sadly.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Is it Irresponsible to Speculate?
It is irresponsible not to, thus sayeth the Magic Dolphin Lady.
And while I will not speculate, I will encourage others to do so by linking to this.
And then to this.
And then to this.
(thanks to bill for the inspiration)
And while I will not speculate, I will encourage others to do so by linking to this.
And then to this.
And then to this.
(thanks to bill for the inspiration)
Dr. Who Hates America
Well well well, the latest Doctor Who episode is an allegory about the Iraq war and includes an attack on the media for covering up the real story...
bad Auntie Beeb.
bad Auntie Beeb.
Crossroads
Our media is at another pivotal moment - report the truth or cave? Today, Frist said:
On November 14, 2004, there was the following exchange on Fox News:
On November 16 he said to NPR:
Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the “nuclear option.” Only in the United States Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy.
On November 14, 2004, there was the following exchange on Fox News:
WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about one of them, because some Republicans are talking about what they call the nuclear option, and that would be a ruling that the filibuster of executive nominees is unconstitutional, which would require not 60 or 67 votes but only a simple majority of 51.
FRIST: Yes. That's right.
WALLACE: Are you prepared to do that?
FRIST: Oh, it's clearly one of the options. I've always said it's one of the options.
What it basically -- it's called the nuclear option. It's really a constitutional option. And what that means is that the Constitution says you, as a Senate, give advice and consent, and that is a majority vote. And then you vote on that, and that takes 50 votes to pass.
On November 16 he said to NPR:
Sen. FRIST: If we continue to see obstruction where one out of three of the president's nominees to fill vacancies in the circuit court are being obstructed, then action would be taken. One of those is the nuclear option. The Constitution says advice and consent is the Senate's responsibility; the president's responsibility to it is to a point, and therefore, if the Constitution says `advice and consent,' by 50 votes you can decide to give advice and consent. Will we have to do that? I can't tell you, but I can tell you if obstructions are to continue like they have in the past, that clearly is an option that we have on the table.
JimmyJeff A Frequent White House Visitor
Wellwellwell...this is indeedy, and I mean heh-indeedy, kinda news.
(item replaced with corrected raw story text)
Perhaps more notable than the frequency of his attendance, however, is several distinct anomalies about his visits.
Guckert made more than two dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House. On other days, the president held photo opportunities.
On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.
In March, 2003, Guckert left the White House twice on days he had never checked in with the Secret Service. Over the next 22 months, Guckert failed to check out with the Service on fourteen days. On several of these visits, Guckert either entered or exited by a different entry/exit point than his usual one. On one of these days, no briefing was held; on another, he checked in twice but failed to check out.
(item replaced with corrected raw story text)
Morons
Josh Marshall writes this, but it's stunning that he even has to bother.
Most people really don't give a shit if the Senate is operating smoothly or not. They won't notice, they don't care. Shutting down business in the Senate is not shutting down the operation of the federal government. The fact that Broder and the Note's mystical "gang of 500" are unable to comprehend this (plus, as Marshall points out, their cheerleading of Newt's bold action back in the day) does mean it's time for them to put down their pens and go into a line of work which is less damaging to the rest of us.
Broder's reference to the power of the president's bully pulpit as the lever that will shift public opinion against the Democrats is just another example of his inability to grasp that the public turn against the Republicans in late 1995 and early 1996 was a reaction, on the merits, to Republican excesses, not the result of some inscrutable black magic Bill Clinton managed to pull off with a few press availabilities.
The more obvious flaw in Broder's reasoning stems from another bit of Washington myopia. What killed the Republicans on the government shutdown, in addition to the pure recklessness of the stunt, was that the government did shut down. National parks closed. Various government services and functions stopped operating. It had an immediate and direct effect on people's lives.
Most people really don't give a shit if the Senate is operating smoothly or not. They won't notice, they don't care. Shutting down business in the Senate is not shutting down the operation of the federal government. The fact that Broder and the Note's mystical "gang of 500" are unable to comprehend this (plus, as Marshall points out, their cheerleading of Newt's bold action back in the day) does mean it's time for them to put down their pens and go into a line of work which is less damaging to the rest of us.
Lovely
Link:
Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.
The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.
It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.
Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.
If Clinton Had Done This...
Yes, it's a tired refrain, but I'm just getting sick of all these things which would've blown up into a 7 week orgy of hate on Hardball with "constitutional scholar" Ann Coulter bloviating about the immediate need for impeachment:
New York The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry-but-important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week’s meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda, TIME’s Viveca Novak and John Dickerson report.
At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry’s 2004 campaign. The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants, TIME reports.
Only since the start of Bush’s second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say. The White House admits as much: “We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and—call us nutty—it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,” says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, MD, TIME reports.
One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to a Democratic account supporting Kerry. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: “We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House.”
Bobo on Bobo
Bobo confronts himself in the mirror:
The shallowest people end up blissfully happy and they are so vapid they don't even realize how vapid they are because vapidity is the only trait that comes with its own impermeable obliviousness system.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Smoke
I've been struck lately by the number of young adults who smoke. I'm not especially anti-smoking or anti-smoker, but given how much things have changed I'm surprised by the number of people who pick it up. It seems we transitioned from a time when smokers didn't think there was anything wrong with smoking, and therefore the decision to become a smoker was a trouble-free decision to become a lifelong smoker. Then we all learned smoking was bad. Quite bad, in fact. Over a period of decades we transitioned to a reality in which I doubt a non-trivial number of people who start smoking expect to be lifelong smokers. I imagine most 21 year olds who smoke actually believe they'll quit by age 30 or so. That is, most people who start smoking do so fully believing that they'll go through the horrible process of quitting in the not very distant future. That's why I find it weird that so many young people smoke.
Ooops
DeLay:
The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number.
DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip.
House ethics rules bar lawmakers from accepting travel and related expenses from registered lobbyists. DeLay, who is now House majority leader, has said that his expenses on this trip were paid by a nonprofit organization and that the financial arrangements for it were proper. He has also said he had no way of knowing that any lobbyist might have financially supported the trip, either directly or through reimbursements to the nonprofit organization.
The documents obtained by The Washington Post, including receipts for his hotel stays in Scotland and London and billings for his golfing during the trip at the famed St. Andrews course in Scotland, substantiate for the first time that some of DeLay's expenses on the trip were billed to charge cards used by the two lobbyists. The invoice for DeLay's plane fare lists the name of what was then Abramoff's lobbying firm, Preston Gates & Ellis.
A Trip Down Memory Lane
For our Republican-led press.
SF Chron, 5/19/2004:
WaPo, 10/26/2004:
San Diego Union-Tribune, 11/12/2004:
Post-Gazette, 11/15/2004:
Post-Gazette, 11/16/2004:
Financial Times, 11/18/2004:
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Q&A with Dick Durbin, 11/28/2004:
WaPo, 12/13/2004:
WaPo, 12/20/2004:
Bob Novak, 12/20/2004:
NYT, 12/24/2004:
Houston Chronicle, 12/24/2004:
CSM, 12/27/2004
First appearance in major papers of phrase "constitutional option" appers to be in the WaPo, 12/13/2004, and is the only time that phrase appeared in 2004 in reference to this issue.
SF Chron, 5/19/2004:
Bush's disavowal of further recess appointments this year virtually dooms those nominations. Republicans could try to change Senate rules and prohibit filibusters on judicial nominations -- a tactic known as the "nuclear option," which Republican leaders have refrained from attempting -- or could revive the nominations next year if Bush is re-elected.
WaPo, 10/26/2004:
His nuclear rhetoric has seeped into domestic matters. In a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, riff on the administration's troubles getting judges confirmed through Senate Democrats, Cheney said Republicans have considered procedural challenges designed to prevent nominations from being filibustered. "Some people call that . . . sort of the nuclear option," Cheney said, adding that such a move "would start an amazing battle on the floor of the Senate. Some of us think there's a certain appeal to that kind of an approach."
San Diego Union-Tribune, 11/12/2004:
Democrats and Republicans alike refer to such a move as the "nuclear option," wary that it will trigger a long and uncivil war in the upper chamber.
Post-Gazette, 11/15/2004:
Specter also said controversial proposal floated by Frist to eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees should be "on the table" when senators return to work tomorrow. Under the Frist proposal, known in Senate circles as the "nuclear option," Vice President Dick Cheney, as presiding officer of the Senate, would rule that filibusters on judicial nominations violate the Constitution's directive that judges be appointed with the "advice and consent" of that body.
Post-Gazette, 11/16/2004:
With conservative Republicans, even the idea of the Democrats being in a position to block nominees with filibusters has come into question. Sen. Frist has suggested the highly controversial idea of ending this tradition. Sen. Specter, now bending over backward to be the party man, said on another TV show that the so-called "nuclear option" should be on the table.
Not for nothing is the filibuster-killing amendment dubbed "nuclear." It would blow collegiality away and with it any sense that the parties could retreat from fiercely partisan positions. Capitol Hill would be scorched with ill will.
Financial Times, 11/18/2004:
In the Senate, Republicans yesterday discussed whether to use the so-called "nuclear option" - changing the body's rules on the use of the filibuster against the president's judicial nominees. Under the long-standing Senate procedure, just 40 votes of the 100-member body are required to block action.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Q&A with Dick Durbin, 11/28/2004:
Q Is it likely the Republicans will use the nuclear option (barring the use of filibusters on judicial nominations?)
A The Republican leadership indicated to us they would not. They did not say they would never do it, but I hope they don't. It would be a terrible way to start a session.
WaPo, 12/13/2004:
Republicans say that Democrats have abused the filibuster by blocking 10 of the president's 229 judicial nominees in his first term -- although confirmation of Bush nominees exceeds in most cases the first-term experience of presidents dating to Ronald Reagan. Describing the filibusters as intolerable, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has hinted he may resort to an unusual parliamentary maneuver, dubbed the "nuclear option," to thwart such filibusters.
WaPo, 12/20/2004:
During Bush's first term, Democrats would did not allow a vote on 10 of the 52 appointments he made to fill vacancies on federal appeals courts. The overwhelming majority of Bush's 229 judicial nominees, however, were confirmed by the Senate. After the Republicans' Election Day gains, conservative groups have been increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to force votes on Bush judicial nominees. Senate Republicans are considering whether to employ a rare and highly controversial parliamentary maneuver -- dubbed the "nuclear option" -- to declare filibusters against judicial nominations unconstitutional.
Bob Novak, 12/20/2004:
This is the "nuclear option" that creates fear and loathing among Democrats and weak knees for some Republicans, including conservative opinion leaders. Ever since Frist publicly embraced the nuclear option, he has been accused of abusing the Senate's cherished tradition of extended debate.
...
Frist drew a line in the sand Nov. 11 in addressing the conservative Federalist Society: "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end." The way he indicated was a rules change -- the nuclear option.
NYT, 12/24/2004:
Nan Aron, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal group that monitors judicial nominations, said that Mr. McClellan's statement appeared to be an effort to ease the way for Republicans to undertake what is sometimes called ''the nuclear option'' -- having the presiding officer of the Senate declare filibusters out of order. Democrats say they would have no choice but to challenge that and bring business to a halt.
Houston Chronicle, 12/24/2004:
If Democrats attempt a stalemate, Republicans have threatened to use what is called the "Nuclear Option" - a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on forbidding filibuster on judicial nominees. That would require a two-thirds vote, far from a certainty in the Senate.
CSM, 12/27/2004
In the looming battle over President Bush's judicial nominations, much has been said about using the so-called nuclear option to by-pass Democratic filibusters.
First appearance in major papers of phrase "constitutional option" appers to be in the WaPo, 12/13/2004, and is the only time that phrase appeared in 2004 in reference to this issue.
I Did Not Know That
Creepy.
The whole thing is creepy of course, apparently in theory requiring doctors to provide treatment to unviable fetuses, though they haven't managed to provide any actual specifics. Not sure if this does or does not override Texas law allowing hospitals to pull the plug over the objections of parents. Sure is a topsy-turvy world.
The most significant impact of the 2002 law, Grimes said, was a record-keeping change. Previously, a miscarriage before viability was classified as a spontaneous abortion. Under the new provision, it is recorded as a live birth followed by a neonatal death, and parents can claim the child as a tax deduction for that year, he said.
The whole thing is creepy of course, apparently in theory requiring doctors to provide treatment to unviable fetuses, though they haven't managed to provide any actual specifics. Not sure if this does or does not override Texas law allowing hospitals to pull the plug over the objections of parents. Sure is a topsy-turvy world.
Proud to be an American
A charming tale:
ASHINGTON, April 22 - A German citizen detained for five months in an Afghan prison was released in May 2004 on direct orders from Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, after she learned the man had been mistakenly identified as a terror suspect, government officials said Friday.
The officials, who confirmed an account of Ms. Rice's decision that was first reported by NBC News, said that when Khaled el-Masri was taken from a bus on the Serbian-Macedonian border on Dec. 31, 2003, the Macedonian and the American authorities believed he was a member of Al Qaeda who had trained at one of Osama bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.
But within several months they concluded he was the victim of mistaken identity, the officials said. His name was similar to a Qaeda suspect on an international watch list of possible terrorist operatives, they said.
By then, Mr. Masri, 41, a car salesman who lives in Ulm, Germany, had been flown on a C.I.A.-chartered plane to the prison under a secret American program of transferring terror suspects from country to country for interrogation, officials said. At the prison in Kabul, Mr. Masri said, he was shackled, beaten, photographed nude and injected with drugs by interrogators who pressed him to reveal ties to Al Qaeda.
For reasons that are unclear, he remained for months at a prison known locally as the "Salt Pit." The case reached Ms. Rice in May 2004, officials said, and twice, over several weeks, she ordered him immediately freed. He was released in Albania on May 29, 2004.
The American officials acknowledged Friday that the detention had been a serious mistake and that he had been held too long after American officials realized their error.
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Masri said that he was gratified that "the truth has finally come out" and that he expected an apology. "I hope that America will in the future respect the rights of people," he said.
Halliburtonwater
Do you think if we append "water" to the end of Halliburton the press might get excited?
Halliburton rips us off, and the Bush administration pays them using Iraqi oil money.
NEW YORK - The Halliburton corporation, already the Iraq war's poster child for "waste, fraud and abuse", has been hit with a new double whammy. A report from the US State Department accuses the company of "poor performance" in its US$1.2 billion contract to repair Iraq's vital southern oilfields.
And a powerful California congressman is charging that Defense Department audits showing additional overcharges totaling $212 million were concealed from United Nations monitors by the administration of President George W Bush.
According to Representative Henry Waxman, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives sub-committee on government reform, "both the amount of Halliburton's overcharges and the extent of the information withheld from the auditors at the UN's International Advisory and Monitoring Board [IAMB] were much greater than previously known".
Waxman said the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which monitors all Pentagon contracts, had identified Halliburton overcharges and questionable costs totaling $212.3 million - double the total amount of known overcharges under Halliburton's Iraq oil contract.
In one case, Waxman said, the overcharges exceeded 47% of the total value of the task order.
But the Defense Department - at Halliburton's request - withheld the new amount from IAMB, the UN audit oversight body for the Development Fund for Iraq, Waxman charged.
In letters to government auditors, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) explained that it redacted statements it considered proprietary or "factually inaccurate or misleading" and gave consent for the release of the audits to international auditors "in redacted form". The administration then sent the heavily edited report to the IAMB.
"The withholding of this information is highly unusual and raises serious issues," Waxman complained in a letter to sub-committee chairman Christopher Shays. "The evidence suggests that the US used Iraqi oil proceeds to overpay Halliburton and then sought to hide the evidence of these overcharges from the international auditors."
Halliburton rips us off, and the Bush administration pays them using Iraqi oil money.
Albom "Disciplinary Action"
What, did he have to write "I will not be hack" 100 times on the blackboard? In the grand scheme of things Albom's screwup was minor, but I think people wrong to dismiss it. It's one thing to be a young ambitious reporter and, being on deadline, pull this kind of bullshit. It's wrong, but you do it because you feel you have to.
Of course, Albom is a superstar. He doesn't have to do anything. He did what he did simply beacuse he believed he was entitled to.
While Albom certainly isn't central to my news world, he is in the ranks of the untouchables - people who, once having achieved a certain level of stardom, are no longer bound by the rules that mere mortals are. And, when they do get caught out, they're still not really punished.
Of course, Albom is a superstar. He doesn't have to do anything. He did what he did simply beacuse he believed he was entitled to.
While Albom certainly isn't central to my news world, he is in the ranks of the untouchables - people who, once having achieved a certain level of stardom, are no longer bound by the rules that mere mortals are. And, when they do get caught out, they're still not really punished.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Message From Pelosi
In a recent column, Robert Novak claimed that HouseDemocrats.gov "went blank after Republicans complained that its language was over-the-top for an official site that bar partisan rhetoric." Apparently, Mr. Novak's reporting is only accurate when he is blowing the cover of CIA operatives.
HouseDemocrats.gov was indeed down - for technical maintenance. It is now back up and running, with several new features including Dear Mr. President, Abuse of Power, Ethics, and the GI Bill.
If expressing the views and values of the House Democrats can be labeled as "partisan rhetoric," what does Mr. Novak call the taxpayer-funded work of Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus?
Pundits of the Caribbean
It's too horrible to even contemplate. (warning, probably only 65% work safe)
JimmyJeff Live and Unleashed
From his blog:
***MEDIA ADVISORY***
I will be appearing on MSNBC's "Dietl & Daniels" at 4:30PM EST to discuss some of the libel, slander and defamation that I have been subjected to for the past three months.
No Free Weather for You
Santorum wants you to pay for stuff that you already pay for as taxpayers so his friends can get richer.
Church on Top
Looks like Pope Ratzi thinks he's in charge of the world now.
Pope Benedict XVI has responded firmly to the first challenge of his papacy by condemning a Spanish government bill allowing marriage between homosexuals.
The bill, passed by parliament's Socialist-dominated lower house, also allows gay couples to adopt.
A senior Vatican official described the bill - which is likely to become law within a few months - as iniquitous.
He said Roman Catholic officials should be prepared to lose their jobs rather than co-operate with the law.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Richard Morrison
My tendency is to stay out of primaries, and even now I don't want to make an endorsement. But, my take absent any information I'm not aware of is that the DCCC would be making a big mistake not backing Morrison v. DeLay in '06.
I lack perfect information on these things, but my perception is that Morrison would be opposed not because of his lack of skills as a candidate, but because of his lack of deference to the DCCC.
I lack perfect information on these things, but my perception is that Morrison would be opposed not because of his lack of skills as a candidate, but because of his lack of deference to the DCCC.
Falafel!
As was obvious to anyone who watched the press conference during which she didn't (couldn't) mention the size of her settlement but could nonetheless give the world the Biggest Grin Ever, it appears that Andrea Mackris is doing quite well...
This Will Be Ignored
Hyde:
Though, of course, Nixon was never actually impeached - the Judiciary Committee passed the articles but they never went to the House. Still, good enough for journalism.
(thanks to reader l)
In an exclusive interview, Hyde delivered a big dose of candor and some reflective second guessing. He said, among other things, he might not try to impeach President Clinton if he had it to do all over again.
...
When asked if he would go through with the Clinton impeachment process again, Hyde said he wasn't sure. It turned into a personal and political embarrassment for Hyde when an extra-marital affair he had in the 1960's became public amid accusations of hypocrisy. He called the affair a youthful indiscretion.
...
The veteran DuPage County congressman acknowledged that Republicans went after Clinton in part to enact revenge against the Democrats for impeaching President Richard Nixon 25 years earlier.
Andy Shaw asked Hyde if the Clinton proceedings were payback for Nixon's impeachment.
"I can't say it wasn't, but I also thought that the Republican party should stand for something, and if we walked away from this, no matter how difficult, we could be accused of shirking our duty, our responsibility," said Hyde.
Though, of course, Nixon was never actually impeached - the Judiciary Committee passed the articles but they never went to the House. Still, good enough for journalism.
(thanks to reader l)
More Fun With Bolton
Apparently he's a big liar. Isn't lying to Congress a no-no? Isn't Cokie Roberts going to start screeching "rule of law! rule law!"
President Bush personally came to the defense of his embattled nominee for United Nations ambassador on Thursday, telling reporters that despite mounting criticism, John R. Bolton deserved to be confirmed by the Senate.
"He is the right man at the right time for this important assignment. I urge the Senate to put aside politics and confirm John Bolton to the United Nations," Mr. Bush said.
But Bolton's fate grew even murkier, as one of the president's own former ambassadors, told CBS News Correspondent Gloria Borger that Bolton had been less than truthful in his recent confirmation hearings.
The episode revolves around a speech Bolton gave in South Korea in the summer of 2003, in which he said, "For many in North Korea, life is a hellish nightmare."
When asked about the hard-line speech, Bolton said Ambassador Thomas Hubbard had approved it.
"I can tell you what our ambassador to South Korea, Tom Hubbard, said after the speech. He said, "Thanks a lot for that speech, John. It'll help us a lot out here.'"
Well, that's not what Hubbard says. In fact, the ambassador told CBS News that he specifically objected to the tone of the speech and actually found it unhelpful in dealing with North Korea.
J. Edgar Bolton
Laura Rozen has a source who claims "Bolton was running his own counterintelligence operation, was using the intelligence to figure out how he can get back at people."
Will anything wake our press up?
Will anything wake our press up?
Is There No God?
Taibbi reviews Friedman.
Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.
On an ideological level, Friedman's new book is the worst, most boring kind of middlebrow horseshit. If its literary peculiarities could somehow be removed from the equation, The World Is Flat would appear as no more than an unusually long pamphlet replete with the kind of plug-filled, free-trader leg-humping that passes for thought in this country. It is a tale of a man who walks 10 feet in front of his house armed with a late-model Blackberry and comes back home five minutes later to gush to his wife that hospitals now use the internet to outsource the reading of CAT scans. Man flies on planes, observes the wonders of capitalism, says we're not in Kansas anymore. (He actually says we're not in Kansas anymore.) That's the whole plot right there. If the underlying message is all that interests you, read no further, because that's all there is.
Heh-Indeedy
Tomasky is very very good today.
On successive days in mid-November 2002, Tom DeLay was elected House majority leader, replacing the retired Dick Armey, and Nancy Pelosi was chosen as the House Democrats’ leader, succeeding Dick Gephardt. One of those had amassed a capable but relatively quiet record of service in the House of Representatives, stirring controversy only once (by supporting the primary opponent of a longtime congressional incumbent from Michigan). The other had called the Environmental Protection Agency “the Gestapo of government”; had denounced the Nobel Chemistry Prize, after it was given to the discoverers of the link between chloro?uorocarbons and ozone depletion, as the “Nobel Appeasement Prize”; had called CNN the “Communist News Network”; had linked the Columbine High School shootings to birth control and day care; had avoided military service during the height of the Vietnam War in 1969 (reportedly explaining, in 1988, that so many minority youths were going after those well-paying military gigs that there was no room for good folk like himself); had led a fanatical crusade to force votes on articles of impeachment against a president with an approval rating above 70 percent; and had been rebuked (privately) by the House Ethics Committee for attacking a business trade group for daring to hire a former Democratic congressman as its president.
And guess which choice the media said was a calamity?
Enron Stock
Ted reviews the latest Enron movie which I also recommend, though I do want to quibble with one thing he writes:
There certainly were people who behaved very foolishly, but this state of affairs was in part due to the fact that Enron's matching contributions were in Enron stock, and such contributions couldn't be moved into other funds until the employees reached the age of 50.
For example, some people had most or all of their retirement accounts invested in Enron stock. That’s an important part of the story. It would also have been appropriate to show someone, anyone, pointing out that these people had made a horrible, foolish decision on their own.
There certainly were people who behaved very foolishly, but this state of affairs was in part due to the fact that Enron's matching contributions were in Enron stock, and such contributions couldn't be moved into other funds until the employees reached the age of 50.
Golden Throats
Young Matt has his first exposure to William Shatner's pipes. Saw a fascinating exhibition a couple of years ago in Barcelona on trash culture - basically, stuff that's so horrible it comes around the other side and becomes good again. You know, things like Ed Wood movies.
Also recommended in this line are The Shaggs and Florence Foster Jenkins. The latter is an almost tragic tale, but fascinating.
Also recommended in this line are The Shaggs and Florence Foster Jenkins. The latter is an almost tragic tale, but fascinating.
More Cloudy John
Alterman responds.
This isn't the most interesting part, but as an aside I thought this was actually a fascinating possibility:
Given that I doubt any of us knew who the hell John Cloud was until a few days ago, this is probably true. It's quite interesting. Even when I was getting a couple hundred of hits per day I suffered a barrage of constant public criticism. I'm not complaining or whining, it's just part of blogging. You get used to it very quickly. It's interesting to me that someone working for a major news magazine could possibly have largely avoided it. Maybe it isn't the case, but...
This isn't the most interesting part, but as an aside I thought this was actually a fascinating possibility:
Finally, Cloud throws in a great many personal insults toward me and toward David Brock in the hopes of deflecting the criticism he has received of his work. My guess is that this is his first experience in receiving public criticism and he will grow to regret the intemperance of his remarks. In the meantime, even if his wild charges were accurate, they would do nothing to exonerate his article.
Given that I doubt any of us knew who the hell John Cloud was until a few days ago, this is probably true. It's quite interesting. Even when I was getting a couple hundred of hits per day I suffered a barrage of constant public criticism. I'm not complaining or whining, it's just part of blogging. You get used to it very quickly. It's interesting to me that someone working for a major news magazine could possibly have largely avoided it. Maybe it isn't the case, but...
Shocked
I'm shocked to find out that our majority leader is a big hypocrite. Just shocked. DeLay in 1995:
"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know...I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation." - U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, 11/16/95
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Journamalism
Oh My God. Read Brian Montopoli's interview with John Cloud. It's worse than I thought. We're all fucking doomed.
Saddam Stole My Car Keys
The right goes further into loony tunes land...
...and, consider how offensive this is:
Yes, the guy who mixed the chemicals, drove the truck, set the timer, and killed 168 people was "just the grunt." Thanks Fox News.
...and, consider how offensive this is:
If McVeigh were just the grunt — mixing the chemicals, driving the truck, setting the timer, and running off — guilty though he might be, if the bombing was a plot by a foreign government, his lawyer would have had a chance at the sentencing hearing to argue that others were more responsible and McVeigh should not be executed.
Yes, the guy who mixed the chemicals, drove the truck, set the timer, and killed 168 people was "just the grunt." Thanks Fox News.
Senator Sanders
My idea of a decent successor to the retiring Jeffords. He's won a statewide election 8 times.
...Sirota has more. Let's hope the Dems are sensible enough to not run a candidate. If Sanders goes on the D ticket and there's a primary challenge I'm fine with that, but if the idiots set up a 3 way split in the general...
...Sirota has more. Let's hope the Dems are sensible enough to not run a candidate. If Sanders goes on the D ticket and there's a primary challenge I'm fine with that, but if the idiots set up a 3 way split in the general...
53% of Americans Would Be Happier With Saddam Still in Power
Yes, that's a stupid way to phrase it but that's way our liberal media generally frames the issue. That's the high level of discourse we get in a world in which Tim Russert is the top intellectual. The question has never been about whether Sadddam's a bad guy, it's about whether it's worth spending $X and sacrificing Y lives and Z assorted limbs, eyes, brain regions, etc to do what we did.
Schism
From a political interest group perspective, the inreasing closeness between once mortal enemies - papists and conservative Protestants - has been a troubling development. It's nice that we can all get along now, but that schism has been a major contributor to the understanding of the necessity to maintain the separation of church and state, keep religion out of public schools, etc...
So, now that we have a new pope who isn't into the making nice with other religions thing, will this continue? From what I can survey of the conservative-religious wingnutosphere, they seem to be thrilled that he's a "conservative" and not too concerned about his discussion of "lesser faiths" and "not churches in the proper sense."
We're getting reports now that one of his primary goals is to reach out to other religions. But, it's quite clear that what he means is reach out to other religions in an attempt to unite them under his leadership.
So, now that we have a new pope who isn't into the making nice with other religions thing, will this continue? From what I can survey of the conservative-religious wingnutosphere, they seem to be thrilled that he's a "conservative" and not too concerned about his discussion of "lesser faiths" and "not churches in the proper sense."
We're getting reports now that one of his primary goals is to reach out to other religions. But, it's quite clear that what he means is reach out to other religions in an attempt to unite them under his leadership.
Always About the Sex
This closing line to this post is pretty damn offensive. Max takes care of it pretty well here, but I just want to chime in a bit too. The issue that puzzles people like me and understandably troubles Crazy Andy is not simply that the Church has a position on sex and sexuality or even a position on sex and sexuality that we might disagree with. I disagree with the Church on just about everything! I'm not Catholic!
The question isn't why for Sullivan or me or anybody else it's "always about the sex." The question is why in contemporary society much of religion is all about the sex, and especially gay sex. Last I checked there were all kinds of sins and all kinds of sinning going on. The Church may never stop considering homosexuality to be a "moral evil." But, they consider lots of things to be "moral evils." Why the obsession with hot gay sex?
I realize this doesn't apply across the board to all religions. But, it certainly applies to the public discussion of religion and morality, especially where it intersects with politics.
The question isn't why for Sullivan or me or anybody else it's "always about the sex." The question is why in contemporary society much of religion is all about the sex, and especially gay sex. Last I checked there were all kinds of sins and all kinds of sinning going on. The Church may never stop considering homosexuality to be a "moral evil." But, they consider lots of things to be "moral evils." Why the obsession with hot gay sex?
I realize this doesn't apply across the board to all religions. But, it certainly applies to the public discussion of religion and morality, especially where it intersects with politics.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
First We Kill All the Internets
Delay on Justice Kennedy:
Heh. Indeed.
"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
Heh. Indeed.
Remember When
One protest that was announced was an upcoming zap of Josef Cardinal Ratzinger, the German prelate who was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. He had written a paper for the Vatican in which he said that homosexuality was "intrinsically disordered" and a "moral evil." Cardinal Ratzinger had said the church had to fight the homosexual and fight against legislation that "condoned" homosexuality.
...
Ratzinger sat at the altar, along with Cardinal O'Connor and several other prelates. Judge Robert Bork, the conservative Supreme Court nominee who'd just been rejected by the Senate, sat in the front row. Mrs. William F. Buckley, Jr., was there too, as was an incredible array of Upper East Side women, the upper crust of New York's Catholic Society. There were prominent Wall Street businessmen and local government officials. And rows and rows of nuns, brothers, and priests, perhaps the heads of orders and parishes...
I looked for protesters, but I couldn't see anyone with a sign or a T-shirt. I wondered for a few moments if anything was really going to happen. I had decided to go there strictly to watch, to check out how these people operated when they conducted these demonstrations. As for myself, I didn't know the first thing about protesting and I still wasn't sure about it...
...Ratzinger took the podium and began to speak. As soon as he finished his first sentence, a group of about eight people to the left of the crowd leaped to their feet and began chanting "Stop the Inquisition!" They chanted feverishly and loudly, their voices echoing throughout the building. The entire room was fixated on them. Activists suddenly appeared in the back of the church and began giving out fliers explaining the action. Two men on the other side of the room jumped up and, pointing at Ratzinger, began to scream, "Antichrist!" another man jumped up, in one of the first few rows near the prelate, and yelled, "Nazi!" All over the church, angry people began to shout down the protestors who were near them; chaotic yelling matches broke out.
It was electrifying. Chills ran up and down my spine as I watched the protestors and then looked back at Ratzinger. Soon, anger swelled up inside me: This man was the embodiment of all that had oppressed me, all the horrors I had suffered as a child. It was because of his bigotry that my family, my church -- everyone around me -- had alienated me, and it was because of his bigotry that I was called "faggot" in school. Because of his bigotry I was treated like garbage. He was responsible for the hell I'd endured. He and his kind were the people who forced me to live in shame, in the closet. I became livid...
Suddenly, I jumped up on one of the marble platforms and, looking down, I addressed the entire congregation in the loudest voice I could. My voice rang out as if it were amplified. I pointed at Ratzinger and shouted: "He is no man of God!" The shocked faces of the assembled Catholics turned to the back of the room to look at me as I continued: "He is no man of God -- he is the Devil!"
From Michelangelo Signorile's Queer in America
(thanks to reader H for the reminder)
Liars
Watching Kerry call out Bolton on his lies to the committee I'm struck yet again about how much our media culture has changed since the 90s. Despite the media's obsession with "Clintonian parsing" it was they themselves who parsed every phrased uttered by anyone in the Clinton administration, desperately ferreting out any possible untruth or new angle to launch another 3 weeks of rabid attacks from the likes of constitutional scholar Ann Coulter.
Doesn't this stuff matter anymore?
...woah, Voinovich throws in a wrench.
...hey, we won a round. I wonder what was in Voinovich's wheaties this morning.
Doesn't this stuff matter anymore?
...woah, Voinovich throws in a wrench.
...hey, we won a round. I wonder what was in Voinovich's wheaties this morning.
Bolton
Well, they presumably just cleared the way for the Bolton vote to take place in a bit. Get all your Bolton blogging related program activities at the Washington Note.
Pope
CNBC says new pope elected. Well, the good news is that must be a consensus candidate instead of a slim majority candidate.
From a certain perspective, it shouldn't much matter to me who the pope is. But, the church wields great political power in the world and he has influence over things that do impact me and things I care about.
...Ratzinger.
From a certain perspective, it shouldn't much matter to me who the pope is. But, the church wields great political power in the world and he has influence over things that do impact me and things I care about.
...Ratzinger.
Heh-Indeedy
August:
Alterman:
And before I get the standard fake-outrage from the Right about the mean nasty things I'm saying about poor defenseless little Ann, the standard reminder: I reserve the right to be slightly upset about Time glorifying a woman who once expressed dismay that one of my parents wasn't murdered in a terrorist bombing. So please, with no due respect, fuck the fuck off.
Alterman:
Like New York Observer’s George Gurley, Cloud has accepted the role of an unpaid PR flack for a woman who frequently jokes about the mass-murder of journalists—including presumably, himself--and he professes to find this charming. And let us pause for a moment to note that today is the anniversary of the day that Timothy McVeigh did his horrid deed—the mass murder of men, women and children. Ms. Coulter and the moron, Gurley, thought it was so cute to joke about wishing he had accomplished at The New York Times. (I suppose it’s too much to worry about her calling for the mass murder of Arabs.) With the resources of Time’s legions of researchers and fact-checkers, he relies on a casual Google search to determine that she can be “occasionally coarse” and that her work is “mostly accurate.” I spoke to one of those researchers and I’m quoted in the article. But more to the point, I pointed the researcher in the direction of many easily available sources that easily undermine Cloud’s lazy and credulous reporting. The entire package is a statement of contempt for the values for which Time professes to stand; another notch in the belt for the far-right’s forty-year campaign to destroy journalists’ role in assuring democratic accountability in our society.
Ho Howie
Howie sez:
Howie, the key word is "promoted." For Ann Coulter, the caption was "Is she serious or just having fun?"
For Michael Moore, it was "Is this good for America?" Some promotion.
...and, as people point out, Moore was actually news at the time, while Coulter is not. So, a cover story is "promotion" and not "news."
As evidence of the media's "hard right bias," former Democratic operative David Sirota objects to the cover on "right wing crazy person Ann Coulter" and asks: "When was the last time you saw someone of equal (if not more) importance on the left promoted on the cover of America's mainstream magazines?"
Um---Time's cover on Michael Moore?
Howie, the key word is "promoted." For Ann Coulter, the caption was "Is she serious or just having fun?"
For Michael Moore, it was "Is this good for America?" Some promotion.
...and, as people point out, Moore was actually news at the time, while Coulter is not. So, a cover story is "promotion" and not "news."
Monday, April 18, 2005
Ho Ho Greenfield
Ho Jeff to Howie:
Big Fucking Ho Greenfield to America:
Some journalists are unperturbed. CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield likes many blogs and doesn't much worry about "the baked-potato brains who say you're a media whore. . . . On the whole, I'm real happy to know there are a lot of people watching with the capacity to check me. I don't think that's chilling. It's just another incentive to get your facts right."
As for "smear artists" on the Internet, Greenfield says, "the freedom that it gives anonymous twerps to spew out invective -- that they don't like the way you look or think you're an idiot or a child abuser -- that's just part of the process."
Big Fucking Ho Greenfield to America:
Even more damning was a "Nightline" report broadcast that same evening. The segment came very close to branding Hillary Clinton a perjurer. In his introduction, host Ted Koppel spoke pointedly about "the reluctance of the Clinton White House to be as forthcoming with documents as it promised to be." He then turned to correspondent Jeff Greenfield, who posed a rhetorical question: "Hillary Clinton did some legal work for Madison Guaranty at the Rose Law Firm, at a time when her husband was governor of Arkansas. How much work? Not much at all, she has said."
Up came a video clip from Hillary's April 22, 1994, Whitewater press conference. "The young attorney, the young bank officer, did all the work," she said. "It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about." Next the screen filled with handwritten notes taken by White House aide Susan Thomases during the 1992 campaign. "She [Hillary] did all the billing," the notes said. Greenfield quipped that it was no wonder "the White House was so worried about what was in Vince Foster's office when he killed himself."
What the audience didn't know was that the ABC videotape had been edited so as to create an inaccurate impression. At that press conference, Mrs. Clinton had been asked not how much work she had done for Madison Guaranty, but how her signature came to be on a letter dealing with Madison Guaranty's 1985 proposal to issue preferred stock. ABC News had seamlessly omitted thirty-nine words from her actual answer, as well as the cut, by interposing a cutaway shot of reporters taking notes. The press conference transcript shows that she actually answered as follows: "The young attorney [and] the young bank officer did all the work and the letter was sent. But because I was what we called the billing attorney -- in other words, I had to send the bill to get the payment sent -- my name was put on the bottom of the letter. It was not an area that I practiced in. It was not an area that I know anything, to speak of, about."
Tariffic
I have no opinion on whether it's in our interests for the Chinese to revalue their currency. But, as Yglesias rightly points out - if this is indeed what we what we want them to do then putting a tariff on goods equal to the percent amount we'd like to them to revalue is roughly equivalent. Actually, it seems to me that such a tariff would be far superior than a simple revaluation. The tariff would increase the effective price on Chinese imports for consumers, which is of course the point, and reduce our trade deficit. It would raise lots of revenue for the government, paid for by Chinese exporters (and indirectly American consumers), reducing our fiscal deficit. In addition it wouldn't spike interest rates because being a tariff only on goods it wouldn't sharply increase the cost of American bonds to the Chinese, which would spike rates and raising our borrowing costs.
Again, I have no opinion whether revaluation is a desired outcome, but if it is I can't see how the tariff isn't actually a vastly superior option from our perspective.
Devaluation:
1) raises costs of imports (bad)
2) improves trade balance (good)
3) spikes interest rates (potentially very bad)
Tariff:
1) raises costs of imports (bad)
2) improves trade balance (good)
3) does not spike interest rates (good)
4) raises revenue and reduces fiscal deficit (Good)
We have a winner!
Again, I have no opinion whether revaluation is a desired outcome, but if it is I can't see how the tariff isn't actually a vastly superior option from our perspective.
Devaluation:
1) raises costs of imports (bad)
2) improves trade balance (good)
3) spikes interest rates (potentially very bad)
Tariff:
1) raises costs of imports (bad)
2) improves trade balance (good)
3) does not spike interest rates (good)
4) raises revenue and reduces fiscal deficit (Good)
We have a winner!
Journalisming is Hard Work
One of the most egregious passages in Time's Ann story, because it demonstrated just how either lazy or dishonest* the reporter is was this one:
Think Progress helps the reporter out.
*I'm going with dishonest, for the record. Either he or his editors wanted a love letter to Ann, and that's what he produced.
Coulter has a reputation for carelessness with facts, and if you Google the words ‘Ann Coulter lies,’ you will drown in results. But I didn’t find many outright Coulter errors.
Think Progress helps the reporter out.
*I'm going with dishonest, for the record. Either he or his editors wanted a love letter to Ann, and that's what he produced.
Time Magazine Morons
I guess I shouldn't expect anything from journalists who think it's cute to put an advocate of murdering other journalists on their cover, but in addition to that rather shocking lack of judgment they're really really stupid.
Time to convene a panel on blogger ethics and the caustic nature of online criticism!
...and, predictably, even though Time magazine wrote her a love letter she's still going to complain about how they were unfair to her (Warning, drudge). When will the liberal media learn...
...skippy writes a letter.
Time to convene a panel on blogger ethics and the caustic nature of online criticism!
...and, predictably, even though Time magazine wrote her a love letter she's still going to complain about how they were unfair to her (Warning, drudge). When will the liberal media learn...
...skippy writes a letter.
Howie
One could waste an entire lifetime talking about what's wrong with Ho Howie's latest. I'll just start and end by pointing out that a column decrying the caustic nature of "online criticism" is a little silly given that it's coming from the man who was going to have Assrocket, who led a rather caustic and bullshit campaign against one of Kurtz's own reporters, on his CNN show had the pope not died...
Fetus
You know, I find this to be creepy. Really really creepy. Do most people? I don't know.
...just to add, the story contradicts contemporaneous accounts. I hate to "go there" because I, unlike Rick and Karen Santorum, think these decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, but here's what the Post says:
Steve Goldstein of the Inky reported for Knight Ridder in 1996:
Facts, schmacts.
In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.
Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.
...just to add, the story contradicts contemporaneous accounts. I hate to "go there" because I, unlike Rick and Karen Santorum, think these decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, but here's what the Post says:
At one point, her doctor raised the prospect of an abortion, an "option" Karen ridicules.
Steve Goldstein of the Inky reported for Knight Ridder in 1996:
Last fall, Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican who is the leading proponent of barring the procedure - termed ''partial-birth abortion'' by its foes - was within hours of having to decide whether to use an abortion to save the life of his wife, Karen Garver Santorum, who was in her fifth month of pregnancy.
Ultimately, they did not have to make a decision; nature made it for them. Karen went into premature labor brought on by infection, delivering a boy who had a fatal abnormality. The child died two hours later.
In an interview, the Santorums said they would have authorized an abortion had there been no other choice.
Facts, schmacts.
Not Popular
Will the Beltway Cocktail Party Crowd, so perfectly represented by the nauseating Note, ever internalize the fact that Bush and his people are not popular. More generally, I'm horrified by a press that would even consider that presidential popularity should have an influence on the tone of their general coverage of the administration. I'm doubly horrified by a press that pretends that's the reason, even though popularity clearly had no impact on the way Clinton was treated as his approval ratings remained in the 60s.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Happy Belated Birthday
To Joel Grey. Just popped in Cabaret and then realized he's now 73 years old, as of April 11.
Perhaps the greatest film musical performance ever.
Perhaps the greatest film musical performance ever.
Family entertainment
So, through the miracle of the internets I've been watching the new Doctor Who. I was a geeky Who fan back in my teen years. I find the old series to be quite slow now, though maybe I just had all the episodes seared into my brain during my formative years.
But, the show is billed as "family entertainment," as was the old show. Family entertainment in the UK isn't a euphemism for "something the kids will like and adults will tolerate." It generally refers to a show that the whole family can sit around the telly and watch and that has some appeal for everyone, aside from the fact that it keeps the kids quiet for a bit.
Not being a parent I'm obviously not an expert on these things (meaning I could be wrong), but it strikes me that we have no actual "family entertainment." There are things which are more or less family friendly - that is, things parents can watch without worrying about the content if the kids are in the room, and obviously there are Disney-type fare which adults like - but almost nothing really made to appeal to entire families.
But, the UK version of "family friendly" is certainly at odds with what would be acceptable for us. Take the new Who, for instance. The 20ish companion lives with her mother in council flats (public housing), and there's no father to be found. Her mother is a somewhat buffoonish horny middle-aged woman. When an alien ship crash lands in the Thames, the thing to do is to gather the neighbors around the telly and drink a bunch of beer. In other words, parental authority is not exactly what we'd consider to be role model worthy (even though family itself is portrayed in a good light).
Similarly, British "panto," a theatrical Christmas tradition, combines humorous slapstick retelling of fairy tales with raunchy jokes and double-entendres which are supposed to go over the heads of the wee ones, but probably don't. In other words, something no good American parent would dare bring their child too for fear of having child protection services after them.
Anyway, just an observation...
...to add, we do have more movies which fit the bill, though even there not so many.
...flipping on the TV just now I'm struck by the fact that "Malcolm in the Middle" might fit the bill. Is this something your 8 year old watches?
But, the show is billed as "family entertainment," as was the old show. Family entertainment in the UK isn't a euphemism for "something the kids will like and adults will tolerate." It generally refers to a show that the whole family can sit around the telly and watch and that has some appeal for everyone, aside from the fact that it keeps the kids quiet for a bit.
Not being a parent I'm obviously not an expert on these things (meaning I could be wrong), but it strikes me that we have no actual "family entertainment." There are things which are more or less family friendly - that is, things parents can watch without worrying about the content if the kids are in the room, and obviously there are Disney-type fare which adults like - but almost nothing really made to appeal to entire families.
But, the UK version of "family friendly" is certainly at odds with what would be acceptable for us. Take the new Who, for instance. The 20ish companion lives with her mother in council flats (public housing), and there's no father to be found. Her mother is a somewhat buffoonish horny middle-aged woman. When an alien ship crash lands in the Thames, the thing to do is to gather the neighbors around the telly and drink a bunch of beer. In other words, parental authority is not exactly what we'd consider to be role model worthy (even though family itself is portrayed in a good light).
Similarly, British "panto," a theatrical Christmas tradition, combines humorous slapstick retelling of fairy tales with raunchy jokes and double-entendres which are supposed to go over the heads of the wee ones, but probably don't. In other words, something no good American parent would dare bring their child too for fear of having child protection services after them.
Anyway, just an observation...
...to add, we do have more movies which fit the bill, though even there not so many.
...flipping on the TV just now I'm struck by the fact that "Malcolm in the Middle" might fit the bill. Is this something your 8 year old watches?
Those Damn Internets
Consider this paragraph from the Post on the exoneration of Michael Schiavo regarding abuse allegations:
They weren't just "familiar fodder on the Internet." I seem to remember hearing about those allegations in multiple media outlets.
The records show that DCF took seriously its duty to investigate abuse allegations, which became familiar fodder on the Internet: Terri Schiavo was dirty and unkempt. She did not receive proper dental care or rehabilitative therapy. She was kept in isolation. Her husband beat her and broke her bones. He wanted her dead for her money or to remarry. He pumped her full of insulin, hoping to kill her. He often asked, "When will (she) die?" Her lips were cracked and dry.
They weren't just "familiar fodder on the Internet." I seem to remember hearing about those allegations in multiple media outlets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)