Slashdot Mirror

Well, sort of. They have been borrowing it. The SS surplus is (by law i believe) invested in Treasury Notes. T-bills being on of the *safest* investments in the economic universe (if the US Gov't stops paying out on those, then you can rest assured we are in shit deep enough that SS is irrelevant), and the same thing that individuals, other countries, investment firms, and even Bush himself (to the tune of *at least* $5,000,000) invests in. There is this myth that come 2013 or 2018 comes around, and some of those t-bills need to be cashed in, that the Gov't won't pay. This is just outrageous, and historically false (SS has cashed in the past many times).

There are going to be more people collecting from SS when the baby boomers retire than there will be contributing to it.

False. Totally false.

The ratio of payee to retiree will decline when the baby-boomers retire, which is exactly why SS was revamped to run a huge surplus until then.

Politicians bought votes in years past by adjusting the cost of living based on wage inflation, versus the previous (more reasonable) way of calculating it based on regular inflation.

Not really, it was a reasonable choice, not a pandering to old folks choice. Wages increase faster than inflation does. That is why the standard of living increases with each generation. You can (in general) live better than your parents did, who lived better than your grandparents. This is life in the US, and has been for a long time. Pensions (including SS) are meant to replace a fixed proportion of you income (for SS it's, on average, ~40%). If you peg SS to inflation, you are decreasing that as time goes on, so the older you get, the poorer you get relative to the rest of the population. And note, that SS has been indexing against wages since the beginning, this isn't a new bit of old-voter pork.

I don't agree with Bush on much, but I like his ideas for SS reform. It's a broken system. You can either start to fix it, or you can try to prop it up until it completely collapses.

You've apparently drunk the kool-aid.

It is *not* a broken system. There is no crisis. According to 1. the SSA trustees, and 2. Bush's own CBO report, SS can meet all of it's obligations until either 2042 (1), or 2050-something (2). Even then, with no changes whatsoever, the benefits will be reduced by only 25% for a relatively short number of years. Keep in mind, these are *conservative* (fiscally, not idealogically) projections for nearly 40 years down the road. Using slightly less pessimistic projections (the SSA uses 3 scenarios, and in the recent past, the most optimistic has been closest to reality), SS is good through 75 years (which is as far out as the projections are made). Calling a possible scenario that is 30 years away a crisis stretches the term to flat-out dishonesty (not that this is unusual for the Bush administration).

What people don't get is that bush's private accounts proposal is flat-out, no-bones-about-it intended to be a step on the path to ending SS. Even calling it the 'ownership society' belies the point. SS is intended to be a collective, universal program...it doesn't work any other way. When you convert it to individual "ownership," you are dismantling it. Period. If that is what people would actually prefer, that is one thing, but trying to claim that you are doing the exact opposite ("saving social security") is wrong, and offensive, and decidedly undemocratic.

-Ted

I voted for who I felt would work best against terror

Which pretty much shows that Orwell was right. Keep the populace scared with an endless war, and even otherwise intelligent people will not question you.

Ah, well. I'm not leaving yet, partly since despite the sane and intelligent candidate losing, I'm slightly optimistic about the long-term future if the left preserves and expands the infrastructure they built for this election (the right has played much better politics for the past decade, the left played good catch-up during the past year or two but it was too much of a late start), partly since I've got all my friends and family here. Anyway moving to Canada wouldn't be good for someone with a tendancy to seasonal depression. (But then, there is New Zealand...maybe I could get a job at one of my karate style's many schools there...hmmm...)

But after the far-right judicial appointments we're about to see, for the next decade or two America as a nation-state will be something to be endured rather than loved.

In fact, if one applies logic to recent statements:

Kerry says if he had been President, the 380 tons of munitions wouldn't have been taken. The 380 tons of munitions were last known to still be there 18 months before the invasion. Therefore, Kerry has stated that he would have invaded at least 18 months before Bush did.

So, I guess the major distinction is, Kerry wouldn't have waited as long as Bush to invade Iraq.

In any case, that visit wasn't the first time US troops went to the facility. That happened a week earlier, on April 4th, as was reported at the time. According to an AP account from the following day, the troops made spot visits to some of the buildings and found chemical warfare antidotes but no WMD.

The same report says they also found "thousands of five-centimetre by 12-centimetre boxes, each containing three vials of white powder" which were initially believed to be chemical agents but were later determined to be "explosives."

Sorry, this has been debunked. According to contemporary reports the explosives were still there when we arrived, no matter what Drudge would like to have you think during the next few days.

A split government is better for all America. I support Kerry and the Democratic party in general, but I am *extremely* skeptical about having a one-party government.

Why don't you also mention the 4-5 DNC voter fraud articles referenced in your previous post today?

Ok, BigChigger, but why didn't you link to them, or give any substance to your post other than whining?

I think this post is representative of what you were talking about. And here is a synopsis of and response to the linked articles. Mostly, we are looking at a flawed system in which people are paid for each registration card that they collect, so their is an incentive to forge registrations. HOWEVER, if I register to vote 35 times (as did one of the guys in one of those articles), that doesn't mean I get to vote 35 times. After the registrations get submitted, they are reviewed for authenticity, and when you go to the polls you have to present a valid ID which cannot be used to vote again. On the other hand, what this heavily RNC funded group is doing is destroying registrations for Democrats, which they would theoretically have a financial incentive not to do. Now, I'm not saying Dems aren't doing this as well. But please give us some evidence to work with.

Michael may be biased, but please at least defend your statements with links and/or arguments. It's the only way you can offset his bias.

There's also been a huge amount of participation built up around this Sinclair Broadcasting scandal. People have been deluging advertisers with calls, mostly driven by interest on blogs. It seems to be working. (via The Regular)

Dear Josh:

Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

-- Reed Hundt

Here's an explanation of why Sinclair should not be allowed to run this "news segment," in the words of former FCC chairman Reed Hundt (pulled from Talking Points Memo):

Why is it important that Sinclair Broadcasting be urged in all lawful ways that can be imagined to reconsider its decision to broadcast on its television stations the anti-Kerry "documentary"?

Because in a large, pluralistic information society democracy will not work unless electronic media distribute reasonably accurate information and also competing opinions about political candidates to the entire population. Certainly, for the overwhelming number of voters this year, controlling impressions of the candidates for President are obtained from television.

In all countries, candidates for public office governments aspire to have favorable information and a chorus of favorable opinion disseminated through mass media to the citizenry. In a democracy, on the eve of a quadrennial election, the incumbent government plainly has a motive to encourage the media to report positively on its record but also negatively on the rival. But its role instead is to make sure that broadcast television promote democracy by conveying reasonably accurate reflections of where the candidates stand and what they are like.

To that end, since television was invented, Congress and its delegated agency, the Federal Communications Commision, together have passed laws and regulations to ensure that broadcast television stations provide reasonably accurate, balanced, and fair coverage of major Presidential and Congressional candidates. These obligations are reflected in specific provisions relating to rights to buy advertising time, bans against the gift of advertising time, rights to reply to opponents, and various other specific means of accomplishing the goal of balance and fairness. The various rules are part of a tradition well known to broadcasters an honored by almost all of them. This tradition is embodied in the commitment of the broadcasters to show the conventions and the debates.

Part of this tradition is that broadcasters do not show propaganda for any candidate, no matter how much a station owner may personally favor one or dislike the other. Broadcasters understand that they have a special and conditional role in public discourse. They received their licenses from the public -- licenses to use airwaves that, for instance, cellular companies bought in auctions -- for free, and one condition is the obligation to help us hold a fair and free election. The Supreme Court has routinely upheld this "public interest" obligation. Virtually all broadcasters understand and honor it.

Sinclair has a different idea, and a wrong one in my view. If Sinclair wants to disseminate propaganda, it should buy a printing press, or create a web site. These other media have no conditions on their publication of points of view. This is the law, and it should be honored. In fact, if the FCC had any sense of its responsibility as a steward of fair elections its chairman now would express exactly what I am writing to you here.

"Oh... I should warn you - if you're determined to vote for Kerry in spite of everything, do NOT go to the any of the above sites. It'll destroy any opportunity for ignorance you might have." I suggest you don't destroy your own partasanship by going to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ http://www.moveon.org/ http://www.yellowtimes.org/ See, even an ignorant liberal like me can post links. Seriously, no one in this country is even willing to consider the otther side for a nanosecond. What you think when you click on the above links, that's what I think about drudgereport, for example. See one headline and your mind snaps closed. I just wish people would try to convince those who disagree, instead of being so inflammatory.

Here's a sampling of the best I've found:

Vodkapundit. Stephen Green's blog. Probably the best match for my own political views. Hawkish libertarian and consumer of fine ethanol-based beverages.

Instapundit Glenn Reynold's blog. Another decent match for my own viewpoint. Glenn's more of a linker than a commentator, but he's one of the best about linking to all sides of the blogosphere. When he does extended bits (such as at his MSNBC site or his TCS columns), he's quite cogent. Has a lot of outside interests (electronic music, space policy, nano-tech, constitutional law) that dovetail into my own and make his site more interesting than the politics-only blogs. Frequently mentions Slashdot and links to relevant discussions.

Reason's Hit and Run Another libertarian blog, run by Reason magazine. Much more in tune to the Libertarian Party than the above.

Virginia Postrel YALB (Yet Another Libertarian Blog). Postrel is a former editor of Reason. More of a social commentator these days and has written some fascinating books recently. Seems to have become ever-so-slightly more hawkish since 9/11.

The Corner National Review's blog. Conservative and largely Catholic, it's best feature is Jonah Goldberg (the token non-Catholic), who has a pleasantly snarky, pop-cultural laden view of current events. Least pleasant on the blog in John Derbyshire, who is quite the math geek but is way out there on the borderline-racist right (quite pleasant in email, though).

Andrew Sullivan. Classical liberal, Oakeshott conservative. A very incisive and passionate writer, he has an infuriating habit of demonizing the opposition. Originally very pro-war (and spent much time fulminating against the "fifth columnist" element on the left), he's now got a new enemy (those opposed to gay marriage/gay rights), so all those who were the enemy last year (the Democrats/John Kerry) are friends, and all those who were friends last year (the Republicans/George Bush) are enemies who can now do no right. When his emotions are not ruling his thinking, though, he's very, very good.

Mickey Kaus Slate's resident blogger, Mickey is a DLC "New" Democrat. He's one of the more honest of the bloggers (zings his own side often, recognizes good arguments on the other side) and a good source of insider media stuff.

Josh Marshall Establishment Democrat. I found his stuff to be really good a few years back, but recently he's spending more time rooting for the team (DNC/Kerry) than being objective. Also, darkly hints at constant "breaking soon" scoops that either never appear or completely underwhelm. Very bright guy, though, and insightful when not attempting to spin too obviously.

Kevin Drum Another Establishment Democrat. Kevin tends to be more self-reflective than Josh, which stands him in good stead. Great place to capture the mood of the DNC political types.

New Republic They have a couple of blogs (&c. and Campaign Journal). &c. is by far the better of the two. Skews left, but a sort of rationalist left (understands that while America may suck at times, other places suck more).

Tapped This used to be a great blog back in the

I quote Josh Marshall in the following post on the matter:

"The Barnes story isn't a new one. And the relevant dates of it and the office Barnes was serving in at the time have never been questioned. It happened during the time Barnes was Speaker of the House in Texas. In the past, he went to great lengths to avoid discussing. But after being forced to discuss it in a civil suit deposition in 1999, he made a brief public announcement. See this clip from the Houston Chronicle from September 28th 1999 ...

Austin lobbyist Ben Barnes said Monday that as speaker of the Texas House more than 30 years ago, he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's position in the Texas Air National Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.

But Barnes, in a statement issued by his lawyer, said he was not contacted by a member of the Bush family and had "no knowledge" that either the future governor or his father, former President Bush, who was then a congressman from Houston, knew of his intervention.

The president even went so far as to thank Barnes in a personal note for being clear that he had no direct, personal knowledge that the Bush family had contacted the intermediary who contacted him. Consider this clip from a September 27th, 1999 Associated Press story ...

Barnes testified for several hours Monday in a deposition in the case. Afterwards, his lawyer issued a written statement saying Barnes had been contacted by the now-deceased Sidney Adger, a Houston oilman and friend of the elder Bush.

''Mr. Barnes was contacted by Sid Adger and asked to recommend George W. Bush for a pilot position with the Air National Guard. Barnes called Gen. (James) Rose (Texas Air Guard commander) and did so,'' the statement said.

''Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation,'' the statement said.

Barnes also said he met in September 1998 with Donald L. Evans, a longtime friend and chief fund-raiser for Governor Bush. Barnes told Evans about Adger's request, and ''Governor Bush wrote Barnes a note thanking him for his candor in acknowledging that Barnes received no call from any member of the Bush family.''

In an interview with The Associated Press, Evans said he met with Barnes on his own initiative, without informing the governor in advance. At the time, he was Bush's gubernatorial campaign chairman and was concerned only about that contest, Evans said.

I quote Josh Marshall in the following post on the matter:

"The Barnes story isn't a new one. And the relevant dates of it and the office Barnes was serving in at the time have never been questioned. It happened during the time Barnes was Speaker of the House in Texas. In the past, he went to great lengths to avoid discussing. But after being forced to discuss it in a civil suit deposition in 1999, he made a brief public announcement. See this clip from the Houston Chronicle from September 28th 1999 ...

Austin lobbyist Ben Barnes said Monday that as speaker of the Texas House more than 30 years ago, he recommended George W. Bush for a pilot's position in the Texas Air National Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.

But Barnes, in a statement issued by his lawyer, said he was not contacted by a member of the Bush family and had "no knowledge" that either the future governor or his father, former President Bush, who was then a congressman from Houston, knew of his intervention.

The president even went so far as to thank Barnes in a personal note for being clear that he had no direct, personal knowledge that the Bush family had contacted the intermediary who contacted him. Consider this clip from a September 27th, 1999 Associated Press story ...

Barnes testified for several hours Monday in a deposition in the case. Afterwards, his lawyer issued a written statement saying Barnes had been contacted by the now-deceased Sidney Adger, a Houston oilman and friend of the elder Bush.

''Mr. Barnes was contacted by Sid Adger and asked to recommend George W. Bush for a pilot position with the Air National Guard. Barnes called Gen. (James) Rose (Texas Air Guard commander) and did so,'' the statement said.

''Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation,'' the statement said.

Barnes also said he met in September 1998 with Donald L. Evans, a longtime friend and chief fund-raiser for Governor Bush. Barnes told Evans about Adger's request, and ''Governor Bush wrote Barnes a note thanking him for his candor in acknowledging that Barnes received no call from any member of the Bush family.''

In an interview with The Associated Press, Evans said he met with Barnes on his own initiative, without informing the governor in advance. At the time, he was Bush's gubernatorial campaign chairman and was concerned only about that contest, Evans said.

Atrios/Eschaton
Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo
Billmon's Whiskey Bar
Matthew Yglesias
Eric Alterman
Kevin Drum
Brad DeLong
Daily Kos
Digby
Mark Kleiman
Hesiod's Counterspin
Bob Somerby's incomparable Daily Howler

and the inimitable Bartcop
(and Fafblog)

One other page to check out is campaigndesk. . It isn't exactly a blog, but it's got excellent media criticism (and even occasional praise). It's put out by the Columbia School of Journalism.

Finally, and this one's in no way a blog, ABC News' TheNote summarizes and links a lot of political reporting every day. TheNote has much more praise than criticism, but during the political season it's part of my essential daily reading.

Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo is a solid, intelligently written blog. Leans left, but they all lean one way or the other.

The key is to get blogs that have a niche. You have to know what kind of information you are trying to get from them.

The aforementioned TMP is great for foreign policy and includes a fair amount of original reporting.

Brad DeLong, a Cal economist, has an excellent blog focusing on econimic issues.

The Gadflyer is a collaborative effort looking mainly at the politcal landscape and campagin maneuvering.

And, finally, for a more literary dessert than Wonkette, try Travis LaFrance He's hillariously aloof and searingly witty.

Washington Monthly (by Kevin Drum)

Talking Points Memo (Josh Marshall)

Atrios

Matthew Yglesias

Digby's Blog

Oh, it's hard to narrow it down to a small list.

The previously mentioned Talking Points Memo is quite good.

Also see:

Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum, formerly of Calpundit)
Altercation (what liberal media?)
Daily Howler
Columbia Journalism Review de-spins the media.
Juan Cole (very insightful Iraq commentary from this professor of history)
White House Briefing (political round-up)

The Daily Kos (Scoop software)

The Washington Monthly (Movable Type)

Chomsky's Turning the Tide (pay to play: ironic? no, he's just to busy to respond to anonymous comments)

The Washington Note (MT; by a good friend of Josh Marshall)

Ed Fitzgerald's Unfutz (MT maybe; has the best poll aggregations)

From http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/:

The conservative blog Powerline has a roiling debate or series of charges that the documents published by CBS last night are forgeries.

The basis of the claim is that the sort of proportional font spacing evidenced in the memoranda wasn't available at the time in question. It only came later with word processors and computers and laser printers. Basically, they say, all people had back then were old fashioned block-type typewriters.

On the face of it, that sounds logical to me. But the editor of the site has now posted the comments of at least one reader who says such machines were actually widely available at the time.

It seems worth noting that the White House accepted the documents as genuine and even began releasing them to other journalists yesterday evening -- though it's not clear to me whether they were releasing their own copies or simply passing on what CBS had given them.

The deeper point is that CBS reported that they had handwriting experts scrutinize these documents to ascertain their authenticity. It seems hard to imagine they'd go to such lengths to have experts analyze them and not check out something so obvious as seeing if they'd been written by a typewriter that was in existence at time. (Hard to imagine or, if true, unimaginably stupid.)

One way or another, I doubt we'll have to speculate about this for very long. This question about what sort of typesets were available in 1973 should be easy enough to settle.

linky

lgf is a right leaning weblog, but I wanted to make sure that the right's talking points were also represented. I believe that the other point the right made (as seen on 60 minutes) was that this is a purely political move and merely the rehash of an attack that the right claims to have defused during Bush's first run for office.

My understanding is that if this information is new, then the right's argument doesn't hold water, and if these documents are truley forged, then the left has some splainin' to do.

Josh Marshall (of talkingpointsmemo fame) has the Brokaw interview here and the relevent memo text here.

linky

lgf is a right leaning weblog, but I wanted to make sure that the right's talking points were also represented. I believe that the other point the right made (as seen on 60 minutes) was that this is a purely political move and merely the rehash of an attack that the right claims to have defused during Bush's first run for office.

My understanding is that if this information is new, then the right's argument doesn't hold water, and if these documents are truley forged, then the left has some splainin' to do.

Josh Marshall (of talkingpointsmemo fame) has the Brokaw interview here and the relevent memo text here.

• Daily Kos
• Democratic Underground
• Talking Points Memo

• Instapundit
• Eject! Eject! Eject!
• Little Green Footballs

The Washington Monthly

The Daily Kos

The Columbia Journalism Review Campaign Desk

The Center for American Progress

Talking Points Memo by Josh Marshall

Tom Toles political cartoons

Ben Sargent cartoons

Pat Oliphant cartoons

Jamie Zawinski's freinds

Ed Fitzgerald's blog

more to follow-up...

Leahy has been relentless in his attacks. Recently, he blamed the intelligence failures on President Bush while the senate committed determined in a bipartisan manner that the failures had nothing to do with the president, and everything to do with practices at the CIA.

It is rumored that Sen. Leahy said something to Cheney before Cheney's outburst.

Personally, I see a radical Pro-Bush bias on CNN and MSNBC, I don't even bother w/ Faux News.

If you don't believe me, watch any discussion on MSNBC and CNN/ They will have one right-wing commentator, and one journalist acting as a centrist. There is rarely a left wing point of view. I would say that the least offensive shows are those with Countdown with Keith Olbermann and Newsnight with Aaron Brown. Of the main networks, CBS (notably nightly news and Face the Nation) is the fairest.

If you want real news and a thoughtful take on politics and the world, check out TalkingPointsMemo. Josh Marshall is probably the best journalist out there (excluding perhaps the New Yotker's Seymour Hersh) today. Check it out.

You think he was elected?

Why is this modded flamebait? It's a reasonable, non-vitriolic reply to a scathing, error-ridden post (which itself was closer to flamebait, but is instead at +5).

The best tactic for partisan moderation is to use 'overrated', that way your chance of being meta-moderated negatively is not great. They probably are modding flamebait because they forget this when they get mad.

The fact is that nothing hurts as much or as hard as the truth. What the republicans are reacting to in this thread is the fact that so many people don't believe Bush is a competent leader. Ever since 9/11 they have been looking at polls that say 75% plus of the population believe that Bush is a 'strong leader', 'tough on terror' etc. Its not just those particular views that are part of their core belief system, the fact that these views are near universal is also part of their core belief system

This is why they react so strongly when these ideas are questioned. That is why the mere questioning of Bush's competence results in inflated charges of 'treason' or as they are currently throwing at Clarke 'perjury'. They can't handle the fact that amongst people between the ages of 20 and 40 the idea 'Bush = Liar = Incompetent = Fool = Coward' is not merely a fringe view, it is now the overwhelming consensus.

I don't like ideology, I don't like religions where you are told what to believe. I have not even joined the Quakers because that is too organized for me. What I dislike about what the Republican party has become is the total subservience to dogma. When they accuse us of being blinkered for merely criticizing Bush they are merely projecting their own ideological blinkers that blind them totally.

The reason we are going to win and the right is going to lose can be seen on the Web. Go to any of the right wing blogs and you find a fan site which simply promotes whatever today's line from GOP headquartes might be. The left wing blog sites are very different, the typical story for a widely read left wing blog like atrios or Kos or Josh Micah Marshall consists of a immanent critique of the right. So say Drudge and cronies will put out a statement by Condi Rice attacking Clarke, the left wing blogs will then show that the statement is in direct contradiction with a previous statement by Cheney, or better yet by Rice herself. Right wing blogs often try to do this, but in order to create the 'contradiction' they usually have to end up doing some malicious editing to present words out of context, and that leads to the second typical story for a left wing blog, the post showing the manufacture of a specious quotation.

Oh, please. * Wrong metric, this one actually supports growth in the valley * You can't throw people at every problem * The valley is as much about marketing as it is engineering, a retained competency no other cluster can and will match Bonus Link: Peter Drucker on India vs. China and how the US has focused on the wrong emerging superpower

your misreading of OMB figures (such as describing a nearly 10% decrease in unemployment as a `jobless recovery'

Those wishful OMB figures are projections, whereas the jobless recovery is the fact on the gound, right now. You can hope all you want that trickle-down policies will hire those newly unemployed three million by next November, but it's not looking good.

last year the government of Sweden admitted that Sweden's economy is in such bad shape that were Sweden to become the 51st state of the US, it would not only be the poorest state of the union, but Swedes as an ethnic group would be the poorest

Nonsense, the Swedish government said no such thing. Your right-wing propagandist on "Tech Central Station - where free markets meet technology" made the glaring error in his lede of comparing per-capita median income without denominating the comparison with the cost of living in the respective countries. If he had done so, he would have had to admit that Swedish household purchasing power is on par with that of the U.S. Reputable news organizations such as Reuters frequently report Sweden scoring tops on aggregate quality-of-life rankings.

But don't take my word for it, or Reuters, why don't you see what the CIA says about Sweden's poverty rate?

you're double counting here, since you already counted that $89 billion just two paragraphs earlier

Sorry, I don't follow you. Net interest on the national debt is projected by the OMB to be $260 billion in 2008. Subtract the $171 billion from FY2002 and you get $89 billion, a 50% increase. All those T-bills will make the debt market look quite a bit different, and raise interest rates a lot more than 0.6%.

the last six months alone, joblessness has dropped from 6.4% to 5.9%, and there are no reasons to believe this drop won't continue apace.

Keep wishing. We'll see in November.

What you describe as a "conservative misunderstanding" is looking more and more like a campaign of deceptions to scare Americans into supporting a war.

Your "typical liberal misunderstanding" is a semantic game currently being played by the right wing... "Aha! The president never actually used the word imminent!".

To quote Josh Marshall on the "imminent threat" game:

Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: "Ari, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth."
Fleischer's answer? "Yes."

In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: "Is [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home."
Bartlett's answer? "Well, of course he is."

A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, "Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?"
Fleischer's answer? "Absolutely."

Honestly, stop parroting White House spin and start thinking for yourself.

...I don't think so.

You're confusing the FBI, the CIA, and the Justice Department.

Actually, the CIA has sent a request to the Justice Department (of which the FBI is a part) that they look into a case where a journalist (Robert Novak) published a story in which he identified a woman as a CIA agent. The FBI has been asked to look into the matter. The journalist has said the source of his information was "two senior administration officials." If this is true, an important federal law against revealing the names of CIA agents has been broken. Since the person in question is reportedly a specialist in use of WMD by terrorist organizations, this would probably be the kind of thing the USA-PATRIOT act was intended to ferret out. And the kind of tactic being used against reporters who covered Adrian Lamo may well be appropriate against Novak (who may well turn out to be the only possible source, along with other journalists who were reported told the same thing, for the information).

Interestingly enough, in contrast to the FBI's enthusiasm in the Lamo case, the White House has been amazingly lackadaisical in the Novak case. Scott McClellan, the president's spokesperson, has said the president has not and doesn't intend to ask his aides if they were responsible for this leak. A more thorough examination of this matter is found at Josh Marshall's web site.

Great moments in Stupidity

Courtesy of Talkingpointsmemo

Great moments in the passive voice ...

BLITZER: But the bottom line is
you have to admit that you could
have done a better job planning for
this current environment.

RICE: The planning went on.
Obviously, there were things that
were not foreseen. They have now
-- are now being addressed.

From today's interview on Late Edition ...

The White House would never obfuscate anything, would they? I mean, just look at any Ari Fleischer transcript and you will see that they are a perfect model of clarity.

I agree that it's not a blog. I just want to know how google "knows" it's not a blog. Would it simply search for pages that change at least once a day and contain links to other websites rather than original content? Would it look for field marked "comment" on each entry? Obviously, I'm interested in NOT being labelled a blog.

If it's purely comment based, then what about sites like TPM? It's clearly a blog. Or would the answer be somewhat voluntary, in which case it wouldn't actually work?

Chronology of Events

Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?

Richard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's show, calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist

Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at Talkingpointsmemo.com

More details available at:ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"

Jack Shafer at Slate calls Richard N. Perle a pantywaist

Cheers,
W00t

From the CNN transcript:

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which he makes a serious accusation against you that you have a conflict of interest in this because you're involved in some business that deals with homeland security, you potentially could make some money if, in fact, there is this kind of climate that he accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).

BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there

Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On

Chronology of Events

Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?

Ricard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's show, calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist

Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at Talkingpointsmemo.com

More details available at: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"

Jack Shafer at Slate calls Richard N. Perle a pantywaist

Cheers,
W00t

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which
he makes a serious accusation against you that you
have a conflict of interest in this because you're
involved in some business that deals with homeland
security, you potentially could make some money if,
in fact, there is this kind of climate that he
accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from
the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just
out now. "There is no question that Perle believes
that removing Saddam from power is the right thing
to do. At the same time, he has set up a company
that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).

BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there

Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On

Chronology of Events

Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?

Ricard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's, show calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist

Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at Talkingpointsmemo.com

More details available at: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"

Cheers,
W00t

From the CNN transcript:

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which
he makes a serious accusation against you that you
have a conflict of interest in this because you're
involved in some business that deals with homeland
security, you potentially could make some money if,
in fact, there is this kind of climate that he
accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from
the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just
out now. "There is no question that Perle believes
that removing Saddam from power is the right thing
to do. At the same time, he has set up a company
that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).

BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there

Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On

Chronology of Events

Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?

Ricard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's, show calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist

Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at Talkingpointsmemo.com

More details available at: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"

Cheers,
W00t

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which
he makes a serious accusation against you that you
have a conflict of interest in this because you're
involved in some business that deals with homeland
security, you potentially could make some money if,
in fact, there is this kind of climate that he
accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from
the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just
out now. "There is no question that Perle believes
that removing Saddam from power is the right thing
to do. At the same time, he has set up a company
that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).

BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there

Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On

Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?

Ricard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's, show calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist

Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at
Talkingpointsmemo.com

More details available at: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"

Cheers,
W00t

Here is a copy of the CNN interview:

There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which
he makes a serious accusation against you that you
have a conflict of interest in this because you're
involved in some business that deals with homeland
security, you potentially could make some money if,
in fact, there is this kind of climate that he
accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from
the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just
out now. "There is no question that Perle believes
that removing Saddam from power is the right thing
to do. At the same time, he has set up a company
that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).

BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there

Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On

Is news blogging important? Ask Trent Lott. The news about his racist comments was small news on an AP wire that no major news organization covered. Instapundit covered it immediately (after being pointed to it by Josh Marshall, another blogger. IIRC, the comments were made on a Thursday. Instapundit was all over the story, calling for his ouster by Friday and Saturday, but the major news organizations didn't cover the story until Tuesday.

Mateub suggests that Google could make a magazine out of the blogs, complete with ads.

But they can do that already. Have a close look at news.google.com. Search for, hmm, Google At the right side, there's enough space for ads. Google could index just the weblogs, like Daypop, and make a new product out of it (without buying Pyra).

True enough, but I think Google could do a much more planned, coherent version with some actual cooperation from the bloggers.

For example, Google could tell their "preferred" bloggers they want to do an editorial section on, say, Afghanistan--$50 to anyone who writes a piece we use. Or perhaps change blogger.com to use RDF so that Google can more knowledgeably (sp?) format a "Blogzine" page.

It's easier for Google to do this when 500 newspapers go online with a story, but blogger interests are more diverse. I think Google would need something more than their current news system to place, for example, the talking points memo series on the GOP Marketplace trying to swamp Democrat phone banks with calls. Interesting story (to me at least), but apparently only 1 newspaper was reporting it. How would a Google blog news service know what to do with that series today?

In any case, you're probably right in the sense that I think the odds of Google doing something like what I imagine are slim. I still think it could work, but they'll probably come up with something more clever than this. Must be a joy to work in their research lab...

adéu
Mateu

Steal an election? You mean the election that one NJ Republican originally stole from another NJ Republican?
Here is the same concept of stolen applied to the NJ Republican candidate.

Talking Points Memo