"It cannot be denied and it cannot be ignored, there is at this very point in time a vicious and systematic attack on Christianity and all it pertains to.
"I’m quite sure that the A.C.L.U. would deny the fact that that is their intent and that they are involved in this effort up to their toupees but the Bible says to judge someone by their fruits and look at the fruits of the A.C.L.U. which are so well documented that I won’t even go into them." -- Charlie Daniels, from "Soapbox" column entitled "Christian Soldiers," Oct. 27, 2003
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.
"'There's no reason for the city to force the Church of the Awesome God from its home, and the city is violating both the First Amendment and federal law in doing so," said Tim Butz, Executive Director of the ACLU of Nebraska." -- ACLU press release, Aug. 11, 2004
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Shrill Bill
William Saletan has got his panties all in a wad about how the Republicans are painting George W. Bush as a big he-man terrorist-killer, even though the President has had less acquaintance with physical danger in his life than the Bubble Boy:
"I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops?"
It's worth a read -- if you're an America-hater, I mean.
"I don't mean to be unfair to Bush. Vietnam was a lousy war. He wanted a way out, and he found it. But isn't it odd to see Republicans belittle the physical risks Kerry took in battle while exalting Bush's armchair wars and post-9/11 photo ops?"
It's worth a read -- if you're an America-hater, I mean.
Today's economic numbers
I haven't kept up with this as much as I should have, but we've seen three sets of numbers in the past two days that raise serious doubts about the validity of Alan Greenspan's "soft patch" theory/wish.
On Monday, we learned that, while consumer spending rebounded in July, consumer income growth was extremely weak, up just 0.1 percent, far short of Wall Street expectations and the weakest growth in two years.
The good news in that report was that inflation was tame and June's spending swoon was revised to something a little less disastrous.
The bad news is obvious: consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy, and if people aren't making money, they aren't going to spend money, unless they take on more debt, and they've already taken on quite a bit of that.
This morning, we got the Chicago PMI, the read of business activity in the Chicago region. I'm not exactly sure why this gauge is so much more closely watched than the indexes from other regions, but it is, and it showed a sharp slowdown in August.
The Chicago gauge's employment component actually rose a bit -- good news -- but inventories rose, too -- bad news, if shops are getting stuck with a bunch of stuff nobody wants to buy. Production prices rose, too.
Also today, we got the Conference Board's reading on consumer confidence in August. It slumped badly. It's still at a relatively high level, but job prospects have apparently not improved over July or June, when non-farm payrolls posted paltry gains.
I talked to Conference Board economist Delos Smith, who said his boss had gotten about "50 calls" from the White House about the numbers.
And little wonder: the Conference Board's number is the most highly respected in the universe of consumer confidence numbers.
It's also heavily dependent on how consumers feel about job growth and raises the possibility that, when Elaine Chao and Co. roll out their labor market numbers on Friday, they'll show that August was a crappy month to try to find a non-farm job, just as June and July were.
As the always entertaining Bob Brusca said today, ranting in response to those who claim that the comatose weekly jobless claims numbers are a sign of a new job boom:
Friday's report comes the day after the Boy King accepts his party's nomination for a second term. If it's bad, it could crap all over his post-convention "bounce."
Stay tuned.
On Monday, we learned that, while consumer spending rebounded in July, consumer income growth was extremely weak, up just 0.1 percent, far short of Wall Street expectations and the weakest growth in two years.
The good news in that report was that inflation was tame and June's spending swoon was revised to something a little less disastrous.
The bad news is obvious: consumer spending makes up two-thirds of the economy, and if people aren't making money, they aren't going to spend money, unless they take on more debt, and they've already taken on quite a bit of that.
This morning, we got the Chicago PMI, the read of business activity in the Chicago region. I'm not exactly sure why this gauge is so much more closely watched than the indexes from other regions, but it is, and it showed a sharp slowdown in August.
The Chicago gauge's employment component actually rose a bit -- good news -- but inventories rose, too -- bad news, if shops are getting stuck with a bunch of stuff nobody wants to buy. Production prices rose, too.
Also today, we got the Conference Board's reading on consumer confidence in August. It slumped badly. It's still at a relatively high level, but job prospects have apparently not improved over July or June, when non-farm payrolls posted paltry gains.
I talked to Conference Board economist Delos Smith, who said his boss had gotten about "50 calls" from the White House about the numbers.
And little wonder: the Conference Board's number is the most highly respected in the universe of consumer confidence numbers.
It's also heavily dependent on how consumers feel about job growth and raises the possibility that, when Elaine Chao and Co. roll out their labor market numbers on Friday, they'll show that August was a crappy month to try to find a non-farm job, just as June and July were.
As the always entertaining Bob Brusca said today, ranting in response to those who claim that the comatose weekly jobless claims numbers are a sign of a new job boom:
The trend in job growth is clear: from 353K down to 324K down to 208K down to 78K down to 32K. Any questions?
Is there any REASON for people to think job growth will reverse this pattern? That is, is there a reason other than that such a shift is what is needed to confirm extant economic forecasts? Are there countervailing strong economic reports that say claims data are correct and job trends are wrong?
Friday's report comes the day after the Boy King accepts his party's nomination for a second term. If it's bad, it could crap all over his post-convention "bounce."
Stay tuned.
Monday, August 30, 2004
George W. Bush, master campaigner
My God, Democrats must be quaking in their boots at the awesome majesty of George W. Bush's political skills.
Cower in fear, laughable mortals, as you witness King George unleash the full power of his strategelogical might!
TREMBLE at his unassailable position on the Iraq war:
David Sanger: So if you had to recalculate — what might you have done differently in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: David, what I am now doing is leading us forward. There will be ample time for people to dissect decision making, what went right or what went wrong.
And that "ample time" is right now, apparently!
THE PRESIDENT: What's important is, is that our strategy was flexible enough to adjust to conditions on the ground as we eventually found them. Remember, we thought there would be flows of refugees, we thought there would be starvation, we thought the oil fields would be destroyed. And none of that happened. And so, therefore, our commanders were given the flexibility to adjust, and that's what you're seeing.
Spin that, Democrats. What we're seeing now is not mass death, destruction, chaos and the gradual diminution of American power. No, what we're seeing is our commanders adjusting to the repercussions of their amazing success!
Second Term, here we come!
But silly David Sanger doesn't quite get the picture:
Sanger: So this — the mistake is specifically what?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. And so the fundamental question is, what are you doing about it? And what we're doing about it is dealing with it. We've got a flexible plan. In other words, a plan —
Sanger: Was it flexible fast enough? I mean ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, that's what historians and that's what people like yourself could judge. The point is, it was flexible.
There you go, David: it was flexible. 'Nuff said!
WEEP with joyful reassurance at his calm leadership on North Korea:
"Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons."
SWOON in awe at his stirring optimism about the war on terror:
"As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week, President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.
"'I don't think you can win it,' the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'"
Yes, George W. Bush: Creating conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.
I'm printing up the bumper stickers now!
Cower in fear, laughable mortals, as you witness King George unleash the full power of his strategelogical might!
TREMBLE at his unassailable position on the Iraq war:
David Sanger: So if you had to recalculate — what might you have done differently in this case?
THE PRESIDENT: David, what I am now doing is leading us forward. There will be ample time for people to dissect decision making, what went right or what went wrong.
And that "ample time" is right now, apparently!
THE PRESIDENT: What's important is, is that our strategy was flexible enough to adjust to conditions on the ground as we eventually found them. Remember, we thought there would be flows of refugees, we thought there would be starvation, we thought the oil fields would be destroyed. And none of that happened. And so, therefore, our commanders were given the flexibility to adjust, and that's what you're seeing.
Spin that, Democrats. What we're seeing now is not mass death, destruction, chaos and the gradual diminution of American power. No, what we're seeing is our commanders adjusting to the repercussions of their amazing success!
Second Term, here we come!
But silly David Sanger doesn't quite get the picture:
Sanger: So this — the mistake is specifically what?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a — it's a miscalculation of the — what the conditions would be like after a swift victory, because we never dreamt it would be that swift. And so the fundamental question is, what are you doing about it? And what we're doing about it is dealing with it. We've got a flexible plan. In other words, a plan —
Sanger: Was it flexible fast enough? I mean ...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, David, that's what historians and that's what people like yourself could judge. The point is, it was flexible.
There you go, David: it was flexible. 'Nuff said!
WEEP with joyful reassurance at his calm leadership on North Korea:
"Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons."
SWOON in awe at his stirring optimism about the war on terror:
"As he prepared to accept his party's nomination for a second term in office this week, President Bush said the war against terrorism must be fought but that it's not likely to ever end.
"'I don't think you can win it,' the president said, when asked if the war on terrorism can be won. 'But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.'"
Yes, George W. Bush: Creating conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world.
I'm printing up the bumper stickers now!
Life during wartime
My Republican National Convention experience will be extremely limited, if I have anything to do with it.
But I am working in the city this week and will be marginally exposed to the insanity, and I will write my marginal thoughts about it here. You're welcome, all two of you.
Friday night, my father and stepmom were in town, and we went to Union Square to gawk at the protesters. Union Square was also ground zero for activism in the months after Sept. 11, and I must say that the atmosphere was more charged in those days than it was Friday night. Maybe people were just getting geared up. Maybe it's just me -- Dad and Stepmom, uber-hippies of a sort, were mightily impressed with the "energy."
We happened to witness the opening moments of the bicycle protest and were amazed at the sheer number of protesters -- 5,000, according to news accounts. I was also surprised to find out later that 250 of them were arrested, apparently for blocking traffic.
They were certainly an an enormous, traffic-blocking mass when they first got moving, heading south on the east side of Union Square Park. But they seemed to have been spread thin when we saw them about a half-hour later, heading north up Sixth Ave.
In any event, it looks like the cops are really playing hardball, arresting even a guy who simply writes easily-washable chalk messages on the sidewalk. (Links via Gothamist, which is covering this all really well.)
I'm not sure what benefit, if any, the city is getting out of such an approach. While it might intimidate protesters and keep them on their best behavior, it might also frustrate them and raise the potential for greater disturbance later in the week.
Gothamist wonders if the hardball approach will be a PR debacle, but I doubt it -- most people in the country don't give a rat's ass about protesters anyway and will think they're getting what they deserve.
In any event, we stayed away from the weekend's big protests, including the very big one on Sunday. We both rode to work on the subway Monday morning and found conditions not much different than on any other work day, although there were cops looking into the cars at most Manhattan stops.
But I am working in the city this week and will be marginally exposed to the insanity, and I will write my marginal thoughts about it here. You're welcome, all two of you.
Friday night, my father and stepmom were in town, and we went to Union Square to gawk at the protesters. Union Square was also ground zero for activism in the months after Sept. 11, and I must say that the atmosphere was more charged in those days than it was Friday night. Maybe people were just getting geared up. Maybe it's just me -- Dad and Stepmom, uber-hippies of a sort, were mightily impressed with the "energy."
We happened to witness the opening moments of the bicycle protest and were amazed at the sheer number of protesters -- 5,000, according to news accounts. I was also surprised to find out later that 250 of them were arrested, apparently for blocking traffic.
They were certainly an an enormous, traffic-blocking mass when they first got moving, heading south on the east side of Union Square Park. But they seemed to have been spread thin when we saw them about a half-hour later, heading north up Sixth Ave.
In any event, it looks like the cops are really playing hardball, arresting even a guy who simply writes easily-washable chalk messages on the sidewalk. (Links via Gothamist, which is covering this all really well.)
I'm not sure what benefit, if any, the city is getting out of such an approach. While it might intimidate protesters and keep them on their best behavior, it might also frustrate them and raise the potential for greater disturbance later in the week.
Gothamist wonders if the hardball approach will be a PR debacle, but I doubt it -- most people in the country don't give a rat's ass about protesters anyway and will think they're getting what they deserve.
In any event, we stayed away from the weekend's big protests, including the very big one on Sunday. We both rode to work on the subway Monday morning and found conditions not much different than on any other work day, although there were cops looking into the cars at most Manhattan stops.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Air Force One
Why aren't the Democrats beating Bush up with this?
BUSH TOOK OUT AD LYING ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE: "A pullout ad from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal of May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture of Bush with a 'Bush for Congress' logo on the front. On the back, a synopsis of his career says he served ''in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft.''" [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
BUSH INSISTED THAT HIS LIE WAS TRUE: When confronted with questions about why he lied about serving in the Air Force, Bush claimed "The facts are I served 600 days in the Air Force.'' That is not true. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Air Force. [Source: AP, 7/13/99]
AIRFORCE CONFIRMS THAT BUSH LIED: Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The Air Force says that "Air National Guard members are considered 'guardsmen on active duty' while receiving pilot training. They are not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty Air Force." [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
Lifted directly from Oliver Willis, because it's too good not to.
The Republicans distorted Al Gore's words and then hammered him with them, in an effort to paint him as an unhinged liar. Can you imagine how much hay the Republicans would be making if Kerry had done something similar?
BUSH TOOK OUT AD LYING ABOUT HIS MILITARY SERVICE: "A pullout ad from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal of May 4, 1978, shows a huge picture of Bush with a 'Bush for Congress' logo on the front. On the back, a synopsis of his career says he served ''in the U.S. Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard where he piloted the F-102 aircraft.''" [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
BUSH INSISTED THAT HIS LIE WAS TRUE: When confronted with questions about why he lied about serving in the Air Force, Bush claimed "The facts are I served 600 days in the Air Force.'' That is not true. Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, not the Air Force. [Source: AP, 7/13/99]
AIRFORCE CONFIRMS THAT BUSH LIED: Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The Air Force says that "Air National Guard members are considered 'guardsmen on active duty' while receiving pilot training. They are not, however, counted as members of the overall active-duty Air Force." [Source: AP, 7/14/99]
Lifted directly from Oliver Willis, because it's too good not to.
The Republicans distorted Al Gore's words and then hammered him with them, in an effort to paint him as an unhinged liar. Can you imagine how much hay the Republicans would be making if Kerry had done something similar?
Bush flip-flops
In what may be a fairly significant development -- but so far largely unremarked upon in the left-wing blogosphere -- is Bush's admission today that "he made a 'miscalculation of what the conditions would be' in postwar Iraq."
First, compare this to his comments in his Meet the Press interview:
Obviously, he didn't answer the yes-or-no question, "did we miscalculate?" So that insulates him, in just the tiniest way imaginable, from accusations of suddenly flip-flopping.
And then there's that press conference in April:
My goodness, what a long answer! Again, did you notice any "yes" or "no" in that answer? No, because he completely dodged the yes-or-no question.
From the same press conference:
(Fast-forward through long, drawn-out non-answer and many hems and haws.)
On the other hand, this hurts him, in as much as it provides fodder for hacks like me to beat him over the head with this press conference, his Tim Russert interview and similar moments when he has refused to acknowledge error.
Also, doesn't this place even more pressure on Donald Rumsfeld? The guy has been fingered in the Abu Ghraib scandal and now has been saddled with "miscalculations" in post-war Iraq. Why does he still have his job? The longer he's in office, the more Dems can beat Bush up about it.
Of course, I don't see anybody doing much beating about this issue. Maybe it will take some time.
And maybe the New York Times needs to tear its eyeballs away from the bright, shiny object of the Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush (NSSBLFB) and notice that this "admission" by Bush is the real headline here.
Unfortunately, they bury it four grafs down. It's Bill Keller's crappy world. We just live in it.
Update: Oliver Willis is on it, but he doesn't spend a bunch of time on it. He's underwhelmed, apparently.
Update 2: TalkLeft is also on it, though he says little about it.
First, compare this to his comments in his Meet the Press interview:
Russert: It's now nearly a year, and we are in a very difficult situation. Did we miscalculate how we would be treated and received in Iraq?
President Bush: Well, I think we are welcomed in Iraq. I'm not exactly sure, because the tone of your question is, we're not. We are welcomed in Iraq.
Obviously, he didn't answer the yes-or-no question, "did we miscalculate?" So that insulates him, in just the tiniest way imaginable, from accusations of suddenly flip-flopping.
And then there's that press conference in April:
Q: Mr. President, I'd like to follow up on a couple of these questions that have been asked. One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, postwar planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? And do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics I brought up?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think, as I mentioned, it's -- the country wasn't on war footing, and yet we're at war. And that's just a reality, Dave. I mean, that's -- that was the situation that existed prior to 9/11, because the truth of the matter is, most in the country never felt that we'd be vulnerable to an attack such as the one that Osama bin Laden unleashed on us. We knew he had designs on us, we knew he hated us. But there was a -- nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale.
The people know where I stand. I mean, in terms of Iraq, I was very clear about what I believed. And, of course, I want to know why we haven't found a weapon yet. But I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat, and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I don't think anybody can -- maybe people can argue that. I know the Iraqi people don't believe that, that they're better off with Saddam Hussein -- would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power. I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better.
My goodness, what a long answer! Again, did you notice any "yes" or "no" in that answer? No, because he completely dodged the yes-or-no question.
From the same press conference:
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.
(Fast-forward through long, drawn-out non-answer and many hems and haws.)
I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.My two cents: This helps him, in as much as it reassures some undecided voters that he at least has the capacity to admit mistakes and change. I'm sure it was polled to the gills.
On the other hand, this hurts him, in as much as it provides fodder for hacks like me to beat him over the head with this press conference, his Tim Russert interview and similar moments when he has refused to acknowledge error.
Also, doesn't this place even more pressure on Donald Rumsfeld? The guy has been fingered in the Abu Ghraib scandal and now has been saddled with "miscalculations" in post-war Iraq. Why does he still have his job? The longer he's in office, the more Dems can beat Bush up about it.
Of course, I don't see anybody doing much beating about this issue. Maybe it will take some time.
And maybe the New York Times needs to tear its eyeballs away from the bright, shiny object of the Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush (NSSBLFB) and notice that this "admission" by Bush is the real headline here.
Unfortunately, they bury it four grafs down. It's Bill Keller's crappy world. We just live in it.
Update: Oliver Willis is on it, but he doesn't spend a bunch of time on it. He's underwhelmed, apparently.
Update 2: TalkLeft is also on it, though he says little about it.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
War's cost grows by the minute
970 U.S. deaths, 6,200 U.S. wounded, between 4,900 and 6,300 Iraqis dead.
Dollar costs running up by about $122,000 per minute.
A grieving father sets himself and a Marine van on fire when he finds out his son is killed in Iraq.
Almost an appropriate response. Why aren't we all on fire about this?
Dollar costs running up by about $122,000 per minute.
A grieving father sets himself and a Marine van on fire when he finds out his son is killed in Iraq.
Almost an appropriate response. Why aren't we all on fire about this?
The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part II
"If we’d take the media and the politics out of Iraq and let the military do their job I believe that the war would be over in six months. It’s time to take the gloves off." -- from Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column entitled "Disgusting," June 18, 2004.
"U.S. officers say the continuing attacks suggest that it will take time, possibly years, to crush the insurgency." -- USA Today, "Insurgents show no sign of letting up," Aug. 22, 2004
"U.S. officers say the continuing attacks suggest that it will take time, possibly years, to crush the insurgency." -- USA Today, "Insurgents show no sign of letting up," Aug. 22, 2004
The Love Train
Apparently, the F train is "the hot new scene," "definitely a fun train to ride," and has cars "where the sparks fly."
Igor is correct. Speaking to someone on the train is never going to happen.
By the way, the F train I ride every day is not exactly the most romantic place in the world, unless scattered garbage, sweltering heat and humidity, constant physical contact with unattractive, unwashed strangers and the ever-present stench of human waste are what you consider "romantic."
For singles, the hot new scene has no guest list, drink minimum or membership fee -- and the price of admission is just $2.
It's the F train.
...
In the past week, dozens of F train riders have posted their "missed connections" on Craig's List, hoping to make contact with those cute commuters they've silently eyeballed.
...
"Speaking to someone on the train - it's never gonna happen," says Igor, 21, who posted his own missed F train connection this week.
Igor is correct. Speaking to someone on the train is never going to happen.
By the way, the F train I ride every day is not exactly the most romantic place in the world, unless scattered garbage, sweltering heat and humidity, constant physical contact with unattractive, unwashed strangers and the ever-present stench of human waste are what you consider "romantic."
The Wit and Wisdom of Charlie Daniels, Part I
Since Charlie Daniels is going to be entertaining Republicans at an exclusive party at the Republican National Convention here in the honky-tonkin', Bible-totin', pistol-shootin' capital of the world, New York, I thought it would be fun to take a look at some of the common-sense things Mr. Daniels has to say.
"Pat [Robertson] stays on top of current events and issues and his well thought out comments are refreshing for a Christian living in such a secular world." -- Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column, entitled "Pat Robertson," July 30, 2004.
Jerry Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling.
...
Falwell: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'
Robertson: I totally concur...
-- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discuss current events on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001.
(Apologies to Atrios for lifting the headline)
"Pat [Robertson] stays on top of current events and issues and his well thought out comments are refreshing for a Christian living in such a secular world." -- Charlie Daniels "Soapbox" column, entitled "Pat Robertson," July 30, 2004.
Jerry Falwell: What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.
Pat Robertson: Jerry, that's my feeling.
...
Falwell: The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'
Robertson: I totally concur...
-- Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson discuss current events on Thursday, Sept. 13, 2001.
(Apologies to Atrios for lifting the headline)
Putting Nixon to shame
Noel Koch, a Vietnam vet who served in both the Nixon and Reagan White Houses and saw Bob Dole turned into a Republican hatchet man, expresses his disgust with Dole's attacks on Kerry in a biting op-ed in the Washington Post:
"Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest."
"Politics at its cheapest" -- the Bush tactics are making even veterans of the Nixon White House blanch.
Link via Josh Marshall.
"Time in-country, how often a man was wounded, how much blood he shed when he was wounded -- it is hurtful that those who served in Vietnam are being split in so vile a fashion, and that the wounds of that war are reopened at the instigation of people who avoided serving at all. It is hurtful that a man of Bob Dole's stature should lend himself to the effort to dishonor a fellow American veteran in the service of politics at its cheapest."
"Politics at its cheapest" -- the Bush tactics are making even veterans of the Nixon White House blanch.
Link via Josh Marshall.
1.3 million new Lucky Duckies!
1.3 million more Americans fell below the poverty line last year, according to the Census Bureau.
Lucky Duckies!
Lucky Duckies!
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Jerkin' back and forth
Everything you always wanted to know about masturbation and the Bible, but were too afraid to ask.
Where would we be without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It would be a much less hilarious world, that's for sure.
Link via Unfogged.
Where would we be without the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It would be a much less hilarious world, that's for sure.
Link via Unfogged.
Swift-moving developments
I'm just about sick of this whole Not-So-Swift Boat Liars business, but it's almost an impossible thing not to watch, like that slow-motion train wreck bearing down on Richard Kimble.
So I won't beat this to death, but here are the events as they unfolded today:
First, we learned that John O'Neill, the Nixon hatchet man who's been smearing John Kerry for the past 33 years, told Tricky Dick that he himself had actually been in Cambodia, further weakening his claim that Kerry did not go there.
Next, we learned that the Bush campaign's outside attorney, Ben Ginsberg -- part of the team of shitheads that fought for Bush in the 2000 recount battle -- had resigned, due to his connection to the Swift Boaters (henceforth, NSSBLFB, as in Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush).
Then we learned that even more Navy records back up what the Associated Press mistakenly calls "John Kerry's version of events." Note to the AP: It's actually the Navy's version of events! Anyone could make the mistake, I'm sure.
Then Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann went to Crawford to deliver a letter to Dubya asking him to condemn the NSSBLFB, a well-played PR move, in my humble opinion.
Instead of taking the letter, Bush cowered behind the sofa, sending out Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, himself a Vietnam Vet, to accept the letter.
But Cleland refused to give the letter to Patterson and rolled away from him, prompting Patterson to comment on the wheelchair-bound Cleland's "mobility." [Link via Josh Marshall]
Then Patterson and several other Republican Vietnam vets wrote their own letter to Kerry, trotting out the NSSBLFB claim that Kerry had accused vets of atrocities.
We've already linked to the transcript that shows this claim is misleading at best, but what's notable about this re-hashing of the claim is that it was posted on the Bush web site -- in other words, rather than running from the NSSBLFB claims, the Bush campaign is actually embracing them to some extent.
Finally, as Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, Patterson got some $150,000 in contributions from good old Bob Perry, who also funded the NSSBLFB.
It makes your fucking head hurt, doesn't it?
So I won't beat this to death, but here are the events as they unfolded today:
First, we learned that John O'Neill, the Nixon hatchet man who's been smearing John Kerry for the past 33 years, told Tricky Dick that he himself had actually been in Cambodia, further weakening his claim that Kerry did not go there.
Next, we learned that the Bush campaign's outside attorney, Ben Ginsberg -- part of the team of shitheads that fought for Bush in the 2000 recount battle -- had resigned, due to his connection to the Swift Boaters (henceforth, NSSBLFB, as in Not-So-Swift Boat Liars for Bush).
Then we learned that even more Navy records back up what the Associated Press mistakenly calls "John Kerry's version of events." Note to the AP: It's actually the Navy's version of events! Anyone could make the mistake, I'm sure.
Then Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann went to Crawford to deliver a letter to Dubya asking him to condemn the NSSBLFB, a well-played PR move, in my humble opinion.
Instead of taking the letter, Bush cowered behind the sofa, sending out Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, himself a Vietnam Vet, to accept the letter.
But Cleland refused to give the letter to Patterson and rolled away from him, prompting Patterson to comment on the wheelchair-bound Cleland's "mobility." [Link via Josh Marshall]
Then Patterson and several other Republican Vietnam vets wrote their own letter to Kerry, trotting out the NSSBLFB claim that Kerry had accused vets of atrocities.
We've already linked to the transcript that shows this claim is misleading at best, but what's notable about this re-hashing of the claim is that it was posted on the Bush web site -- in other words, rather than running from the NSSBLFB claims, the Bush campaign is actually embracing them to some extent.
Finally, as Josh Marshall and others have pointed out, Patterson got some $150,000 in contributions from good old Bob Perry, who also funded the NSSBLFB.
It makes your fucking head hurt, doesn't it?
Household vs. Payroll survey: the last refuge of economic scoundrels
This tedious debate is raised every month by administration officials and their apologists, but they keep switching sides -- flip-flopping, if you will -- depending on which set of numbers suits their purposes.
For months, the BLS' establishment survey, which produces the monthly payroll numbers, was showing a dismal labor market, mired in its worst slump since the Great Depression.
But the BLS' household survey, which produces the monthly unemployment numbers, was showing great galloping job gains. Administration officials and their apologists encouraged everyone to pay more attention to this survey, saying it was capturing job growth in new businesses, which were overlooked (so they said) by the payroll survey.
This was widely accepted by many Wall Street economists (many of whom had agendas of their own, to be sure), and even by some in the financial news media.
But then, lo and behold, in the spring of this year, the payroll survey started showing walloping gains, while the household survey showed something of a labor-market slump.
Suddenly, administration officials and their apologists were pointing to the payroll survey as proof of the health of the job market. The once-favored household survey was kicked to the curb, where it joined Iraq's WMD, Bush's plan to go to Mars and other discarded GOP talking points.
But faster than you can say "wishful thinking," the tables turned again, and suddenly the payroll numbers were weak, while the household numbers were strong.
Once again, that old chestnut about the household survey being better than the establishment survey was trotted out, with GOPers pretending it was a pretty new pony. The problem was, that pony had died long, long ago, and the stench of it was getting pretty bad.
The media, to their credit, didn't really buy it, choosing to focus on the weak payroll numbers. More importantly, though, a couple of recent studies have pointed out just how stinky that old horse really is.
First, there was a Fed-related study, the precise origin of which has escaped by addled brain. I'm still trying to find it, and I'll update this post when I do.
Then, today, in the Stock Traders Almanac's latest monthly newsletter (available to subscribers only), Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Maxim Group, helps to further debunk this myth.
He cites the testimony of Alan Greenspan, who said the payroll survey was more accurate. Just because Alan Greenspan says something doesn't make it so, of course.
But he also cites the BLS itself, which recently pointed out [warning: PDF file] that the two surveys are as different as apples and oranges and thus can be consistent, even as they tell of different job-creation totals.
First, the payroll survey is much, much larger, getting results from some 400,000 employers. The household survey only talks to about 60,000 households.
Second, the household survey throws all sorts of jobs into the mix, including farm workers, self-employed and household workers and people on temporary layoffs. The payroll survey doesn't include any of these people.
What's more, both surveys are subject to a host of data goblins, including benchmark revisions to the payroll survey, population controls in the household survey, job-switching by workers, sampling errors, and a lagged accounting for job births in the payroll survey (though there are guesses made about that).
The BLS adjusted the household data by removing those extra folks, and the results are striking -- you get a line that looks almost exactly like the line created by the payroll data.
It's a graphic I'll be saving and trotting out if I ever get in this argument with anybody.
"The argument that the Household Survey more accurately reflects Job creation has been, in our opinion, thoroughly discredited," Ritholtz wrote. "The Household Survey 'excuse' has become the last refuge of economic scoundrels. Employ it at your own risk."
For months, the BLS' establishment survey, which produces the monthly payroll numbers, was showing a dismal labor market, mired in its worst slump since the Great Depression.
But the BLS' household survey, which produces the monthly unemployment numbers, was showing great galloping job gains. Administration officials and their apologists encouraged everyone to pay more attention to this survey, saying it was capturing job growth in new businesses, which were overlooked (so they said) by the payroll survey.
This was widely accepted by many Wall Street economists (many of whom had agendas of their own, to be sure), and even by some in the financial news media.
But then, lo and behold, in the spring of this year, the payroll survey started showing walloping gains, while the household survey showed something of a labor-market slump.
Suddenly, administration officials and their apologists were pointing to the payroll survey as proof of the health of the job market. The once-favored household survey was kicked to the curb, where it joined Iraq's WMD, Bush's plan to go to Mars and other discarded GOP talking points.
But faster than you can say "wishful thinking," the tables turned again, and suddenly the payroll numbers were weak, while the household numbers were strong.
Once again, that old chestnut about the household survey being better than the establishment survey was trotted out, with GOPers pretending it was a pretty new pony. The problem was, that pony had died long, long ago, and the stench of it was getting pretty bad.
The media, to their credit, didn't really buy it, choosing to focus on the weak payroll numbers. More importantly, though, a couple of recent studies have pointed out just how stinky that old horse really is.
First, there was a Fed-related study, the precise origin of which has escaped by addled brain. I'm still trying to find it, and I'll update this post when I do.
Then, today, in the Stock Traders Almanac's latest monthly newsletter (available to subscribers only), Barry Ritholtz, chief market strategist for Maxim Group, helps to further debunk this myth.
He cites the testimony of Alan Greenspan, who said the payroll survey was more accurate. Just because Alan Greenspan says something doesn't make it so, of course.
But he also cites the BLS itself, which recently pointed out [warning: PDF file] that the two surveys are as different as apples and oranges and thus can be consistent, even as they tell of different job-creation totals.
First, the payroll survey is much, much larger, getting results from some 400,000 employers. The household survey only talks to about 60,000 households.
Second, the household survey throws all sorts of jobs into the mix, including farm workers, self-employed and household workers and people on temporary layoffs. The payroll survey doesn't include any of these people.
What's more, both surveys are subject to a host of data goblins, including benchmark revisions to the payroll survey, population controls in the household survey, job-switching by workers, sampling errors, and a lagged accounting for job births in the payroll survey (though there are guesses made about that).
The BLS adjusted the household data by removing those extra folks, and the results are striking -- you get a line that looks almost exactly like the line created by the payroll data.
It's a graphic I'll be saving and trotting out if I ever get in this argument with anybody.
"The argument that the Household Survey more accurately reflects Job creation has been, in our opinion, thoroughly discredited," Ritholtz wrote. "The Household Survey 'excuse' has become the last refuge of economic scoundrels. Employ it at your own risk."
Speaking of maps ...
As an expression of my relentless urge to serve the public, I offered you yesterday a few maps of free bathrooms in New York. You're welcome.
Today, because I am very slow and don't keep up with the news, I'm linking to some "news" about some more maps, coming by way of Gothamist, including a proposed new subway map and a cool three-way map for the tourist types.
The new subway map, which looks like this and this, will probably never be adopted; the MTA doesn't like it.
But the three-way map is already available, and you can buy it here. I'm not saying you should; the Gothamist says it's cool, but I have no idea. I'm just saying you can, if you want.
Frankly, I don't think the current subway map is really all that bad, all things considered. I know some out-of-towners have problems with it, but it never really bothered me much when I first started using it five years ago, and I'm no genius.
I do kind of like the idea of having a new map, just to mix things up. But I'd prefer they spend the money they would have spent on a new subway map on, oh, say, running another F train or two.
Today, because I am very slow and don't keep up with the news, I'm linking to some "news" about some more maps, coming by way of Gothamist, including a proposed new subway map and a cool three-way map for the tourist types.
The new subway map, which looks like this and this, will probably never be adopted; the MTA doesn't like it.
But the three-way map is already available, and you can buy it here. I'm not saying you should; the Gothamist says it's cool, but I have no idea. I'm just saying you can, if you want.
Frankly, I don't think the current subway map is really all that bad, all things considered. I know some out-of-towners have problems with it, but it never really bothered me much when I first started using it five years ago, and I'm no genius.
I do kind of like the idea of having a new map, just to mix things up. But I'd prefer they spend the money they would have spent on a new subway map on, oh, say, running another F train or two.
Howie Kurtz speaks truth; experts baffled
WASHINGTON (PBR Street Gang) -- Psychologists, media analysts and other such charlatans were scrambling Wednesday morning to find an explanation for a sudden, surprising torrent of actual good sense from Howard Kurtz, media critic for the Washington Post.
Kurtz, working as a correspondent for the CNN program News Night with Aaron Brown, delivered a report on the media's approach to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy that deserves reprinting in its entirety:
Kurtz, working as a correspondent for the CNN program News Night with Aaron Brown, delivered a report on the media's approach to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy that deserves reprinting in its entirety:
HOWARD KURTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Question, how many people would ordinarily have seen this Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad based on a half million dollar buy in just three states? Answer, not many but that was before the media, and especially cable television, began serving as a megaphone for charges about John Kerry's military record without having the slightest idea whether those charges were true. And when the cable circuit began debating whether Kerry deserved his silver star and his bronze star and his three purple hearts in Vietnam, viewers were also left wondering what was true.
JAMES CARVILLE, CNN HOST: Did you meet him in Vietnam?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
CARVILLE: You mean you never met him in Vietnam?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
CARVILLE: Come on. You're writing a book on a -- oh, come on, man.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was -- he was only there three months, James.
ROBERT NOVAK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You shout and you yell because you cannot answer the allegations in this book.
KURTZ: Suddenly, it seemed the only issue in the presidential campaign was the war, Vietnam not Iraq.
SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST, "HANNITY AND COLMES": I've read the book. It's frankly devastating to Senator Kerry what his fellow Vietnam guys are saying, what they experienced with him. They contradict just about every story he has told about his experience here.
JOHN O'NEILL, CO-AUTHOR, "UNFIT FOR COMMAND": It's a pattern of total lying and exaggeration, much of it very demeaning to the other people that served with him.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST, "HARDBALL WITH CHRIS MATTHEWS": Who was the person that told you this that he didn't deserve the purple heart?
LARRY THURLOW: The people -- keep in mind...
MATTHEWS: Can you give me a name, sir?
THURLOW: The name I would give you after the fact is (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
KURTZ: Soon the broadcast networks were putting on swift boat veterans like John O'Neill as well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And so what specific evidence do you have that John Kerry didn't deserve that purple heart?
O'NEILL: All right, first of all Dr. Letson was the treating physician.
KURTZ: Amid the sound and fury, "The Boston Globe, "Chicago Tribune," "Washington Post" and "New York Times" began poking holes in the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations. Three of the veterans, George Elliott, Adrian Lonsdale and Roy Hoffman had previously praised Kerry for bravery. Thurlow says there was no enemy fire when Kerry turned his boat around to pull crewmate Jim Rassmann out of a river.
JIM RASSMANN: I was receiving fire in the water every time I came up for air.
KURTZ: But Thurlow's own bronze star citation says there was enemy fire. The problem these are lengthy pieces dealing with complicated charges, hard to translate into good television, though some correspondents have certainly tried, besides the media have already moved on to the political question of whether President Bush would denounce the ad, not whether the ad was accurate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Message wars, that anti-Kerry television commercial, the president praises Kerry's Vietnam service but refuses to condemn the ad.
KURTZ: For journalists of a certain generation, Vietnam remains the irresistible issue to the point that not much else is being covered in the campaign right now. That Kerry volunteered for Vietnam and George Bush did not has been drowned out by the shouting about whether Kerry was sufficiently wounded to justify those medals. For television this back and forth, he's a hero, no, he's a liar, is so much easier than cutting through the fog of a 35-year-old war.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Poker with Dick
I usually hate these things, but this one is actually half funny:
Poker With Dick Cheney
Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM
The Editors: We'll take three cards.
Dick Cheney: Give me one.
Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.
TE: Fifty bucks
DC: I'm in. Show 'em.
TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.
DC: Not good enough.
TE: What do you have?
DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.
TE: Can you show us your cards?
DC: Sure. One of them's a six.
TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.
Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.
Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.
TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.
Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?
Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts.
Developing ...
TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?
DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.
TE: We aren't sure ...
DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.
Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.
TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.
Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking.
Developing ...
TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.
Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.
Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.
Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.
TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.
Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?
Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists?
Developing ...
Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.
William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?
Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.
Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?
Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.
George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.
Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.
DC: My deal.
Poker With Dick Cheney
Transcript of The Editors' regular Saturday-night poker game with Dick Cheney, 6/19/04. Start tape at 12:32 AM
The Editors: We'll take three cards.
Dick Cheney: Give me one.
Sounds of cards being placed down, dealt, retrieved, and rearranged in hand. Non-commital noises, puffing of cigars.
TE: Fifty bucks
DC: I'm in. Show 'em.
TE: Two pair, sevens and fives.
DC: Not good enough.
TE: What do you have?
DC: Better than that, that's for sure. Pay up.
TE: Can you show us your cards?
DC: Sure. One of them's a six.
TE: You need to show all your cards. That's the way the game is played.
Colin Powell: Ladies and gentlemen. We have accumulated overwhelming evidence that Mr. Cheney's poker hand is far, far better than two pair. Note this satellite photo, taken three minutes ago when The Editors went to get more chips. In it we clearly see the back sides of five playing cards, arranged in a poker hand. Defector reports have assured us that Mr. Cheney's hand was already well advanced at this stage. Later, Mr. Cheney drew only one card. Why only one card? Would a man without a strong hand choose only one card? We are absolutely convinced that Mr. Cheney has at least a full house.
Tim Russert: Wow. Colin Powell really hit a homerun for the Administration right there. A very powerful performance. My dad played a lot of poker in World War 2, and he taught me many things about life. Read my book.
TE: He's extremely good at Power Point. But we would like to see the cards, or else we can't really be sure he has anything to beat two pair. We don't think he would lie to us, but ... well, it is a very rich pot.
Jonah Goldberg: Liberal critics of Mr. Cheney's poker hand contend that "he doesn't have anything". Oh, really, liberal critics? Cheney has already showed them the six of clubs, and yet these liberals persist in saying he has "nothing". Why do liberals consider the six of clubs to be "nothing"? Is it because the six of clubs is black?
Matt Drudge: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
The Drudge Report has learned that Dick Cheney has a royal flush, hearts.
Developing ...
TE: Perhaps if you could just show us a subset of your cards which beat 2 pair? Or tell us exactly what your hand is?
DC: We will show you our cards after we have collected the pot. It is important that things be done in this order, otherwise the foundation of our entire poker game will be destroyed.
TE: We aren't sure ...
DC: Very good. And here are my cards. A straight flush.
Judith Miller: Dick Cheney has revealed a straight flush, confirming his pre-collection claims about beating two pair.
TE: Those cards are of different suits. It's not a flush.
Mark Steyn: When will it end? Now liberal critics complain that Dick Cheney's cards are not all the same suit. Naturally, these are the same liberals who are always whining about a lack of diversity in higher education. It seems like segregation is OK with these liberals, as long as it damages Republicans.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
A witness has come forward claiming that The Editors engage in racial profiling in blog-linking.
Developing ...
TE: Wait! It's not even a straight! You've got a eight and ten of hearts, a six of clubs, and the seven and five of diamonds. You have a ten high. That's nothing.
Sean Hannity: Well, well, well. In another sign of liberal desperation, liberals now complain that a ten high is "nothing". Does ten equal zero in liberal mathematics? That would explain a lot.
Robert Novak: It's a perfectly valid poker hand. Apparently, liberals have never heard of a "skip straight". It's a kind of straight, just with one card missing. But if you skip around the missing nine, it's a straight.
Alan Colmes: Mother says I mustn't play poker.
TE: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
Brit Hume: It seems like some people are still playing poker like it's September 10th. Back then, you needed to have all your cards in order to claim a straight. But, as we learned on that day, sometimes you won't have perfect knowledge. Sometimes you have to learn to connect the dots, and see the patterns which are not visible to superficial analysis of the type favored by the CIA and the State Department. Dick Cheney's skip straight is a winning poker hand for the post-9/11 world.
Rush Limbaugh: Do The Editors have two pairs, or a pair of twos? First they say one thing, then another. What are they hiding?
Andrew Sullivan: Dick Cheney never said he had a straight. He was very careful about this. His cards can form many different hands. None of these hands alone can beat a pair of twos; but, taken together, the combination of all possible hands presents a more compelling case for taking the pot than simply screaming "Pair of twos! Pair of twos!" as unprincipled liberal critics of the Vice President so often do.
MD: ****DRUDGE REPORT EXCLUSIVE****
*****MUST CREDIT THE DRUDGE REPORT*****
Did The Editors claim to have "a pair of Jews"? Are they anti-Semites as well as racists?
Developing ...
Zell Miller: As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I believe Dick Cheney, and I hate liberals and Democrats.
William Safire: Why are liberals so obsessed by Dick Cheney's poker hand? The pot has been taken, the deal is done. If liberals are upset that we are no longer playing by the Marquis of Queensbury patty-cake poker rules, they clearly lack the stomach to play poker in the post-September 11th environment. And why do they never complain about Saddam Hussein's poker playing, which was a thousand times worse?
Christopher Hitchens: The Left won't be happy until the pot is divided up equally between Yassar Arafat, Osama bin Laden, and Hitler. Orwell would have seen this.
Ann Coulter: Why do liberals object so strenuously to the idea of conservatives having a "straight"? Perhaps because it doesn't fit in with the radical homosexual/Islamist agenda they hold so dear?
Report of the Bipartisan Commission on Poker Hands: There is no such thing as a "skip straight".
DC: I have access to poker rules that the Commission doesn't, and so I know for a fact that the cards in my hand are all intimately connected.
George W. Bush: Dick Cheney is telling the truth. I'm a nice man who would drink a beer with you.
Vladimir Putin: I dealt Dick Cheney three aces and two kings.
DC: My deal.
The most important NYC map you will ever see
OK, maybe I exaggerated. Then again, maybe not.
You tell me: is a map of all the free bathrooms in Manhattan important to you?
Usage Note: The map says "Click on a neighborhood to find or add restaurants." What you'll find when you click is actually not restaurants at all, but sweet, sweet free bathrooms, along with helpful usage notes.
Update: A fellow blogger points out there's another list, but it:
a. is not as extensive
b. is an about.com site, meaning get ready for annoying pop-ups
c. claims to be a list of "clean" bathrooms, and if you've ever been in some of the Barnes & Noble bathrooms around the city, you know that's stretching it.
Game Over: This list wins. Thanks for playing.
You tell me: is a map of all the free bathrooms in Manhattan important to you?
Usage Note: The map says "Click on a neighborhood to find or add restaurants." What you'll find when you click is actually not restaurants at all, but sweet, sweet free bathrooms, along with helpful usage notes.
Update: A fellow blogger points out there's another list, but it:
a. is not as extensive
b. is an about.com site, meaning get ready for annoying pop-ups
c. claims to be a list of "clean" bathrooms, and if you've ever been in some of the Barnes & Noble bathrooms around the city, you know that's stretching it.
Game Over: This list wins. Thanks for playing.
Salam Pax blogs again
I've never been sure whether to believe that this guy actually exists or if he is who he says he is, but in any event he's blogging again, live from Baghdad. Interesting stuff, including several photos of insurgents.
Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth
Now, this is just getting ridiculous. I hereby call on both candidates to condemn these attack ads now:
"Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth has been formed to counter the deliberate misrepresentation of George W. Bush's drinking record. We seek to portray him as he was, and still is: a "lightweight."
"We, the men who were served drinks alongside George W. Bush, have partied with real party animals-- on the shores of Lake Tahoe, up and down the Gulf of Mexico, in the harbors of Kennebunkport. We have seen good men down a dozen kamikazes, and then swim once more onto the beach. We have watched the buzzed and brightest of our generation play beer pong until they were bent double, like beggars under sacks. We have known these party animals, and we have partied with them.
"And George W. Bush is no party animal."
Have they no sense of decency? At long last, have they no sense of decency?
"Pleasure Boat Captains for Truth has been formed to counter the deliberate misrepresentation of George W. Bush's drinking record. We seek to portray him as he was, and still is: a "lightweight."
"We, the men who were served drinks alongside George W. Bush, have partied with real party animals-- on the shores of Lake Tahoe, up and down the Gulf of Mexico, in the harbors of Kennebunkport. We have seen good men down a dozen kamikazes, and then swim once more onto the beach. We have watched the buzzed and brightest of our generation play beer pong until they were bent double, like beggars under sacks. We have known these party animals, and we have partied with them.
"And George W. Bush is no party animal."
Have they no sense of decency? At long last, have they no sense of decency?
Monday, August 23, 2004
Boy, that hug must have hurt.
John McCain must want to hang on to his GOP secret decoder ring really, really badly, as this exhaustive Kerry campaign press release reminds us:
Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute. In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.
Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.” “In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”
It goes on and on and on.
Happy campaigning, John!
Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute. In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as “suggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,” according to the New Yorker.
Bush Used Fringe Veterans Group to Attack McCain as “Manchurian Candidate.” “In the case of Ted Sampley, the same guy who did Bush's dirty work in going after Sen. John McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries is doing the job against Kerry this year. Sampley dared compare McCain, who spent five years as a Vietnam POW, with ‘the Manchurian Candidate.’”
It goes on and on and on.
Happy campaigning, John!
A grown-up Republican weighs in
If there is hope for our republic, it's the possibility that non-hacks such as Andrew Ferguson at the Weekly Standard will say more and more things like this:
in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing.
This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.
Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse.
But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.
Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.
Update: DeLong (who coined the phrase "grown-up Republican" is not so impressed:
"So why didn't the grownup Republicans do something about it?" he writes.
Good question.
I thought I was the only one...
When I first drafted my post about Bob Dole, it wasn't nearly as calm and measured as it is now. I posted it and then realized it was so full of rage and venom that I might be embarrassed to read it months from now, so I toned it down.
I'm glad to see, now, that I'm not the only one who's feeling this way about the current stage of the campaign -- the normally quite rational Matt Yglesias had this to say this weekend:
"I'm really so furious about this whole situation that I don't know what to say. I'm taking out my credit card and making some donations and I would strongly advise any readers who don't feel like continuing to see a lying, cowardly, idiot who's willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to maintain his grasp on political power (and that's all there is to it, this isn't deception in pursuit of some higher goal, the man has no ideological principles whatsoever other than his own self-aggrandizement) so that the gang of criminals he's employed at the highest levels of government can avoid prosecution serve in the White House I would suggest that you do the same. The purpose of negative ads is to demobilize your opponent's supporters. Don't let it work. Give the DNC some money. Or your favorite 527. Whatever you can. It's increasingly clear that the bad actors have, quite literally, no shame whatsoever and will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the government. "
In the comments to that post, I found a link to this, as well, from a blog called "Three Guys:"
"the Swift Boat Veterans are just the very annoying tip of a very, very big iceberg. Phony voting machines, illegal purges, voter intimidation, off-year redistricting, convenient terror alerts, the outing of CIA agents, selective declassification, manipulation of national security for partisan purposes, lying to New Yorkers about the quality of the air they breathe, completely false allegations about anyone and anything, covering up the torture our own soldiers have enacted in all our names...where will it end? Is nothing off limits? Is nothing sacred?"
I'm glad to see, now, that I'm not the only one who's feeling this way about the current stage of the campaign -- the normally quite rational Matt Yglesias had this to say this weekend:
"I'm really so furious about this whole situation that I don't know what to say. I'm taking out my credit card and making some donations and I would strongly advise any readers who don't feel like continuing to see a lying, cowardly, idiot who's willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to maintain his grasp on political power (and that's all there is to it, this isn't deception in pursuit of some higher goal, the man has no ideological principles whatsoever other than his own self-aggrandizement) so that the gang of criminals he's employed at the highest levels of government can avoid prosecution serve in the White House I would suggest that you do the same. The purpose of negative ads is to demobilize your opponent's supporters. Don't let it work. Give the DNC some money. Or your favorite 527. Whatever you can. It's increasingly clear that the bad actors have, quite literally, no shame whatsoever and will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the government. "
In the comments to that post, I found a link to this, as well, from a blog called "Three Guys:"
"the Swift Boat Veterans are just the very annoying tip of a very, very big iceberg. Phony voting machines, illegal purges, voter intimidation, off-year redistricting, convenient terror alerts, the outing of CIA agents, selective declassification, manipulation of national security for partisan purposes, lying to New Yorkers about the quality of the air they breathe, completely false allegations about anyone and anything, covering up the torture our own soldiers have enacted in all our names...where will it end? Is nothing off limits? Is nothing sacred?"
Shut your Viagra hole, Bob
Bob Dole helpfully weighs in on Kerry's war record, suggesting Kerry should apologize for things he said about Vietnam vets 30 years ago and accusing Kerry of being sent home early for getting three wussified Purple Hearts.
Updated to add: Bob Somerby says that Dole also said, in an interview with Pup Blitzer, that “There's got to be some truth to the charges ... because not every one of these people can be Republican liars."
First, Bob, Kerry has nothing to apologize for, and you damn well know it. In his Congressional testimony way back when, Kerry was simply relaying the testimony of other vets about things they'd seen and done. He made no direct accusations. This is the record. No amount of pretending will change it.
Second, Kerry didn't give himself his Purple Hearts. He got them, fair and square, and they sent him home early because of them. How this is his fault, I have no idea.
Third, several of these slimeballs have been proven to be "Republican liars," over and over again. Perhaps reading a newspaper -- the Washington Post will suffice, for starters -- or two would set you straight.
Fourth, Bob, your hapless foray into this minefield reveals you for the partisan hack that you are, and the strings attached to your back, the strings that lead up into the rafters, where Karl Rove manipulates you to do his will, are showing.
Finally, say goodbye to your credibility, or whatever of it you had left. You and the Swift Boat Liars are willfully and knowingly deceiving the American public, contributing to the deterioration of our discourse. When our republic crumbles, you will bear some of the burden.
Update: Bob Somerby puts it incomparably well today, in his discussion of this depressing debate: "Can we really keep our democracy? As the game is now being played, it seems we’ve already given up."
Updated to add: Bob Somerby says that Dole also said, in an interview with Pup Blitzer, that “There's got to be some truth to the charges ... because not every one of these people can be Republican liars."
First, Bob, Kerry has nothing to apologize for, and you damn well know it. In his Congressional testimony way back when, Kerry was simply relaying the testimony of other vets about things they'd seen and done. He made no direct accusations. This is the record. No amount of pretending will change it.
Second, Kerry didn't give himself his Purple Hearts. He got them, fair and square, and they sent him home early because of them. How this is his fault, I have no idea.
Third, several of these slimeballs have been proven to be "Republican liars," over and over again. Perhaps reading a newspaper -- the Washington Post will suffice, for starters -- or two would set you straight.
Fourth, Bob, your hapless foray into this minefield reveals you for the partisan hack that you are, and the strings attached to your back, the strings that lead up into the rafters, where Karl Rove manipulates you to do his will, are showing.
Finally, say goodbye to your credibility, or whatever of it you had left. You and the Swift Boat Liars are willfully and knowingly deceiving the American public, contributing to the deterioration of our discourse. When our republic crumbles, you will bear some of the burden.
Update: Bob Somerby puts it incomparably well today, in his discussion of this depressing debate: "Can we really keep our democracy? As the game is now being played, it seems we’ve already given up."
Friday, August 20, 2004
Poor, poor Michelle
Sigh -- it's not easy being a google-eyed, hate-filled, Nazi sex kitten. Why do you think Ann Coulter looks so haggard all the time?
Sadly, Michelle Malkin is finding this out the hard way. First, she was abused and laughed-at by the audience on Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend. Imagine the gall of these people, questioning her assertion that interring the Japanese in WWII was a good idea and that racial profiling will keep us safe.
Then, she leaped from that frying pan into the fire of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush controversy on Hardball, where she thought it would be a good idea to imply that John Kerry had shot himself in Vietnam.
Matthews trashed her. See for yourself here.
Later, Olbermann poured salt in the wounds:
"If Ms. Malkin isn’t seen on television, or moving on her own power, in the next few days, it’s understandable. My colleague Mr. Matthews forced her to hang herself out to dry ten or eleven times (never prouder of you, Chris). He may have directed the momentum, but her wounds were ultimately, uh, self-inflicted."
Ouch.
In her foaming response to the debacle, posted on her website, the venom and hate practically throb through the ether into your computer monitor. You'll have to take my word for it for now, since it's currently flooded and returning a "page cannot be displayed" message.
Sadly, Michelle Malkin is finding this out the hard way. First, she was abused and laughed-at by the audience on Real Time with Bill Maher last weekend. Imagine the gall of these people, questioning her assertion that interring the Japanese in WWII was a good idea and that racial profiling will keep us safe.
Then, she leaped from that frying pan into the fire of the Swift Boat Liars for Bush controversy on Hardball, where she thought it would be a good idea to imply that John Kerry had shot himself in Vietnam.
Matthews trashed her. See for yourself here.
Later, Olbermann poured salt in the wounds:
"If Ms. Malkin isn’t seen on television, or moving on her own power, in the next few days, it’s understandable. My colleague Mr. Matthews forced her to hang herself out to dry ten or eleven times (never prouder of you, Chris). He may have directed the momentum, but her wounds were ultimately, uh, self-inflicted."
Ouch.
In her foaming response to the debacle, posted on her website, the venom and hate practically throb through the ether into your computer monitor. You'll have to take my word for it for now, since it's currently flooded and returning a "page cannot be displayed" message.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Political football
Bush is using the Iraqi soccer team in his ads, and they're not happy about it:
"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."
Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes."
Gosh, am I sorry they lost to Morocco yesterday -- although, with their lame goalkeeping, I doubt they'll medal.
I definitely want them to medal, though I also don't want to see their medal ceremony replayed in a Bush campaign ad.
Then again, if they medal, and if Bush tries to use them, as he has already done, and if they then speak out against him, as they've done here, that would seem to be a negative for Bush.
"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Sadir told SI.com through a translator, speaking calmly and directly. "He can find another way to advertise himself."
Ahmed Manajid, who played as a midfielder on Wednesday, had an even stronger response when asked about Bush's TV advertisement. "How will he meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women?" Manajid told me. "He has committed so many crimes."
Gosh, am I sorry they lost to Morocco yesterday -- although, with their lame goalkeeping, I doubt they'll medal.
I definitely want them to medal, though I also don't want to see their medal ceremony replayed in a Bush campaign ad.
Then again, if they medal, and if Bush tries to use them, as he has already done, and if they then speak out against him, as they've done here, that would seem to be a negative for Bush.
Bizarro President
Thank God we have a president who is willing to stand up to missile-wielding tyrants who blackmail the United States!
"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world, 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down,' " the Accomplisher in Chief said, day before yesterday.
Sweet! We're going to shoot down missiles! No longer will we have to worry, as we have these past few years, about nuclear missiles flying in and killing us!
"I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system really don't understand the threats of the 21st century," he said. "They're living in the past. We're living in the future. We're going to do what's necessary to protect this country."
What a visionary!
Now, when Bush's utterly inept foreign policy creates missile-wielding tyrants, as it's about to do in North Korea, we will be able to defend ourselves by spending many, many billions of dollars to build stuff that may have a chance of knocking some of those missiles down!
Meanwhile, our populace will be made more hardened and grizzled by all the terror attacks we'll fail to prevent because we've starved our homeland security apparatus and left many thousands of troops bogged down in Iraq instead of hunting down al Qaeda.
Thus, the hardy survivors of the missiles that inevitably will sneak through our defense system will be even hardier as they battle the radiation poisoning and collapse of social order that will accompany nuclear holocaust.
Take that, tyrants!
For more sarcastic fun, check out Fafblog:
"Giblets is living even farther into the future, in a time when terrorism and pinko-tyranny are both irrelevant! Giblets demands that we spend 1.8 trillion dollars on an array of massive space lasers pointed outward to defend Earth against the onslaught of immense insectoid invaders who will strike from beyond the asteroid belt! Giblets will not allow the tyrant Bug Emperor to lay its death spores in our atmosphere - and the whiney pleas of those stuck formulating "today's" foreign policy to secure the former Soviet nuclear stockpile will not get in his way!"
"We say to those tyrants who believe they can blackmail America and the free world, 'You fire, we're going to shoot it down,' " the Accomplisher in Chief said, day before yesterday.
Sweet! We're going to shoot down missiles! No longer will we have to worry, as we have these past few years, about nuclear missiles flying in and killing us!
"I think those who oppose this ballistic missile system really don't understand the threats of the 21st century," he said. "They're living in the past. We're living in the future. We're going to do what's necessary to protect this country."
What a visionary!
Now, when Bush's utterly inept foreign policy creates missile-wielding tyrants, as it's about to do in North Korea, we will be able to defend ourselves by spending many, many billions of dollars to build stuff that may have a chance of knocking some of those missiles down!
Meanwhile, our populace will be made more hardened and grizzled by all the terror attacks we'll fail to prevent because we've starved our homeland security apparatus and left many thousands of troops bogged down in Iraq instead of hunting down al Qaeda.
Thus, the hardy survivors of the missiles that inevitably will sneak through our defense system will be even hardier as they battle the radiation poisoning and collapse of social order that will accompany nuclear holocaust.
Take that, tyrants!
For more sarcastic fun, check out Fafblog:
"Giblets is living even farther into the future, in a time when terrorism and pinko-tyranny are both irrelevant! Giblets demands that we spend 1.8 trillion dollars on an array of massive space lasers pointed outward to defend Earth against the onslaught of immense insectoid invaders who will strike from beyond the asteroid belt! Giblets will not allow the tyrant Bug Emperor to lay its death spores in our atmosphere - and the whiney pleas of those stuck formulating "today's" foreign policy to secure the former Soviet nuclear stockpile will not get in his way!"
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Sad but true
David Neiwert puts it well, in response to all this hoo-ha about "sensitivity" and Swift Boat Liars for Bush:
"What we should be talking about in this election is the fact that we lost over 2 million jobs in the USA under this administration. We should be talking about a federal deficit that has ballooned to a record $435 billion. We should be talking about the diversion from a serious "war on terror" in invading Iraq and how it has harmed our national security. We should be talking about the outing of CIA agents, and the setting of energy policy by consulting with corporate interests, and the concrete degradation of environmental standards.
"But we're not. We now have a thoroughly trivialized press corps, which is now busliy feeding the maw of a conservative movement that demands attention to truly insignificant personal smears whose entire purpose is to attack liberals and non-conservatives. Serious issues are "boring" and do little for your ratings. The Kerry campaign is going to have confront that reality."
"What we should be talking about in this election is the fact that we lost over 2 million jobs in the USA under this administration. We should be talking about a federal deficit that has ballooned to a record $435 billion. We should be talking about the diversion from a serious "war on terror" in invading Iraq and how it has harmed our national security. We should be talking about the outing of CIA agents, and the setting of energy policy by consulting with corporate interests, and the concrete degradation of environmental standards.
"But we're not. We now have a thoroughly trivialized press corps, which is now busliy feeding the maw of a conservative movement that demands attention to truly insignificant personal smears whose entire purpose is to attack liberals and non-conservatives. Serious issues are "boring" and do little for your ratings. The Kerry campaign is going to have confront that reality."
Shut your taco hole, Laura
Michael Kinsley lets Laura Bush have it:
"As someone with a loved one (myself, as it happens) who has the disease (Parkinson's) for which stem cells hold the most promise, please allow me to say: Thank you so much, Mrs. Bush, for trying to make sure that I don't get too hopeful. While your husband and Sen. John Kerry make a major issue out of who is more optimistic, it is inspiring to have a first lady with the courage to say: Let's be pessimistic! Optimism is unfair!"
The whole thing is hilarious.
"As someone with a loved one (myself, as it happens) who has the disease (Parkinson's) for which stem cells hold the most promise, please allow me to say: Thank you so much, Mrs. Bush, for trying to make sure that I don't get too hopeful. While your husband and Sen. John Kerry make a major issue out of who is more optimistic, it is inspiring to have a first lady with the courage to say: Let's be pessimistic! Optimism is unfair!"
The whole thing is hilarious.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Going down the tubes
Years ago, I read a great and terrifying article in Harper's about a looming global shortage of fresh water, and I never forgot it.
This weekend, I saw The Corporation, the well-done but far-too-long documentary about pathological corporate behavior. One of the cautionary tales in that movie was about how the World Bank forced Bolivia to privatize its water supply; Bolivia sold the rights to Bechtel, which then charged impoverished Bolivians exorbitant rates for water. Bolivians rioted in protest, and won a small battle -- the people took back control of the water supply.
But that was likely just the first phase of a long-lasting, perilous phase of human history: the era of little or no fresh water.
And then Mrs. Capt. Willard sent me this link, to a story discussing how unnecessary meat consumption by wealthy nations in the West is sucking the planet dry, as the food needs of livestock use up vast amounts of fresh water.
Getting this made me try to dig up the Harper's article, and the Google search found this page, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, about how several rivers in the world no longer run to the sea -- possibly a sign the water shortage is on the way.
Man, if and when we have to pay this piper, the bill is going to be huge.
This weekend, I saw The Corporation, the well-done but far-too-long documentary about pathological corporate behavior. One of the cautionary tales in that movie was about how the World Bank forced Bolivia to privatize its water supply; Bolivia sold the rights to Bechtel, which then charged impoverished Bolivians exorbitant rates for water. Bolivians rioted in protest, and won a small battle -- the people took back control of the water supply.
But that was likely just the first phase of a long-lasting, perilous phase of human history: the era of little or no fresh water.
And then Mrs. Capt. Willard sent me this link, to a story discussing how unnecessary meat consumption by wealthy nations in the West is sucking the planet dry, as the food needs of livestock use up vast amounts of fresh water.
Getting this made me try to dig up the Harper's article, and the Google search found this page, from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, about how several rivers in the world no longer run to the sea -- possibly a sign the water shortage is on the way.
Man, if and when we have to pay this piper, the bill is going to be huge.
Simply brilliant
My friends and I have had a running debate during the years of the Bush administration: is the President a moron, or not?
This brilliant article by Matt Yglesias, whom I usually don't consider all that brilliant, makes a convincing case that Bush is not sufficiently intelligent to be president. What's more, he makes a convincing case that this is not just something to laugh about, not just fodder for late-night comedians, but something tremendously dangerous to our country's well-being.
This brilliant article by Matt Yglesias, whom I usually don't consider all that brilliant, makes a convincing case that Bush is not sufficiently intelligent to be president. What's more, he makes a convincing case that this is not just something to laugh about, not just fodder for late-night comedians, but something tremendously dangerous to our country's well-being.
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Two scary polls
I'm glad Internet polls don't mean anything, because there are two fairly scary ones running at CNN.com and CNNMoney.com.
The CNN poll asks "Should U.S. forces attack sacred sites in Najaf where militants are hiding?" The response? An overwhelming "Yes," by 75 percent of 44,682 voters.
"The US military actions in the holy city of Najaf are deeply offensive to Muslims throughout the world," writes Juan Cole, in case you need some understanding of why the correct answer here is "no."
Need more?
Read this, from a Washington Post story, entitled "Cemetery fight haunts some U.S. troops," coming to me by way of Digby:
"Wives, daughters, husbands," said Sgt. Hector Guzman, 28, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 5th Regiment. "You just know you're destroying that tomb." The Houston native shook his head. "It doesn't feel right sometimes."
"We feel bad that we're destroying, that we're desecrating graves and such," added Staff Sgt. Thomas Gentry, 29, of Altoona, Pa. "That's not what we want to do."
Also from WaPo via Digby, the reaction from Iran's influential Ayatollah:
"These crimes are a dark blemish which will never be wiped from the face of America. They commit these crimes and shamelessly talk of democracy. Shame has no place in their vocabulary."
Again, for those who missed it the first time, the correct answer to that poll question is "no."
The CNNMoney poll asks "Would you support replacing federal income taxes with federal sales taxes?" The response? An overwhelming "Yes," by 65 percent of 11,011 voters.
Considering the cruel regressiveness of such a policy change, the correct answer here is also "no."
The CNN poll asks "Should U.S. forces attack sacred sites in Najaf where militants are hiding?" The response? An overwhelming "Yes," by 75 percent of 44,682 voters.
"The US military actions in the holy city of Najaf are deeply offensive to Muslims throughout the world," writes Juan Cole, in case you need some understanding of why the correct answer here is "no."
Need more?
Read this, from a Washington Post story, entitled "Cemetery fight haunts some U.S. troops," coming to me by way of Digby:
"Wives, daughters, husbands," said Sgt. Hector Guzman, 28, of the 1st Cavalry Division's 5th Regiment. "You just know you're destroying that tomb." The Houston native shook his head. "It doesn't feel right sometimes."
"We feel bad that we're destroying, that we're desecrating graves and such," added Staff Sgt. Thomas Gentry, 29, of Altoona, Pa. "That's not what we want to do."
Also from WaPo via Digby, the reaction from Iran's influential Ayatollah:
"These crimes are a dark blemish which will never be wiped from the face of America. They commit these crimes and shamelessly talk of democracy. Shame has no place in their vocabulary."
Again, for those who missed it the first time, the correct answer to that poll question is "no."
The CNNMoney poll asks "Would you support replacing federal income taxes with federal sales taxes?" The response? An overwhelming "Yes," by 65 percent of 11,011 voters.
Considering the cruel regressiveness of such a policy change, the correct answer here is also "no."
Today's economic data
This is really last night's econ data, but the ABC/Money consumer confidence index fell in the most recent week.
This isn't the most reliable indicator of consumer confidence, by any stretch, but it's got a bigger sample size (1,000 respondents) than the University of Michigan survey (500 respondents), which gets a lot more attention on Wall Street.
The Conference Board measure is more reliable (5,000 respondents), but it won't get here until the end of the month. In the meantime, we have to rely on these data.
This week's ABC/Money number is only one data point. Confirmation from the Michigan number, due on Friday, would not be a good sign.
Oh, and oil prices are still near $45 a barrel.
And mortgage applications are down, despite a drop in rates.
Yesiree, looks like an economy set to take off, just like Uncle Alan says.
This isn't the most reliable indicator of consumer confidence, by any stretch, but it's got a bigger sample size (1,000 respondents) than the University of Michigan survey (500 respondents), which gets a lot more attention on Wall Street.
The Conference Board measure is more reliable (5,000 respondents), but it won't get here until the end of the month. In the meantime, we have to rely on these data.
This week's ABC/Money number is only one data point. Confirmation from the Michigan number, due on Friday, would not be a good sign.
Oh, and oil prices are still near $45 a barrel.
And mortgage applications are down, despite a drop in rates.
Yesiree, looks like an economy set to take off, just like Uncle Alan says.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Wish I'd told you so...
I regret only saying that the consensus forecast of 250,000 or so jobs in July was shaky.
In fact, the forecast was in a whole other universe. Job growth came in at 32,000. Prior months were revised down sharply. Job growth has averaged a measley 106,000 in the past three months, and it's been decelerating every month since peaking out in March.
The Kudlows of the world are predictably pointing to the improvement in the household survey, but our press corps, surprisingly, aren't biting too awfully much. Perhaps that's because even they understand that this tired old chestnut got sent to the glue factory a long, long time ago, as DeLong explains.
The fact of the matter is that the job market has unmistakably slowed in recent months. What impact will it have on consumer confidence, which has been rising amid the slowdown? I believe confidence is lagging, though I have no real data to back that up. Maybe I'll try to go find some.
In the meantime, Tuesday brings the ABC/Money weekly consumer confidence poll, and Friday brings the University of Michigan's preliminary consumer sentiment number for August. These may be critical reports for judging how the electorate is feeling.
Or they may not. Sadly, the more reliable report, from the Conference Board, isn't due out 'til Aug. 31.
But I find it difficult to believe that consumers will react positively to bad news from the stock market, record high oil prices, bullshit terror alerts, violence in Iraq and two straight months of bad jobs numbers.
In fact, the forecast was in a whole other universe. Job growth came in at 32,000. Prior months were revised down sharply. Job growth has averaged a measley 106,000 in the past three months, and it's been decelerating every month since peaking out in March.
The Kudlows of the world are predictably pointing to the improvement in the household survey, but our press corps, surprisingly, aren't biting too awfully much. Perhaps that's because even they understand that this tired old chestnut got sent to the glue factory a long, long time ago, as DeLong explains.
The fact of the matter is that the job market has unmistakably slowed in recent months. What impact will it have on consumer confidence, which has been rising amid the slowdown? I believe confidence is lagging, though I have no real data to back that up. Maybe I'll try to go find some.
In the meantime, Tuesday brings the ABC/Money weekly consumer confidence poll, and Friday brings the University of Michigan's preliminary consumer sentiment number for August. These may be critical reports for judging how the electorate is feeling.
Or they may not. Sadly, the more reliable report, from the Conference Board, isn't due out 'til Aug. 31.
But I find it difficult to believe that consumers will react positively to bad news from the stock market, record high oil prices, bullshit terror alerts, violence in Iraq and two straight months of bad jobs numbers.
Ugly
From the Oreganian (via DeLong, Kos and others):
"a team of Oregon Army National Guard soldiers swept into the yard and found dozens of Iraqi detainees who said they had been beaten, starved and deprived of water for three days.
"In a nearby building, the soldiers counted dozens more prisoners and what appeared to be torture devices -- metal rods, rubber hoses, electrical wires and bottles of chemicals. Many of the Iraqis, including one identified as a 14-year-old boy, had fresh welts and bruises across their back and legs. "
As Kos said:
"We replaced one brutal dictatorial regime with another brutal dictatorial regime. And in the process lost 1053 allied and thousands of Iraqi lives, and counting."
"a team of Oregon Army National Guard soldiers swept into the yard and found dozens of Iraqi detainees who said they had been beaten, starved and deprived of water for three days.
"In a nearby building, the soldiers counted dozens more prisoners and what appeared to be torture devices -- metal rods, rubber hoses, electrical wires and bottles of chemicals. Many of the Iraqis, including one identified as a 14-year-old boy, had fresh welts and bruises across their back and legs. "
As Kos said:
"We replaced one brutal dictatorial regime with another brutal dictatorial regime. And in the process lost 1053 allied and thousands of Iraqi lives, and counting."
Object of fun
Remember how Team Bush said it was going to make Kerry out to be an object of fun? I guess they'd better start paying closer attention to the village idiot in their own corner.
Take a listen to an audience openly mocking Dubya's pitiful attempts to answer a question, courtesy of Air America's weblog: http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/000581.php
I almost feel sorry for him.
Ha ha ha ha -- no, I'm kidding, of course.
Take a listen to an audience openly mocking Dubya's pitiful attempts to answer a question, courtesy of Air America's weblog: http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/archives/000581.php
I almost feel sorry for him.
Ha ha ha ha -- no, I'm kidding, of course.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Sliming Kerry
I won't rehash the details of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth story, which can be found here and all over the blogosphere.
I will direct you to digby's informative post about John O'Neill, the man behind SBVT. In short, O'Neill has had a hard-on for Kerry since Vietnam and helped Nixon and Colson combat Kerry's claims about the war.
I'll also relate the gist of a debate I just saw on "Inside Politics" with the horrendous Judy Woodruff, between Jim Rassman, the guy Kerry pulled out of the water back in '69, and Larry Thurlow, one the SBVT crew claiming Kerry wasn't so heroic on that day.
Thurlow said there were six boats going up the river, 3 on one side of the river, 3 on the other. He said Kerry's boat was in the lead on the right side of the river, and that his boat was last in line on the left side of the river.
Let me stop right there -- this guy is claiming to be an eyewitness, and he was as far as he could possibly be from Kerry's boat. His vantage point could not have been worse on that day.
In any event, he said a mine disabled the lead boat on his side of the river. He said Kerry's boat sped away from the area immediately and that the other four boats in the river went to the aid of the disabled boat.
Rassman then recounted his side of the tale. He said Kerry's boat turned toward the disabled boat immediately.
He said the gunner on the bow of Kerry's boat "got his gun knocked out," though he doesn't say what, exactly, knocked the gun out. He was carrying another gun up to the bow when something hit the boat -- again, he does not say what that something was -- and knocked him into the water.
Thurlow responds by saying there was no mine detected (I presume he means around Kerry's boat, because there was clearly a mine around the lead boat in his column) and that he heard no blast on Kerry's side of the river.
Again, this is the recollection, 35 years later, from somebody who was as far from Kerry's boat as he could be.
Anyhow, he said the boats on Thurlow's side of the river fired into their riverbank, in case there was an ambush associated with the mine that blew up his lead boat. He said it was "soon apparent" there was no ambush, so the other boats went to the aid of the disabled boat.
Actually, he says here that only one other boat -- the middle boat on his side of the river -- went to the aid of the disabled boat, plucking 2 crew members of that boat out of the river. Earlier, according to my notes, he'd said all other boats, aside from Kerry's, had gone to the aid of that boat. I'm not sure if the discrepancy is in my notes or in his statement. I'll have to check the transcript, when it's available.
He said that very same boat, which had plucked the 2 seamen out of the water, then went to the aid of Rassman -- which raises another couple of questions: if the other boats were not helping these rescue efforts, what were they doing? And how long did it take to pull these two men out of the water and then turn to go pick up Rassman?
In any event, Thurlow said Kerry's boat then picked up Rassman, and that they were under no fire from either bank of the river.
Rassman responds that the water was being strafed with enemy rounds, which forced him to dive 5 or 6 times before Kerry came back and picked him up.
Thurlow responds, surprisingly, that he too "ended up in the water that day," though he doesn't explain how he ended up there, and Judy Woodruff, predictably, does not follow up to ask.
Thurlow says that he received no fire during his time in the drink, that his boat picked him up, and it was "business as usual."
He then repeats his first claim, that all the other boats but Kerry's were working to help the disabled boat. He says none of them had any bullet holes or any signs of taking enemy fire, and that he saw no rounds hitting the water.
That about did it for the factual recounts. Rassman replies that Thurlow has had the opportunity to set the record straight for 35 years and wonders why he hasn't done so until now. He adds that Kerry did not tell this story to the Navy, that Rassman himself told it, and he accuses Thurlow of being disingenuous and having partisan motivation.
Thurlow responds that the after-action report was written by Kerry, and that he's challenging the story now because Kerry is running for the highest office in the land. He also claims that he has avoided politics since the war and that he's simply trying to set the record straight, in light of Kerry's "fantastic stories" about that day.
Woodruff helpfully eggs Thurlow on, taking note of how moved he is to suddenly drop his decades of neutrality to fight for the truth. Thanks, Judy.
He also throws in -- not to be partisan or anything -- that he'd "hate" for Kerry to be Commander in Chief of his grandchildren.
Rassman says he'd want his kids to be commanded by Kerry, and then he falls back on the fact that McCain called the charges dishonest and dishonorable.
It's left at that.
Will this story have legs? I'm not sure. It might, especially if it keeps getting press -- Woodruff said she was sure they'd be discussing this much, much more "in the weeks and months to come."
Damn this liberal media!
The other question is: does this story matter? Of course not. Kerry's service to his country is doubted by no one and is demonstrably more heroic than Bush's during the same time period. Remember, this was the incident in which Kerry got his third Purple Heart. Had this incident never taken place, Kerry would still have had two of them, along with a silver star.
And the rest of the men that were on Kerry's swift boat -- the men with a front-row seat to the action -- have backed this story up for the past 35 years.
I'm watching Donna Brazile argue this issue with Tucker Carlson right now. She seems like she's drunk or drugged. Her arguments are outrageously weak. Sigh. As Bob Somerby says, this is a great way to lose an election.
Update: The LA Times write-up includes the Kerry campaign's charge -- which I've never heard anyplace else -- that two of the SBVT crew had actually gone to Kerry's aid in the 1996 election. Who are those two?
Update II: Note to self: Google more often. DCBlues at Daily Kos did, and came up with this American History article that tells a decidedly different story than Thurlow's, and in exquisite detail. Here is the explanation for how Thurlow ended up in the drink and what the other boats were doing -- trying to survive amid a hail of bullets, apparently.
It also notes that Thurlow, too, ended up with a bronze star for his actions that day, something he didn't mention in the debate. Could it be that, if he admits he earned a bronze star that day, he'd also have to admit that some actual combat had taken place?
The story was written by Douglas Brinkley. The problem with it is that the only source seems to be Kerry. But it would be interesting to see the paperwork by which Thurlow got his star.
I will direct you to digby's informative post about John O'Neill, the man behind SBVT. In short, O'Neill has had a hard-on for Kerry since Vietnam and helped Nixon and Colson combat Kerry's claims about the war.
I'll also relate the gist of a debate I just saw on "Inside Politics" with the horrendous Judy Woodruff, between Jim Rassman, the guy Kerry pulled out of the water back in '69, and Larry Thurlow, one the SBVT crew claiming Kerry wasn't so heroic on that day.
Thurlow said there were six boats going up the river, 3 on one side of the river, 3 on the other. He said Kerry's boat was in the lead on the right side of the river, and that his boat was last in line on the left side of the river.
Let me stop right there -- this guy is claiming to be an eyewitness, and he was as far as he could possibly be from Kerry's boat. His vantage point could not have been worse on that day.
In any event, he said a mine disabled the lead boat on his side of the river. He said Kerry's boat sped away from the area immediately and that the other four boats in the river went to the aid of the disabled boat.
Rassman then recounted his side of the tale. He said Kerry's boat turned toward the disabled boat immediately.
He said the gunner on the bow of Kerry's boat "got his gun knocked out," though he doesn't say what, exactly, knocked the gun out. He was carrying another gun up to the bow when something hit the boat -- again, he does not say what that something was -- and knocked him into the water.
Thurlow responds by saying there was no mine detected (I presume he means around Kerry's boat, because there was clearly a mine around the lead boat in his column) and that he heard no blast on Kerry's side of the river.
Again, this is the recollection, 35 years later, from somebody who was as far from Kerry's boat as he could be.
Anyhow, he said the boats on Thurlow's side of the river fired into their riverbank, in case there was an ambush associated with the mine that blew up his lead boat. He said it was "soon apparent" there was no ambush, so the other boats went to the aid of the disabled boat.
Actually, he says here that only one other boat -- the middle boat on his side of the river -- went to the aid of the disabled boat, plucking 2 crew members of that boat out of the river. Earlier, according to my notes, he'd said all other boats, aside from Kerry's, had gone to the aid of that boat. I'm not sure if the discrepancy is in my notes or in his statement. I'll have to check the transcript, when it's available.
He said that very same boat, which had plucked the 2 seamen out of the water, then went to the aid of Rassman -- which raises another couple of questions: if the other boats were not helping these rescue efforts, what were they doing? And how long did it take to pull these two men out of the water and then turn to go pick up Rassman?
In any event, Thurlow said Kerry's boat then picked up Rassman, and that they were under no fire from either bank of the river.
Rassman responds that the water was being strafed with enemy rounds, which forced him to dive 5 or 6 times before Kerry came back and picked him up.
Thurlow responds, surprisingly, that he too "ended up in the water that day," though he doesn't explain how he ended up there, and Judy Woodruff, predictably, does not follow up to ask.
Thurlow says that he received no fire during his time in the drink, that his boat picked him up, and it was "business as usual."
He then repeats his first claim, that all the other boats but Kerry's were working to help the disabled boat. He says none of them had any bullet holes or any signs of taking enemy fire, and that he saw no rounds hitting the water.
That about did it for the factual recounts. Rassman replies that Thurlow has had the opportunity to set the record straight for 35 years and wonders why he hasn't done so until now. He adds that Kerry did not tell this story to the Navy, that Rassman himself told it, and he accuses Thurlow of being disingenuous and having partisan motivation.
Thurlow responds that the after-action report was written by Kerry, and that he's challenging the story now because Kerry is running for the highest office in the land. He also claims that he has avoided politics since the war and that he's simply trying to set the record straight, in light of Kerry's "fantastic stories" about that day.
Woodruff helpfully eggs Thurlow on, taking note of how moved he is to suddenly drop his decades of neutrality to fight for the truth. Thanks, Judy.
He also throws in -- not to be partisan or anything -- that he'd "hate" for Kerry to be Commander in Chief of his grandchildren.
Rassman says he'd want his kids to be commanded by Kerry, and then he falls back on the fact that McCain called the charges dishonest and dishonorable.
It's left at that.
Will this story have legs? I'm not sure. It might, especially if it keeps getting press -- Woodruff said she was sure they'd be discussing this much, much more "in the weeks and months to come."
Damn this liberal media!
The other question is: does this story matter? Of course not. Kerry's service to his country is doubted by no one and is demonstrably more heroic than Bush's during the same time period. Remember, this was the incident in which Kerry got his third Purple Heart. Had this incident never taken place, Kerry would still have had two of them, along with a silver star.
And the rest of the men that were on Kerry's swift boat -- the men with a front-row seat to the action -- have backed this story up for the past 35 years.
I'm watching Donna Brazile argue this issue with Tucker Carlson right now. She seems like she's drunk or drugged. Her arguments are outrageously weak. Sigh. As Bob Somerby says, this is a great way to lose an election.
Update: The LA Times write-up includes the Kerry campaign's charge -- which I've never heard anyplace else -- that two of the SBVT crew had actually gone to Kerry's aid in the 1996 election. Who are those two?
Update II: Note to self: Google more often. DCBlues at Daily Kos did, and came up with this American History article that tells a decidedly different story than Thurlow's, and in exquisite detail. Here is the explanation for how Thurlow ended up in the drink and what the other boats were doing -- trying to survive amid a hail of bullets, apparently.
It also notes that Thurlow, too, ended up with a bronze star for his actions that day, something he didn't mention in the debate. Could it be that, if he admits he earned a bronze star that day, he'd also have to admit that some actual combat had taken place?
The story was written by Douglas Brinkley. The problem with it is that the only source seems to be Kerry. But it would be interesting to see the paperwork by which Thurlow got his star.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Of oil and today's economic data
Oil prices hit a new record in the morning, but then retreated, after the EIA said gasoline and home-heating oil stocks in the U.S. rose last week.
But the EIA also said U.S. crude oil stocks shrank. And many analysts were convinced before the EIA report that spare production capacity and inventories were dramatically low, so I'm not sure why the EIA report would completely change their minds.
What would be a mind-changer, if it had any credibility, would be the OPEC prime minister's flip-flop about OPEC's spare capacity. Just a day after saying OPEC had none, he suddenly changed his tune on Wednesday and discovered 1.5 million BPD in spare capacity. Surprise, surprise!
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia brought new oilfields on line faster than expected, and Yukos learned it could keep operating -- all bad news for oil bulls.
But the world is an extremely dicey place for the oil industry, as we've learned repeatedly in the past several months. I'm not holding my breath for a major decline in oil prices any time in the next several months.
Today's report on service-sector activity in July from the ISM showed a robust rebound in the headline number, which is a diffusion index -- a lot of services reported improved activity, in other words.
But, as I've said before, the headline number tells us little about the depth of the rebound. In the details of the report, things get a lot dicier, with lower prices, inventories, backlogs and exports.
Diciest of all is a dramatic plunge in the employment index, to the lowest level since Sept. 2003. Taken with the drop in employment in the manufacturing ISM, the consensus 250,000+ forecast for Friday's payroll number is starting to look a little shaky.
But the EIA also said U.S. crude oil stocks shrank. And many analysts were convinced before the EIA report that spare production capacity and inventories were dramatically low, so I'm not sure why the EIA report would completely change their minds.
What would be a mind-changer, if it had any credibility, would be the OPEC prime minister's flip-flop about OPEC's spare capacity. Just a day after saying OPEC had none, he suddenly changed his tune on Wednesday and discovered 1.5 million BPD in spare capacity. Surprise, surprise!
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia brought new oilfields on line faster than expected, and Yukos learned it could keep operating -- all bad news for oil bulls.
But the world is an extremely dicey place for the oil industry, as we've learned repeatedly in the past several months. I'm not holding my breath for a major decline in oil prices any time in the next several months.
Today's report on service-sector activity in July from the ISM showed a robust rebound in the headline number, which is a diffusion index -- a lot of services reported improved activity, in other words.
But, as I've said before, the headline number tells us little about the depth of the rebound. In the details of the report, things get a lot dicier, with lower prices, inventories, backlogs and exports.
Diciest of all is a dramatic plunge in the employment index, to the lowest level since Sept. 2003. Taken with the drop in employment in the manufacturing ISM, the consensus 250,000+ forecast for Friday's payroll number is starting to look a little shaky.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Thank God for the Daily Show
Jon Stewart tore Rep. Henry Bonilla a new asshole last night when Bonilla tried to trot out the tired (but almost always unchallenged) claim that John Kerry is the "most liberal Senator in the Senate."
When Stewart asked him where he got that idea, Bonilla cited vague "groups." When Stewart pressed him for specifics, Bonilla continued to simply name "groups," such as "trial lawyer groups."
Stewart finally answered the question for him, telling him the National Journal is usually the source for that figure and pointing out that the same National Journal says Kerry is, over his career in the Senate, actually to the right (not the left) of Ted Kennedy and that Edwards, often called by the GOPers the #4 liberal in the Senate, is actually to the right of the average Democratic Senator.
Kos has helpfully provided a transcript.
Sadly, though, Janeane Garofolo, speaking for the good guys, was similarly skewered by Sean Hannity, as the Daily Howler points out (also providing a transcript, at the very bottom of his post). She rightly said that Kerry was not the Senate's most liberal member, but she had no citation to back that up.
As Bob Somerby put it, this is how the Dems could lose this election -- by not being any sharper than the opposition.
When Stewart asked him where he got that idea, Bonilla cited vague "groups." When Stewart pressed him for specifics, Bonilla continued to simply name "groups," such as "trial lawyer groups."
Stewart finally answered the question for him, telling him the National Journal is usually the source for that figure and pointing out that the same National Journal says Kerry is, over his career in the Senate, actually to the right (not the left) of Ted Kennedy and that Edwards, often called by the GOPers the #4 liberal in the Senate, is actually to the right of the average Democratic Senator.
Kos has helpfully provided a transcript.
Sadly, though, Janeane Garofolo, speaking for the good guys, was similarly skewered by Sean Hannity, as the Daily Howler points out (also providing a transcript, at the very bottom of his post). She rightly said that Kerry was not the Senate's most liberal member, but she had no citation to back that up.
As Bob Somerby put it, this is how the Dems could lose this election -- by not being any sharper than the opposition.
Today's economic data
Mixed. Challenger layoff announcements climb, but I don't consider those particularly meaningful.
Car and truck sales were mixed. It looks like the hoped-for recovery from June's slump happened, but at the cost of more and more incentives -- the U.S. consumer is like a junky for zero-percent financing. Good luck selling them a car without it.
Speaking of the consumer, personal income and spending were lower than expected in June. Income put in the lowest gain since April 2003. Wages and salaries were flat, the worst performance since December 2003.
Consumer spending, meanwhile, fell 0.7 percent, the worst performance since a 1.2-percent drop in September 2001.
You read that right: June was the worst month for U.S. consumers since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Still, the Pollyannas on Wall Street continue to maintain that this was a one-shot deal, that the consumer demand is rebounding to a healthy level and that business spending will carry us to the promised land of above-trend economic growth. A rebound in car-and-truck sales would seem to justify this view.
But oil prices set yet another record on Tuesday. Gasoline prices haven't crossed back above $2 a gallon yet, but they won't fall very far, either, with crude prices at this level. How much demand will there be for those SUVs if that's the case?
The economy will likely put in a second-half growth rate far south of the 5 percent or so implied by the Fed's recent prediction that GDP would grow between 4.5 and 4.75 percent in 2004 (given the sub-4-percent growth in the first half, you'd need something north of 5 percent growth in the second half to arrive at the Fed's magic full-year number).
Something closer to trend -- about 3 percent -- is looking much more likely. That won't eat up the labor force. Hopefully, it won't get Dubya re-elected, either.
Car and truck sales were mixed. It looks like the hoped-for recovery from June's slump happened, but at the cost of more and more incentives -- the U.S. consumer is like a junky for zero-percent financing. Good luck selling them a car without it.
Speaking of the consumer, personal income and spending were lower than expected in June. Income put in the lowest gain since April 2003. Wages and salaries were flat, the worst performance since December 2003.
Consumer spending, meanwhile, fell 0.7 percent, the worst performance since a 1.2-percent drop in September 2001.
You read that right: June was the worst month for U.S. consumers since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Still, the Pollyannas on Wall Street continue to maintain that this was a one-shot deal, that the consumer demand is rebounding to a healthy level and that business spending will carry us to the promised land of above-trend economic growth. A rebound in car-and-truck sales would seem to justify this view.
But oil prices set yet another record on Tuesday. Gasoline prices haven't crossed back above $2 a gallon yet, but they won't fall very far, either, with crude prices at this level. How much demand will there be for those SUVs if that's the case?
The economy will likely put in a second-half growth rate far south of the 5 percent or so implied by the Fed's recent prediction that GDP would grow between 4.5 and 4.75 percent in 2004 (given the sub-4-percent growth in the first half, you'd need something north of 5 percent growth in the second half to arrive at the Fed's magic full-year number).
Something closer to trend -- about 3 percent -- is looking much more likely. That won't eat up the labor force. Hopefully, it won't get Dubya re-elected, either.
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
"We don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." -- Tom Ridge, Aug. 3, 2004
"We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror." -- Tom Ridge, Aug. 1, 2004
"We must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror." -- Tom Ridge, Aug. 1, 2004
Bastards
People thought Howard Dean and I were crazy when we said the latest terror alert was all bogus political theater.
"But the information is so specific!" people said, as if the Bush administration could not possibly just make stuff up.
Well, turns out that Howard Dean and I were right: the information that "inspired" the terror alert, all those scary plans and blueprints and what-not, were years old. That's right -- not weeks or months, as I suspected, but years.
The Washington Post and Drudge have more.
These people are desperate and they have no shame. The worst part of it is that, if and when they really do get "actionable" intelligence and issue a real terror alert, nobody will believe them. Nobody believes them already.
These people have made us less safe. Does anybody realize that?
Update: Bob Harris, over at This Modern World, does:
"Bush does not deserve one more minute in the White House. He deserves scorn. Shame. Contempt. And with any luck, impending unemployment."
Amen.
"But the information is so specific!" people said, as if the Bush administration could not possibly just make stuff up.
Well, turns out that Howard Dean and I were right: the information that "inspired" the terror alert, all those scary plans and blueprints and what-not, were years old. That's right -- not weeks or months, as I suspected, but years.
The Washington Post and Drudge have more.
These people are desperate and they have no shame. The worst part of it is that, if and when they really do get "actionable" intelligence and issue a real terror alert, nobody will believe them. Nobody believes them already.
These people have made us less safe. Does anybody realize that?
Update: Bob Harris, over at This Modern World, does:
"Bush does not deserve one more minute in the White House. He deserves scorn. Shame. Contempt. And with any luck, impending unemployment."
Amen.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Today's economic data
The ISM manufacturing index rose, almost exactly as expected.
The bulls will see this as verification of the belief that the economy is pulling sharply out of its June swoon.
Bob Brusca is not so sure. He lines up the performance of ISM components with other indicators of factory strength and finds not a ton of correlation:
"The correlations seem best in explaining acceleration: changes in the growth rate for durables (not the growth rate itself). It is best at explaining shipments, and second best at orders, poor at inventories and irrelevant in explaining changes in unfilled orders. The ISM correlates best with durable goods industries rather than all factories.
"This is simply anther way to make the warning I often do: Breadth is not strength."
In other words, the ISM is a diffusion index. It tells you how many firms are feeling better, but it doesn't tell you anything about how much better they're feeling.
For that reason, we should also discount the fact that the ISM employment index fell in July. What's good for the bull is good for the bear.
Speaking of bears, David Rosenberg at Merrill Lynch has this to say of the 2Q GDP numbers:
"With corporate earnings set to moderate in the second half of the year, capital spending, while remaining a relative outperformer, will still moderate going forward. Inventories added 0.2 percentage points to the GDP number and there were huge back-revisions to the data — but with sales softening we would look for the re-stocking process to, at best, be neutral for GDP growth through the balance of the year.
"As we saw this week, order books are slowing down, not speeding up, and if CEO's have a Bloomberg on their desk with the World Equity Index pageas their default, the negative action in the equity market is unlikely to cause them to go out and add to inventory.
"The consensus of economists might be bullish, but the equity markets at least picks the 12-month trend in GDP accurately more than 70% of the time and it's pointing in a different direction right now."
More to come, obviously.
The bulls will see this as verification of the belief that the economy is pulling sharply out of its June swoon.
Bob Brusca is not so sure. He lines up the performance of ISM components with other indicators of factory strength and finds not a ton of correlation:
"The correlations seem best in explaining acceleration: changes in the growth rate for durables (not the growth rate itself). It is best at explaining shipments, and second best at orders, poor at inventories and irrelevant in explaining changes in unfilled orders. The ISM correlates best with durable goods industries rather than all factories.
"This is simply anther way to make the warning I often do: Breadth is not strength."
In other words, the ISM is a diffusion index. It tells you how many firms are feeling better, but it doesn't tell you anything about how much better they're feeling.
For that reason, we should also discount the fact that the ISM employment index fell in July. What's good for the bull is good for the bear.
Speaking of bears, David Rosenberg at Merrill Lynch has this to say of the 2Q GDP numbers:
"With corporate earnings set to moderate in the second half of the year, capital spending, while remaining a relative outperformer, will still moderate going forward. Inventories added 0.2 percentage points to the GDP number and there were huge back-revisions to the data — but with sales softening we would look for the re-stocking process to, at best, be neutral for GDP growth through the balance of the year.
"As we saw this week, order books are slowing down, not speeding up, and if CEO's have a Bloomberg on their desk with the World Equity Index page
"The consensus of economists might be bullish, but the equity markets at least picks the 12-month trend in GDP accurately more than 70% of the time and it's pointing in a different direction right now."
More to come, obviously.
All in good fun
The New York Times (to me by way of Josh Marshall), reports that the Bush campaign will try to defeat Kerry by making him a figure of fun:
"Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision."
A few thoughts:
1. This speaks to the bankruptcy of ideas in the BC04 camp.
2. It may very well work.
3. It's sad -- very, very sad -- that the Republicans can get away with openly mocking Kerry, but the Democrats feel they must tiptoe very lightly around openly mocking Bush.
4. That being the political reality, it's up to the 527s to turn up the heat. Bush is easily mocked, and somebody needs to be on the air and in print mocking him every day between now and the election.
5. Fortunately, Michael Moore, David Letterman, Jay Leno and others are already doing a good bit of Bush-mocking. That may not be enough, though.
"Mr. Bush's advisers plan to cap the month at the Republican convention in New York, which they said would feature Mr. Kerry as an object of humor and calculated derision."
A few thoughts:
1. This speaks to the bankruptcy of ideas in the BC04 camp.
2. It may very well work.
3. It's sad -- very, very sad -- that the Republicans can get away with openly mocking Kerry, but the Democrats feel they must tiptoe very lightly around openly mocking Bush.
4. That being the political reality, it's up to the 527s to turn up the heat. Bush is easily mocked, and somebody needs to be on the air and in print mocking him every day between now and the election.
5. Fortunately, Michael Moore, David Letterman, Jay Leno and others are already doing a good bit of Bush-mocking. That may not be enough, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)