Joust The Facts

Embarassing The Media Cocoon

Here's Brian Williams informing you about the gunwalking program Fast & Furious, about which, if you had previously been relying on Mr. Williams to inform you, you might not have been aware it existed.

 

So that's it.  A little political dustup in Washington between those evil racist partisan Republicans and the noble African American Attorney General Eric Holder.  Just another example of our "broken politics.

Not exactly.  Here's Bill Whittle, in 7 pithy minutes, giving you the full story.  "A few processes under the radar" indeed.

And Jimmie at The Sundries Shack outlines it in a slightly less pithy but quite coherent version, replete with links galore.

John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog documents three instances in which Mr. Holder's testimony to Rep. Issa's committee has been, ahem, less than truthful.  Two of the items were so obviously false retractions were required.

But heck, we don't even have to go to a full-throated evil racist conservative to get the information out.  America's news source The Daily Show and Jon Stewart can do the job.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

That was a year ago.  Updating anything, Mr. Stewart?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Are you embarrassed yet, Mr. Williams?  You should by now realize that cocoons are terribly fragile.

All He Wanted Was The Headline

On the Yahoo! home page I found this headline.

U.S. debt load falling at fastest pace since 1950s

Curious, I thought.  Puzzling even.  How could that be, when every day we're hearing about the steadily rising national debt?  So I had a look at the U.S. National Debt Clock.  Sure enough, click on it every two seconds and America's debt notches upward about $100,000.  It's now less than 300 billion short of $16 trillion.  Recall that just about a year ago there was a showdown over raising the debt ceiling above the statutory limit (at the time) of $14.294 trillion.  Last time I checked, $16 trillion was nearly $2 trillion more than $14.294 trillion.  So I needed more information.  And there, in the story itself, I found the answer.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Everyone knows America has too much debt. What they don’t know is that things are getting better, not worse.

Little by little, our economy is reducing its debt burden, slowly repairing the damage caused by 10, 20 or 30 years of excess.

If you want to know why economic growth has been so tepid, here’s your answer. Four years after the storm hit, the economy is still deleveraging. And it’s very hard for any economy to grow when everyone is focused on increasing their savings.

Total domestic — public and private — debt as a share of the economy has declined for 12 quarters in a row after surging over the previous decade.

The rapid rise in federal debt over the past four years has distracted us from the big picture. The level of public debt is indeed worrisome, but it’s not as big a worry as the economy’s total level of debt — public and private...

As much as we hear politicians, pundits, tea-party patriots and the Congressional Budget Office obsessing about government debt, it was excessive private debt — not public debt — that caused the 2008 financial meltdown. And it was private debt — some of it since transferred to the public — that lies behind the current European debt crisis. (Greece is unique in having a public sector that ran up spending while its private sector is rather conservative.)

And then I took a look at the author of this MarketWatch story, and suddenly it all made sense.  It's Rex Nutting, the journalist who fed the Obama campaign the punch line that Mr. Obama has really been the stingiest of presidents in terms of growth of government spending.  He conveniently ignored the fact that the 2009 budget was held for Mr. Obama to sign by the Democrat-controlled congress, ignored that the non-stimulating 'stimulus' was wholly his and his alone, and ignoring the fact that the burst in spending was to be temporary with TARP and the 'stimulus' and should have returned to lower levels in 2010 and 2011 but didn't.  Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute took apart Mr. Nutting's central thesis without even digging in to the politics of the budgets, and there were a host of other valid critiques.

So Mr. Nutting is at it again.  It was all about the headline.  "U.S. DEBT LOWER!!!"  Huzzah!  Huzzah! Presto!  The Obama campaign, almost miraculously, has a new talking point to throw at the less-informed.  But it's private debt - the debt held by private individuals in the private economy - that's dropping.  Mr. Nutting buries the data 16 paragraphs into the story.

In the U.S., household debt has now fallen to 84% of GDP from a peak of 98%. Nonfinancial corporate debt has fallen to 77% from a peak of 83%. Financial sector debt has plunged from 123% of GDP to 89%. Public debt has risen to 89% from 56% [of GDP].

The U.S. government debt keeps climbing rapidly, and will soon approach once again a statutory debt ceiling.  Private debt, not so much.  Well, when people feel economically threatened they retrench - pay down debt, save, spend less.  Why would they be economically threatened.  Stagnant jobs, falling home equity, falling median income, soaring government debt, future entitlement debt bombs, threats of higher taxes, and continued drunken-sailor spending by our elected officials in Washington.  Not to mention soaring energy costs, an anti-business NLRB, and a regulatory regime intent on stepping on the neck of business growth.

So no, although I'm certain that Mr. Nutting's latest venture will be quoted by administration flacks as evidence of the boss's frugality, Mr. Obama doesn't get credit for falling "total" U.S. debt, except to the extent that the stagnant, low growth economy he has engineered is making people worried enough to reign in their personal debt. 

For that I'll give credit.  You betcha.

Don't Know Much Geography ... Or College Sports, Either

At Yahoo! Sports, in a feature blog called "The Post Game," writer Max Thompson smugly makes fun of ESPN for putting up an image of Minnesota during a story on Wisconson athletes Ryan Braun of the Milwaukee Brewers and the Green Bay Packers stellar quarterback Aaron Rodgers.  I borrowed the picture and show it below.

Okay, so a geography-challenged intern in the ESPN graphics department put up the wrong state image.  That's bad.  You know what's also bad?  When the smug writer who makes fun of it goofs up in the same post. 

"Wisconsin hockey is ranked #1 in the nation."  Err, no.   Teams that are currently 5-8-1 overall do not get ranked #1.  In fact, in the most recent USCHO poll not only are the Badgers not in the top 20, they're not even listed as "also receiving votes."  The honor, #1 in the nation, goes to Coach Mark Dennehy's mighty Merrimack College Warriors, of North Andover, Massachusetts.

If you're going to poke fun at ESPN, you'd better make sure you don't have any glaring, easily refudiatable* errors of your own.

*refudiatable -- I did that intentionally.

11/25/11 1305: You know, I knew I should have grabbed a screen-cap.  Check out the story now and the reference to the Badgers as #1 in hockey is gone.  Vanished into the internet memory hole, with no inkling of the prior error.  Here it is below as it now stands.  The reference to Badger hockey used to reside in the first paragraph.

Is Congress Is Authorized To Do This?

Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard notices MSNBC's Martin Bashir calling on Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to either raise taxes on the "wealthiest" Americans or resign.  That's ridiculous enough, but I noticed another problem or two.  Martin Bashir is, as he proves in the transcript, both economically and politically ignorant.  First economics:

So here’s a message to the House leadership, Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Mr. Cantor. 68 percent of Americans and 68 percent of all millionaires believe that it’s time to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that this nation’s economy can start moving again.

"Raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals so that this nation's economy can start moving again?"  And that's going to jump start the economy and spur hiring how?  Do I need to cite the long list of economists, Republicans, and yes, Democrats who have chimed in that it's not a good idea to raise taxes in a down economy?  I could start with the President himself.

But that's only the warm-up act.  Referring to Congress, Mr. Bashir asks:

But honestly, what have they done? What have they done to address the persistently high level of unemployment? What have they done to reduce the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots in America.

Is that the job of Congress?  To "reduce the vast gulf between the haves and the have-nots in America?"  Can anyone tell me where the Constitution authorizes the Legislative branch to intervene in that way?  Heck, does the Constitution authorize any branch of government to equalize economic results among the people?

I'm not going to belabor the point.  It's simply a shame that he's in a position to influence the debate on TV.

Oh, wait, sorry, he really isn't.  He's on MSNBC.

Democratic Activist Hijinks And Bank Of America

I caught a bit of this in the OR lounge on Friday morning.

Wow.  150,000 people signed the petition?  Wow.  And this 22 year-old woman with two part-time jobs started the ball rolling.  Unbelievable.  Wow.  Bank of America must be shaking in their boots at this huge grassroots movement.  Wow.

ABC News ran with it:

Molly Katchpole launched a petition against Bank of America, which was signed by more than 131,000 customers and counting, saying she would take her business elsewhere unless the company drops its plan to charge $5 for debit card purchases.

Yahoo:

Katchpole closed her accounts, cut up her debit and credit card on the sidewalk, and left with $400 cash she says she intends to deposit in a credit union.

And MSNBC was, of course, all over it:

WASHINGTON -- Molly Katchpole has had it with Bank of America.

The 22-year-old cleared out her account, and cut up her debit card after the bank decided to charge customers five dollars a month just to use their debit card.

She's so mad that she started a petition to let the bank know the charge goes too far. In just one week, she's collected 150,000 signatures.

The President has gone after the bank, apparently of the opinion that he should be able to determine their business viability:

For his part, President Barack Obama said consumers were being "mistreated" by the bank.

"You can stop it because if you say to the banks, 'You don't have some inherent right just to, you know, get a certain amount of profit, if your customers are being mistreated, that you have to treat them fairly and transparently,'" he told ABC News.

Sen. Dick Durbin, whose amendment to Dodd-Frank caused Bank of America, among others, to consider this fee, also had his say:

"Bank of America customers, vote with your feet," Durbin urged in outraged reaction to the new "service charge."

"Get the heck out of that bank," Durbin exhorted. "They are overcharging their customers even for this new debit card reform. It is hard to believe that a bank would impose [such a fee] on customers who simply are trying to access their own money on deposit at the Bank of America."

Mr. Durbin mentions that Bank of America received bailout funds (conveniently omitting the forced assumption of the debt of the failing Countrywide Mortgage, Senator Dodd's lender of choice, and Merrill Lynch, preventing Merrrill from Lehman's fate).  And Molly Katchpole, she's just an innocent 22 year old trying to earn a living at two part-time jobs.  As sympathetic figure as you'll find.  Just a young kid struggling to make ends meet.  Well, maybe not.

Here's her LinkedIn profile. 

Molly Katchpole's Summary

Newly graduated gal looking to ruffle some feathers, change minds, and have great conversations with fellow professionals in labor and progressive politics advocacy. [emphasis mine]

Specialties

Persuasive writing and speaking, social media, leadership, research - labor and progressive politics, art and architectural history.

"Labor and progressive politics advocacy?"  Whoa.  She lists her employment as "Account Manager at Winning Over Washington".  So I went and had a look at Winning Over Washington (WOW) to see just what they're up to.  Turns out WOW is a communications and public relations firm.  The list of clients?  SEIU, NEA, AFL-CIO, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, EMILY's List.  You know, the usual broad spectrum of interests, from far left to farther left.  Wow, indeed.

So Ms. Katchpole is an account manager at a far-left PR firm.  A firm which might well be interested in demonizing banks in order to deflect blame from the failed policies of a Democratic administration, perhaps?  Here's another website where she lists her job as: online organizing for progressive politics.

Now that took me almost no time at all.  Wouldn't it seem that CNN, MSNBC, and the others that ran with this story could take a second to find out that this grassroots movement is the finest quality astroturf that money can buy rather than presenting it absent that important context?

Bank of America employs thousands and thousands of people.  The cash they earn is how they pay those individuals.  Or are we not all about jobs anymore?  Oh, and about that $5 monthly fee.  If you find that charge outrageous, then individually close your account and move it to a community bank or credit union.  But remember, it's the equivalent of a monthly grande skinny vanilla latte with an extra shot.  I'm fairly certain Ms. Katchpole knows that as well.

No, There's No Agenda. Why Do You Ask?

Flipping through the TV options this morning and I came upon this descriptive preview of Candy Crowley's Sunday morning talker on CNN:

9-10a State of the Union/Crowley: White House senior advisor David Axelrod; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.); Reps. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.); former National Intelligence director Dennis Blair. (Talk)

Nice lineup.  We've got the man paid to sell Obama policies, the liberal Democratic Senate second banana, a very liberal Democratic congressman from the Congressional Black Caucus, a very liberal Democratic congressman from Washington, and a man whose job was to implement Obama policies.

The country just had a ground-shifting election, one that I'm quite sure surprised and puzzled the management at CNN,  and CNN can't find a single moderate, let alone conservative, whose opinion is worth airing?  Are they not at all interested in understanding that shift?  Perhaps CNN just doesn't want the people to hear the contrarian positions?  I'm sure the questioning of these individuals will be just as challanging as if they were Sarah Palin.

Balance.

12/12/10 1000: CBS' Face The Nation is no better.  The lineup?

David Axelrod, Senior White House Adviser; Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee Chair; Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

David Axelrod really is making the rounds, a sure sign there's a sale that has to be made.  NBC's Meet The Press has Obama Economic Advisor Austan Goolsbee and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg.  Still not a single Republican.

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

First from Nile Gardiner, writing in The Telegraph, in response to an amusingly frightful column by the NY Times' Paul Krugman*.  Mr. Krugman tries to scare the populace.  Escape while you can!!  The evil multi-headed Republican monster is coming!!  Run for your lives!!

Mr. Gardiner calmly, and coolly replies:

Not only is Krugman’s article one of the most ridiculous pieces of scare-mongering in the history of modern American journalism, but it is the pathetic whimper of a decaying liberal Ancien Regime that is spectacularly crumbling.  It also illustrates just how out of touch liberal elites are with public opinion, as well as economic reality. The tired old blame Bush line no longer works, and as a recent poll showed, the former president’s popularity is rising again.

Whether Krugman likes it or not, the American people are turning overwhelmingly against Barack Obama’s Big Government agenda, and are looking for free market solutions to getting the country back on its feet, creating jobs and cutting the nation’s debt. As poll after poll shows, Americans are rejecting the liberal status quo and embracing the political revolution sweeping the country. My guess is that historians will look back on November 2010 not as a “catastrophe”, as Krugman declares, but as the beginning of a powerful new era for the United States, when conservatism and the cause of freedom made a striking comeback.

Indeed, Virginia, there can be a Republican renaissance.  Given his NY Times opinion today, among other nonsense Mr. Krugman has written, I think it far more likely that he will be forced in the future to admit he knows little about real-world capitalist economics than that his predictions of Republican-caused disaster (as if we're not already experiencing a Democrat-enhanced disaster) come to fruition.  For example, see quote #2, from Harvard's Jeffrey Miron.  He writes that the 'stimulus' was badly designed and badly executed.  No kidding. (pdf)

I argue here, however, that the structure of a fiscal stimulus is crucially important and that the package Congress adopted was far from ideal, regardless of the merits of the Keynesian model...

That the Administration and Congress chose the particular stimulus adopted suggests that stimulating the economy was not their only objective. Instead, the Administration used the recession and the financial crisis to redistribute resources to favored interest groups (unions, the green lobby, and public education) and to increase the size and scope of government.⁴ This redistribution does not make every element of the package indefensible, but even the components with a plausible justification were designed in the least productive and most redistributionist way possible.

Mr. Krugman continues to write the first 'stimulus' should have been much larger (i.e., more debt), and advocates a second 'stimulus' now.  I ask you, should we take Mr. Krugman's advice and let the corrupt Democrat simpletons who wrote the first one to "redistribute resources to favored interest groups" and "to increase the size and scope of government" have another go at it?

*noted former Enron advisor

On Juan, NPR, And Fear Of Free Expression

The First Amendment to the Constitution reads simply this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law..."  That does not apply to private, or rather public-funded companies, and taxpayer-funded NPR fired longtime analyst and senior correspondent Juan Williams, who also contributes regularly to Fox News, for expressing the simple sentiment that he feels a little anxious seeing someone wearing traditional Muslim attire on an airplane with him.  NPR did so in response to a deluge of "listener email."  Here are a few snippets from commentary on the topic, well worth considering.

From Emilio Karim Dabul, journalist, in today's Wall Street Journal:

I grew up surrounded by Islamic culture, went to Islamic events, and was used to seeing women in traditional Muslim clothing, and yet when that woman appeared at the Berlin airport, I was scared.

That's all Mr. Williams was saying. He didn't say that they should be removed from the plane, treated differently, or anything close to that. He simply said he got nervous. And for that, he was fired.

The reality is that when Muslims cease to be the main perpetrators of terrorism in the world, such fears about traditional garb are bound to vanish. Until such time, the anxiety will remain. In the long run, it's what we do with such fears that matters, not that we have them.

CAIR has taken it to another level by denouncing an "sizeable minority" of Americans who "think it is legitimate to single out Muslims for special scrutiny."  Unfortunately there's a "sizeable minority" in their own backyard that should be highlighted, as Geoff at Ace of Spades identifies.

But you also have a sizeable minority of Muslims who think it is legitimate to indiscriminately kill peaceful folk and deny them the lives all other people hold dear. That viewpoint expresses intolerance and bigotry on a level far beyond "special scrutiny."

Until CAIR acknowledges the sizeable minority that concerns us, I don't see why we should acknowledge the one that concerns them.

A WSJ editorial points out the obvious - that Mr. Williams association with Fox News likely was the heavy load, and one additional brick caused the collapse.

They finally found a way to get rid of Juan Williams.

It has long been one of the most open secrets in the world of punditry (which needless to say, includes NPR's "analysts"), that NPR's progressive political base was unhappy with Mr. Williams's appearances on Fox as existentially incompatible with their worldview.

  Mr. Williams and I disagreed on many things; I found particular disagreement with his acceptance of unsupported accusations of racism from Democrats, such as those that arose in connection with the "n-word" being allegedly hurled at congressmen in Washington last spring.

It is a fact that the tea party is an overwhelmingly older, white and suburban crowd. It is true that Republicans in Congress are almost completely white. And it is also true, according to some black and gay Democrats, that a tea party rally against health-care reform at the Capitol degenerated into ugly scenes in which racial and homophobic epithets were used and spit flew on some members of Congress. There are suspicions that tea party anger boiled over into the spate of personal threats against Democrats who voted for the health-care bill.

There's still no evidence whatsoever to support those accusations, which should not be taken at face value.  In fact, the evidence is strong that it did not.  Still, to Mr. Williams credit, he defended the tea party against the blanket smear of racism.

The tea party is not the problem. Whether you like them or not they do seem to have captured the political angst in the electorate, without regard to skin color.

Mr. Williams has the right to express concerns regarding the presence of Muslims on airplanes.  Given the history - 9/11, the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber - those concerns are not unreasonable by any stretch.  And NPR, publicly funded though it is, has the option of terminating his employment.

Of course, even-handedness could have caused them to terminate his employment for participating in the smear of the tea party last march with his support of the false accusations.  Taken together they betray what NPR has become, an organization that is not committed to freedom of expression that offends liberals.

10/22/10 1340: More, from Juan Williams himself:

Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.

[...]

I took Bill’s challenge and began by saying that political correctness can cause people to become so paralyzed that they don’t deal with reality. And the fact is that it was a group of Muslims who attacked the U.S. I added that radicalism has continued to pose a threat to the United States and much of the world. That threat was expressed in court last week by the unsuccessful Times Square bomber who bragged that he was just one of the first engaged in a “Muslim War” against the United States. -- There is no doubt that there's a real war and people are trying to kill us.

Mr. Williams is a rational, very slightly leftist thinker who throws no bombs, eschewing the outrageous, and carefully considering the worthy arguments of both sides.  I still disagree with him at times; I rarely find his arguments wholly irrational or without basis in at least some fact.  The disagreements usually stem more from interpretation.  Here he's being rational once again.

How Can We Learn To Trust You If You Won't Stop Lying?

I explain patiently to my daughters, the now-not-so-little jesters, that lying poisons you.  It demonstrates to those who learn of your lie that you are not to be trusted, that you're declarations need to be taken with a grain of salt, that your claims need to be verified.

Let's leave politicians out of this, because, let's face it, there are way too many who openly and easily lie - about their accomplishments and CV; about their beliefs and principles; about their votes, even if they've been recorded, and particularly  about their opponents.  So a lying politician isn't unique or even noteworthy; one who doesn't is far more notable.

And there is a difference between neutral misstatement of fact "lies" and smear lies. President Obama gave a speech a while back and gave the unemployment rate as 9.5% when it was actually 9.6%.  Let's not get all nitpicky about such trivial errors and start to "misunderestimate" the speaker of such misstatements.  Smearing one's opposition with false accusations, on the other hand, is destructive because many who hear the lie will never hear the truth, and the target of the smear remains harmed even if a retraction is made.

Rachel Maddow made the list of those whose utterances cannot be taken at face value today.  Newsbusters takes down MSNBC's Maddow for claiming a congressman received advance warning of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal Building.  And the high-powered weapon Newsbusters uses to combat this?  Contemporaneous reporting.

That Stockman received the fax after the bombing was also reported in a June 22, 1995 column in the Houston Press by Jim Simmon, titled "God, Guns and Kombucha: Is Steve Stockman a committed crackpot, or just a hapless goofball?"As its headline suggests, this was hardly a puff piece favorable toward Stockman. Nonetheless, Simmon wrote --

Contrary to suggestions in some earlier reports, Stockman's office had received the fax after the bombing and promptly passed it on to the FBI. (Ironically, the initial misunderstanding about the fax was propagated by the National Rifle Association, Stockman's chief patron.)

I'll venture a guess that self-proclaimed geek Maddow not only has access to computers, but that those computers are connected to the Internet -- leading to all sorts of wondrous possible discoveries (and, alas, inconvenient facts), assuming a person is inclined to look.

Ms. Maddow's charge was that Mr. Stockman received "advance notice," which clearly cannot occur if the alleged advance notice arrives after the event.  Maybe Ms. Maddow will someday receive "advance notice" that will help her understand this, such as an invitation to a party that took place the previous weekend.

So, Ms. Maddow, you managed to fully forfeit your credibility, such as it was, forever in my  book.  Congratulations.

10/23/10 0750: I'm surprised.  Ms. Maddow apologized and retracted.  Well, sort of.  "Editing error?"  Credibility still at nil.

On Cold Shoulders And Scientific Inquiry

Ron Brownstein has a piece in National Journal discussing accusing the GOP of giving "climate science" the "cold shoulder."  In it the logic is laughable.  It's purely argument by authority.

When British Foreign Secretary William Hague visited the U.S. last week, he placed combating climate change near the very top of the world's To Do list.

"Climate change is perhaps the 21st century's biggest foreign-policy challenge," Hague declared in a New York City speech. "An effective response to climate change underpins our security and prosperity." The danger was no longer just distant thunder, he suggested, warning that the recent devastating floods in Pakistan heralded the sort of extreme events that will become more common in a warmer world. "While no one weather event can ever be linked with certainty to climate change," he said, "the broad patterns of abnormality seen this year are consistent with climate-change models."

William Hague is not a holdover from the left-leaning Labor Government that British voters ousted last spring. He's not even from the centrist Liberal Democrats who are governing in a coalition with the Conservative Party of Prime Minister David Cameron. Hague is one of Cameron's predecessors as Conservative Party leader.

His strong words make it easier to recognize that Republicans in this country are coalescing around a uniquely dismissive position on climate change. The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.

Oh, look, Mr. Hague is a conservative, and he believes in AGW!!  Since he agrees with Mr. Brownstein, and Mr. Brownstein is obviously right, then Mr. Hague is obviously right.  Q.E.D.  So let's quote him!  All U.S. conservatives should heed the wisdom of their overseas betters.

Sorry, but that's not how it works.  Just because a British conservative (British conservatives being to the left of Democratic Senator Ben Nelson politically) happens to espouse this thinking doesn't make it correct.  You know what is more likely to sway my views?  This.  It turns out that Republican objections are not at all "uniquely" dismissive.

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

Professor Lewis follows with his case against the APS, and it is a fairly persuasive argument that the APS has squelched dissent to the detriment of scientific inquiry.  His suspicions have to do with research dollars - follow the money.  Where Mr. Brownstein talks about "accepted science," quoting the National Academy of Sciences (another organization likely with a financial stake), some scientists see the stamping out of the scientific method.  See, for example, the ClimateGate emails.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Suddenly the silencing of dissent is, somehow, mainstream.  Mr. Brownstein and others seek to bully those who dissent into toeing the climate change line with pronouncements from on high, shouting "heretic!" at non-believers.  It didn't work with doctors when the AMA supported ObamaCare, and it's not going to work in climate science with those who value the scientific process.

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

From a Green Room post at Hot Air by Karl, a look at the media's treatment of the tea party, and it's non-treatment of the serious financial decisions facing the country.

Indeed, our unsustainable financial situation led to the creation of a Tea Party movement — one of the biggest political developments in America over the past two years. It would seem to be the perfect news peg for ongoing media coverage of our government’s fiscal irresponsibility. Of course, it didn’t work out quite that way, did it? Instead, the establishment media ignored, then attacked the Tea Party movement — first as astroturf, then as racist, as Birthers, as hypocritical (for not having formed when the problem was less dire, and for gullibly expecting the government to make good on current entitlement promises or reform them before adding new ones), etc. The establishment media’s coverage of the Tea Party often seems devoted to discussing anything other than the issues at the heart of the movement.

Thus, the establishment media reveals itself, not as the people’s watchdog against irresponsible government, but as the irresponsible government’s guard dog against the people.

Bingo!  There is no watchdog media when Democrats are in power; far too many are experiencing leg tingles to do the job of looking critically at the claims and proposals of Congress and the White House.  Thus, as Karl points out, ObamaCare's financial sleights-of-hand get airbrushed if not wholly ignored, to the detriment of the people.  The article on which that post was based was written in November, 2009.  Read both the post and the article from the New Yorker by John Cassidy, and then claim, Michael Kinsley, that you weren't warned.

Just how out of control is federal spending?  This out of control.

Even The Professionals Can Get It Wrong

Kimberley Strassel at the Wall Street Journal writes today of the dilemma facing congressional Democrats as they decide what to do about the looming built-in tax increase due to hit in January, in the middle of this struggling economy.  She accurately characterizes the situation, that Democrats had hoped to have a strong recovery going now so that tax increases could be argued as the "responsible" position.  But without that strong recovery they are left arguing for an increase in the middle of a recession, and wanting to hit the job creators hardest.

She gives them three options.  Option 1 is to raise taxes only on those job creators, the "wealthy," which is Mr. Obama's position.  Unfortunately she chooses the language of Mr. Obama and his marketers to frame the debate.

Option No. 1 is for congressional leaders to plunge once again into the legislative breach, this time to threaten and bribe their caucus into passing the Obama plan, which extends tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000. This is a heavy lift, partly because it is hard to find a Democrat who likes the Obama plan.

This is not "extending tax cuts only for those making less than $250,000."  This is "preventing a tax increase on those making less than $250,000, but allowing an increase in rates on those above that marker."  Tax rates are what they are (and have been for some time now).  If rates go up, they go up.  If rates are held at the same levels then the increase is prevented.  It's easy to get caught up in Demospeak, but they use the "allow tax cuts to expire" imagery to paint a picture of the "proper" level for tax rates being somewhat higher than they currently are, and those who rightly oppose the increase should speak and write in a way that wipes away that foggy imagery and turns it into a crystal clear snapshot.

She does it a couple more times in the column, and each time I cringe.  Remember, if nothing is done, taxes will increase on all Americans in January.  If Mr. Obama's plan is passed taxes will increase only on those with incomes above $250,000, including many small businesses.  And if all of the increases are blocked then tax rates will remain constant.  Note that in none of those formulations - which are completely accurate - is anyone anywhere receiving a "cut in tax rates."

Even Big Media Gets The Joke

From the LA Times 'Top of the Ticket' blog of Andrew Malcolm, in a story noting that Media Matters (of all people!!) is airing an ad on Fox News (of all places!!), a one liner in the second paragraph.

In case you were one of the three people taking turns watching Keith Olbermann this week, that allegedly anti-News Corp. ad by Media Matters for America finally aired on the genuine Fox News Channel the other night.

Rimshot!

The Slant Of The Times

If you'd like to know exactly why conservatives/Republicans have such a low regard for the reporting at the NY Times - to say nothing of the editorial pages and their collection of left wing flotsam - have a look at these two stories over the last two days.

First up, Eric Lichtblau reports on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business group that, being pro-business, tends to favor the more pro-business Republicans over the NY Times favored party.

Chamber of Commerce Accused of Tax Fraud

WASHINGTON — With a war chest rivaling that of the Republican Party itself, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has emerged in the last year as perhaps the Obama administration’s most-well-financed rival on signature policy debates like health care and financial regulation.

Critics on the left have long complained about the chamber’s outsize influence. But now they are taking on the business association directly, charging in a complaint filed Friday with the Internal Revenue Service that it violated tax codes by laundering millions of dollars meant for charitable work from a group with ties to the insurance giant A.I.G.

The complaint was brought by a group called U.S. Chamber Watch, which was created four months ago — with the strong financial backing of labor unions — to scrutinize the Chamber of Commerce’s growing influence and provide a counterbalance.

But chamber officials said they had complied with all tax laws and dismissed the complaint as a political ploy.

The whole thing is most certainly not worth reading.  I've highlighted the key sentence above.  What people will scan, however, is the headline, which is really the whole point of publishing this story "CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ACCUSED OF TAX FRAUD!!!"  The headline is designed - with neither evidence, nor official confirmation of any problem whatsoever - to discredit a strong opponent of Obama policy initiatives in the court of public opinion.  And the only reason there is a complaint at all is because far left Obama policy supporters, primarily labor unions - set up a non-profit group to specifically attack the Chamber of Commerce.

And who are the attorneys for U.S. Chamber Watch that are involved here?  A notorious race-hustler plaintiff's attorney who extracts greenmail from his targets by demonizing them in the court of public opinion rather than winning in court.  And the other is an attorney who "specializes in serving:

• Nonprofit organizations working to make the world better by advocating for social, economic and environmental justice
• Political committees and others working for the election of progressive candidates
• Individuals who are battling discrimination and other unfair practices in the workplace
• Citizen groups fighting for increased safety and security of the nation’s nuclear power resources"

among other things.  In other words, the lawsuit is a political stunt 7 weeks before the midterm elections.  Just as with the late former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, who was charged as he was running for re-election with corruption, convicted eight days before the election, lost a close race, and then had the conviction overturned eight days later due to "gross prosecutorial misconduct," the point is to tar the opponent with "the appearance of impropriety" at the right moment politically.  Don't fall for it.

The second story, by another Eric (Lipton), carries a headline designed to influence negatively, but again no substance to the article.  It involves Mr. Obama's new target, announced in a speech in Ohio this past week.

A G.O.P. Leader Tightly Bound to Lobbyists

[...}

Mr. Boehner, who declined to be interviewed for this article, and his lobbyist allies ridicule such criticism as politically motivated by desperate Democrats. His actions, they say, simply reflect the pro-business, antiregulatory philosophy that he has espoused for more than three decades, dating back to when Mr. Boehner, the son of a tavern owner, ran a small plastics company in Ohio. And fielding requests from lobbyists is nothing unusual, he says

Apparently the NY Times stylebook calls for any accusation by the political opponents of Republicans to be taken at face value, and the story written to varnish the target by innuendo and unsubstantiated charge in as detrimental a way as is manageable.  I'll let professional journalist Byron York deflate this meme.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. "Yes, that is correct," Steel responded to Lipton, adding "I can tell you why, if you care." Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton.

Steel says Boehner has long held those positions and does not hold them as a result of lobbying.

Hours after the email exchange, the Times story was published online, with the statement from the lobbyist that he had "won" Boehner's backing on those matters. After Boehner's aides complained, the paragraph was changed to read, emphasis added:

One lobbyist in the club -- after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help -- ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had sought the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Boehner’s office said these were positions he already agreed with.

The statement that a lobbyist "won" Boehner's backing was changed to one in which a lobbyist "sought" Boehner's backing. That's a rather critical change. The Times also added Boehner's defense that these were long-held positions.

To call Boehner's aides angry at the account would be an understatement. "They were offered the opportunity to find out if this was true, and they chose to rely instead on the word of an anonymous lobbyist," says spokesman Michael Steel. "They intentionally refused to get the information to prove that this allegation was false."

So in two stories the Times breaks no news, as news is commonly understood to be, merely reprinting accusations as the mouthpiece of liberal/Democratic attacks.  With no proof or independent verification of a single negative in either story.  None whatsoever.

That's why Republicans/conservatives/thinking independents no longer read the NY Times looking for news.  This is extraordinarily shoddy work, and that's why the NY Times is in trouble.

9/13/10 1430: And, lo and behold, the NY Times could easily have dug up a little quantitative data had they wanted to reinforce their attack on congressfolk beholden to lobbyists.  Problem is, there would have been collateral damage.

In this case, the use of the phrase “especially deep” shows that the Times wanted to make Boehner look as though he was on the extreme outlier of the common practice of fundraising among lobbysists.  Whatever one thinks of that practice, it’s one of the truly bipartisan efforts on Capitol Hill.  But in this cycle, the top five recipients are all Democrats, including two in Senate leadership (Reid and Schumer)...

The JTF "Quote of the Day"

From Sarah Palin's Facebook page, a question (among many) for Mr. Obama in light of his statement on the Ground Zero Mosque.

If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive "cross-cultural engagement" and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite?

Indeed.

Now, such a legitimate question as this can, and often are, when filtered through the media, presented with wholly unsupportable spin.  See, for example, "GOP takes harsher stance toward Islam" from Ben Smith, who ought to know better than that, and Maggie Haberman at Politico.

Obama's remarks provide a clear, national focus for the simmering question of Islam in American life, and Republicans showed every sign Saturday of beginning to capitalize on it, with Republican candidates in New York and Florida seeking to inject the issue into local races as Democrats largely held their silence.

That stance in the GOP — both in terms of political strategy and policy views — appears to be carrying the day. Most of the potential Republican presidential hopefuls, led by Sarah Palin, came out sharply against the mosque.

There's so much wrong in this snippet it's hard to know where to begin.  Mr. Obama hardly clarified the issue with his remarks, despite dragging out his rhetorical tic "let me be clear."  He failed utterly to address the divisive plan to build the mosque, instead limiting his statement to the constitutional question of whether it is permissable.  He used Thomas Jefferson's hosting of an ambassador from Tunisia as verification of Islam's place in America.  He set up an equivalence between intolerance of Muslims and sentiments that the mosque should be build elsewhere, an equivalence that doesn't exist.  The "simmering question" isn't Islam's place in American life.  Rather, it's Islam's respect for American values, something the planners of the mosque have not demonstrated.

Smith and Haberman write that Sarah Palin "came out sharply against the mosque."  Sharply?  Harsher?  These are words written with intent.  In fact, No Republican or conservative that I have read since Mr. Obama's speech have come out "sharply" with a "harsher" stance toward Islam, including Sarah Palin.  (see the quote above at the link)  What they have done, rather, is to come out "sharply" and "harshly" against Mr. Obama's formulation of the questions involved, which is legitimate.

And by the way, Mr. Smith and Ms. Haberman, the silence of Democrats indicates not tolerance of Islam, but that they too feel that the President's rhetoric is unsupportable, and that they feel trapped by it.

Note To MSM: This Is News

The hacked emails and documents from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU) are a significant story, although some elements of the media still are running around with their fingers in their ears.  Doug Ross catches the Boston Globe, and finds the readers informing the editors.  Pwnd!  Click over to DR to enjoy the comments.  P.J. Gladnick found a similar situation in comments to another dire global warming story in the Houston Chronicle, and does a sweet impression of the HAL 9000 from 2001.  From the latter:

University of East Anglia? Hmmm... Where have I heard about this university in the recent past? Something about hacked e-mails, manipulated data, and a coverup? This editorial won't bring up the scandal that dare not speak its name but the readers are not shy about bringing it up over and over and over again:

 Oh dear .. I think you have a bit of catching up to do.

Scandal? What scandal? We're as willfully clueless about this as Charlie Gibson is about the ACORN scandal.

Apparently, the clowns on the Houston Comical editorial board do zero research prior to sitting down at the keyboard to compose their lies. The "researchers" at East Anglia have been exposed as the perpetrators of a massive fraud by manipulating statistics. Yet, here comes the Comical citing the liars at East Anglia in support of their thesis. It's all over the news - even the Houston Comical. (Maybe the editorial board doesn't read the Comical - only the press releases of the DNC.)

[...]

Bottom line here for the MSM; you can try to avoid mentioning Climategate in your global warming stories but your readers are sure to remind you of your deliberate oversight. Oh how they will remind you!

Robert Tracinski has a piece discussing the "Climategate" scandal over at Real Clear Politics.  In particular, he finds strong evidence of manipulation of the scientific climate journals' peer review process to ostracize those who don't toe the line.

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

And that is precisely what we find.

[...]

Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."

This is a story - like the ACORN videos, like the forged Bush TANG letters - that the MSM ignores at their own peril.  Eventually a story will have to be written documenting, discussing and analyzing the actions of those "scientists" who rigged the game. 

They might as well start researching and writing them now.  To wait any longer simply confirms the suspicions of those who are no longer buying their papers, and worse, the suspicions of those who will stop buying in the future.

Anyone Can Write For The NY Times, Really

Because intelligence is obviously not one of the requirements.  Gail Collins demonstrates that today (although Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and, yes, Paul Krugman may well do so on other days. YMMV).  How?  Just check out this opening paragraph.

In Ohio, citizens marched to the polls on Tuesday and voted to allow gambling casinos in the state. This was obviously a message to President Obama that independent voters are not happy with the way the health care bill is going.

Yes, I know, sarcasm and all that.  Her larger point, though, is nonsense.  Of course a local issue such as casino authorization doesn't reflect on Mr. Obama's presidency, and, unless she's going to present exit poll data no one knows whether independents like blackjack and slots.  But her farcical analysis here reflects not at all on the meaning of the other results, and obviously so.

It's apparent to anyone with a rudimentary education that certain of the election results could be interpreted as relevant to Mr. Obama's presidency, while others can't.  Whether that interpretation is right is another argument entirely.  But to use one - or two or three - that obviously can't to argue against all of them is laughable.

And would be, if it weren't on the pages of America's Paper of Record.

I Wonder When This Will Be Changed?

Liz Sidoti of Associated Press, on the large Republican tide in today's off-year elections:

WASHINGTON – Republicans wrested Virginia from the Democrats Tuesday in a one-sided sweep of top offices, and New Jersey's unpopular Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine fought for his political life as independent voters swung behind the GOP in elections in both states. It was a troubling sign for President Barack Obama and his party heading into an important midterm election year...

The president had personally campaigned for Deeds and Corzine, raising the stakes in low-energy off-year elections. Thus, even one Democratic loss was a blot on Obama's political standing to a certain degree and signaled potential problems ahead as he seeks to achieve his policy goals, protect Democratic majorities in Congress and expand his party's grip on governors' seats next fall.

Oops.  Looks like someone didn't read the memo.

11/3/09 2215: The President isn't interested in the returns tonight?  Yeah, right.

A few hours after telling reporters they shouldn't expect "any great insight" into 2010 based on the outcome of Tuesday night's elections, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told POLITICO the president wasn't even following the results.

"He's not watching returns," Gibbs said.

I'm sure that's true.  I mean, why go to bed with a sour stomach?

11/3/09 2225: And according to the AP, it's over in NJ.  For Gov. Christie it's "winner, winner, chicken dinner."  Or, as Mel Allen would've said, how about that?

11/3/09 2230: See, CBS has the "right" approach.

A majority of voters in both states said they are worried about the direction of the nation’s economy over the next year. 85 percent of Virginia voters said they are worried, as are 90 percent of voters in New Jersey. These percentages were similar on Election Day in 2008.

In both states the economy topped the list of issues that mattered most to voters in their choice for governor – in Virginia health care was second, while in New Jersey the second choice was property taxes.

And what about the Obama factor? President Obama campaigned for both the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, even visiting New Jersey as recently as Sunday to stump for Jon Corzine.

Still, majorities of voters in both states (55 percent in Virginia and 60 percent in New Jersey) said President Obama was not a factor in their vote today.

So let's see if I understand this.  Fully 90% of the voters in NJ and 85% of those in VA are concerned about the economy, primarily.  And yet, the gentleman and his team that a)quadrupled the deficit, b) have us racking up $9+ trillion in unpaid bills over the next ten years, c) are trying to push through a multi-trillion dollar unfunded entitlement and d) are raising and will raise taxes further are "not a factor?."  I'm not sure that makes much sense.

11/3/09 2255: Michelle Malkin has the election nite roundup going.

Keep Fact Checking Saturday Night Live, Folks

CNN, that esteemed fact-checker to the world's comedians and employer of The Biggest Losers - on Jeopardy, has themselves fallen into last place among cable news outlets.  How's that head pat working out for you?

The official monthly numbers will be finalized at 4 p.m. Monday and will include results from Friday. CNN executives conceded that will not change the competitive standing for the month. CNN will still be last in prime time.

That means CNN’s programs were behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but even its own sister network HLN (formerly Headline News.) Three of its four shows between 7 and 11 p.m. finished fourth and last among the cable news networks. That was the first time CNN had finished that poorly with its prime-time shows.

Surprised?  I'm not.  Fox News had a ready audience, looking for a center-right network to fill the void left by national news outlets' - including CNN - inexorable and consistent shift to the left, and on the left MSNBC has marketed themselves as the place where the left can get their red meat for the day.  Who's left to watch CNN?

What should CNN do to regain market share?  Well, in golf the best place to play from is the middle of the fairway.  They should hit their drives a heck of a lot straighter.  Just because a story helps conservatives doesn't mean it's not a story, the President's opinion notwithstanding.

10/27/09 0920: Don Surber:

The sneaky opinion — Anderson Cooper’s sneering contempt for conservative protesters — is what people don’t like. Cooper and company try to be stealth[y] but they come of[f] as snide and fake, as if they are trying to hide who they really are.

That too.  The alphabet soup of left-leaning media, of which CNN is a member, consider themselves centrist, and want to be seen that way, even as they use name-calling and derision to refer to legitimate conservatives, as if no conservative politics can even be considered legitimate.

More: Maybe now is not the time to let Joy Behar vent her leftist spleen.

10/27/09 1025: Okay, here's a good example.  CNN polls on Cap & Trade and finds 60% support.  But the question itself is misleading, or rather, presents the benign facade that Cap & Trade supporters want to be seen.  Let's have a look:

16. Under a proposal called "cap and trade," the federal government would limit the amount of greenhouse gases that companies could produce in their factories or power plants. If companies exceeded those limits, they would either pay a fine or pay money to other companies that produced smaller amounts of greenhouse gases. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?

What do you think would be the support would be if they added a sentence?  "These costs would be passed on to you, the consumer, as higher energy costs and higher prices,and economically we would see slower growth and job losses."  Can't have the people getting all the information, can we?

Taking A Crack At Constitutional Law

No, I'm not a lawyer, but I do play one on my blog.  A reporter for CNS News asked a startled House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today ... well, I'll let them tell you.

The exchange with Speaker Pelosi on Thursday occurred as follows:
 
CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
 
Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
 
CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.”
 
Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."
 
“You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”

The question, and it is indeed a serious one, is can Congress write a law requiring that an American citizen purchase a good or service?  Under what clause of the constitution does such authority fall?  Because an individual mandate is, make no mistake, a requirement to purchase a service.  Ms. Pelosi and her spokesman don't think this is a serious question.  Here's a defense of their position at Dissenting Justice, discovered at Memeorandum.

The Constitution is written in general terms; only a few provisions define individual rights and governmental powers with precision. To make this point more concrete, I quote from a previous essay on the subject:

It is absolutely absurd to ask whether the constitution specifically or explicitly allows Congress to regulate or reform healthcare. The Constitution speaks broadly and ambiguously. Only a few provisions are specific and beyond dispute (like the age requirement for presidents and members of Congress).

The Constitution does not specifically or explicitly authorize the creation of the Air Force or Medicare, nor does it discuss the federal prosecution of crack cocaine possession. And the "Framers" certainly did not specifically contemplate airplanes, prescription drug and hospital plans for seniors, or crack cocaine because these things were not realities when they wrote the Constitution.

If conservatives only believe Congress can regulate things that are explicitly mentioned in the actual text of the Constitution, then they should essentially advocate the abolition of the federal government. At a minimum, they should seek the immediate repeal of laws banning partial-birth abortion and kidnapping; the Constitution does not mention children or abortion.

And here is the logical fallacy.  The conservatives' concern here is not that something unmentioned in the Constitution is being put in place; rather, the concern is that the freedom of Americans to choose not to participate is being infringed.  I happen to agree that Congress has the authority to create a health care reform design for the nation (though an argument can be fashioned that it is not interstate commerce, in that health insurance does not cross state lines).  I also happen to think it's a bad idea to do so.  But that's not the question.  It is, instead, can Congress mandate participation in that system?

The Constitution doesn't discuss Medicare, but, having set up the system, Doctors and patients are each free to participate, or not.  Yes, that's President Obama's favorite medical center not participating in Medicare.  Such freedom of economic association would be eliminated by the mandate.  This is what the CNS News questioner was getting at, and Ms. Pelosi should have a coherent answer handy next time the topic comes up.  And it will.

So, Glenn, for a physician, how'd I do?  Probably not enough citations of case law and SCOTUS precedents.

10/23/09 1140: Speaker Pelosi could do worse than peruse Randy Barnett at Volokh on the matter.

10/24/09 0950: It seems Ed Morrissey encountered the same straw man argument.

So I’ll ask again: What authority does Congress have to mandate that people buy a product?  What precedent do they have to threaten people with imprisonment if they don’t buy a product merely for existing, as opposed to a prerequisite for accessing public roads as with car insurance?  The reason why Pelosi, Leahy, and Hoyer refuse to answer those questions is because they don’t have an answer to them.

A few brave souls will argue that the “general welfare” clause means that Congress can mandate anything that they see as beneficial, but that misreads the word general – which meant the welfare of the nation as a whole, not a responsibility to make each individual citizen’s life choices for them.  The opposite reading would have made Congress a totalitarian monster, with the executive as its hatchetman, and the founders would have scoffed at such an interpretation.

10/24/09 1215: Thanks for the linkback, Ed.

No Shame

ACORN is suing two independent twenty-something journalists for providing conclusive proof that ACORN workers didn't have any problem with tax evasion and prostitution, I guess.  Well, what did you expect?  They may be crooked, but that also means they like a good mudfight.

The crux of the lawsuit centers around a Maryland law which makes it illegal to tape someone without their consent – ACORN is alleging O’Keefe and Giles did so. ACORN is asking for $500,000 in damages to be awarded to each of the employees filmed by O'Keefe and Giles, and ACORN itself wants $1 million in damages

If Maryland law enforcement decides that protecting the public by rigorous application of the anti-taping statute is proper, well, then that's their prerogative.  Personally I think the authorities in Maryland could do a lot more good for more people by looking in every nook and cranny of ACORN's records, but I suspect that Maryland's Democratic-dominated justice department disagrees.  They'll protect their tribe, whether or not they decide to nail the "two youts."

However, this isn't about that.  This is about punishing the messenger with legal costs and hassles, and damaging their names in the court of public opinion.  ACORN will still have the left wing media singing their praises for "all of the good they do in the community," and only those right-wing shills at FoxNews and Breitbart will be speaking up for the whistleblowers.

If ACORN avoids dire consequences for the disturbing actions uncovered by O'Keefe and Giles, then there will never be any hope of containing the shenanigans they pull every election, among others.  This may fall into the old adage to never wrestle with a pig, because you both end up dirty and the pig likes it.

If You Can Learn Three Things Today ...

... learn these.  The Wall Street Journal published today a few excerpts from columns written by Irving Kristol, who passed away just yesterday at age 89.  These insights are valuable to the right, to understand your own basic tenets, and to the left, to understand where those on the right are coming from.  (Hint: it's not from racism or idiocy, but from observing reality and understanding economics and unintended consequences.)

Income Inequality Without Class Conflict, Dec. 18, 1997

It is often said that capitalism—that is, a market economy—is morally obnoxious because its "trickle-down economics" inevitably creates inequality of income and wealth. Now it is certainly true that "trickle-down economics" has that effect. It is also true, however, that if you want economic growth and greater affluence for all, there is simply no alternative to "trickle-down economics," which is just another name for growth economics.

The world has yet to see a successful version of "trickle-up economics," an egalitarian society in which the state ensures that the fruits of economic growth are universally and equally shared. The trouble with this idea—it is, of course, the socialist ideal—is that it does not produce those fruits in the first place. Economic growth is promoted by entrepreneurs and innovators, whose ambitions, when realized, create inequality. No one with any knowledge of human nature can expect such people not to want to be relatively rich, and if they are too long frustrated they will cease to be productive. Nor can the state substitute for them, because the state simply cannot engage in the "creative destruction" that is an essential aspect of innovation. The state cannot and should not be a risk-taking institution, since it is politically impossible for any state to cope with the inevitable bankruptcies associated with economic risk taking.

and

Symbolic Politics and Liberal Reform, Dec. 15, 1972

"All bad poetry springs from genuine feeling," wrote Oscar Wilde, and I would like to suggest that the same can be said for bad politics. . . .

It seems to me that the politics of liberal reform, in recent years, shows many of the same characteristics as amateur poetry. It has been more concerned with the kind of symbolic action that gratifies the passions of the reformer rather than with the efficacy of the reforms themselves. Indeed, the outstanding characteristic of what we call "the New Politics" is precisely its insistence on the overwhelming importance of revealing, in the public realm, one's intense feelings—we must "care," we must "be concerned," we must be "committed." Unsurprisingly, this goes along with an immense indifference to consequences, to positive results or the lack thereof.

and

Two Economic Questions, June 26, 1980

Our economic problems are not intractable. We can bring down—are bringing down—the rate of inflation. We can afford a tax cut without creating economic chaos. Despite the follies of the past decade, our economy is not at the edge of apocalypse. Economic policies that are just a bit more sensible, especially in the areas of taxation and regulation, can make a lot of difference for the future.

On the other hand, once the idea gets around that we are in a profound crisis and that only "drastic action" by Washington can save us—then it will be time to head for the storm cellars.

In the first instance Mr. Kristol's insight is that the state does not create economic growth; rather, it can only get in the way of growth by over-regulating, by attempting to pick winners and losers rather than let the market do so, and by insisting upon the evenness of results rather than the evenness of opportunity.  "A rising tide lifts all boats" does not mean that no boat will ever sink, nor does it mean that all boats are the same.  But those boats that remain afloat will be lifted, and the people aboard lifted with them.

In the second, Mr. Kristol notes the fallacy of designing policies that "feel good," that create self-esteem in the policy maker.  The best recent example of this is Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank's desire to "roll the dice" in favor of higher risk mortgages.  Look where that got us.

Finally, let's harken back to the recent fiscal crisis, and think of how many times we've heard that the crisis is "dire," requiring Washington to take "drastic," "immediate" action to avert a meltdown.  Mr. Kristol quite presciently warned of just such an eventuality.  Did the "stimulus" prevent unemployment from rising above 8% as suggested?  No. Did TARP prevent bank failures?  No. Are GM and Chrysler more sound than Ford because they were nationalized?  No.  And yet, here we are.

So, So Funny. I Laughed 'Til I Stopped.

This simply must be posted.  I watched it last night with Gwendolyn, and we both were in tears. Jon Stewart masterfully skewers the Ministry of Truth Media while simultaneously doing the job they chose not to do.  I have to have it here.

Content warning for bleeped obscenities.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Hat tip: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

Ministry Of Truth, New York Edition

It's 1984 all over again.  Recall ...

Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one [my emphasis]. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.  [emphasis from source except as noted]

Today's version of the Ministry of Truth...

ACORN originally claimed, in a statement from Bertha Lewis, that

This recent scam, which was attempted in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia to name a few places, had failed for months before the results we’ve all recently seen.

Whoa, ACORN got snagged in New York, didn't they?  We need a rewrite - and the guys at the NY Times are just the people to do it.

In a statement over the weekend, Bertha Lewis, the chief organizer for Acorn, said the bogus prostitute and pimp had spent months visiting numerous Acorn offices, including those in San Diego, Los Angeles, Miami and Philadelphia, before getting the responses they were looking for.

Duane Patterson at Townhall.com notes

Did Scott Shane [the NY Times writer] simply overlook New York while reading the statement?  Or did he intentionally overlook New York when writing his story so he wouldn't have had to do what any journalist should do, which is call ACORN's office, talk to Ms. Lewis, and ask why the sting happened in New York after she said it hadn't, and why her statement has vanished from the ACORN website already?

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
...and this is Emmanuel Goldstein.

We've arrived at a place where the "paper of record" thinks that it's okay to excise from a paraphrase the inconvenient words, the ones that make the entire paraphrase invalid.  Rather than protecting ACORN by removing the one city that we are now 100% certain doesn't belong on the list, the NY Times should be assuming that the other cities on the list were suspect unless proven otherwise.

This is of a piece with the title of Mr. Shane's article, "Conservatives draw blood from ACORN."  It matters not one whit who uncovered the deep corruption in the organization, but the Times presents it, rather than simply reporting the facts, immediately in a way that makes it a "left vs. right" argument of opinion rather than a "right vs. wrong" argument of fact.  Are the actions of the ACORN representatives more defensible because "conservatives" have exposed them?  Are they less reprehensible?  Are they a legitimate response to the scenario they were presented?  No, no, and no.

Ah, but if we turn it into wacky conservatives hatin' on a black man in the White House, well ...

Pathetic.

Remember "The Al Franken Decade?"

Remember "The Al Franken Decade?"  The '70's had just ended, and Al Franken, then a writer and occasionally a performer for Saturday Night Live, began to call the 80's his own:

Jane Curtin: Well, the 1970's are in their final month, and with some thoughts on this decade and the one we're about to enter, here's Weekend Update's Social Sciences Editor Al Franken.

Al Franken: Thank you, Jane. Well, the "me" decade is almost over, and good riddance, and far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit. Well, I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the 80's will be pretty much the same as the 70's. I'll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you, you'll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken. When you see a news report, you'll be thinking, "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this thing?", "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking, "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?", or "What can I not wear?" You know, I know a lot of you out there are thinking, "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV, so I've already gotten the jump on you. So, I say let's leave behind the fragmented, selfish 70's, and go into the 80's with a unity and purpose. That's what I think. I'm Al Franken. Jane?

Jane Curtin: Thank you, Al. That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow

Iowahawk does, except this time it's all about the NY Times' Thomas Friedman.  Mr. Friedman memorably wrote yesterday about the perils of one-party democracy, yearning for a China-style one-party autocracy that could satisfy the policy wishes of ... Thomas Friedman.  That the problem with Mr. Friedman's one-party democracy is that there's a second party that can and does object apparently escaped him, but not the sharp eye and pen of the Cato Institute's Will Wilkinson.

So where were we? Oh, yes: one-party democracy is aggravating because sometimes one party can’t do what it wants because the other party gets in the way. Sooo frustrating!!! Why have democracy at all when all you end up with is a single party stymied by the other one! And so it is that Friedman comes to wax romantic about communist central planning:

A Racist On The Left?

Carl Pope at the Huffington Post writes the obligatory "the racist right went after Van Jones because he's black" piece, ignoring - and still not defending - the Marxist leader of STORM, 9/11 truther, white polluters poisoning people of color, admitted communist radical statements of the man as a more likely source of the right's ire.  [partial summary here]  Mr. Pope, the right didn't force out Van Jones, his own statements and beliefs did.  If they were defensible, he'd still be in his position, and the White House would have defended them.  They're not, and he isn't.

However, I found this interesting tidbit in Mr. Pope's bit of racial demagoguery.

If you watch the infamous "assholes" video carefully, it's clear that what Jones was saying was that Republicans play hardball better than Democrats, and that we need to start playing by their rules. He said it, though, in the language of his own community -- and that, at the end of the day, was his crime.

Except he wasn't speaking to "his community."  He was speaking to a largely white audience (view audience about half way through the video) at an energy lecture in Berkeley, CA.  Is Mr. Pope insinuating that only a black man would talk that way at an otherwise civil lecture?  That blacks, you know, "talk that way to each other," even when they have law degrees from Yale?  Does that language confer "authenticity" to him, Mr. Pope?

I think all civilized intelligent individuals are capable of informative discourse without resorting to crass epithets and ad hominum attacks, black or white.  Apparently Mr. Pope doesn't.  But in reality, I think Mr. Pope is right that Mr. Jones was talking to "his community" - liberals.  During a lecture on "green energy," in a location like Berkeley, CA, for a lecture given by a Marxist radical, it was perfectly reasonable for Mr. Jones to assume that there were no conservatives and no Republicans in the room.  Calling Republicans "assholes" was a perfectly acceptable form of discourse with that audience.

*note: I don't use the offensive word above on my blog, but I was forced to in this instance by Mr. Jones use of it in order to make a point.

The Van, The Vet, And The Vigilance

Van Jones, appointed as "Green Jobs" czar by President Barack Obama, has resigned, according to the NY Times.

Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate.

I guess then it would be okay for complete crackpots to be appointed to positions of responsibility in the administration as long as the Senate doesn't have to confirm them?  Ah, but Mr. Jones did receive a vetting.  He was approved by special Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, saying "we" were watching him for a long, long time.

JARRETT:. You guys know Van Jones? [Applause. Moderator injects: "This is his house apparently."] JARRETT: Oooh. Van Jones, alright! So, Van Jones. We were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House. We were watching him, uh, really, he’s not that old, for as long as he’s been active out in Oakland. And all the creative ideas he has. And so now, we have captured that. And we have all that energy in the White House.

So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing...

"Broad airing," just not in the NY Times.  Or the Washington Post.  Or network news.

... including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

Sure, lead with the charge that is the least offensive.  But the 'truther' thing is the big problem, although the NY Times article puts forth Mr. Jones defense, unconvincingly, that he signed the petition but doesn't believe it.

Mr. Jones has also said in the past that the Sept. 11 petition did not reflect his views.

"In the past?"  He said that only when confronted with it this past week, five years later.  And aren't you responsible for knowing what you sign?

Googling "NY Times 'birther'" yields this story, a blog post by Paul Krugman, an Opinionator blog post, a prominent mention in a preposterously constructed Frank Rich column, and a TV section story discussing the birther coverage of Lou Dobbs and others.  Googling "NY Times 'truther'" yields zero stories.  They did, however, cover the 'truther' movement in a 2006 story.  Rather flatteringly, actually.

Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

Whatever one thinks of the claim that the state would plan, then execute, a scheme to murder thousands of its own, there was something to the fact that more than 500 people — from Italy to Northern California — gathered for the weekend at a major chain hotel near the runways of O'Hare International.

The vigilance of the NY Times obviously regards some crackpot theories as more equal than others.  Which really doesn't constitute vigilance at all, does it?  The odds are strong that the NY Times will write this one piece, and only this piece, now that Mr. Jones has resigned, and then move on as if no further scrutiny of the man, the vetting process, and big media vigilance is necessary.  We can't have any scars on the perfect visage of the Obama administration, can we?

The truth, at this point, is that bloggers and scorned media such as Glenn Beck discovered the truth about Mr. Jones, bloggers and the scorned media got the truth out there despite a big media coverage embargo, and even with the big media covering for the Obama administration the truth was simply too hot to handle.

9/6/09 1530: Alan Colmes wants to know whose scalp is on the list next.

Now they will chest-beat, flush with pride at their “accomplishment.”  And choose another target.

If you're going to write as if this resignation wasn't appropriate, the least you can do is offer some defense for the resignee.  And if you can't or won't defend Mr. Jones trutherism, his admission that he's a communist, and his belief that "white polluters" poison people of color, then don't act like a petulant child.

9/6/09 1540: Maybe Mr. Colmes can find a way to defend this.

 In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, on September 13, 2001, however, Jones had a different explanation. On September 13 [ed: later corrected to Sept. 12], 2001, Jones said: "The bombs the government drops in Iraq are the bombs that blew up in New York City. The US cannot bomb its way out of this one. Safety at home requires justice abroad."

Scott Johnson at Powerline notes that this echoes Rev. Jeremiah Wright.  And, I might add, Ward Churchill.  From an interview with Boulder Weekly:

BW: My first thought when I saw what had happened was, "Somebody is going to get their ass kicked."

WC: Well, it occurred to me at the time that somebody was finally kicking U.S. ass for the way the U.S. had been comporting itself. Rather than, "Why do they hate us?" my initial response was, "How could they not?" And as to who was doing it, the problem is how many contenders there are out there. (my emphasis)

Elitist ... And Simultaneously Shallow

NY Times "conservative" columnist David Brooks on President Barack Obama:

"I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us."

Curious.  I divide people into two two types as well: those whose thoughts make sense based on all of the available facts (and who don't ignore the inconvenient ones), and those who don't.

When you acknowledge about $7 Trillion $9 Trillion cumulative projected additional deficits (possibly more - the White House uses unrealistic growth numbers for the next several years) and are still pushing for an additional trillion in spending on health care, that doesn't make sense.

8/31/09 1855: Ace of Spades lists the Top Ten reasons for Mr. Brooks' gushing enthusiasm.  He's missing the best one - the pecs.

8/31/09 2230: Allahpundit:

it’d be hard to find a more loathsome expression of intellectual elitism than “I divide people into people who talk like us and who don’t talk like us,” especially given the extent to which people like Brooks and Frum disdain the “one of us” appeal that inspires so many of Palin’s fans.

Maybe It's Because They Lie

Let's leave aside the information that NY Times columnist Charles Blow has, in today's column, borrowed an idea expressed eloquently by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal on August 20, that Americans in substantial numbers just don't trust the government to do the right thing.  First, Mr. Henninger.

To explain why the Obama health-care proposal pitched the nation’s politicians into town-hall hell, we would like to call to the stand an expert on how things in life can sometimes go wrong—Mr. Billy Joel.

Using a song years ago to sort through the complexities of a relationship in trouble, the Piano Man repeated the same simple one-word truth: "It's a matter of trust."

Now, from Mr. Blow:

What gives?

Is it partly the utter gullibility of some people? Sure. Is it partly deep-seated resentment of the black man in the White House? No doubt. But it’s also about something more fundamental: fluctuations of basic trust in the federal government...

That said, it stands to reason that many people probably don’t trust Washington on health care reform because, right now at least, they just don’t trust Washington.

Instead, let's have a look at the setup for Mr. Blow, who starts with the premise that an awful lot of Americans are buying into "myths" about the health care reform proposal.

Liberals are flummoxed by the fact that obviously false and widely discredited claims about health care reform have not only taken root, but appear to be growing in acceptance.

According to a poll ... most Americans now believe that if health care reforms pass, health care services will be rationed and taxpayers will be required to pay for abortions. And although Republicans are the most likely to believe this, they aren’t the only ones. Nearly a third of Democrats and more than half of independents also believe it.

"Obviously false and widely discredited," eh?  He cites two examples, so we'll examine those.

Economic Newspeak For The Political Class

We're all familiar by now with the concept that "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" is not the equivalent of a "tax increase."  Here's a good example, from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will allow tax breaks given to wealthier Americans under his predecessor, George W. Bush, to expire as scheduled rather than eliminate them sooner, an administration official said on Saturday.

Obama, who promised during his White House campaign to roll back tax cuts on people earning more than $250,000, also plans to boost tax collections from about 16 percent of the economy this year to 19 percent in 2013, the official said, confirming a Washington Post report on Obama's budget proposals for the 2010 fiscal year.

Nowhere does the reporter indicate that a "boost" in tax collections constitutes a tax increase, even if it's occurring by allowing built-in rate increases to occur.  As I've written previously, there is no "natural" rate for taxes at any income level.  They are what they are; if they go up, it's a tax increase, and if they go down it's a tax cut.  But "letting the Bush tax cuts expire" allows politicians who expouse it to avoid using the words "tax increase," and this is particularly true when the expiration is automatic, not requiring an additional vote.

Here's another example of economic newspeak from the political/media class.  Medicare payments to physicians are determined by what is known as the SGR, or sustainable growth rate formula.  (You can read more here). That formula has not been kind to physician payments, threatening ever larger cuts each year.  Those cuts have been prevented on a year to year basis by Congress, but they have not revised the formula.  For next year the formula threatens a 21% cut in reimbursement.  The Associated Press produced a fact check on health care that could use some fact-checking itself:

CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

Obama has pledged that "health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."

THE FACTS: Obama's pledge does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase Medicare fees for doctors. The White House says the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy

It absolutely does not increase Medicare fees for doctors.  It prevents the cut of fees.  That is not an increase.  When you hear that doctor fees are being increased $245 billion remember that this is not an increase in fee rates - those are the same.  What the $245 billion represents is an increase from what the government would like to be paying.*  Imaging going to the grocery store planning to buy 10 items for $15.  When the clerk totals those items the bill comes to $20.  Did the grocery store make $5 extra?  No, they received their proper reimbursement.  Your plan was faulty, thinking you could get those items for less at that market.

I often tell my children that the English language is very precise.  Words mean what they mean, and if you choose your words carefully you can make yourself understood to pretty much anyone.  I hope those writing in the media will take that to heart also and begin to select their words a bit more carefully.

Hey, I can hope.

*By the way, how do you suppose the President got the AMA on board with reform?

8/3/09 0011: Speaking of the President and the AMA, and, particularly, of newspeak...

Why I Don't Read Andrew Sullivan's 'Daily Dish'

Exhibit 1:  The Palin-hating Trig-truther puts together a compendium of "The lies of Sarah Palin," and the first one he lists, the very first one, the one which should be his strongest, turns out to be false.  Mr. Sullivan writes:

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Interestingly, the link he uses is to his own blog post on the topic.  Had he chosen to go outside of his own writing, he might have found this.

The report says Palin failed to reign in her husband's inappropriate efforts to use the governor's office to contact trooper employees in his attempts to have Wooten fired.

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda ... to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower's report says.

"Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. ... The term ‘benefit' is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest."

In the second finding, Branchflower says Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his dismissal but that it was a "contributing factor." Still, he said, Palin's firing of Monegan was "a proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority.

So there was a finding by a partisan investigator in an ethics complaint lodged to influence a presidential election, and even with that backdrop the finding is of a "proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority in the firing of Mr. Monegan.

Still, you could claim that Gov. Palin was still found to have violated the code of ethics, and was found to have placed "impermissable pressure" on subordinates.  And you might be right, as of Oct. 10, 2008 when this story was written.  But as of Nov. 4, 2008 not so much.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was cleared on Monday of wrongdoing in an abuse-of-power investigation into the firing of the state's public safety commissioner.

The Alaska Personnel Board report, issued on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, ran contrary to findings from a legislative inquiry that concluded in October that Palin had abused the power of her office by pressuring subordinates to fire a state trooper involved in a feud with her family.

Palin, who is Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, brought the issue to the personnel board herself after complaining the legislative probe was a partisan effort led by Democrats.

The board, a three-member panel under Palin's authority, was responsible for determining if she had broken any laws.

The investigation concluded there was no "probable cause" that Palin violated the state's executive ethics act in dismissing Walt Monegan as public safety commissioner.

It also cleared her of ethics violations in respect to her dealings regarding Michael Wooten, the trooper involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister.

This isn't a lie, simply a matter of who Mr. Sullivan chooses to believe.  Given his obsession with the origins of her youngest son this take is unsurprising.  So why bother to read the rest.  You'd think Mr. Sullivan would lead with a winner.  You'd be wrong.

Hmmmm.   She was exonerated on November 4th ... something else happened on that day, I think.  And although the complaints were dismissed as without merit, the damage was done.

Rest Assured, Many Of Us Had Little Doubt

Members of the mainstream press, however, have not seen any flaws to this point, though it's not due to the absence of such flaws.  "57 States?"

Husbands of the world rejoice!

President Barack Obama, who has seemed to set an impossibly high bar for many men when it comes to dealing with their wives, has finally stumbled — and in a very public way.

“I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.

Obama seemed to be playing off an introduction that referred to him meeting his future wife, Michelle Robinson, while he was a student. But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989.

The reverence is palpable, isn't it?  Mr. Gerstein is certainly full of ... something.  "Impossibly high bar for many men?"  Not for this blogger.  I doubt Gwendolyn is in such awe of their relationship.  Maybe we should coin a neologism to signify such worship?  Call it an "Obasm."

Wherein Republicans Are Responsible For Every Mistake

As an example, see the conclusion to this story.

It looks like President Obama hasn't gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door -- located a few feet to his right.

[...]

Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans' icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support.

You see?  It's not his fault! It's opposition to the stimulus package laundry list of liberal spending projects that had him flustered.  The story, which managed to squeeze two paragraphs about a similar episode* involving President Bush in the ellipsis above, simply must find a villain for any error by the  "kind of really perfect" Mr. Obama.  And these days all villains are Republicans.  All.

*Actually, the stories aren't all that similar, as President Obama has been in the White House for 8 days whereas Mr. Bush's episode occurred in Beijing while attending a conference, and he had no ongoing familiarity with the location.  Mr. Bush's gaffe proved him an idiot, as legend has it.  What does his own say about Mr. Obama?

NYT: William Ayers Yea, John McCain Nay

This morning the NY Times published an op-ed piece revisionist history by terrorist (I won't write 'former' until he denounces his acts) William Ayers.

IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.

Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”

Au contraire, Mr. Ayers.  Many of us critiqued the substance of Mr. Obama's positions as well as his associations.

Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.

That "fiery style" of the preacher included such phrases as this, after the terrorist attack on 9/11:

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.” (Sep 2001)

Am I wrong for thinking that's just wrong?  Mr. Ayers continues:

I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.

Well, perhaps, but he had good company on the other side in Gov. Sarah Palin, about whose uterus Andrew Sullivan is still obsessing.  And she was a national candidate, not simply a recently inactive Marxist anarchist.

I'll leave fisking the rest of his piece to others.  Suffice it to say there's still plenty of meat on the bone.  I will leave you, however, with this.

As first reported by The Drudge Report, Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, submitted an opinion piece to the New York Times last week and the paper has rejected it.

A week earlier, the paper published an op-ed by Obama, about the Democrat's plans for troop draw-down in Iraq. A few days later, the McCain campaign submitted a column rebutting the Obama piece.

The NY Times claim that their objection, as near as I can tell, was that Sen. McCain's piece didn't say what the NY Times thought he should say.  Even if true it is still problematic.  Mark Helprin of Time Magazine - after the election, of course - noted the extreme pro-Obama media bias during the campaign.  It appears the NY Times sees nothing wrong with that.

12/6/08 1805: I said there was a lot of meat left on the bone. Jules Crittendon rips loose some here, with particular attention to the assertion that the Weather Underground terrorist acts killed no one.  What was his source in fisking this dishonesty?  Why, the NY Times, of course.  In reading the snippet from the Times the low body count certainly wasn't for a lack of effort.  It seems the Times didn't ask Mr. Ayers for a re-write.  (Hat tip: Ace, who has more)

12/7/08 1210: J.G. Thayer at Commentary does a commendable job this morning of further eviscerating Mr. Ayers' arguments and assertions.  It's no wonder some on the left just want Ayers to go away.  But it's safe for them to do that now, isn't it?

And Everyone Knows It

Rasmussen Reports on the public perception of press bias, and which direction it runs.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama win versus 11% who believe they are trying to help his Republican opponent John McCain. Twenty-six percent (26%) say reporters offer unbiased coverage ...

Just last week a Rasmussen Reports survey found that 51% of voters believed reporters were trying to hurt McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, with their news coverage.

Interestingly, while 83% of Republican voters think most reporters are trying to help Obama, 19% of Democrats agree, one percentage point higher than the number of Democrats who believe they are trying to help McCain. Unaffiliated voters by a 53% to 10% margin see reporters trying to help Obama.

Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats say most reporters are providing unbiased coverage in the current presidential campaign, but only 20% of unaffiliateds and nine percent (9%) of Republicans agree.

Allow me to translate, and let's not even look at Republicans surveyed.  Only one of five unaffiliated voters think the press is playing it straight.  It's 5:1 in this group that they're working to help Mr. Obama.  Even among Democrats just as many think they're helping one as the other.

I don't think this helps the guy they think they're helping.  Americans like a fair fight.

Can We Please Get To The Campaign?

It doesn't seem so.  I've been holding back on this, hoping beyond hope that the insanity that has sprung forth from the minds of the media and the activist left-wing of the Democratic party (referred to in other locations as the "netroots" and in others as the "nutroots") would resolve.  I hope no more.

It seems that Palinmania is not just the excitement generated among Republicans by the nomination of this accomplished and strong woman.  Yes, I wrote "accomplished and strong."  It's not just any mom of five who starts with a stint on the PTA and ends up nominated for VP, succeeding, to the tune of 80% approval ratings in her home state, at every step of the way.  Palinmania appears to also be the development of an obsessive derangement with psychotic tendencies among that group of left-wing activists and much of the traditional media (but I repeat myself).  You may wish to compare the list of questions given to Mrs. Palin by Charles Gibson of ABC in the recent interview vis-a-vis questions given to Mr. Obama three months ago, as The Anchoress did (hat tip: Ed Morrissey, who explores it's meaning).  There was some "liberal" editing of the interview, as well.

The Definition Of A Fact

In a column musing about the ability of lies to persist, Michael Kinsley writes in today's Washington Post:

John McCain was not offended when Barack Obama described McCain’s policy agenda as putting “lipstick on a pig.” I can’t prove that, but it seems so obvious to me that it’s more like a fact than an opinion.

No, Mr. Kinsley, a fact is not defined by what "seems so obvious to" you, particularly if you can't prove it.  This is a misunderstanding that so permeates much of what is written in the press and on blogs today, particularly on the left, that it needs to be addressed.  However clearly you may think you view the world, your interpretation of an event is still just that, an interpretation.  A fact is a fact, inviolably fixed in time and character.  If Mr. Kinsley wishes for this interpretation to be seen as fact (as opposed to, say, the interpretation of a Michelle Malkin or a Tony Blankley), he'll need to follow up with an explanation of what makes him the final word.

Mr. Kinsley then veers into more interpretation, which again we are to take as the final word, statements of "obvious" fact.

Nor could McCain possibly have thought that Obama was calling McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, a pig, since Obama didn’t even mention Palin. If Obama had even thought that his words would be misinterpreted as calling Palin a pig, he wouldn’t have said them. That also seems obvious. The whole controversy is ginned up, a fraud, a lie. All obvious.

This is all pretext, of course, for calling Senator McCain a liar, and for lying much more than Senator Obama and his minions.

No, really.  Don't laugh.

That's not to say that I approve of lying.  I don't.  I don't think either side should be doing it about the other, particularly in deeply personal matters like, oh, collaboration with the enemy, for example.  The problem is when a left leaning media is willing to air and explore the lies from one side while feigning outrage over perceived "lies" from the other side that are in reality disagreements of opinion.

It is Michael Kinsley's opinion that the three instances he cites above are disingenuous, and he's entitled to his opinion and his faux outrage.  Your mileage may vary.

Yahoo Forgets

Without further comment, a screenshot of the Yahoo front page.

9/11/08 10:15: Okay, they've improved it.

But look who they highlighted reminding people of the anniversary.  Hmm, I think there's another guy at that joint Ground Zero appearance, John McSomething-or-other.

In Need Of Editorial Supervision

I shouldn't have to explain this to a newspaper editor ...

A Detroit Free Press editor expressed regret Monday that left-wing and anti-war activists were included in a focus group of so-called independent voters the newspaper interviewed during the political conventions, but said he didn’t see the harm in having a “radical leftist or two” in the group.

In response to questions posed to the would-be independent panel, two members of the anti-war group CodePink — as well as two other liberal activists — offered praise of Barack Obama after his Democratic presidential nomination acceptance speech. A week later they turned the tables and ripped into Republican Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination acceptance speech. Their comments appeared online and were excerpted in the Free Press’ print edition.

“I wish that it weren’t the case that there were two people from an activist group and we didn’t know about it,” assistant managing editor Randy Essex said of the CodePink members.

Nonetheless, Essex defended the panel’s results.

“If there is a radical leftist or two in the group, I don’t care,” Essex told FOXNews.com. “I want a robust conversation, a complete range of political viewpoints.”

The four activists were part of a group of seven self-described “independents.” Nine Republicans and 11 Democrats were also on the panel.

... but I will.  Let's start at the bottom here, and work up.  With the four "activists" you've mistakenly (dishonestly?) included in the independent group your panel is actually 9 republicans, 3 independents, and 15 democrats.  That is unbalanced.  Further, the four are actually on the far left of the political spectrum, and being members of an activist group like Code Pink are much more likely to give opinions that are pointed and agenda-driven.

Then there's the problem of fooling readers who, when you tell them that a group of voters is "independent" or "undecided" actually believe what you tell them.  I know, the rubes!  Still, some people actually don't surf the 'net and pick up every debunking that occurs.  "Hah, almost put one over on me.  I saw that report in the DFP and reconsidered my opinion on Mrs. Palin's speech, but you know Dan Riehl found out that one of the people who ripped her is from a far left activist organization.  Those jokers at the Freep almost had me."

This may come as a surprise, Mr. Essex, but people would really rather you be honest with your journalism.  Speaking of journalism, could Fox News at least have the courtesy to credit the blogger who first found it?  Kind of like I did.

Willful Blindness

This is amusing.  Mark Leibovich writes in the NY Times a navel-gazing look at media-bashing at the Republican convention, but fails to spot the enormous ball of lint growing in that orifice with each days publication of his own paper.

Ms. Palin capped off a succession of speakers, Rudy Giuliani Mitt Romney Mike Huckabee — who took turns pummeling their favorite target, the news media, which in turn gave the news media the chance to talk about its favorite subject all week (the news media).

We have played this video game before. Indeed, the Republican tradition of media-bashing goes back decades, at least to the convention of 1964 when former President Dwight D. Eisenhower called out "sensation-seeking columnists and commentators," and the Cow Palace in San Francisco burst into jeers and catcalls at the reporters there. The sentiment was immortalized in Richard Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew who memorably charged that many in the press corps were mere “nattering nabobs of negativism” — and for good measure — “an effete corps of impudent snobs.”

In other words, the bashers and bashees have been through this and know the drill. There was an almost homey familiarity to the ritual. And despite the hot words from the podium, it was hard to find a journalist last week who felt any unusual sense of siege or discomfort.

It would be too tiresome, and yet also too easy, to point out the many instances in Mr. Leibovich's NY Times over the course of the last eight years where they have jumped on thin information to try to do damage to both specific Republicans and Republicans in general.  So let's just point out for Mr. Leibovich a very recent example, one with which he should be quite familiar.

ST. PAUL -- Yesterday the McCain camp hit back hard on this front-page NYT story by Elisabeth Bumiller reporting that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Alaska Independence Party in the 1990s. Today [Sept. 3], the paper writes:

...The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party's chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify.

That retraction by her own source was not enough for Ms. Bumiller, however.

However, Bumiller, according to Howard Kurtz today, remains "completely confident about the story."

"Completely confident" in a story that her own single source has since retracted.  Is it any wonder there's some media bashing going on?  Mr. Leibovich could have, perhaps addressed some of these "mistakes" in the course of his piece.

Journalism 101: Sexism And Female Politicians

Here's another.  Apparently the AP's Ron Fournier, in more deep "analysis," is offended that the McCain campaign thinks that some of the scrutiny Mrs. Palin is receiving is sexist in nature.

McCain's wife, Cindy, said she was insulted by suggestions that the demands of caring for five children makes Palin a poor choice. "These questions would not be asked if she were a man," she said.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani toted his feminist talking points around to no fewer than five morning TV interviews.

[...]

And that's the point. McCain wants conservative voters, many of whom were lukewarm toward his candidacy, whipped into high dungeon in defense of Palin, angry at the media and the unnamed liberal elites who are denounced by most every convention speaker.

Absolutely.  [The absolutely refers to the charges of sexism, not Mr. Fournier's conclusions about frenzying the conservatives.]  And, Mr. Fournier, the McCain campaign has some allies in this.  Unusual ones, to say the least.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Sarah Palin found some unlikely allies Wednesday as leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed the Republican charge that John McCain’s running mate has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats.

Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

There should be for women an assumption, similar to what is assumed for a man, that she would not be accepting the position and the responsibilities if she hadn't considered the effects of candidacy and office on her family.  That's it.  The answer to any such "how will this affect your ability to raise your family" question should be a blank stare, followed by "I can't even believe you're stooping to ask."

9/4/08 1345: edited with brackets (above) for clarity

9/4/08 1730: ABC has asked some completely neutral independent voters what they thought of Gov. Palin's speech.  Then the media asked some random "men on the street."  Strange that the real one is almost as funny as the parody.  See if you can tell the difference.

Earlier: Journalism 101: The Families of Politicians

Journalism 101: The Families Of Politicians

Check me if I'm wrong on this.  During the Democratic convention, didn't Barack Obama's daughters find themselves onstage in front of delighted delegates with their mom, a cute, early part of the understandably positive run-up to the Thursday night speech by Mr. Obama?  Yeah, I thought I remembered that scene.

Does that mean that those children are fair game for political hits?  If you write for the Associated Press, apparently it does.

Analysis: GOP contradicts self on Palin family

ST. PAUL, Minn. – People: Make up your minds.          

For two days, the chorus from Republicans on TV news and in the halls of the convention has been resounding: Back off and let the Palin family be. "That's out of bounds," said Minnesota's Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty. "There's no need to be intrusive and pry into that."

Yet Wednesday found the following scenes unfolding:

Sarah Palin's pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old daughter and probable future son-in-law stood in a nationally televised, politically packaged airport receiving line to meet and greet the Republican candidate for president.

[...]

"Either the children are out of bounds, and you don't put them in the photo ops, or you don't complain when somebody wants to talk about them. You can't have it both ways," said John Matviko, a professor at West Liberty State College in West Virginia and editor of "The American President in Popular Culture."

Absolutely wrong.  The Obama kids are just as off limits for attacks, like, say, leading the paragraph about Bristol Palin with "pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old" - as are the Palin kids, and for that matter the McCain and Biden kids.  The kids, like it or not, are part of the family, and therefore part of the campaign, but they are off limits for political hits, particularly from journalists.

Clueless.  And reprehensible.

Hey, Don't Go Out Too Far On That Limb, There

It was inevitable.  John McCain picks Sarah Palin, Alaska Governor, as his wingmanperson, and immediately the media produce the kind of probing analysis that really dissects the effect of such a selection.

Little-Known Palin May Be Benefit or Bust for McCain's Campaign

Wow.  That is astonishing.  It's really the headline that's amusing.  Obviously picks like this have both upsides and downsides.  If you're John McCain you hope that the upsides outweigh the downsides, and if you're Barack Obama and his team you try to blow any perceived downside into an Angel Falls-type drop.

However, it's fair to say no one would Google "Hillary Clinton bikini" or "Geraldine Ferraro bikini".  Ms. Palin is a break-the-mold pick, and a very good one on the whole.  The best thing about her is that selecting her highlights the greatest weakness of the Democratic ticket.  I'll pause for a moment...  Give up?  As a vice presidential candidate she has more executive experience than the opposition team's presidential candidate, and Mr. McCain has much more experience than either Democrat.  If inexperience is a minus for a vice president, isn't it even moreso for a president?

Joe Biden was selected specifically to give a sheen of experience and wisdom to the Obama presidential campaign.  In other words, Mr. Obama new that was his weakness, and he strove to shore it up.  Smart, but it also highlights that weakness.  Both of those gentlemen have only legislative foreign policy experience, however.

Mr. McCain has just turned up the volume to 11 on that inexperience.  I disagree with Tom Daschle, whose reasoning here defies logic.

                Former Senator Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat and leading Obama advocate, said McCain's selection will make it more difficult for the Arizona senator to fault Obama for a lack of experience.         

                "It takes the whole experience issue off the table,'' Daschle said.

No, Mr. Daschle, it doesn't.  It shines a klieg light on it.  A world tour and a speech in front of fainting Germans does not equal experience, and nothing Mr. Obama did in the Illinois Senate does either.  He hasn't been in the Senate long enough to measure up in any way to Mr. McCain and his long track record and experience.

This race just swung dramatically.  Wait for the polls over the next week and you'll see a shift.  Economic and social conservatives will be more strongly McCain.  Married women and men will shift more strongly to McCain.  And although this may not sway the disaffected Hillary Clinton voters to move to McCain, it will prevent those who already have from leaving.

It's All In The Timing

Or, rather, in the timetable.

In agreeing to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraqi cities by June, and from the rest of the country by 2011, President Bush has apparently consented to precisely the kind of timetable that, when Democrats called for one, he dismissed as "setting a date for failure." Bush can call it an "aspirational goal" until he turns blue, but a timetable is exactly what it is, thank you very much.

[...]

... But in the end, he bowed to the will of the Iraqis' elected representatives. After five and a half years of occupation, it was their turn to put a gun to Bush's head: The timetable was the price they demanded for agreeing to let American troops remain in the country beyond the expiration of a United Nations mandate in December.

Bush's acquiescence pulls the rug out from under Republican presidential candidate John McCain, whose position on Iraq was largely identical to Bush's -- pre-backflip. In some ways, the new timetable is even shorter than the one proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

With all due respect, Dan Froomkin, you're a BDS-addled idiot.  I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but there is a tremendous difference between setting a timeframe for troop movements out of theatre when things are going badly and at a time when the neophyte Iraqi army is would have been completely overwhelmed, and troop withdrawals once the situation is stabilized and the Iraqi army is capable of continuing security operations on their own.

Recall also that Mr. Obama's timetable was mentioned in this speech in Nov. 2006.  (Let's not even notice that in that speech he mentioned advising a timetable a year before).  That's 22 months ago, and if his counsel had been followed we'd be fully out of Iraq today.  And the war would have been fully lost, the "surge" and the Anbar Awakening never occurring.

For the fact is that there are no good options left in this war.

Apparently there were.  And by the way, Mr. Froomkin, the "gun to Bush's head" metaphor is completely inappropriate.

The Media Rationalization Begins

The John Edwards/Rielle (aside: does she really spell her name that way?) Hunter affair is officially out in the open.  The media who ignored the story for so long are now trying to come up with rationalizations to explain why they were right all along not to investigate and report the actions of a man trying to capture the Democratic nomination for president with these rumors floating around, on the heels of the last Democratic president's various indiscretions.  Let's have a look.

Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes at the NY Times that, well, they just don't do that kind of tabloid story at the Times.

Before Edwards’s admission, The Times never made a serious effort to investigate the story, even as the Enquirer wrote one sensational report after another...

I do not think liberal bias had anything to do with it. But I think The Times — like The Washington Post, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, major networks and wire services — was far too squeamish about tackling the story. The Times did not want to regurgitate the Enquirer’s reporting without verifying it, which is responsible. But The Times did not try to verify it, beyond a few perfunctory efforts, which I think was wrong...

Times editors said that when the first Enquirer story appeared and they could not verify it after fairly cursory inquiries, they left it alone. “I’m not going to recycle a supermarket tabloid’s anonymously sourced story,” said Bill Keller, the executive editor. By the time the Enquirer reported on its hotel stakeout, Edwards was no longer a presidential candidate and, according to Times reporting, not even under serious consideration as a running mate to Barack Obama.

Except when they do, and with anonymous poorly proven allegations.  Then there's CNN.

After the National Enquirer reported catching Edwards making a late-night visit to see his ex-mistress last month, the blogosphere exploded, asking why the mainstream media was not reporting the story.

Was it because of a condescending attitude toward a tabloid's reporting? Bias toward a Democratic candidate? Or sympathy toward Elizabeth Edwards, who is battling an incurable form of cancer?

David Carr, a columnist for The New York Times, said many news organizations "tend to pick up stories from the National Enquirer with tongs."

It was all just too 'icky'.

Kurtz said news organizations were clinging to a very important standard: Don't run allegations that you can't prove.

"But it became a ludicrous situation ... almost became a conspiracy of silence by the media. And Edwards, meanwhile, would not give interviews, was not acting like a man who didn't have something to hide.

"I think at that point we should have -- earlier than we did -- told readers and viewers what we knew and we didn't know," he said.

I like Jennifer Rubin's take on the media's abdication of, well, their jobs.

And the notion that they are upholding some “journalistic standard” is rendered absurd. Edwards’ story wasn’t important on Thursday, but it was on Friday because he confessed? No, the level of proof changed, but the story’s relevance did not. If it wasn’t worthy of investigation before the ABC interview then it was unworthy of mention afterwards. Their explanation for their editorial decision-making is no more credible than . . . well than Edwards himself.

You obviously shouldn't be running sensationalist stories thinly or poorly sourced and unproven (are you listening, Bill Keller?), but to have a complete lack of interest in the truth of those sensational stories is not journalism as it is commonly understood.  That the type of journalism practiced seems to depend so directly on whose ox is gored is also notable.  Ms. Rubin notes that "[t]he fact that these [unreported] stories without exception work to the detriment of Democrats is apparently a grand coincidence."

Here's your exit question.  How big a fool do you have to have been to have supported narcissistic amoral phony John Edwards for president?

8/11/08 0640: ABC News, which, to it's credit, has finally begun advancing the ball on the story, writes today that, perhaps, Mr. Edwards is still not being completely truthful.  I may be out on a limb, but I predict that the full truth is still out there. 

Air Of Inevitability: The Daily Obama Puff-Piece

The media is hard at work assisting the Democratic candidate with a two-pronged assault designed to convince certain voters of the inevitability of Barack Obama's ascension to the highest office in the land.  Today's example?  The Associated Press steps to the plate to inform us of Mr. Obama's formidable skills on the hardcourt in that hotbed of hoop dreams, Honolulu.

HONOLULU - Confined to the bench back in his high school basketball days, Barack Obama felt the need to campaign for change.

The scrappy "Obomber," nicknamed for his jump shot, wanted playing time for himself and the other reserves. At a team meeting, Obama confronted his coach, a man who could be fiery and intimidating.

Obama had a flashy style the coach, Chris McLachlin, didn't fully appreciate, a game he described as "streetball, get after it, the defense doesn't know what's coming."

"He could've played and started on any other team in the state. He was that good. We just happened to have just a team that was pretty loaded," McLachlin said.

Back when I played HS hoop a "bomber" wasn't the guy with the good jump shot, but the guy who couldn't tell a good shot from a bad one.  And just how does the writer determine that it was the coach's inability to appreciate Mr. Obama's "flashy style" that was the problem?  I've played with a lot of guys with "flashy style" for whom the words "find the open man" were a foreign language.  The entire article is preposterous, particularly if you know a little something about the game.

The two pronged assault involves articles that a) describe in glowing terms the gifts, skills, interests and abilities of their chosen one, or b) the impossibility of the chosen one's suffering a loss.  Why?  Because there are a small percentage of voters who have no interest in politics and policy but are impressed with fluff.  There's another small percentage who wish say, "I voted for the winner."  These pieces are directed at those voters, and swinging 5% of the vote may be all that's needed.

By the way, check out the accompanying AFP photo.  Lookin' presidential already, I'd say.

Yesterday's media swoon was the Boston Globe's paean to Michelle Obama.  I can't wait to see what pops up tomorrow.

If Only The Press Felt The Same ...

Barack Obama on Good Morning America this AM, on the Clintons' campaigning proclivities:

"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."

Which would be most of the time.  For instance, it would have been interesting for the press to dissect Mr. Clinton's claim that the DNC's caucus setup in Nevada made some votes "count five times as much."  I certainly never saw any quantitative discussion that confirmed that number.  Perhaps, like in high school, it would be best if he showed his work.  I found the quote at Wizbang! this evening, and Kim Priestap, who wrote the post, also found a discussion of the Clintons' campaign tactics from Michael Tomasky in The Guardian.

I don't know who on this planet has the stature to go face-to-face with Bill Clinton and look him in the eye and tell him he behaved in a discreditable fashion. His wife? His buddy Vernon Jordan? Whoever it is, someone had better stop him. He campaigned against a fellow Democrat no differently than if Obama had been Newt Gingrich.

Mr. Tomasky is currently the editor of Guardian America, the Yank version of the UK Guardian.  Formerly, though, he was the editor of the very left wing American Prospect.  What's wrong with the comment selected above is that, implicitly, Mr. Tomasky is confirming that such campaign tactics are acceptable to him if used against Republicans, particularly someone as loathsome as Mr. Gingrich.  Heaven forbid the Clintons' should illegitimately smear a fellow Democrat!

Mr. Obama's campaign is serving a useful purpose, and that's to shine the light, finally, on the Clintonian principles, or rather, the absence of them.  If only the press were so inclined on their own.

Addendum: Here's a discussion of Nevada's delegate apportionment.  I can't make heads or tails of the discussion, but nowhere is there a suggestion of a 5:1 strength of certain precincts.

1/21/08 1820: (via Memeorandum) Well, now this is getting interesting.  From the "If all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail" department, Hillary Clinton spokesflack Howard Wolfson claims that Barack Obama's commentary about the former president's truthfulness is a ... yes, you guessed it ... "right wing talking point."

"From time to time the Obama campaign has used right-wing talking points against Bill and Hillary Clinton," Wolfson said at one point in response to questions about Obama's appearance. Asked whether Obama's claim that Bill is fibbing is one of them, Wolfson said: "Yes."

Welcome to the "vast right wing conspiracy" Barack.  This is both an attempt to smear Mr. Obama with primary voters, and to bully those easily bullied into toeing the Clinton line.  If Mr. Clinton wants to be above criticism then it should be because what he's saying and doing is well-founded and grounded in fact.  When he "stretches" the truth, sometimes to the point of rupture, he opens the door to those criticisms.  I know it worked back in the 90's to label every criticism as part of the VRWC, but that was largely because of the press' protective tendency to uncritically accept that defense.  But that dog won't hunt when the criticisms are coming from someone who is every bit as left wing as his wife.

Mr. Wolfson will need several more tools to finish the job.

Nobody Likes A Rigged Deck

Except, perhaps for CNN.  So much has been written on this by so many today that it's hard to keep up. In case you missed it, a couple of weeks ago CNN held a Democratic debate in which, strangely enough, some of the "undecided John Q Public" questioners had interesting ties to the Democratic Party as activists, and to Hillary Clinton in particular.  Several of the questions were designed to either make Sen. Clinton look good or her oppostion look bad.  CNN claimed ignorance.

Last night CNN had their chance to host the Republican candidates.  Who should show up in the audience asking questions, but ... Democratic activists with direct ties to candidates Clinton, Edwards and Obama.  After the previous uproar CNN can hardly plead ignorance now.  Jay Tea discusses the latest CNN controversy at Wizbang with his usual clarity.

A few weeks ago, during the most recent Democratic debate, it was uncovered that a lot of the questioners CNN picked had were Democratic party officials and apparatchiks. The justification at the time was "oops -- we didn't know!" and "well, it's for the Democratic primary, so of course it's going to be a lot of Democrats asking the questions."

Now that lightning has struck twice at CNN and we have a new slate of Democratic appartchiks and activists asking questions of Republicans, the new narrative seems to be "well, they were valid questions, so it really doesn't matter who asked them."

...CNN, by [applying] completely contradictory standards for its questioners at debates, betrays its bias: the Democrats get to stack their questions to make their candidates look good; the Republicans find themselves having to squirm...

And it's Fox News that is biased?  Give me a break.  CNN needs to treat this process with honor and impartiality.  If they're unable to do so then say so, step aside, and give other more honorable news organizations the floor.  Rigging the deck in the Old West could get you shot.  Today, CNN, it'll simply get you and your biases ignored to the tune of even lower ratings.

Others:
Kevin Aylward
Power Line
Allahpundit
Newsbusters
    ... and oh so many more.

"Boxers Or Briefs" Redux?

I guess they didn't feel comfortable with "boy shorts or thongs."

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

The UNLV student claims CNN forced the lightweight question upon her; CNN claims Yucca Mountain had been covered earlier.  CNN may have felt that the subject had already been addressed appropriately, but they could have selected just about anything for a wrapup question.  Why not ask John Edwards about his hair gel preference?  I suspect it's very likely they were trying to create for Hillary Clinton a moment similar to this ... ridiculous embarassment from an earlier era.

11/16/07 2130:  CNN, stack the debate for one particular picked-upon candidate?  No, it couldn't be!  There is really nothing quite as infuriating as media efforts to force the conclusions that they support.

11/18/07 2230:  Oh, my!  CNN has got some splainin' to do.  Can you say "agenda journalism?"  Sure, I thought you could.

Your Krugman, Redux

Just a couple of days ago I took NY Times columnist Paul Krugman to task for his "third grade" political understanding.

No, there are two inescapable conclusions that can be drawn from this column.  The first is that, despite apparent status as a respected economist (I have no idea why) Mr. Krugman's level of political understanding is third grade, at best.  The second is that the NY Times has sold it's soul to the Democratic party and is willing to publish an irrational and emotional rant by such a third grader as if it were a thoughtful and honest assessment as long as it hurts Republicans and Mr. Bush in particular.

I had to wait for only a few days for Mr. Krugman to confirm this impression himself.

There have been a number of articles recently that portray President Bush as someone who strayed from the path of true conservatism. Republicans, these articles say, need to return to their roots.

Well, I don’t know what true conservatism is ...

I'd stop you there, because that's really the essence of this column that is only confirmed as Mr. Krugman continues to write.  But then I'd be accused of Dowdifying the column, and we can't have that, can we?

... but while doing research for my forthcoming book I spent a lot of time studying the history of the American political movement that calls itself conservatism — and Mr. Bush hasn’t strayed from the path at all. On the contrary, he’s the very model of a modern movement conservative.

For example, people claim to be shocked that Mr. Bush cut taxes while waging an expensive war. But Ronald Reagan also cut taxes while embarking on a huge military buildup.

When he writes the word "people" you can substitute the phrase "Bush-deranged conspiracy theorist liberal Democrats like myself" and the meaning of the sentences actually improves.  Here, try it out on these:

People claim to be shocked by Mr. Bush’s general fiscal irresponsibility. But conservative intellectuals, by their own account, abandoned fiscal responsibility 30 years ago...

People claim to be shocked by the way the Bush administration outsourced key government functions to private contractors yet refused to exert effective oversight over these contractors...

People claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s general incompetence...

People claim to be shocked that the Bush Justice Department, making a mockery of the Constitution, issued a secret opinion authorizing torture despite instructions by Congress and the courts that the practice should stop...

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s efforts to disenfranchise minority groups, under the pretense of combating voting fraud...

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts — which, for a time, were all too successful — to intimidate the press.

Actually, I'm much more shocked by the press' attempts to intimidate Mr. Bush.

People claim to be shocked at the Bush administration’s attempts to equate dissent with treason...

...people claim to be shocked by the Bush administration’s authoritarianism, its disdain for the rule of law...

See?  It works like a charm.  Is "third grade" being generous?  Is it too much to ask for the NY TImes to put back up the Times Select "Wall of Secrecy?"