uggabugga

2012-03-05T13:32:00.002-08:00

Limbaugh limits apology:

To two words that were spoken:

"I descended to [the left's] level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke," Limbaugh said. "I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for. They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words."

So, the rest of the stuff holds. In addition, Limbaugh had more negative things to say about Fluke, which appear to be completely unsubstantiated (e.g. Fluke is a "30-year old activist after years of a career championing birth control issues")

I have never seen a sustained attack on a private citizen by a powerful figure like this. I've read about Joe McCarthy and how he used the hearings to harass a lot if small fry, That's the closest I can find to what we are witnessing today.

2012-03-04T22:24:00.001-08:00

The Ballad of Brave Sir Romney

Bravely bold Sir Romney rode forth from his mansion.
He was not afraid to speak, O brave Sir Romney!
He was not at all afraid to challenge Sir Limbaugh,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Romney!

When Limbaugh called a girl a slut,
He bravely kept his brave mouth shut,
Yes, brave Sir Romney said nothing,
For three brave days he said nothing.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Romney!

2012-03-04T19:00:00.003-08:00

After Ohio is ravaged by tornadoes:

Kasich turns down federal disaster aid

Kentucky and Indiana have requested federal help.

From the comments:

Red Cross will put you up in a hotel for a couple days but it's going to take several months to get your house rebuilt and Red Cross is only there in the immediate aftermath emergency situation. So, that is where Fema comes in, if you have insurance, Fema will pay some of what the insurance would have paid up front and then when your insurance settlement comes in you can pay it back if insurance actually covers it. That way you can get workers going immediately instead of waiting for a claim to process. A lot of insurance companies won't even give you the go ahead to start work until a full investigation is done. Unless you have it written into your policy, they wont cover long term displacement either.

You know those FEMA trailers in the news? That is for you to live in while they are fixing your house, at no cost. If Federal Aid is requested, they can get those trailers set up within a week. In Iowa they had them set up before the water receded from the flood (3 days).

They also set up centers where if you need food or emergency SBA loans they set up a big tent where everyone is in one spot. FEMA may get a bad rap, but if you have ever been in a situation where you needed them, they are a major blessing.

This is what will be denied the citizens of Ohio.

This is the Tea Party philosophy at work.

It's also terrible optics. For the last week the news has lead with stories about tornadoes destroying towns. About 80% of Moscow, Ohio, was destroyed or damaged. It's hard to see what Kasich is trying to accomplish here. Stiff-arm Obama in some way (since saying no the the feds is kind of a way of saying no to the president).

2012-03-04T05:33:00.000-08:00

This is a good summary:

Rush Limbaugh's Non-Apology Apology

2012-03-04T02:46:00.000-08:00

Yet another test.

2012-03-04T02:36:00.001-08:00

This is a test

2012-03-04T00:44:00.002-08:00

Rush Limbaugh has a problem with women:

From his show one year ago, about the protests in Wisconsin:

It's just a bunch of rabble-rousers and so forth, plus union thugs join together in creating a pigsty -- and we know that they create pigsties, especially compared to Tea Party rallies. You look at any public grounds where these people have been: The trash is littered everywhere, trash cans are overturned, beer cans, bong pipes. Hell, it's all over there. The Tea Party people, you don't find anything. Not even a discarded tissue. Hell, these leftist protesters, leave Kotex! Used Kotex, everything is littering the sidewalks and the streets. It doesn't matter. It's the height of pigsty-ism.

All women are unclean*, filthy, disgusting, etc.

*Those first 4 words were once used by Jay Leno in a very short segment about a serial killer who keeps writing that line in a notebook kept by the side of the bed.

2012-03-03T21:42:00.001-08:00

On the Twitter:

2012-03-03T04:35:00.004-08:00

Rush Limbaugh & Sandra Fluke:

How is this not slander?

[Fluke is] "essentially says that she must be paid to have sex". [ref]
[Fluke is] "a slut". [ref]
[Fluke is] "a a prostitute". [ref]
[Fluke is] "wants to be paid to have sex". [ref]
[Fluke is] "having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception". [ref]
[Fluke is] "having so much sex ... that she can’t afford it". [ref]
[Fluke is frequently having sex]. [ref]
[Fluke] "was having so much sex it’s amazing she could still walk". [ref]
[Someone bought Fluke] "condoms [when she was in] in the sixth grade". [ref]

2012-03-02T02:16:00.006-08:00

Andrew Breitbart is dead:

What do right wingers do when a disruptive and deceitful political operator on their side passes away? Focus on the personal. Which is what they did in this instance.

Breitbart’s Last Laugh - Matt Labash (Weekly Standard)
My Dinner with Andrew - Daniel Foster (NRO)
Andrew Breitbart RIP - John O'Sullivan (NRO)
And there are many more in that style.

This approach has been done for centuries. An Italian Renaissance tyrant who has killed and tortured will be celebrated for his good manners, taste in clothing (and food), warm personal style, loyal family and followers. Stuff like that. Or concentrate on the man's energy, enthusiasm, and zeal. Perhaps the imprecise term "warrior" will be used. Bretbart is getting the same treatment.

For a measured assessment of Breitbart, here's David Frum:

... to speak only “good” of Andrew Breitbart would be to miss the story and indeed to misunderstand the man.

The good was there. Breitbart was by all accounts generous with time and advice, a loving husband and father, and a loyal friend. ...

It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness—when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas—how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?

Especially when that career was so representative of his times?

We live in a time of political and media demagoguery unparalleled since the 19th century. Many of our most important public figures have gained their influence and power by inciting and exploiting the ugliest of passions—by manipulating fears and prejudices—by serving up falsehoods as reported truth. In time these figures will one by one die. What are we to say of this cohort, this group, this generation? That their mothers loved them? That their families are bereaved? That their fans admired them and their employees treated generously by them? Public figures are inescapably judged by their public actions. When those public actions are poisonous, the obituary cannot be pleasant reading.

Frum softens it a bit at the end by grouping Breitbart with others (Drudge? Limbaugh?), but the basic point is made.

Breitbart destroyed many lives with his deception. He kicked people when they were down (or dead as in Ted Kennedy's case). Those are the hard facts that cannot be ignored.

2012-03-01T06:01:00.002-08:00

The Monkees - Cuddly Toy

2012-02-29T20:08:00.002-08:00

Family friendly!

How about this:

Republican Congressional Candidate Says 'Holocaust Never Happened'

Art Jones, who hopes to challenge Democrat Dan Lipinski in Illinois' 3rd Congressional District, neither denies nor repudiates his past affiliation with the neo-Nazi Party.

A congressional candidate running as a Republican in the upcoming Illinois primary says the “Holocaust never happened.”

Arthur Jones, 64, a Lyons, IL, insurance salesman who organizes family-friendly, neo-Nazi events around Adolf Hitler’s birthday, hopes to be the Republican candidate chosen to run against Democratic Congressman Dan Lipinski in Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District.

“As far as I’m concerned, the Holocaust is nothing more than an international extortion racket by the Jews,” Jones said. “It’s the blackest lie in history. Millions of dollars are being made by Jews telling this tale of woe and misfortune in books, movies, plays and TV.

"The more survivors, the more lies that are told."

2012-02-29T05:11:00.002-08:00

Glad that's cleared up:

David Brooks, writing about the Republican party:

In the 1960s and ’70s, the fight was between conservatives and moderates. Conservatives trounced the moderates and have driven them from the party.

Given that, we should expect Brooks to refrain from silly talk about Republicans being able to effectively reach out to the middle, which he has tended to do.

2012-02-27T07:39:00.003-08:00

The 20th Republican debate:

There was something odd in the last debate where Ron Paul seemed to be ganging up on Santorum while not critiquing Romney. After all, from Paul's perspective, both candidates are too "big government". What gives?

No answer right now, but Think Progress reports Ron Paul Never Attacked Romney Once During 20 Debates, But Attacked Romney’s Rivals 39 Times.

You can at least say this: Ron Paul is not a principled libertarian. If he was, he'd have attacked Romney plenty of times by now. Instead, he's doing some of Romney's dirty work.

2012-02-27T07:33:00.001-08:00

Not sure what to say about this:

On Friday, the Wyoming House of Representatives advanced a bill to set up a task force to prepare for the total economic and political collapse of the United States. Per the bill, the panel would investigate things like food storage options and metals-based currencies, to be implemented in the event of a major catastrophe.

Then it goes three steps further. An amendment by the bill's GOP sponsor, state Rep. David Miller, calls on the task force to examine "Conditions under which the state of Wyoming should implement a draft, raise a standing army, marine corps, navy and air force and acquire strike aircraft and an aircraft carrier." As Miller explained to the Casper Star-Tribune, "Things happen quickly sometimes."

2012-02-27T06:49:00.003-08:00

Two good political articles at New York Magazine:

A 6,200 word essay by John Heilmann, The Lost Party, about the 2012 Presidential nomination race.

A 3,300 word essay by Jonathan Chait, 2012 or Never, about the Republicans' overall prospects going forward.

2012-02-23T03:46:00.000-08:00

Facebook making our lives better:

From Yahoo (warning, autoplay video):

Take the case of Minnesota man Aaron Olson. His uncle, Randall LaBrie, posted some pictures (which have yet to surface publicly or online for us to find and post here) from Olson's childhood of him in front of the Christmas tree accompanied by some less than flattering captions. When Olson became aware of the photos, he asked his uncle to take them down. Instead, LaBrie just untagged the photos and allegedly told his nephew that if he did not like the photos, "he should stay off Facebook." So, Olson sued LaBrie for harassment. Not surprisingly, a Minnesota court threw the case out, with Judge Natalie E. Hudson ruling that in order for the photos to be considered harassment, they must have a "substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another." Also, earlier in the week, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied Olson's complaint.

How about Yahoo saying lamenting the fact that the pictures "have yet to surface publicly or online for us to find and post here"?

So, you can take pictures of children who have no idea what's going on or the ability to stop it, and put them out there for all the world to see.

Chicken or egg? Is Facebook responsible for the erosion of privacy, or had the erosion of privacy gotten to the point where a Facebook thrives?

2012-02-21T15:34:00.000-08:00

Shorter Rick Santorum:

I'd rather be right than be president.

2012-02-20T01:59:00.000-08:00

Dismal economics post:

First off, last week Apple announced that its workers in China would be getting an increase in pay, up to $400 a month, or a 25% increase.

That comes to $2.50 an hour (up from $2.00/hr). And people in developed countries are expected to compete with that?

Basically, the twin engines of conservative and neoliberal economics - expressed mostly through free trade policies - has done enormous damage to the middle and lower classes. On that score, Thomas B. Edsall has a long op-ed in the New York Times, Is This the End of Market Democracy? (Meaning a healthy democracy within a market economy.)

Short answer is Yes. He covers a lot of territory, but here's an excerpt towards the end:

Overall, [global trade advocate (!) David] Autor has found that the combination of three trends — automation; the emergence of a trade-based international labor force; and the movement of jobs offshore — has polarized the job market. There is growth at the high and low ends, but the middle collapses:
Concretely, employment and earnings are rising in both high education professional, technical and managerial occupations and, since the late 1980s, in low-education food service, personal care and protective service occupations. Conversely, job opportunities are declining in both middle-skill, white collar clerical, administrative, and sales occupations and in middle-skill, blue-collar production, craft and operative occupations.

2012-02-18T16:30:00.000-08:00

This just in:

Fox News' affiliate, Fox Nation, breathlessly announces:

100% of Catholic Bishops Oppose Contraceptive Mandate

100%!

Who would have guessed?

2012-02-17T04:13:00.001-08:00

Finally!

A report comes out which disputes the wisdom of this obnoxious practice:

Should 9-1-1 Calls be Broadcast on TV?

Sometimes when the TV is left on after the news goes off, you pick up a piece of information that can become a story. That’s what happened this morning when the doctors from “The Doctors,” a syndicated show seen in New York on WCBS at 9am, made a bold declaration that the broadcasting of 9-1-1 calls should not be allowed.

“We’re gonna take a stand here on our show and say that, unequivocally, we do not feel as physicians that 9-1-1 calls should be sent out to be broadcast,” said lead “Doctors” Dr. Travis Stork.

That is heresy to TV news producers and reporters who will tell you their stories are made much better and more whole, not to mention more dramatic, with the urgency a 9-1-1 call provides.

“The Doctors” were discussing the case of Demi Moore and the 9-1-1 call that resulted in her being rushed to the hospital last month. Dr. Stork argues that as soon as someone calls 9-1-1, they are a patient and that doctor-patient confidentiality should kick in. “We are going to urge that congress takes this up,” said Stork.

What was not discussed was how the broadcasting of 9-1-1 calls can be a wake-up call for operators who don’t heed a caller’s warning soon enough. The most recent example of that made national headlines last week.

On Sunday Feb. 5, David Lovrak had taken an urgent call from Elizabeth Griffin-Hall the caseworker assigned to the case of Josh Powell and his two sons.

Griffin-Harris called Pierce County, WA 9-1-1 at 12:08 p.m. Five minutes later, information from that call was transferred to the radio dispatcher. At 12:16, two deputies were sent to the scene. The first unit arrived at 12:30 but by then Josh Powell had set his home on fire and killed his two young sons and himself.

Lovrak, a veteran 9-1-1 operator later told “Dateline NBC” he was “clumsy and faltering” on the call. “Realizing what we all know now, I wish I had recognized the urgency of the situation.”

This was followed by an online poll - which is not worth much - that had the following results:

Should 9-1-1 Calls be Broadcast on TV?

Yes, it's in the public interest 44.83%

No, it's a private matter 55.17%

The reporter's argument that broadcasting 911 calls is meritorious because they can become a "wake-up call" for other operators is a joke. If a 911 call can be instructive, make it a part of operators' training. Don't broadcast it on television (or radio).

It's pure sensationalism to broadcast the calls, which is why news outlets love to do it. But that's not a justifiable reason.

After the story, there were these comments:

Joe
I've never thought 911 calls should be made public. Medical records are confidential, and I consider a 911 call to be a part of a patient's medical record. In the case of celebrities, a 911 call might NOT be made for fear the recording would be made public.

Nathan Schimpf
911 calls create lazy reporting, in my opinion. Instead of digging for a good idea of where the story is right after the breaking of a story (respectfully, of course), too many news orgs just wait out the 911 call and hype it up to an extreme and call that "reporting". They never add anything to a report except stating the obvious that there's a situation of panic. It also puts 911 operators in the uncomfortable position of having to stick to a script because they're afraid of becoming highlighted as someone like the "pot brownie cop" idiot or can't have any skepticism whatsoever about the honesty of the caller, lest Supreme Judger Nancy Grace level a request they be fired.

bringbackobjectivity
All the electronic media is doing is satisfying the purient interest of their viewers/listeners in a grab for ratings. The more dramatic they can make it the better. The 911 call has no bearing on the who, what, when, why and how. EXCEPT if the 911 operator in the central part of the story due to lack of common sense or malfesence.

highseas
The News Media loves it! Bur it's wrong and a violation of individual privacy. All calls related to tragedies should be reviewed by professionals in law enforcement and local government as an ongoing training process. The public has no reason to hear these calls.

How would the journalists who expose personal issues of citizens like their personal lives being always open as part of their chosen profession?

Chuck Tonini
As a 911 operator, I am unsure as to how releasing a call to the public does any good at all. We've never made our calls public and will only do so if ordered by a court. People trust us to keep their information confidential and releasing 911 calls to the public is a disservice the very citizens we serve.

Paul Tatara
I've always been offended by it, and immediately mute the sound when they're going to play one. It's a total invasion of privacy that's used for no other purpose than to "excite" the viewer. I actually knew River Phoenix, and it's hellish to hear a desperate call concerning someone you know playing out on TV for others' enjoyment. It's sick, so I can understand why so many Americans find it acceptable.

KamaTimbrell
Does anyone really believe 911 operators aren't aware that people's lives may be in their hands?

Rob Medich
911 recordings should only be broadcast if they're used as evidence in a court of law.

Regarding commenter Paul Tatara's remarks about River Phoenix. That 911 call was played back by Howard Stern while he (Stern) was making jokes about the police not responding promptly because they were busy eating donuts. Great fun with a tragedy. Laughs all around.

2012-02-14T00:23:00.000-08:00

Not sure what to say about this Limbaugh feature:

2012-02-12T19:04:00.002-08:00

CBS Evening News continues to promote consumerism:

On the Sunday CBS Evening News, there was a short segment about a survey that forecasts Valentine's Day purchases.

$126 per person!

Up 8.5% from 2010!

No source for these figures was stated out loud. Instead, at the bottom of the graphic in very tiny letters was:

SOURCE: NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION

Here's a screenshot:

That's the outfit that consistently hypes sales figures (especially around "Black Friday").

Go out and spend! After all, everybody else is going to.

2012-02-10T08:59:00.000-08:00

A look into the mind of some Ron Paul followers:

Dave Weigel has a post about Paul getting more delegates than expected from the recent caucuses. Part of this has to do with the greater enthusiasm of Paul supporters. Of interest is the comment section of Weigel's post which has several choice entries, including one single 750-word paragraph (!) that is a sterling example of where they are coming from.

Oh, what the hell. Here it is, from someone who's handle is Representative Government:

I strongly urge people on here who believe that people who are voting for Ron Paul at the primaries understands that we are not just doing it because hes a messiah whom we follow. That is a collectivists trait who disregards historical and philosophical logic to maintain themselves under the auspice of a branded logo who has too dislodge themselves from their own instincts to fit in. When you can make differences everyday where most fail to see it it becomes easy not to put all your heart into some savior as you will become your own voice. No man will let me down as no man has the power to do so. Ron Paul just happens to represent the rule of law, Separation of powers, checks and balances, the constitution interpreted by the founders, and we just happen to find solidarity with him in those regards. Why would so many people care about something when its deemed a lost cause everyday by the mainstream media? How is it these numbers grow without the capstone aggregate in their corner? This is due diligence and substantive none biased research. We see that learning history and taking it too heart along with internal discernment as being paramount for yours and our own protection. We apply surface area to what the school history books generalized with topical names and dates that was passed on to the media by consent. Historical consequences that so many disregard while they ask where the wealth has gone. It lays in the hands of the interests who have already subverted you long ago through the media, education, consumer industry and many other modes of influence they have consolidated for their own use. History unequivocally tells us this. So its up to you to decide if MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CNN who are owned by the same Industrialist families who got together in 1915 to buy out the top 25 news aggregates in the name of preparedness in ww1 to sway public discourse whether you believe them. But they fill you with self fulling talking points we disregard because we have no master but our creator we have allegiance too and nothing else. We will fight to the end for your freedoms so that ours remains unscathed. We don't care about national polls or sentiment because it means not. Choosing the lesser of two evils in any decisions we make is a loss for ourselves and for the ones around us no matter how we dress a lie. When we are built on a foundation of lies truth becomes suspect as we can no longer identify with it. So illusory promises and compromise on two bad ideas becomes a necessity for most while remains never an option for a few. When it comes to the caucus people who are politically inclined should be able to have a voice especially if they were voted to do so. Resolutions, and platforms can be pushed apart from just presidential delegates. Why should we get rid of something that puts state politicians and national candidates feet to the fire that gives motivated people a voice? Destroy the process and destroy your own voice and we will get unabated mediocrity more then we are already inflicted with. More status quo is the answer for the ones on the team who joined for the trendiness and aggregated positive perception by the industrialist run media for their industrialist run politicians. In this regard change for the better is an impossibility when the ones who have the systematic controls of wealth also own the candidates. So they will just tax you on both sides and leave you with the derivatives scheme that you don't owe because the banks write the legislation who fund all but a few candidates who remain antithetical to their disposition in the ruling class. So we pay for their wars, Bailouts, subsidies, and exemptions on an industrialist level with no return because we are seduced on both sides to compromise between one banker bill and another while the mainstream media tells you how smart you are for picking a team like a football game. Its baseless and everyone one loses. Would be wise to see past the marginalization, character assassination, and generalization the mainstream media aggregate feeds to you through the top down industrialist owned media. Oil companies, Currency controllers, and war profiteers stand to lose a whole lot of power with a politically inclined people none responsive to their political media gadgets.

2012-02-08T08:24:00.000-08:00

Is this helping?

Donald Trump sits down with CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield to discuss GOP candidates for president as well as what position he would want in Mitt Romney’s cabinet.

link

2012-02-08T08:10:00.000-08:00

New York Times takes baby steps towards fact checking:

It's a start. Story:

Cardinal Egan Criticized for Retracting Apology on Sexual Abuse Crisis

In 2002, at the height of the outcry over the sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic priests, the Archbishop of New York, Edward M. Egan, issued a letter to be read at Mass. In it, he offered an apology about the church’s handling of sex-abuse cases in New York and in Bridgeport, Conn. (...)

In a interview with Connecticut magazine published on the magazine’s Web site last week, a surprisingly frank Cardinal Egan said of the apology, “I never should have said that,” and added, “I don’t think we did anything wrong.”

He said many more things in the interview, some of them seemingly at odds with the facts. He repeatedly denied that any sex abuse had occurred on his watch in Bridgeport. He said that even now, the church in Connecticut had no obligation to report sexual abuse accusations to the authorities. (A law on the books since the 1970s says otherwise.) And he described the Bridgeport diocese’s handling of sex-abuse cases as “incredibly good.”

2012-02-07T23:39:00.000-08:00

David Frum reviews Charles Murray's latest book:

Murray tries to make the claim that "bad" social changes - originating in the 1960's - is why there are so many problems today with the lower middle class and the poor. This is an argument David Brooks likes because it distracts from economic realities and the affairs of the top .1%, in addition to being lightweight social analysis (a Brooks specialty).

Frum disagrees and has this to say:

America became more culturally stable between 1910 and 1960 as it became less economically and socially libertarian. As it became more economically and socially libertarian after 1970, America became culturally less stable: [And then quotes from one of his (Frum's) books]

"The greatest generation was also the statist generation. Like them or loathe them, the middle decades of the twentieth century were an entirely anomalous period in American history. Never had the state been so strong, never had people submitted as uncomplainingly, never had the country been more economically equal, never had it been more ethnically homogeneous, seldom was its political consensus more overpowering."

2012-02-07T22:04:00.000-08:00

On 7 February 2012, the Republican race for the nomination officially became interesting:

It was reported, but not emphasized enough, that Romney spent a hell of a lot of money in Florida to nip conservative discontent with him in the but. He succeeded there, but the results from Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado - all going strongly for Santorum - show that Romney still has serious headwinds to battle.

2012-02-06T08:10:00.000-08:00

Obama on the "shortage" of high-tech workers in America:

“what industry tells me is that they don’t have enough (domestic) highly skilled engineers”

“the word that we’re getting is that somebody (a domestic engineer) in a high-tech field should be able to find something right away”

Dave Sirota disagrees (and writes about other trends unhelpful to high-tech labor).

Interesting that Obama couches his response with "what industry tells me" and "the word that we're getting". That's weasel-speak, the words you hear from a Wall Street Democrat.

2012-02-03T14:38:00.000-08:00

Sean Hannity today:

"I think Jesus had contempt for the tax collectors"

That's how you get a self-proclaimed Christian audience to embrace Republican policies.

2012-01-30T20:59:00.000-08:00

Dispirited Tea Party in Florida:

This is no surprise, considering how the Republican establishment has succeeded, or is about to succeed, in getting a Rockefeller Republican (Romney) to head the ticket this year.

CBS Evening News story:

In Florida, the Tea Party remains a powerful force. Monday's Quinnipiac University poll says 34 percent of Republican voters support it.

Tea partiers have helped elect a number of candidates in Florida, but CBS News correspondent Chip Reid found there is frustration in their ranks. (...)

Tea partiers seem to be split among the Republican candidates. Many are also dispirited by the absence of movement favorites like Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. [Alex] Berry [tea party coordinator for Boca Raton] plans to write in Ron Paul in November. Like many tea partiers, he would rather vote his conscience than win an election. (...)

"If Romney becomes the nominee, yes, I will vote for Romney, but I will not actively get out and bust my buns for him. I don't like him," [William] Benedict [co-founder of the Manatee County Tea Party] says.

2012-01-29T08:58:00.000-08:00

Representative Paul Ryan - don't oversimplify!

There is a constant call by Republicans to simplify the tax code - largely by making it less progressive (fewer brackets, lower rates). Simpler is better.

Today on Fox News Sunday, Rep. Paul Ryan was on for an interview. There was this exchange:

Chris Wallace: The president is proposing the Buffett rule, the idea that if you're making at least a million dollars a year that you should pay at least a 30% tax rate. And he's proposing this just as we find out that Mitt Romney, who's a multi-millionaire, is paying a 15% tax rate. Again, isn't that on just the simplest basis, fair?

Paul Ryan: If you oversimplify, you could probably make that case. I can get into the tax data. I can get into the fact that the effective tax rates people pay at the higher end are still higher than everybody else. But lets just look at the math. All the tax increases the president is talking about, they only cover 8% of his proposed spending increases. ... Crush job creators. ... [mentioned supply-side nostrums, etc.]

How about that? When the simple message is that Romney is paying at a lower rate than many others, that's an oversimplified view.

2012-01-27T10:30:00.000-08:00

The beginning of the end of the Tea Party:

Serious damage has been done to the Republican party. The Tea Party contingent got brushed aside by the elites and it looks as if they will be faced with with the prospect of voting for a Massachusetts Mormon moderate in the general election. Just think about this:

Nothing that Romney did while holding office was conservative.

And now they going to vote for the guy?

They've been bitching for years that the Republicans didn't put up a "real" conservative. And after all the sound and fury - and electoral success in 2010 (!) - they are being left in the lurch. As a result, many of them will disengage from the Republican party.

2012-01-24T20:23:00.000-08:00

Obama's SOTU speech:

Early on, he said:

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores.

So why did he sign three free-trade agreements (Panama, Columbia, South Korea) last year?

But there's good news:

We can't bring back every job that's left our shores. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

Apparently, workers here are now being paid less than those in China. Time to celebrate!

And this is pathetic:

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

In other words, no government policy, like tariffs, to be enacted. Just hope and pray that somehow, business will stay here.

2012-01-24T13:16:00.001-08:00

One of the worst debate questions ever:

By Brian Williams at the Florida debate:

Governor Romney, a question you know is coming because of what you have set in motion for tomorrow when you release one year`s tax returns and your estimates for 2011. We know it`s not a matter of producing them. You said during the McCain vetting process you turned over 23 years which you had at the ready because, to quote you, you`re something of a packrat.

So, prior to tomorrow, can you tell us tonight what`s in there that`s going to get people talking? What`s in there that`s going to be controversial? What`s in there that you may find yourself defending?

1) Maybe NBC News can look at the tax returns and find something.

2) Asking a candidate to mention a defect is like asking a potential employee what their shortcoming is. The typical answer is:

Well, my biggest problem is that I work too hard and always put the company's interest ahead of mine!

2012-01-24T06:34:00.000-08:00

Michael Lind in Salon:

Two good essays recently.

1) How conservatives lie about government
excerpt:

... members of the right-wing counterculture are brainwashed — that is the only appropriate term — by the apocalyptic propaganda ground out constantly by the conservative media establishment.

2) Race, liberty and Ron Paul [this is more about libertarianism than Paul]
excerpt:

Some libertarians concede the legitimacy of government coercion in protecting property rights. But in doing so, these libertarians, like Ron Paul, give up any principled objection to government coercion. They simply want government coercion to be used for some purposes—protecting property rights—and not others—enforcing civil rights.

2012-01-20T20:44:00.000-08:00

Here is how an effective propaganda outfit does it:

Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team.

Newt Gingrich's three marriages mean he might make a strong president -- really

By Dr. Keith Ablow

Published January 20, 2012

I will tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s personal history actually means for those of us who want to right the economy, see our neighbors and friends go back to work, promote freedom here and abroad and defeat the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes.

First, one note on what Mr. Gingrich’s married life, including his history of infidelity does not mean: It does not mean that Mr. Gingrich would be unfaithful to the United States of America or the Constitution of the United States.

You can take any moral position you like about men and women who cheat while married, but there simply is no correlation, whatsoever—from a psychological perspective—between whether they can remain true to their wedding vows and whether they can remain true to the Oath of Office.

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

2012-01-06T13:56:00.000-08:00

Gingrichideas Twitter account:

here

Variable, but some good ones like

Free CIA-provided Wi-Fi.

2012-01-04T03:01:00.000-08:00

After the Iowa Caucus:

Eric Ericson of Red State, who badly wanted Perry to re-emerge as a viable candidate, remarks:

Bachmann must drop out. Frankly, it makes sense for Perry to do so as well except for one issue.

If Rick Perry drops out of the race it will be the ultimate failure of the tea party movement to see the race come down to two or three big government conservatives.

... the tea party has failed because it has surrendered itself into the hands of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich ...

Considering all the attention given to the Tea Party - especially on right wing radio and the Murdoch presss - it's surprising that it may end up having very little impact in 2012. They don't have a candidate. Santorum is a G. W. Bush-era Republican, Gingrich is pre-Bush. Neither are bona fide Tea Party types.

Real Tea Party politicians are mostly in the House (Ryan, Cantor, and first-termers that were elected in 2010) or holding state-wide office (Walker, Snyder, LePage ). None of national stature. Maybe their time will come, or maybe their time is passing. Hard to say which.

2011-12-29T04:41:00.000-08:00

Only 100 years ago:

Just want to get this post in before the year runs out.

In 1911, Ernest Rutherford proposed a model for the atom - of electrons in the outer region and a small positive nucleus - that still holds today. There have been several refinements since then, with the Bohr, electron cloud, wave, and energy state models that were more accurate, but Rutherford was the first to point in the right direction. Prior to that atoms were thought to be either hard objects with no structure or a diffuse mixture of positive and negative charges.

Of course, since 1911, a lot more was learned - especially in the subsequent 30 years of nuclear physics. Still, it's easy to forget how not too long ago, our understanding of nature was extremely lacking.

2011-12-26T21:44:00.000-08:00

John Walsh of America's Most Wanted speaks out about cuts and taxes:

The man is getting radical. Crooks & Liars reports:

Wow. America's Most Wanted host John Walsh has an earful about cutting the government to spark economic growth this week. He notes letting police and firefighters go is bad for our communities. Flint, MI which laid off two-thirds of its police force, according to Walsh has become a "small city murder capital of the U.S."

But then, Walsh goes full Occupy.

"Who's going to pay for the economic meltdown - the huge debt?" He says, "How about companies? Companies that have made more money than in the whole history of the world and they've done it with less people. Some of the Fortune 500 companies pay no state taxes at all. We all know about GE not paying federal taxes."

And he continues to rail on this conservative cure-all for our economic woes: "It's a quick fix but it's not a good fix. We got to make the corporations pay more money and we can't let these people [police] go. You got to speak up."

2011-12-26T18:37:00.000-08:00

Did you buy a ton of stuff on Mega Monday?

Once again, CBS Evening News has - as their leadoff story - a report about how consumers are expected to spend lots of money purchasing things this Monday. No, there are no hard figures, just projections.

"As many as 100 million shoppers could hit the stores this week."

That is not news.

2011-12-21T14:46:00.000-08:00

A good observation about Christopher Hitchens:

By Michael Lind. Excerpts:

Were the ad hominem diatribes that Hitchens specialized in evidence of his moral integrity and political courage? On the contrary, TV producers and magazine editors love sensational trash talk about media “personalities,” including Jehovah. The philippics of Hitchens were calculated and successful career moves by a gifted publicity hound who spent the last part of his career, appropriately, at Vanity Fair, a magazine best known for models and actors on its covers. (...)

Hitchens was affirming rather than challenging an elite consensus when, on behalf of atheism, he mocked religious believers as not merely mistaken but contemptible and moronic. The religious are despised and dreaded by upscale Americans, and their British court jester could say what they dare not say themselves ...

2011-12-21T03:43:00.001-08:00

CBS Evening News fail:

Here's a story that ran on Tuesday, December 20: (emp add)

LOS ANGELES - Bonnie Ornitz has been out of work for six months.

"All those senses of accomplishment I had from doing my job - they just seem like ancient history now," she told CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy.

Ornitz was laid off by IBM in June, after 30 years in the information technology field.

Ornitz says being out of work is "exponentially more difficult," than she thought it'd be. "Not working is not an option. I come from a family where people worked until they were retired or dead."

Ornitz has applied for 30 jobs near Los Angeles and has had just two interviews. She's collected 24 unemployment checks - $450 each week. She calls the unemployment checks "a godsend."

"It is a lifeline for me and to take that away is going to be devastating," says Ornitz.

Obama to House Republicans: "This is not a game"

If Congress does not extend the unemployment benefits program, Ornitz's checks will stop coming Jan. 7.

House rejects payroll tax cut compromise

Ornitz is frustrated by what she sees in Washington.

"They don't face the things we face. They all want my vote -- but I don't exist to them. They don't want to see it. We're not important to them."

She added: "I don't think they care one bit - on either party."

According to the National Employment Law Project, 1.8 million Americans will lose their federal unemployment benefits in January. As many as six million will lose them during 2012. California would be hardest hit - 714,000 people would be cut off.

"I'm not someone who is looking to take advantage of the system," says Ornitz. "I want to get on with my life and I want to work."

She's now planning to use her life's savings to pay her bills. She may have to sell her house if she can't find work.

Viewers come off with the impression that both parties are uninterested in extending unemployment. The facts are otherwise.

Republicans were never much interested in extending unemployment. This was evident in the negotiations of December 2010 when a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts was traded for continued 99-week unemployment insurance.

But more important is this: The current (Republican) House-passed bill that extends the Social Security cut has a provision that reduces the unemployment from 99 to 79 weeks - and possibly 59 weeks (depending on circumstances).

CBS News will not tell viewers that important aspect of the legislation in their story about the impact of unemployment insurance. CBS News will not let viewers know the House Republican position on this issue.

2011-12-20T20:07:00.000-08:00

This is what control of information results in:

Don't let it happen here.

2011-12-17T18:01:00.000-08:00

The man is utterly bankrupt:

[Britain's Prime Minister David] Cameron calls for return to Christian values as King James Bible turns 400

Christianity provides a 'moral code' to counter riots, expense scandals and Islamist extremism, says the prime minister

2011-12-14T13:31:00.000-08:00

Runner up for Time magazine's Person of the Year:

Paul Ryan. Here's what Time has to say about the guy:

Through a combination of hard work, good timing and possibly suicidal guts, the Wisconsin Republican managed to harness his party to a dramatic plan for dealing with America's rapidly rising public debt.

Then there's this:

The supply-sider from Janesville, Wis., tapped into a deep well of anxiety over trillion-dollar deficits at home and the threat of debt-fueled calamity in Europe.

Two points. First, there was no anxiety over European debt when Ryan came out with his plan in early 2011.

Second point is that this line:

The supply-sider from Janesville ...

should read

The economic crank from Janesville ...

because supply-side is simply wrong. It doesn't do what it claims to accomplish.

FYI, it was David Von Drehle who wrote that crappy article

2011-12-14T13:28:00.001-08:00

Press follies:

Remember when the major news outlets were excitedly reporting that holiday sales were up, up, up!

As usual, they uncritically reported numbers from trade associations, like the National Federation of Retailers. Turns out the real figures for November are an increase of 0.2% from the previous year, which is terrible. The previous year, remember, was considered not-too-good because bad weather hampered shopping. This year there was no bad weather.

This is a small example of how the press has abandoned their work of being real reporters instead of parroting whatever a trade group or political party spews.

2011-12-06T10:33:00.000-08:00

Obama reacts defensively to Gingrich's lies:

On November 30, Gingrich falsely claims that people are using food stamp money to go to Hawaii.

Now we read this:

Posted at 06:00 AM ET, 12/06/2011
Obama administration targeting food stamp fraud as program reaches record highs
By Ed O'Keefe

With more Americans relying on the program, the Obama administration on Tuesday plans to announce new steps to crack down on SNAP fraud amid estimates suggesting as much as $753 million in federal food aid is spent fraudulently each year.

Yes, there is fraud that needs to be looked into. But you don't announce a crack-down in the immediate aftermath of a prominent politician spewing nonsense about the program. Why? Because it will validate him.

2011-12-06T08:53:00.000-08:00

Steve Bell's apt description of the state of affairs:

Over at FrumForum:

For three years, Congress and the President have lived in different realms. Obama clearly has little use for his former colleagues in Congress. Indeed, he is making one of his campaign themes opposition to the “do-nothing Congress.” The fact that he doesn’t differentiate between his own party members in Congress and the GOP stalwarts infuriates his fellow Democrats.

Congress believes that Obama makes good speeches, delivers fanciful budgets, and then heads out of town when the rough work becomes necessary.

Both sides are right.

So now, American sees Washington, D.C., divided almost into tribes. Democratic Senators who want to do something, especially something positive that may help them retain control of the Upper Body next November. Democratic House members who just sit back and watch and hope that Republicans will continue to wander around and confront lower and lower approval ratings. Republican House members, split among those who know what a legislature is supposed to do and those who oppose the very notion of a legislature. And, Republican Senators, also split, between those bound by theological opposition to taxes on billionaires and those who would like to at least give an appearance of governing.

It is this kind of tribal behavior, encouraged by the two party’s caucuses in the House and Senate, and the indifference of the President, that now threaten the nation.

It's a mess, for sure. Hard to see how much can get done in these circumstances.

2011-12-05T22:41:00.000-08:00

Washington Post story:

2011-12-05T20:55:00.000-08:00

Fox Business Channel says the new Muppets movie promotes class warfare:

This is not a joke.

The Murdoch press constantly promotes conspiracy theories. This is no surprise since Murdoch's origins are in the extreme down-market tabloid trash, now elevated in prominence since it's on television.

2011-12-01T20:46:00.000-08:00

Too old?

When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he was 69 at the time.
When Bob Dole ran for president in 1996, he was 73 at the time.
When John McCain ran for president in 2008, he was 72 at the time.

In each of those instances, the age of the candidate was a topic for discussion.

If Newt Gingrich becomes the Republican candidate in 1012, he will be 69 on election day. Will be there any talk about about him possibly being too old?

2011-12-01T10:03:00.001-08:00

Rod Dreher likes what George Packer has written in Foreign Affairs:

And excerpts big chunks. On the failure of institutions:

The Iraq war was a kind of stress test applied to the American body politic. And every major system and organ failed the test: the executive and legislative branches, the military, the intelligence world, the for-profits, the nonprofits, the media. It turned out that we were not in good shape at all — without even realizing it. Americans just hadn’t tried anything this hard in around half a century. It is easy, and completely justified, to blame certain individuals for the Iraq tragedy. But over the years, I’ve become more concerned with failures that went beyond individuals, and beyond Iraq — concerned with the growing arteriosclerosis of American institutions. Iraq was not an exceptional case. It was a vivid symptom of a long-term trend, one that worsens year by year. The same ailments that led to the disastrous occupation were on full display in Washington this past summer, during the debt-ceiling debacle: ideological rigidity bordering on fanaticism, an indifference to facts, an inability to think beyond the short term, the dissolution of national interest into partisan advantage.

We can upgrade our iPhones, but we can’t fix our roads and bridges. We invented broadband, but we can’t extend it to 35 percent of the public. We can get 300 television channels on the iPad, but in the past decade 20 newspapers closed down all their foreign bureaus. We have touch-screen voting machines, but last year just 40 percent of registered voters turned out, and our political system is more polarized, more choked with its own bile, than at any time since the Civil War. There is nothing today like the personal destruction of the McCarthy era or the street fights of the 1960s. But in those periods, institutional forces still existed in politics, business, and the media that could hold the center together. It used to be called the establishment, and it no longer exists. Solving fundamental problems with a can-do practicality — the very thing the world used to associate with America, and that redeemed us from our vulgarity and arrogance — now seems beyond our reach.

On our economic trajectory:

What was that arrangement? It is sometimes called “the mixed economy”; the term I prefer is “middle-class democracy.” It was an unwritten social contract among labor, business, and government — between the elites and the masses. It guaranteed that the benefits of the economic growth following World War II were distributed more widely, and with more shared prosperity, than at any time in human history. In the 1970s, corporate executives earned 40 times as much as their lowest-paid employees. (By 2007, the ratio was over 400 to 1.) Labor law and government policy kept the balance of power between workers and owners on an even keel, leading to a virtuous circle of higher wages and more economic stimulus. The tax code restricted the amount of wealth that could be accumulated in private hands and passed on from one generation to the next, thereby preventing the formation of an inherited plutocracy. The regulatory agencies were strong enough to prevent the kind of speculative bubbles that now occur every five years or so: between the Great Depression and the Reagan era there was not a single systemwide financial crisis, which is why recessions during those decades were far milder than they have since become. Commercial banking was a stable, boring business. (In movies from the 1940s and 1950s, bankers are dull, solid pillars of the community.) Investment banking, cordoned off by the iron wall of the Glass-Steagall Act, was a closed world of private partnerships in which rich men carefully weighed their risks because they were playing with their own money. Partly as a result of this shared prosperity, political participation reached an all-time high during the postwar years (with the exception of those, such as black Americans in the South, who were still denied access to the ballot box).

At the same time, the country’s elites were playing a role that today is almost unrecognizable. They actually saw themselves as custodians of national institutions and interests. The heads of banks, corporations, universities, law firms, foundations, and media companies were neither more nor less venal, meretricious, and greedy than their counterparts today. But they rose to the top in a culture that put a brake on these traits and certainly did not glorify them.

... that archetypal 1978 couple with the AMC Pacer was not voting to see its share of the economic pie drastically reduced over the next 30 years. They were not fed up with how little of the national income went to the top one percent or how unfairly progressive the tax code was. They did not want to dismantle government programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which had brought economic security to the middle class. They were not voting to weaken government itself, as long as it defended their interests. But for the next three decades, the dominant political faction pursued these goals as though they were what most Americans wanted. Organized money and the conservative movement seized that moment back in 1978 to begin a massive, generation-long transfer of wealth to the richest Americans. The transfer continued in good economic times and bad, under Democratic presidents and Republican, when Democrats controlled Congress and when Republicans did.

Packer's essay - and Dreher's commentary - include harping about the change in manners and morals (1960's alert!) that isn't convincing. And the establishment in the past wasn't all that wonderful. But as to the broad outline of what's happened in the last 40 years, Packer is pretty much on target.

2011-11-29T20:11:00.000-08:00

American Cyber-Stazi CEO Mark Zuckerberg says:

"I think we have a good history of providing transparency and control over who can see your information."

Who could disagree with that?

Of interest, the settlement with the FTC over deceptive practices regarding privacy of users includes a hefty fine of $16,000 should Facebook violate provision of the deal. That'll keep them honest.

2011-11-28T17:49:00.000-08:00

Thank you Barry Ritholtz:

He has this post over on his blog: No, Black Friday Sales Were Not Up 16% (not even 6%)

Excerpt:

If its the Monday after Black Friday, then its national hype the fabricated data day!

Every year around this time, we get a series of loose reports coincident with Black Friday and the holiday weekend. Each year, they are wildly optimistic. And like clockwork, the media idiotically repeats these trade organizations spin like its gospel. When the data finally comes in, we learn that the early reports were pure hokum, put out by trade groups to create shopping hype. (Yes, the Media ALWAYS screws the pooch big time on this one, with the occasional exception).

Let’s start with this whopper from an utterly breathless press release from the National Retail Federation:
“U.S. retail sales during Thanksgiving weekend climbed 16 percent to a record as shoppers flocked to stores earlier and spent more, according to the National Retail Federation.

Sales totaled $52.4 billion, and the average shopper spent $398.62 during the holiday weekend, up from $365.34 a year earlier, the Washington-based trade group said in a statement today, citing a survey conducted by BIGresearch. More than a third of that — an average of $150.53 — was spent online.”
No, retail sales did not climb 16%. Surveys where people forecast their own future spending are, as we have seen repeatedly in the past, pretty much worthless.

We actually have no idea just yet as to whether, and exactly how much, sales climbed. The data simply is not in yet. The most you can accurately say is according to some foot traffic measurements, more people appeared to be in stores on Black Friday 2011 than in 2010.

There's more, including a jaundiced view of the 6.6% sales increase (that came from ShopperTrak).

I remember not too long ago there was a report from one of these outfits that retail sales were up 46% from the year ago. That was so transparently absurd that the major press didn't run with it.

I was in a discount retail store at 8:00 PM on Saturday, and it was completely empty of shoppers. That may have been an aberration, but my guess is that retail sales are up 3% from 2010 and not stellar, considering we still have 9% unemployment.

2011-11-28T09:05:00.000-08:00

Senator Jon Kyle shows you how it's done:

Check out this exchange from yesterday's Fox News Sunday program:

WALLACE: ... economists say there's a real impact if you don't extend payroll tax cuts and employment insurance. And let's put it up on the screen.

They estimate and again both of these run out January 1st, that failure to extend the payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefits will cut GDP growth 1 percent to 2 percent next year, and cost more than half million jobs.

You say you question the stimulative affect. But according to these economists, there's a real danger if Congress doesn't extend both of those, put the country back into a recession?

KYL: Chris, I don't know who those economists are. I just read a piece by Art Laffer, who is a respected economist, who say that isn't true.

Laffer is the go-to guy if you need a "scholar" to support your peculiar economic policies. (John Lott does that for gun control. Lord Monckton for global warming.)

2011-11-26T17:12:00.000-08:00

Walmart 3, Macy's 1:

If you are keeping score:

A woman who allegedly fired pepper spray at other customers during a Black Friday sale has surrendered to authorities, Los Angeles police said Saturday. Police Sgt. Jose Valle said the woman who allegedly caused minor injuries to 20 shoppers at a Los Angeles-area Walmart turned herself in Friday night. ...

The incident was among those nationwide in which violence marred the traditional kickoff to the holiday shopping season.

In the most serious case, a robber shot a shopper who refused to give up his purchases outside a San Leandro, Calif., Walmart store, leaving the victim hospitalized in critical but stable condition. Police in San Leandro, about 15 miles east of San Francisco, said the victim and his family were walking to their car around 1:45 a.m. Friday when they were confronted by a group of men who demanded their shopping items. When the family refused, a fight broke out, and one of the robbers pulled a gun and shot the man, said Sgt. Mike Sobek.

Meanwhile, police in suburban Phoenix came under fire when a video was posted online showing a 54-year-old grandfather on the floor of a Walmart store with a bloody face, after police said he was subdued Thursday night trying to shoplift during a chaotic rush for discounted video games. ...

In Sacramento, Calif., a man was stabbed outside a mall Friday in an apparent gang-related incident as shoppers were hitting the stores. The victim was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, police said. The stabbing stemmed from a fight between two groups around 3 a.m. in front of a Macy's department store at the Arden Fair Mall.

2011-11-24T00:36:00.000-08:00

CNN's garbage reporting:

This is, unfortunately, standard practice:

That is how CNN reports the fact that Romney's campaign took Obama's quoting a McCain staffer and misleadingly presented it as Obama's view. Obama even said "and I quote". But the network is too timid to call foul. Instead, we get treated to the classic "Democrats say", which implies there is no objective judgement to be rendered. (See also Alex Pareene's commentary at Salon.)

Earlier, on the CBS Early Show, they had Jan Crawford report on the Romney ad. She said this:

"as far as conservtives go it's not so controversial, and Romney's courting that vote, and they think it's pretty brilliant"

There was the admission that Obama's words were taken out of context, but that's considered SOP these days, so what's the fuss?

2012 is looking to be a miserable campaign year.

2011-11-23T01:19:00.000-08:00

Shouldn't be out there:

One of the U.C. Davis policemen who pepper sprayed a passive, non-violent bunch of students was John Pike. He's reported to be 5 feet 10 inches tall, weighing 245 pounds.

That's a Body Mass Index of just over 35, which is Obese Class II (BMI between 35 and 40). Something like 5% of the male population are in that category.

In rare cases, like offensive linemen in football, that kind of BMI means not having the strength and agility to deal with any kind of physical confrontation. And that leads to the casual use of power-substitutes, which is what pepper spray is.

The man should have been behind a desk, not in front of a crowd of protesters. It's as simple as that.

2011-11-23T00:39:00.000-08:00

David Frum has a lot of problems with the present-day Republican party:

Yes, it's David Frum, but he writes a long essay, When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?, with many data points. Over at the New York Magazine. Excerpt:

Conservatives have been driven to these fevered anxieties as much by their own trauma as by external events. In the aughts, Republicans held more power for longer than at any time since the twenties, yet the result was the weakest and least broadly shared economic expansion since World War II, followed by an economic crash and prolonged slump. Along the way, the GOP suffered two severe election defeats in 2006 and 2008. Imagine yourself a rank-and-file Republican in 2009: If you have not lost your job or your home, your savings have been sliced and your children cannot find work. Your retirement prospects have dimmed. Most of all, your neighbors blame you for all that has gone wrong in the country. There’s one thing you know for sure: None of this is your fault! And when the new president fails to deliver rapid recovery, he can be designated the target for everyone’s accumulated disappointment and rage. In the midst of economic wreckage, what relief to thrust all blame upon Barack Obama as the wrecker-in-chief.

The Bush years cannot be repudiated, but the memory of them can be discarded to make way for a new and more radical ideology, assembled from bits of the old GOP platform that were once sublimated by the party elites but now roam the land freely: ultralibertarianism, crank monetary theories, populist fury, and paranoid visions of a Democratic Party controlled by ACORN and the New Black Panthers.

"crank monetary theories" are definitely riding high at the moment.

And this:

Over the past two decades, conservatism has evolved from a political philosophy into a market segment. An industry has grown up to serve that segment—and its stars have become the true thought leaders of the conservative world. The business model of the conservative media is built on two elements: provoking the audience into a fever of indignation (to keep them watching) and fomenting mistrust of all other information sources (so that they never change the channel). As a commercial proposition, this model has worked brilliantly in the Obama era. ....

But the thought leaders on talk radio and Fox do more than shape opinion. Backed by their own wing of the book-publishing industry and supported by think tanks that increasingly function as public-relations agencies, conservatives have built a whole alternative knowledge system, with its own facts, its own history, its own laws of economics. (...)

We used to say “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.” Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information.

2011-11-21T09:02:00.000-08:00

Best argument for the use of pepper spray against passive people:

A commenter to a Sacramento Bee story about the U.C. Davis event writes:

You have to remember the cops are armed and risk someone jumping on their back, being overpowered by a mob and someone getting their gun; now some one is going to get shot. The same folks who are crying foul about excessive force would be much more outraged if one of the scenarios I mentioned played out.

You see, because the police were armed, they had to use excessive force against unarmed people. Makes total sense.

2011-11-21T08:49:00.000-08:00

Occupy success:

In the wake of the incredibly stupid pepper-spraying of U.C. Davis students, E.D.Kain writes:

I’d really started to grow a little cold on Occupy Wall Street lately. Protests only go so far. Tent cities eventually wear out their welcome. At some point you need to get up, get online, start trying to elect people. At some point, you have to also play the game in order to win.

But it’s hard not to be supportive of people exercising their democratic rights, their right to dissent, who end up suffering violence for it.

Totally agree with that.

2011-11-20T01:33:00.001-08:00

Will Rick Perry get back the Tea Party love?

He sure is trying. Some recent statements he made on O'Reilly's show:

“This president’s traveled around the country making excuses for America, apologizing for America, saying that America is not an exemplary country, and then he gets on TV and talks about that Americans are lazy, that they’ve lost their ambition, that they’ve lost their imagination.”

“I think this is a man who really, if he believed that Americans were hardworking, that they were ready to ignite this economy, then we wouldn’t have the tax policy, wouldn’t have the regulatory policies in place that are killing jobs in this country.”

“I think Barack Obama is a socialist.”

Pretty insane stuff. Obama supports a particular tax policy because he thinks American's aren't hardworking. Right.

2011-11-17T15:37:00.000-08:00

Fox News poll:

It's the one where 30% of prospective Republican primary voters said they'd most trust Newt Gingrich with nuclear weapons. Further down the list there was this question (asked of all people):

Let's imagine the Constitution allowed presidents to serve a third term. For whom would you vote if the candidates were: Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton?
Clinton 58%
Bush 34%
(Don’t know) 3%
(Would not vote) 5%

Here is the breakdown:

2011-11-17T07:58:00.000-08:00

So much for Republicans' fidelity to states' rights:

House passes bill allowing those with concealed weapons permits to cross state lines

WASHINGTON — A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.

The first pro-gun bill the House has taken up this year and the first since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was severely injured in a gun attack in January, it had the National Rifle Association’s backing and passed by a comfortable margin. The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it. ...

Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons. While states have various standards for issuing such permits, currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons.

In related Christian news:

Liberty University OKs concealed guns on campus

Liberty University enacted a policy allowing visitors, students and staff who have concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus.

The policy, approved Friday by the Board of Trustees and announced to students Wednesday, replaces a complete ban of firearms on university grounds. ...

Liberty now has the most lenient firearms policy among local colleges and universities. Lynchburg College, Randolph College and Central Virginia Community College do not permit anyone except law enforcement to carry firearms.

2011-11-14T15:50:00.000-08:00

Occupy Fail:

It brought the issue of economic misery back into the spotlight, but missed out on an opportunity to generate results. The Occupy movement should have had leadership that would (a) set goals, (b) be good spokespeople for those goals, (c) discipline those elements that threaten the movement's public image.

The goals needn't be specific policy items, like restricting drilling in the Gulf (although Matt Taibbi has a list of five to start with). The problem with our politics today are the result of us having a non-representative government (both R & D). To fix that, you have to get out and vote. The lesson of 2010 is that with a 30% falloff in voting, you get nutcases like Allen West into the House of Representatives.

Recently Matt Taibbi wrote of the Occupy movement:n (emp add)

... there were scads of progressive pundits like me who wrung our hands with worry that OWS was playing right into the hands of assholes like Krauthammer. Don't give them any ammunition! we counseled. Stay on message! Be specific! ...

... OWS is tired of all of this. They don't care what we think they're about, or should be about. They just want something different.

People don't know exactly what they want, but as one friend of mine put it, they know one thing: FUCK THIS SHIT! We want something different: a different life, with different values, or at least a chance at different values.

People want to go someplace for at least five minutes where no one is trying to bleed you or sell you something. It may not be a real model for anything, but it's at least a place where people are free to dream of some other way for human beings to get along, beyond auctioned "democracy," tyrannical commerce and the bottom line.

People want out of this fiendish system, rigged to inexorably circumvent every hope we have for a more balanced world. They want major changes. I think I understand now that this is what the Occupy movement is all about. It's about dropping out, if only for a moment, and trying something new, the same way that the civil rights movement of the 1960s strived to create a "beloved community" free of racial segregation. Eventually the Occupy movement will need to be specific about how it wants to change the world. But for right now, it just needs to grow. And if it wants to sleep on the streets for a while and not structure itself into a traditional campaign of grassroots organizing, it should. It doesn't need to tell the world what it wants. It is succeeding, for now, just by being something different.

That is not a formula for success in implementing change. You have to engage the governing elements, and the way to do that is to elect people who represent your interests. But we're not hearing anything like that now. Instead, it's getting darker and more chaotic:

On the eve of destruction - Before cops broke up Occupy Oakland, the debate over nonviolence was already unraveling the movement (Salon)

The uncertain future of Occupy Wall Street - Organizers debate how to focus their energies (Salon)

Occupy’s Asshole Problem: Flashbacks from An Old Hippie (Nicole Sandler)

The Occupy movement is drifting towards a resigned fatalism, much like the stoicism that kept the peasants from rising for almost 2,000 years. That is something we do not need, but Occupy is taking us there.

2011-11-12T18:49:00.000-08:00

Finally!

This is the signal we've all been waiting for:

Cain says God persuaded him to run for president

ATLANTA (AP) — Republican Herman Cain said God convinced him to enter the race for president, comparing himself to Moses: "'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

The Georgia business executive played up his faith Saturday after battling sexual harassment allegations for two weeks, trying to shift the conversation to religion, an issue vital to conservative Republicans, especially in the South.

In a speech Saturday to a national meeting of young Republicans, Cain said the Lord persuaded him after much prayer.

"That's when I prayed and prayed and prayed. I'm a man of faith — I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I've ever done before in my life," Cain said. "And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. 'You've got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'"

Once he made the decision, Cain said, he did not look back.

Four women have now accused Cain of sexually harassing them when he ... [etc]

Odd that Cain only waited until today to tell us this explosive news.

2011-11-10T09:36:00.000-08:00

Murdoch Mafia update:

James Murdoch went before Parliament today. Here is a primer from New York magazine.

The BBC reports.

Lowlights:

The Sun newspaper may be shut down if a new allegation of hacking is true.
Admitted to spying on lawyers representing hacking victims (and one lawyer's 17 year old daughter).
Mr Murdoch also said revelations that his company had used a private detective to spy on lawyers acting for phone hacking victims in 2010 was "appalling" and "unacceptable" and apologised to committee member Mr Watson, who had also been put under surveillance in the past.
Claimed not to know about various goings-on at the paper. (New York magazine)

2011-11-09T20:38:00.001-08:00

Perry in the GOP debate on Wednesday:

Reaganesque. Relaxed, avuncular, and forgetful.

2011-11-09T07:55:00.000-08:00

Look what this guy is doing now:

Via Atrios, we learn that the right wing is in a tizzy over a Christmas tree tax. The story is being promoted by Drudge and the Fox Nation. Other bloggers are chiming in.

The story originated from the Heritage Foundation in a post written by David S. Addington. (Where it has picked up over 1,000 comments from outraged conservatives.)

Does that name sound familiar? It should. David Addington was chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney. Addington was described by U.S. News & World Report as "the most powerful man you've never heard of".

He was one of the biggest supporters of unbridled executive power:

Addington has consistently advocated that under the Constitution, the President has substantial and expansive powers as commander-in-chief during wartime, if need be. He is the legal force behind over 750 signing statements that President George W. Bush issued when signing bills passed by Congress, expanding the practice relative to other Presidents.

And there are various clams that Addington was a major force behind the authorization of torture.

Now he's blogging about Christmas trees.

2011-11-09T07:48:00.000-08:00

Keeping an eye on the Murdoch empire:

Why there hasn't been more coverage of these stories is a mystery: (emp add)

A private investigator was hired by the now-shuttered News of the World tabloid to perform surveillance on two lawyers representing victims of the Murdoch company phone-hacking scandal. As if that's not grimy enough, the ex-cop investigator says he's snitching now because News International didn't pay him. Derek Webb claims he was hired to follow Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, along with Lewis's ex-wife and teenage daughter, to uncover information that might stop them from taking on more phone-hacking cases.

"To follow my teenage daughter, my youngest daughter and video her is nothing short of sick," said Lewis. "On another level looking at me, that's not how you litigate, you play the ball you don't play the man … this is Mafia-like."

A spokesperson for the media company said, "News International's enquiries have led the company to believe that Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris were subject to surveillance. While surveillance is not illegal, it was clearly deeply inappropriate in these circumstances. This action was not condoned by any current executive at the company."

The spying is said to have occurred within the last year and a half, while James Murdoch was executive chairman. Murdoch is due in front of Parliament to discuss the phone-hacking matter on Thursday. The questions continue to mount.

2011-11-04T09:06:00.000-07:00

One of the better Fox Nation headlines:

Pelosi Accused of Plastic Surgery

2011-11-02T15:50:00.000-07:00

This doesn't make any sense:

From the NYTimes: (emp add)

Mr. Bowles, speaking for himself and Mr. Simpson, outlined a package that he said could reduce deficits by $2.6 trillion over 10 years. The package includes $800 billion of new revenue, $300 billion in savings from annual appropriations known as discretionary spending, $600 billion from health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, $300 billion from other entitlement programs and [savings of] $200 billion from use of a less generous formula to calculate cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other benefits.

Social Security is not part of the federal budget. It is not going to go into the red in the next 10 years. What's it doing in this package from Simpson and Bowles?

2011-11-01T12:42:00.000-07:00

David Brooks wants you to focus on something else:

From his column:

The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.

He prefaces that with his own analysis which asserts that there are two types of inequality: big city Blue Inequality and small town Red Inequality. Of course, no numbers are provided in this analysis (except for a lonesome pair that do not make his case).

Dean Baker gets snarky: (emp add)

This is where Brooks lack of access to data is so important. The wage gap between college grads and non-college grads is really a 90s story and even more an 80s story. In the last decade, workers with only a college degree (i.e. no professional or advanced degree) did not share in the benefits of economic growth. The ratio of the wages of those with just college degrees to those without college degrees has not risen much since the early 90s.

Wages of non-college educated workers did suffer badly in the 80s due to policies such as the over-valuation of the dollar that made many U.S. manufactured goods uncompetitive internationally, the deliberate increase in unemployment during the Volcker years which threw millions of non-college educated workers out of work, and anti-union measures (e.g. the firing of the PATCO strikers and an anti-union National Labor Relations Board). However since the 90s, the wages of workers with high school degrees have not departed much from the wages of workers with just college degrees, the vast majority of the economy's gains have gone to the top 1 percent. It is too bad that David Brooks apparently does not have access to this data.

Brooks is becoming more and more transparently a hack. In his column, he tries to re-slice the pie from 1%/99% to a 30%/60% division by lumping college graduates in with the ultra rich. Nice try.

This comment at Baker's blog is apt:

... again and again in his twice-weekly NYT column, Brooks tosses together a pseudo-sociological mishmash straight from Applebee's non-existent salad bar in an attempt to coin phrases that somehow justify conservative selfishness and shortsightness. Thus "Bobos" of the corporate upper class are highly tolerant of others, "cluster liberals" favor maximum unity, "network liberals" favor coalitions, "creedal conservatives" favor transcendent order, and "dispositional conservatives"are Burkean, tempermental types who prize epistomological modesty. Today (gasp), he provides us with two different kinds of inequality: "blue inequality" between the top 1 per cent and the rest in certain big cities, and "red inequality" between those with and without college degrees in certain smaller cities.

And another:

Brooks supports all this Republican regressiveness. His job is to distract with data free false equivalence arguments that sometimes appear "reasonable" to someone who hasn't checked the facts.

CURIOUS POINT: If Brooks wants to go there - the change in inequality during the 1980's - will he denounce Ronald Reagan for enabling that shift? You know the answer to that.

2011-10-31T06:48:00.001-07:00

Crooked Timber on neo-liberalism:

An interesting post:

This comment by Yglesias is on target: “the TNR staff editorial on the subject [of OWS] feels distinctly like an op-ed penned eleven years ago about anti-globalization protestors, put on ice, and then re-animated with a hasty rewrite that fails to consider the actual political and economic circumstances.”

The staff editorial itself is not so important. What’s important is that, once upon a time, there were debates about trade ‘liberalization’ – globalization – that used to divide neoliberals and liberals and progressives. Basically, the neoliberals were gung-ho for trade on the grounds that the alternative was protectionism that amounted to shooting your own foot, and didn’t do any good for the poor in the Third World. And the progressives saw jobs being outsourced, labor unions weakening. Liberals were those caught in the squishy middle, per usual. ...

[Yglesias] considers himself a neoliberal and sees, correctly, I think, that anyone committed to that market-oriented outlook is more or less committed to sympathy for the core grievances expressed by the OWS protesters. Neoliberalism was always in favor of markets as means, not ends. Neoliberalism was never – or was never supposed to be – the view that being in favor of trade liberalizaton means market fundamentalism in everything. Neoliberalism says market liberalization should go hand in hand with progressive taxation and appropriate regulation so the pains that buy the gains are mitigated and borne equitably. Spread the gain, to spread the pain. If liberalization means making the 1% richer and everyone else poorer, you shouldn’t take the deal. Only (some) conservatives and (some) libertarians should be willing to take that deal. ...

About:

"Neoliberalism says market liberalization should go hand in hand with progressive taxation and appropriate regulation so the pains that buy the gains are mitigated and borne equitably."

That never happened. Instead, we got globalization and no relief. This is something neo-liberals still fail to comprehend. What they did do, is orient towards "pity charity" as Freddie deBoer points out: (emp add)

There’s a troubling form of liberalism that is increasingly found in the wonky, think-tank-and-establishment-media blogosphere that is so influential these days. I’ve called it, in the past, globalize/grow/give progressivism. Mike Konczal of Rortybomb has referred to it as pity charity liberalism. ... Whatever you want to call it, this vision of the liberal project defines itself through the social safety net. Its orientation is towards expanding and protecting a redistributive social welfare system. Meanwhile, it is at best uninterested in (and often downright hostile towards) worker organization, unions, regulation, and other attempts to empower workers in relation to capital and poor people in relation to the rich. The idea is that, if you get the economy going well enough, you can redistribute enough money to the poor that they’ll be alright, even while you’ve undermined their ability to collectively bargain, raise the value of their labor, and exercise power. ...

The first problem with pity charity liberalism is that the people advocating it tend to be far more optimistic about getting the social welfare state they want than they should be. I’ve been using the example of health care reform: a decent health care system has to be a part of a minimally fair social welfare system. We had a president with a serious mandate who campaigned explicitly on health care reform, majorities in both houses of congress, a uniquely favorable political moment, and an objective that broad majorities of Americans have supported for years. We just barely got a compromised bill through, and it is under perpetual legal and political threat. If those are the conditions that we’re going to have to defend the welfare state under, I don’t see how anyone can be confident in purely redistributive liberalism.

Contrast that with the history of the American labor movement. Check the record: on every issue of worker rights and protections, workers went first. They didn’t ask politicians to give them safer conditions, cleaner conditions, higher wages, shorter hours, more bargaining power, and a better system to redress their grievances. They demanded those things from the bosses, and they did so with the threat of shutting the whole operation down. Only after they had won those things did they eventually become codified in law. (It’s for this reason that May Day—a joke here, I’m afraid, but celebrated passionately in much of Europe and South America—is specifically a celebration of Haymarket square and American unions.) If we’ve lost those gains since, it’s been because of a very well-funded, coordinated and consistent effort by people in power to undermine unions and refuse to enforce existing labor law.

Even if you could guarantee a certain minimal welfare state, the idea of poor and working people depending on the largesse of the rich and powerful is obscene. Sometimes, people have to live under the charity of others. But nobody wants to in perpetuity, because they then are not in control of their own lives, and because having to do so leaves many feeling robbed of personal dignity. As long as economic security is a gift of those at the top, it can be taken away. And if the last several decades have shown us anything, it’s that for the richest, what they already have will never be enough. No matter how income inequality spirals out of control, no matter how absurd the gap between those on top and everybody else grows, they’ll look to take more. And the more that you make the people on the bottom dependent on charity, the less they’re able to protect their own interests.

Kevin Drum has thoughts along those lines:

The problem is that a system that generates enormous income inequality also generates enormous power inequality — and if corporations and the rich are allowed to amass huge amounts of economic power, they'll always use that power to keep their own tax rates low. It's nearly impossible to create a high-tax/high-service state if your starting point is a near oligarchy where the rich control the levers of political power.

Which is pretty much where we are today.

2011-10-26T17:57:00.000-07:00

Who agrees with this sentiment?

From Think Progress:

Bachmann: Uninsured Americans Can Rely On ‘Charitable Organizations’ For Health Care

“We will always have people in this country through hardship, through no fault of their own, who won’t be able to afford health care,” Bachmann said. “That’s just the way it is. But usually what we have are charitable organizations or hospitals who have enough left over so that they can pick up the cost for the indigent who can’t afford it.

“But what we have to do is be a profitable nation that’s growing, so that we can pay for those people who can’t afford it through no fault of their own. Once ‘Obamacare’ is gone, this is what we have to do.“

That sentiment was echoed on NBC's Nightly News this Monday with this:

Boy, 7, raises money for cancer racing go-karts (Bing video)

Seven-year-old Timmy “Mini” Tyrrell learned his friend had cancer, and he decided he could help raise money by racing go-karts. Timmy calls it “Mini’s Mission,” and so far he’s raised $7,000 and counting. NBC’s Anne Thompson has the story.

The day before, CBS ended its evening news with a story about how a single mom was in economic trouble (unemployed, etc.) and how a lady befriended her and helped her out.

There could have been stories about how government aid agencies - and the staff - help people. Instead, we are shown problems being solved by private effort. Both take place, of course, but the bias in reporting is to the "feel good" maudlin story that excludes government programs that we have established and paid for.

2011-10-23T13:15:00.000-07:00

Matthew Yglesias cannot remember what he's read:

Popular blogger Yglesias has a post about labor's declining share of national income. He starts out with:

Peter Orszag has a column about the declining labor share of national income that concludes by saying that “We are effectively missing $500 billion a year in wages, and no one has a credible set of ideas that would bring it back.” ...

And then goes on to argue with another blogger about arcane issues about volatility of the statistics.

But Yglesias really should pay attention to what Orszag wrote. This, for example: (emp add)

The two primary drivers are globalization and technological change. From 1980 to 2005, as the world became more integrated, the effective labor supply available on a global basis expanded by 100 percent to 300 percent (depending on how the estimates are done). That increased competition has pushed labor compensation down in the industrialized economies. ...

In a 2007 paper for the International Monetary Fund, Florence Jaumotte and Irina Tytell tried to parse the various causes of the declining labor share. In the U.S., the U.K., Australia and Canada, the economists concluded, labor globalization and technological change played roughly equal roles, and crucial ones at that. In European countries and Japan, technological change was more significant than labor globalization. Other factors --including unions and privatization trends -- have been found to be influential, but labor globalization and technological change loom as the dominant forces.

There is something you can do about globalization. De-globalize, by enacting protectionist legislation.

It's simple, has worked before (U.S. in the nineteenth century). But the elites don't like it because they actually prefer to have labor compete against one another.

2011-10-22T19:43:00.000-07:00

The Fox Nation audience:

Here's the headline and story featured at the top of their page:

The website has recently added to the end of each stiry a poll of what readers thought. Here are the results:

Two-thirds have a positive reaction. Even though the vote total isn't particularly large (36), it is representative of the attitude of this crows as any frequent visitor to Fox Nation can attest.

That's part of our politics today. There is a real desire to hurt - really hurt - those in distress or showing concern for same.

2011-10-17T08:06:00.000-07:00

What Occupy Wall Street is doing:

They have no agenda - at least nothing directly targeting legislation pending or proposed. They have no leadership. They are not supporting or challenging particular politicians.

That could change, of course.

So what's Occupy Wall Street all about?

What it, and the other occupy events throughout the country, is doing is filling in a gap. For the last two years the press has largely ignored both the un/underemployed and those with jobs but under siege (foreclosures, health care expenses, college tuition, loans, etc.)

During past downturns, there would be a steady drumbeat of stories about those impacted. There was some of that in late 2008 and early 2009, but not much thereafter. Yet the economy hasn't done a whole lot of recovering, and so there are a lot of people feeling economic pain but feeling invisible.

Occupy Wall Street is something that they hope will change that.

2011-10-13T19:05:00.000-07:00

A bit more about those free trade agreements:

CBS Evening News did a good job of explaining why it is a good thing. Presented to the viewer were cases where exports would grow. A firm that lost to Germany a contract for $100,000 and would have meant three jobs. Increased beef exports. And drilling machinery to Columbia. Those were the examples. To counter, they had Richard Trumka of the AFL/CIO who said he didn't like it and that he disagreed with Obama on the policy.

The vote triggered an essay at Salon by Andrew Leonard. Excerpts: (emp add)

After five years of squabbling, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives finally passed free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama on Wednesday. The Hill described the news as a “win” for President Obama. At first glance, the terminology seems a bit odd. The free trade agreements were originally negotiated by President George Bush, have been a high priority for Republicans ever since, and are considered extremely suspect by many Democrats ...

What’s more, in 2008, Obama campaigned in Ohio and Michigan against free trade agreements like NAFTA, for blatantly political reasons. But now it’s a victory for him to get the biggest free trade deal since NAFTA — the South Korean FTA — through Congress? ...

Whatever one thinks of Korea’s regulatory environment, the deal cut by Obama’s negotiators assuaged the U.S. auto industry’s concerns about the FTA, thus explaining the support from Michigan Democrats. But whether the changes will boost car imports significantly is still highly open to question. A study conducted by U.S. International Trade Council concluded that Korea’s carmakers would end up benefiting more from the deal in the long run than Detroit’s Big 3. ...

... anyone who has ever been to South Korea — or any other East Asian nation — understands immediately that, engine tax or no engine tax, big American cars just don’t make sense in crowded Asian cities where the cost of a gallon of gas is several dollars higher than in the U.S. And there is nothing that a free trade agreement can do to change that basic truth.

So there’s your big win for Obama: a legislative victory that upsets big swaths of his own party, won’t materially improve the fortunes of the domestic auto industry, and is unlikely to make a significant difference in states that are critical to his election.

Of course this will be a loser for those in the bottom half of society, since they will be pitted against even more low-wage workers overseas. Interesting that CBS chose only to present businesses that would gain (including cattle ranchers!) and not any that would lose.

2011-10-12T21:37:00.000-07:00

Evidence of who your politicians work for:

Congress on Wednesday approved three long-stalled free-trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

It sure isn't you.

Of interest, ABC World News had a segment on yesterday called "Made in America" where home builders were shown a list of domestic suppliers (e.g. for nails) and many saying that they'd consider it and also that buying locally made products keeps jobs here. In addition, there have been several reports our recently pointing out that the lower half of American workers have taken it on the chin due to 30 years of globalization, which caused their jobs to disappear or their wages to stagnate.

And in the face of that, Congress is continuing to pursue policies that will not help labor, but will help international businesses.

2011-10-12T15:00:00.000-07:00

Republicans say the sorry economy is all the government's fault:

Last night during the Republican debate, Gingrich had this to say:

... the first person to fire is Bernanke, who is a disastrous chairman of the Federal Reserve ...

... let's be clear who put the fix in: The fix was put in by the federal government.

I'm going to say one last thing. I want to repeat this. Bernanke has in secret spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out one group and not bailing out another group. I don't see anybody in the news media demanding the kind of transparency at the Fed that you would demand of every other aspect of the federal government. And I think it is corrupt and it is wrong for one man to have that kind of secret power.

Limbaugh had these post-debate observations:

We are living in a destroyed economy for very learnable reasons -- very discernible reasons, inarguable reasons. It has been years since the evidence was procured. ... Everybody in that town knows what happened. Everybody in that town, including Karen Tumulty, knows what went on. They know it was Fannie and Freddie and they know it was the federal government imposing these rules on the lenders. They know it, and what infuriates me is that they continue with the lie.

And Hannity constantly references the Community Redevelopment Act.

So there you have it. It was the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, and the Community Redevelopment Act that caused the recession. Not the banks.

That will be the message in 2012 (although Romney probably will hedge)

2011-10-08T18:55:00.001-07:00

That Bank of America $5 a month fee for debit card use that's pissing off everybody:

Why didn't they price it at $3 a month?

People probably would have been okay with that.

2011-10-06T21:46:00.000-07:00

Steve Jobs passing may be as good a date as any to mark ...

the end of the American Century.

Not to get into Apple fanboi stuff, but Jobs life and tenure parallels what may be the last gasp of economic satisfaction and superiority by the United States. First of all, Jobs grew up at a time when the states (especially California) were supportive of higher education. That brought forth the talent that, in Silicon Valley, got the computer revolution started. And then Jobs was part of the drive (by many others as well) that brought us much of the look and feel of so many electronic products that, for a while, were largely the province of American companies.

But that competitive advantage now appears to be over. Students have to pay much of the freight for a college education, a condition that is never good for a nation. The subsequent jobs risk going away to other parts of the world, which makes one wonder why bother with it at all. The rest of the world is catching up and is very hungry, and with unregulated globalization the competitive forces will be ferocious.

So maybe we can mark October 5, 2011 as an arbitrary - but reasonable - point in time when a distinctive American era ended.

2011-10-06T16:26:00.000-07:00

Arnold King posess the right question for our times:

Over at the libertarianish Library of Economics and Liberty, he asks:

Where are the Servants?

In an economy where some folks are very rich and many folks are unemployed, why are there not more personal servants? Why don't Sergey Brin and Bill Gates have hundreds of people on personal retainer?

I pose this question as a way to think about labor markets and macroeconomics. Some possible answers:

1. It's a supply problem. Nobody wants to be a personal servant. They think that their human capital will depreciate less if they remain unemployed.

2. It's a demand problem. The marginal product of personal servants is very, very low. As Don Boudreaux points out, the impersonal servant of the market delivers us much higher quality goods and services than kings were able to obtain from all of their personal servants.

3. It's a recalculation problem. Gates and Brin cannot figure out what they would do with hundreds of personal retainers. They cannot even find a personal retainer who can figure out what they would do with hundreds of personal retainers.

So why haven't personal servants replaced blue collar manufacturing jobs killed by cheap imports and white collar jobs lost to outsourcing? Clearly, when the economy tanks, people will do most anything for a dollar (pace item 1) and be cheap enough so that the marginal value will be positive (pace item 2).

Which really means that it's a problem of imagination. If it's true that "Gates and Brin cannot figure out what they would do with hundreds of personal retainers" then those billionaires need help! What can we suggest for this duo - and their equally rich friends - do with hundreds of personal retainers? And why limit it to hundreds? Didn't the pharaoh have thousands of people toiling away? How about a Giza-sized pyramid for each billionaire? That would get this economy humming again. Let's do it!

It has the additional benefit of reestablishing clear class distinctions which we have sadly abandoned for about a century. A few extremely rich people. Lots of servants. No middle class. Paradise.

2011-10-05T08:47:00.000-07:00

Brother, can you spare $180/year ?

Story:

U.S. banking giant Citigroup Inc. said this week it would charge $15 per month for checking account holders who kept a balance below $6,000.

The firm's move comes on the heels of Bank of America's announcement this week that it would charge $5 for most debit card holders and sparked at least one desertion, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.

Cheryl Holt of Burbank, Calif., said she was "on my way out the door right now … off to start a new account at my nearest credit union."

"Should have done it years before," she added.

Holt said she received a letter with an "absurd salutation," that said, "Customers like you have told us that what they want from their banks are simple options and great rewards. We heard you and are writing to let you know that we are making some changes to your EZ Checking Package."

That said, the bank dropped the $180 per year bomb.

This has got to have political repercussions.

2011-10-02T22:38:00.000-07:00

New York Times review of ABC's Pan Am:

excerpt:

... “Pan Am” romanticizes the past, whereas “Mad Men,” on AMC, takes pleasure in slyly mocking antiquated mores ...

“Pan Am” takes place in New York, Paris and London, and practically every scene is shot in lush, golden light. The series is a paean to a more prosperous and confident era; even an airline terminal looks like a movie dream sequence about 1960s heaven. [It really does.]

If only for the costumes and ’60s music, “Pan Am” is amusing to see at least once, but if it has any instructive benefit at all, it’s as a mood indicator for these times, not those. There have been plenty of series set in earlier times — “That ’70s Show” was set in the Carter administration, “M*A*S*H” took place during the Korean War. But usually period shows pick through the past to meditate on the present, whether it’s examining generational rites of passage or critiquing the Vietnam War at a safe remove.

“Pan Am” doesn’t say much of anything about the current state of the nation except that our best days are behind us.

Expect that to be a recurring theme this decade (and beyond?).

Opening music on the pilot episode.

2011-10-02T19:14:00.000-07:00

Tom Friedman says not to worry:

From his Sunday op-ed:

... world is now a challenge to white-collar workers. They have to compete with a bigger pool of cheap geniuses ...

It is also both a huge challenge and opportunity. It has never been harder to find a job and never been easier — for those prepared for this world — to invent a job or find a customer. ...

What is out and what is in anymore?”

Matt Barrie, is the founder of freelancer.com, which today lists 2.8 million freelancers offering every service you can imagine. “The whole world is connecting up now at an incredibly rapid pace,” says Barrie, and many of these people are coming to freelancer.com to offer their talents. Barrie says he describes this rising global army of freelancers the way he describes his own team: “They all have Ph.D.’s. They are poor, hungry and driven: P.H.D.”

Barrie offered me a few examples on his site right now: Someone is looking for a designer to design “a fully functioning dune buggy.” Forty people are now bidding on the job at an average price of $268.

There's your glorious future, according to Tom Friedman. Global non-pooled labor bidding against itself for tiny wages and no healthcare (at least in the U.S.) or retirement security.

2011-10-02T06:59:00.000-07:00

Taking David Mamet on:

Scott Galupo of The American Conservative does a good job.

Some conversions in political philosophy are understandable, but others, like Mamet's, are inscrutable. What caused him to make the switch? Not mentioned in the article is that Mamet's conservative rabbi gave him a bunch of books - by conservative hacks - and that material appears to have gotten the playwright to chance his views.

2011-09-28T12:02:00.000-07:00

Christian Apocalypticism and Politics:

Excerpts from the NYTimes article, Why the Antichrist Matters in Politics by Matthew Avery Sutton

While conservatives are in the driver's seat these days, there was a significant Christian progressive movement at the beginning of the twentieth century, but it seems to have faded away. It's puzzling why that happened, although it may be related to the decline of mainline churches (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Lutheran).

2011-09-26T18:27:00.000-07:00

Shoes:

Barack Obama in Spartanburg, S.C. on November 3, 2007:

"Understand this. If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I'll walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States because Americans deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

Barack Obama to the Congressional Black Caucus on September 24, 2011:

"I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying."

2011-09-26T06:07:00.000-07:00

How they do it at the Weekly Standard:

They have a story taking the Obama administration to task, and excerpt an MSNBC article:

Obama Administration Set to Ban Asthma Inhalers Over Environmental Concerns
3:00 PM, Sep 23, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

Remember how Obama recently waived new ozone regulations at the EPA because they were too costly? Well, it seems that the Obama administration would rather make people with Asthma cough up money than let them make a surely inconsequential contribution to depleting the ozone layer:
Asthma patients who rely on over-the-counter inhalers will need to switch to prescription-only alternatives as part of the federal government's latest attempt to protect the Earth's atmosphere.

The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday patients who use the epinephrine inhalers to treat mild asthma will need to switch by Dec. 31 to other types that do not contain chlorofluorocarbons, an aerosol substance once found in a variety of spray products.

The action is part of an agreement signed by the U.S. and other nations to stop using substances that deplete the ozone layer, a region in the atmosphere that helps block harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun.

But the switch to a greener inhaler will cost consumers more. Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.
The Atlantic's Megan McArdle ...

Here is the next sentence in the MSNBC article: (emp add)

The FDA finalized plans to phase out the products in 2008 and currently only Armstrong Pharmaceutical's Primatene mist is available in the U.S.

This phase out was initiated by the Bush administration, a point the Standard hides from its readers. Typical.

2011-09-24T12:33:00.000-07:00

Burying the lede:

Politico reports: (emp add)

Christie back in spotlight as Perry sags

With the party’s frontrunner sagging, Chris Christie is reconsidering pleas from Republican elites and donors to run for president in 2012, two Republican sources told POLITICO.

The New Jersey governor has indicated he is listening to big-money backers and Republican influence-makers, and will let them know in roughly a week whether he has moved off his threat-of-suicide vow to stay on the sidelines of a presidential race that remains amorphous heading into the fall, the two sources said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s candidacy has failed to clear a basic bar with elites and some donors, and his shoddy debate performance in Orlando has only highlighted the window for someone who Republicans searching for a Mitt Romney alternative can rally around.

Christie’s potential candidacy has been an increasingly fevered fantasy of a certain cadre of some media and business elites — mostly based in New York, with a smattering of California technology and entertainment players — since last summer. That’s when he showed up at a Sun Valley conference hosted by the investment banker Allen and Co. and wowed the crowd, including Rupert Murdoch, with what many in attendance described as a nimble mind and a speaking style that was both articulate and blunt-spoken.

... the conservative elite buzz over a potential Christie candidacy has kicked into overdrive in the past few weeks, including on the pages of the Weekly Standard and Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch controls the Republican party with Fox News which, in addition to its daily propaganda to the faithful, is largely responsible for the Republican Tea Party contingent being what it is today, not to mention the fact that most of the presidential candidates were on the network's payroll.

Earlier this year Christie met with Murdoch's deputy, Rodger Ailes (and Limbaugh!) to talk about the governor's future. That is not the action of a neutral news organization.

Some time ago David Frum said that the Republicans work for Fox News. It would be more appropriate to say that Republicans work for Murdoch, owner of the lawbreaking News of the World, and of News America - the firm that got into legal hot water and paid a competitor half a billion dollars to settle the litigation (nytimes link). About that latter item:

In a statement, the News Corporation’s president and chief operating officer, Chase Carey, said: “It has become evident to our legal advisers from pretrial proceedings over the past couple of weeks that significant risks were developing in presenting this case to a jury. That, coupled with concerns over the venue, led us to believe it was in the best interests of the company and its stockholders to agree to a settlement.”

But wait! There's more:

In a separate case that was settled last year, News America was accused by another competitor, Floorgraphics, of corporate spying. Just as witnesses began testifying in a federal case in New Jersey, News Corporation settled the lawsuit and then days later bought the company outright for an undisclosed sum.

That case centered on the testimony of a former News America Marketing executive who became a whistle-blower. In a court filing, Floorgraphics said that News America had “illegally accessed plaintiff’s computer system and obtained proprietary information from the computer system” and “disseminated false, misleading and malicious information about the plaintiff.”

That's who is running the show with one of the two major political parties in the United States. Don't ever forget it.

2011-09-21T08:45:00.000-07:00

Shocked!

David Frum is: (orig emp)

I’m not shocked by much any more, but I am shocked by this: the leaders of one of the great parties in Congress calling on the Federal Reserve to tighten money in the throes of the most prolonged downturn since the Great Depression.

One line in the letter caught my eye as summing up the unreality of the Republican leaders’ position:
We have serious concerns that further intervention by the Federal Reserve could exacerbate current problems or further harm the U.S. economy. Such steps may erode the already weakened U.S. dollar or promote more borrowing by overleveraged consumers.
Are they serious? We are living through the most rapid deleveraging of the American consumer since the 1http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif930s. Much of that deleveraging is occurring tragically, through the process of bankruptcy and foreclosure. Some is happening more happily, through the increase in the savings rate from the 0 of the housing boom to about 6% now.

Even if consumers wanted to borrow, credit is just not very available to the typical person right now. Some credit, for example on credit cards, is not cheap. In fact, the average APR on credit cards is scraping a record peak: 14.96%. ...

The markets see deflation and depression, not inflation. Yet ironically this non-existent and much dreaded inflation is exactly the remedy we need to lighten the load of consumer debt.

As is, we’re looking at a continued economic slump, more unemployment, and more deleveraging via continuing catastrophic consumer default on mortgages, car loans, credit cards, and student aid. And now the GOP leadership is urging that the Federal Reserve make the catastrophe worse? To what end?

I know what the detractors will say: to the end of defeating President Obama and replacing him with a Republican president. And if you’ve convinced yourself that Obama is the Second Coming of Malcolm X, Trotsky, and the all-conquering Caliph Omar all in one, then perhaps capsizing the US economy and plunging your fellow-citizens deeper into misery will seem a price worth paying to rid the country of him.

A letter from the Republican leadership of both chambers telling the Fed not to intervene in the economy is the clearest sign that they want to tank the economy for political reasons. Unfortunately, that story will not be told by the press, which is scared of taking a stand.

IN OTHER NEWS: Pat Boone: Obama Birth Certificate a 'Fraud’

Photoshopped, according to Pat.

This country is headed in the right direction, wouldn't you agree?.

2011-09-18T04:49:00.000-07:00

An idea so crazy, it just might work:

Politico reports: (Sep 14)

On jobs bill, White House bets on Boehner's support

President Barack Obama needs House Speaker John Boehner’s help to muscle a jobs bill through Congress, but he’s betting that Boehner needs the win just as badly.

The White House strategy rests on the risky assumption that Obama can sell Boehner on a new political reality: With voters desperate for jobs, neither leader can afford to do nothing.

... the administration’s belief is fueling the White House game plan on jobs, an all-out effort by Obama, Cabinet officials and the Democratic campaign committees to push Republicans into an untenable political position that forces them to act on more than just minor elements of the president’s plan.

The White House expects the Republican rank and file to fight the president’s plan, but it predicts that Boehner will eventually realize that his party would benefit from a bipartisan deal just as much as Democrats.

Or maybe it's just crazy. Boehner might go for some very small packages to avoid the charge of total obstruction, but there is no way he's going to go big on a bipartisan jobs bill.

2011-09-14T07:29:00.000-07:00

Changing the way the Electoral College works:

In the news:

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. ...

[Currently] Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top Republicans in both houses of the state's legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. ...

Under the Republican plan, if the GOP presidential nominee carries the GOP-leaning districts but Obama carries the state, the GOP nominee would get 12 electoral votes out of Pennsylvania, but Obama would only get eight—six for winning the blue districts, and two (representing the state's two senators) for carrying the state.

Looks as if the Republicans are inspired by the British rotten boroughs of old. Those gave the Tories disproportionately more power than a consistent nation-wide formula for representation would have done. The rotten boroughs were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832, widely considered to have "launched the rise of modern democracy in Britain".

In other words, the Republicans are looking to move away from "modern democracy" - which strives for proportional representation - and towards a kind of "crude democracy". Crude, in that it has the outward form of democracy - people voting - but with a representation formula that advantages one party.

Of interest: The British rotten boroughs were eliminated due to, in part, public pressure. I suspect that in this country, public pressure will be lacking due to the miserable job the press does informing people of what's important. Especially since it involves mathematics, where journalists have shown less understanding than that of a high school algebra student. Plus you have Fox News adding to the confusion with their unique form of "journalism".

The only thing working against a Pennsylvania-type plan is that, if implemented, it would bolster the party's power at the national level but diminish the attention the state would get during a presidential campaign. So competitive states might wish to preserve their valued status in this regard. It's interesting that the Republicans would put attaining federal power above preserving the influence of their cherished states (see Tenth Amendment fanaticism, abolishing the Seventeenth Amendment).

2011-09-14T00:27:00.000-07:00

This does not look like an effective bargaining strategy:

Obama Would Sign Parts Of Jobs Bill, Push For Rest

The Obama White House is revising its initial unwillingness to negotiate on the president's job creation plan, saying now that if individual components of the bill came to the president's desk -- as opposed to the bill in its entirety -- he would sign them into law.

The new approach opens up the administration to charges that it no longer views the American Jobs Act as a take-it-or-leave-it bill. But in a briefing with reporters Tuesday, senior administration officials insisted President Obama wasn't backing off his position that he wants the entire bill passed through Congress.

You can settle for pieces, but putting that out at the beginning doesn't seem smart. As to:

Senior administration officials insisted that they had not hurt their standing at the negotiation table, noting that each component of the president's proposal is popular in its own right.

That may be true as far as the public is concerned, but each component isn't popular with the Republicans in the House, and they are the ones that matter when it comes to passing legislation.

It's too early to say what kind of jobs legislation will emerge, but it's beginning to look like it will be a bunch of small steps with limited affect on the economy. Also, a piecemeal approach may blunt charges that the Republicans aren't cooperating or trying to help the economy.

It's weird. Why not play hardball for a couple of weeks to see if that resonates with the electorate (and pundits). Just last week in the speech to Congress Obama was saying "Pass this bill" (17 times). This new White House stance seems so unnecessary at this early stage. What made it happen? Who called the shots? Something peculiar is going on.

2011-09-13T09:10:00.000-07:00

FDR Fireside Chat #5, Report On Recovery 1934/6/27:

Excerpt:

A few timid people who fear progress have tried to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it fascism. Sometimes communism. ... Sometimes socialism. But in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical, something that is really very simple and very practical. I believe in practical explanations and in practical policies. I believe what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what Americans have always been doing, a fulfilment of old and tested American ideals.<

(links are to contemporary invocations of each charge)

Related: An interview with Michael Hiltzik, author of "The New Deal: A Modern History". Turns out that FDR and his policies are frequently misrepresented by those on the right and the left.

2011-09-12T07:56:00.000-07:00

Differ with Krugman:

He writes:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

Back then, when everybody was wondering if we were falling into the abyss, Giuliani would be out there every day saying that 94 trucks were moving debris to a facility, that 203 tons of supplies were being brought in, that 17 search teams were looking for survivors. Stuff like that. It wasn’t particularly complex, but it gave people a sense of order and that something was being done.

That was particularly important because in the first days after the attack, Bush was very passive. At one point there was a nationally televised conference call between Giuliani and the White House. Bush was definitely the subordinate figure in that exchange. It was Giuliani saying “We New Yorkers are hustling and doing what we can to clean up the area and tend to the injured”, and Bush saying “That’s a good job you are doing”. A lot of people forget that.

Giuliani was maybe a bit of a fascist at that time – commanding this and that on limited authority – but sometimes in the immediate wake of a shocking tragedy, that kind of we’re-in-control posture helps calm the populace.

Now it's true that much later after 9/11, Giuliani was something of a hustler and he should be criticized for that. But in the early weeks of the post 9/11 chaos he presented a non-hysterical face of rational government competence. Something Bush was incapable of. On the whole, I'd say Giuliani was a positive figure and not a "false hero"