UPDATE: Today, Oliver North is employed as a political commentator for FOX News. You can't make this stuff up.
28 December 2008
According to Victor Davis Hanson, environmentalists want to cause mass starvation and human suffering: "Surely, the world right now is sort of what the radical Gorists wanted to see, since the current cutback in gasoline usage, and general economic slowdown are radically restricting the burning of fossil fuels."
The obvious response to this is a simple "No." Environmentalists are not thrilled to see our current wave of financial suffering any more than the average person. Nor has it ever been their goal to see the world as it is now, with rising unemployment and general human suffering. What the environmentalists really just want is to cut back on fossil fuel use without devastating people's lives (not "at all costs," like Victor Davis Hanson thinks). In fact, they have been explicitly arguing for a while now that switching off of fossil fuels will save us from future oil price-shocks, leave us more energy independent in general, and create millions of jobs. This is why they're always using the phrase "Green Collar Economy," and writing books like this one.
What Victor Davis Hanson is doing here is setting up a straw-man argument. It's no different from when former National Review contributor Ann Coulter covered the same topic and said (more explicitly) that "Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation."
UPDATE: In its earlier days, the National Review wrote columns like this one (pdf), titled "Why the South Must Prevail." In it, the National Review asked "'whether the white community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically?" After citing to the "cultural superiority of white over Negro," the National Review concluded that "Yes—the white community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."
25 December 2008
Church Members Dress Like Jesus to Protest Secularization of Christmas: “Members of a church in Kansas City, Ks., are protesting the secularization of Christmas by dressing like Jesus at their jobs, malls and restaurants.”
21 December 2008
The Senate Armed Services Committee recently released a report (available here) (pdf) recounting our recent policy of detainee abuse. It also recounts the approval process, and concludes that "[t]he abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib in late 2003 was not simply the result of a few soldiers acting on their own." Rather, the report finds that these policies were the direct result of Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld's "message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody."
Aside from linking Rumsfeld to the Abu Ghraid atrocities, the report is a good read just for its timeline of events. It's still bizarre to look back at how these policies came to be implemented, despite such strong opposition, and warnings that they risked violating anti-torture statutes.
For more on the detainee abuse issue, you can watch this video interview with Janis Karpinski (the former Commanding General of Abu Ghraib), who was told by her superiors that "You have to treat them like dogs." The ACLU also has some interesting resources to look at on their website.
GTMO is going to be a major issue in the coming months, so you had all better do your homework.
UPDATE: One of the big misconceptions about Guantanamo is that it is filled with people who are almost certainly guilty of conspiring in terrorist plots. In the words of Donald Rumsfeld himself, these people are "the worst of the worst." While I don't doubt that there certainly are some very bad people there, it's still shocking to look back and see that 520 of the 775 detainees have already been released without charge. Furthermore, it's troublesome to see that 86% of the people detained were turned over by Afghan and Pakistani citizens, who had been offered "millions of dollars ... enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."
UPDATE II: The New York Times Editorial Board concludes that "A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse." They also highlight this:
I think that the internal opposition to these policies is very important to keep in mind.
One page of the report lists the repeated objections that President Bush and his aides so blithely and arrogantly ignored: The Air Force had “serious concerns regarding the legality of many of the proposed techniques”; the chief legal adviser to the military’s criminal investigative task force said they were of dubious value and may subject soldiers to prosecution; one of the Army’s top lawyers said some techniques that stopped well short of the horrifying practice of waterboarding “may violate the torture statute.” The Marines said they “arguably violate federal law.” The Navy pleaded for a real review.The legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time started that review but told the Senate committee that her boss, Gen. Richard Myers, ordered her to stop on the instructions of Mr. Rumsfeld’s legal counsel, Mr. Haynes.
UPDATE III: Failed Presidential candidate Duncan Hunter (R-CA) thinks that this is all "left-wing rubbish." Scott Horton dresses Hunter down here:
Hunter is right that the Defense Department reports made no accusations against Rumsfeld. But isn’t it worth asking why? Rumsfeld was the boss of the authors of the reports; he commissioned them and carefully set the guidelines within which the generals who wrote the reports could operate. They were not permitted to comment upon the conduct of any officials up the chain of command. However, Major General Antonio Taguba, who authored the principal report, left no question about his conclusions. “Serious war crimes were committed with the approval of senior Bush Administration officials,” he said to an audience at New York University two weeks ago (I spoke at that event as well), “there is no question about that. The only question is whether there will be accountability for the political figures who are responsible.”
Hunter demonstrates another failing. He supposes that in the absence of a “smoking gun” linking Donald Rumsfeld directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib Rumsfeld is in the clear. Of course, that smoking gun exists in the form of the Rumsfeld memos, but is not necessary. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, Rumsfeld faces per se liability for the abuses at Abu Ghraib assuming he knew or had reason to know of the abuses and failed to take steps to stop them (now well established, as the Levin-McCain Report notes).
UPDATE IV: For a longer account of the entire detainee abuse story, and its approval process, I highly recommend checking out Jane Mayer's excellent book The Dark Side.
UPDATE V: Taxi to the Dark Side is also a pretty good account.
UPDATE VI: Another popular misconception is that torture works, and has provided us with reliable information in the past. Interrogator Matthew Alexander has recently published a book pushing back against this myth, and David Rose has written an excellent article debunking the previous claims made by the current administration.
19 December 2008
- Former senior interrogator Matthew Alexander recounts how United States officials engaged in conduct that "often resulted in torture and abuse." Alexander, who "refused to participate in such practices," details his own successful methods. It's a good read. [The Washington Post]
- I know that many people have written much on the topic, but this is still one of the most under-covered stories of the past decade: "A bipartisan Senate report released today says that former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Bush administration officials are directly responsible for abuses of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charges that decisions by those officials led to serious offenses against prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere." [The Washington Post]
- Paul Krugman debunks some of the myths and falsehoods about Fannie and Freddie (back in July) [The New York Times]
- Joseph Stiglitz doesn't care for Alan Greenspan. [Vanity Fair]
- ABC News exaggerates the wages of United States auto workers. [F.A.I.R.]
- Howard Kurtz is not a very good media critic. [Media Matters for America]
- Have your conservative friends and family members been holding up the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 as the root of all our current economic problems? If so, you might want to give this one a read. [Media Matters for America]
- Media Matters debunks some of the common myths about the Community Reinvestment Act. [Media Matters for America]
- Eric Boehlert debunks the $70/hour autoworker myth. [Media Matters for America]
- The New York Times debunks the $70/hour autoworker myth. [The New York Times]
- Bob Somerby suggests a better headline for the previous New York Times article. [The Daily Howler]
- Michelle Malkin is still a reflexive partisan hack. [ThinkProgress]
- Barry Ritholtz debunks the "intellectually silly argument" that the Community Reinvestment Act is the root of all our economic problems. [The Big Picture]
- Slate thinks that it is "not merely offensive, but entirely wrong" to blame our current economic woes on the Community Reinvestment Act. [Slate]
- The Westboro Baptist Church now wants to take advantage of Olympia's open forum to put up a religious display of their own, saying "Santa Claus Will Take You To Hell." [Seattle Post Intelligencer]
- Newsweek writes up the whistleblower who revealed the warrantless wiretap program. [Newsweek]
17 December 2008
Pastor Rick Warren thinks that it is a "humanitarian issue" and a moral imperative that homosexual couples never be granted the right to enjoy the same legal rights and benefits that heterosexual couples currently have in the United States. He advocates for Constitutional amendments specifically singling out and excluding them from the right to marry, so that not even a democratic majority vote could grant them equal marriage rights.
Here is Rick Warren, attempting to justify his call to discrimination:
Take note of how he explicitly lies and says that no culture, in 5,000 years, has granted homosexuals the right to marry. I guess that Canada does not have a culture. Spain must not have a culture, either. Same goes for Connecticut and Massachusetts. Mr. Warren seems to have either recklessly forgotten that these regions explicitly recognize homosexual marriages (which is just as bad as outright lying), or to have deliberately lied in order to bolster his point.
Also take note of how Mr. Warren tells another untruth, and says that no religion in 5,000 years has recognized the right of homosexual couples to marry. I guess that the United Church of Christ is not a religious organization. Same goes for the Unitarians. Mr. Warren has either recklessly forgotten their existence or deliberately lied about them.
In sum, Rick Warren is an asshole who advocates for institutional discrimination and tells lies to bolster his phony arguments. It's especially discouraging to see such bile coming from such a nice-guy facade (same goes for Mike Huckabee, who has compared homosexual marriages to bestiality and pedophilia).
It's sad to see that Barack Obama has selected Warren to deliver the invocation. I suppose, though, that most other major religious leaders would be making the same thin arguments in favor of the same discriminatory policies.
UPDATE: I also particularly hate that endlessly stupid language fetish: "We can't let 2% of the population change the definition of marriage." We all know that that's not the real issue. We're always altering state marriage laws and customs, to permit or deny no-fault divorce, common law marriage, interracial marriage, inter-denominational marriage, property rights, custody issues, etc. Marriage, as a legal institution, has always been in flux, and always will be in flux. Warren's "can't change the definition" argument is pure bullshit, and everybody knows it. What this is really about is people like Warren trying to avoid any kind of institutional recognition or acceptance of homosexuality (which has been around for much more than 5,000 years).
UPDATE II: Warren and Huckabee are like two peas in a pod.
UPDATE III: Rick Warren is a creationist, by the way:
Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't.
Dana Milbank is always on MSNBC, yet he persistently manages to say nothing of substance. It's always safe and easy to spout off "conventional wisdom" and crack jokes about the topic of the day. Yet it never adds anything to the discussion, and it's always terribly shallow. Milbank continued to do what he does in the Washington Post today:
Next up in Obama's insomnia treatment was an acceptance speech by the previously unknown nominee, followed by the president-elect's own blend of convoluted and passive answers to questions...The whole thing might have ended in snores if [Chicago Tribune reporter John] McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich.Milbank will be chasing after this one like the O.J. and Ana Nicole stories. He just wants to be entertained with a sexy story. No time to report on agricultural policy and our bizarre farm subsidy problems, because that's no fun. Never mind that these people will be making important and complex decisions about our country's food and energy policies. Dana Milbank wants to be entertained.
UPDATE: See this previous post.
UPDATE II: Bob Somerby is a national treasure:
On Monday, Obama announced that his office’s “full review of this” would be withheld until next week, at Patrick Fitzgerald’s request. And Fitzgerald’s office confirmed the fact that they had made this request. But McCormack plowed ahead anyhoo, asking a question that plainly wouldn’t get answered. And then, on cable, the children started wailing, about Obama’s bad conduct.
Which part of “the information will be withheld until next week, at Fitzgerald’s request” don’t these life-forms understand?
The caterwauling was widespread on cable; for Digby’s account of one exchange, just click here. But as always, the silliest Villager was the Post’s Dana Milbank, who put his low IQ on display in this morning’s “Washington Sketch.” If the insider press is our dumbest elite, Milbank is its perfect town crier. Like Bush, he’s straight outta Skull and Bones. And as he neared the end of his “sketch,” he again seemed determined to prove it.
Classic Milbank! This is how the Post’s “sketch” artist described one part of yesterday’s session—an event at which Obama introduced his nominee for Secretary of Education. As always, Milbank found himself bored by the day’s dismal dullness:
MILBANK (12/17/08): Next up in Obama's insomnia treatment was an acceptance speech by the previously unknown nominee, followed by the president-elect's own blend of convoluted and passive answers to questions: "We're going to have to work through a lot of these difficulties, these structural difficulties that built up over many decades, some of it having to do with the financial industry and the huge amounts of leverage, the huge amounts of debt that were taken on, the speculation and the risk that was occurring, the lack of financial regulation, some of it having to do with our housing market, stabilizing that."
The whole thing might have ended in snores if McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich.
Milbank began with a brainless jibe at the “previously unknown” Arne Duncan. In fact, Duncan has been head of Chicago’s public schools for the past seven years, though no one in Milbank’s circle has heard. Then, the crier took a familiar tack; he complained that Obama’s quoted answer was too “convoluted” —too long. In fairness, Obama’s answer did stretch to a punishing 71 words, and Village attention spans are quite short. At least Obama hadn’t used too many big words, the brainless complaint the Bonesman raised against dull, verbose and know-it-all Gore when the exceedingly tiresome fellow once tried to discuss his new best-selling book (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/30/07). Gore had used such terms as “the marketplace of ideas” and the ”exchange of goods and services”—and this had led to a long, loud complaint. Ponder the plight your nation faces when Boneheaded fellows of such low distinction control the shape of its discourse.
“The whole thing might have ended in snores if McCormick hadn't piped up about Blagojevich,” the Bonesman explained, helping us see his cohort’s sad culture. Again, the truth about this dullest elite: They’re constantly drowning in their own dismal dullness. Only the thrill of scandal/sex/wardrobe/personality tales rescues them from their own cosmic dullness. Big Dem pols who don’t offer such treats will be accused of using big words—of giving “convoluted answers.” Almost everything puts them to sleep. Low-income kids can be damned.
Yesterday, the nonsense was general all over cable, but no one is ever much dumber than Milbank. As he described McCormick’s Q-and-A, we got to peep inside the head of the Village’s emptiest Bonesman:
MILBANK: [T]he Chicago Tribune's John McCormick didn't want to talk basketball. He wanted to know about contacts that Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had with disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
"John, John, let me just cut you off," Obama interrupted, "because I don't want you to waste your question." The president-elect said the "facts are going to be released next week”—when he, by random coincidence, will be enjoying Christmas vacation in Hawaii—and "it would be inappropriate for me to comment" before then. "So, do you have another question?"
McCormick tried to rephrase the question, to no avail. "John, John," Obama repeated, reproachfully. "I said, the U.S. attorney's office specifically asked us not to release this until next week."
Can you get dumber? We’re not sure. But try to grasp how bad it can get when these life-forms start offering snark. Again, Fitzgerald’s office confirmed the fact that they asked Obama to wait till next week before discussing Emanuel’s contacts. The Bonesman, though, interjected some “tude” into his account of this matter. He suggested that the release of the info next week was some sort of slick Obama trick, designed somehow to coincide with the gentleman’s Christmas vacation.
No, that doesn’t really make sense. But this is the Village’s Bonesman.
Let us repeat what we’ve told you before. There is no way to understand this group without understanding a basic fact: Your “press corps” is a D-plus elite—our slowest, dumbest professional cohort. For the record, we’ve been surprised by the way they’ve behaved in the ten days since the Blago tale hit. They’ve been dumber—and faker—than we would have dreamed. Nothing derails their sad culture.
16 December 2008
Newsweek has a portrait of Tamm here.
15 December 2008
14 December 2008
Kevin Drum nails it:
Jamison Foser gets it, too:
...I've lost count of the number of op-eds and TV talking head segments over the past week that have started out with something like this: "There's no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in Rod Blagojevich's pay-to-play scheme -- in fact just the opposite -- but...." After the "but," we get a couple thousand words with some take or another on why this is casting a "lengthening shadow" over Obama even though there's precisely zero evidence that he had even a tangential involvement in the whole thing.
Look, I get it: it was kind of a slow news week, reporters are tired of Obama the Savior stories, the Blagojevich story is theatrically sexy, and everyone is desperately trying to find a way to turn it from a local story to a national one. But there's no there there. Maybe Republicans still haven't learned their lesson from the 90s, but that's no reason the press has to follow them over a cliff once again.
...this week brought signs that much of the media is set to resume the absurd and shameful behavior that defined the 1990s -- guilt by association, circular analysis whereby they ask baseless questions about non-scandals, then claim they have to report on the "scandal" because the White House is "besieged by questions," grotesque leaps of logic, downplaying exculpatory information, and too many other failings to list.
If that happens -- if the media continue to behave as they did in covering Whitewater -- they will damage the country. It's really that simple. We cannot afford to be distracted from serious problems by overheated conjecture and baseless insinuation masquerading as journalism.
UPDATE: The RNC is already milking this for all it's worth, putting out a video with scary music and zero substance. Since they have no evidence of any wrongdoing, they have instead titled the video "Questions Remain."
UPDATE II: Matt Yglesias sees it, too.
But this morning on MSNBC there was a lengthy discussion of Obama's involvement in Blagojevich's corruption. Of course, there was no evidence of any involvement on Obama's part. Nor, despite this being a news channel, was there any original reporting of any kind whatsoever. There was, however, a ton of time spent criticizing the Obama campaign's PR strategy with regard to this issue - the suggestion being that had Obama adopted a better PR strategy, then people wouldn't be on television making evidence-free guilt-by-association accusations against him.
This strong me as odd. The people making the accusations kept acknowledging that they had no evidence. One might think that communicating to television personalities the fact that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama's part would constitute a good PR strategy. Given that they knew there was no evidence of wrongdoing, they should have ceased implying that there was wrongdoing. But they didn't do that at all. Not, I would submit, because of any failings on Obama's part, but because Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heileman, Mark Halperin, and Pat Buchanan don't care at all about the accuracy of the impression their coverage gives.
12 December 2008
by Greta Van Susteren
I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune about big Dem operative close to Congressman Rahm Emanuel…his name is Jimmy DeLeo…the Trib tried to find him in several of his haunts including - get this - the Excelsior Casino in Aruba!! That is where Joran met Natalee Holloway! As soon as I get off the train I will link the whole article…but this sure is odd!!
Also, are people still talking about Natalee Holloway? I know that it's a tragedy and all, but this is one person who disappeared about half a decade ago. There are 50,930 active missing adult cases in the United States right now. Why focus on this one so obsessively? Is it just because she's an attractive blonde woman? Why pay so much attention to this rather than, say, disappearing mass graves in Afghanistan?
And just what is Van Susteren suggesting, anyway? That Jimmy DeLeo, Rahm Emanuel, and Barack Obama are kidnapping murderers? That "Questions Remain" about whether or not they're kidnapping murderers? I don't get it. . . .
09 December 2008
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) has been charged with criminal corruption.
With Barack Obama (D-IL) leaving his Senate seat vacant, Gov. Blagojevich had the responsibility of filling it with the best public servant he could find. However, Blagojevich recognized that this Senate seat was "a fucking valuable thing," and decided that "you don't just give it away for nothing." Instead, he would "drive a real hard bargain" and try to "get something real good." If that didn't work out, then "shit, I'll just send myself, you know what I'm saying."
He apparently tried to get campaign contributions, a job for his wife, a personal appointment, a new editorial board at the Chicago Tribune, etc. He also threatened to cut $8 million in funding for a children's hospital (apparently because he wanted $50,000 in campaign contributions from the hospital's executive, and he wasn't paying up).
This is the second Illinois Governor in a row to be accused of corruption. The last Illinois Governor, George Ryan (R-IL), is currently living in a federal prison, serving his sentence on a corruption conviction.
You can read the criminal complaint here (it's 78 pages long). The shorter description is on the blue shirt, pictured above.
UPDATE: The "analysis" from journalists like Liz Sidoti was way too predictable:
AP reporter Liz Sidoti, fresh off a stint delivering donuts to John McCain, pens an "analysis" of the Blagojevich indictment that begins: "President-elect Barack Obama hasn't even stepped into office and already a scandal is threatening to dog him."
Then, in the very next sentence, Sidoti admits "Obama isn't accused of anything." And that pretty much sets the tone for the "analysis" -- ominous warnings that Obama could be implicated in the scandal, followed by concessions that he, you know ... isn't.
So there's a great big ball of nothing here, yet Sidoti continues to pretend that Obama is caught up in the scandal, writing "There were signs the continuing investigation could still involve Obama."
Well, no. The "signs" Sidoti pointed to were the fact that someone who works for Obama once worked for Blagojevich (ah-ha!) and that court papers appear to refer to "Obama friend Valerie Jarrett, an incoming senior White House adviser," who removed herself from consideration for the Senate seat Obama is vacating. Blagojevich is charged with trying to sell an appointment to that seat. Jarrett removed herself from consideration for it. How that constitutes a sign that the investigation "could still involve Obama" is clear only in Sidoti's imagination.
Still, Sidoti is technically correct: the investigation could still involve Obama. But it is grossly unfair to suggest that possibility absent any evidence. That's something Liz Sidoti apparently doesn't understand -- though one suspects she would understand the unfairness of suggesting, absent any evidence, that she could be taking payments from the GOP to write garbage like this.
Sidoti concludes: "More details on the case could be forthcoming." Hard to argue with that.
So what do we have? According to Liz Sidoti:
1) "Obama isn't accused of anything"
2) "prosecutors were making no allegations that Obama was aware of any scheming"
3) "Blagojevich himself, in taped conversations cited by prosecutors, suggested that Obama wouldn't be helpful to him"
4) There is no evidence, indication, or hint that Obama was aware of scheming, or did help Blagojevich.
5) Nevertheless, "more details on the case could be forthcoming"
6) Therefore, a "scandal" is "threatening to dog" Obama.
This is nothing short of sleazy. With no evidence whatsoever, Sidoti is suggesting ties between Obama and the scandal that simply do not exist. Whatever this is, it isn't "analysis" and it isn't "journalism."
UPDATE II: The often crazy Michelle Malkin's coverage was also way too predictable. In a column titled "The Democrat Culture of Corruption," Malkin skips over the fact that the previous Republican governor is currently serving a jail term for corruption, uses words like "corruptocrats," and tries her best to suggest that there is something ominous or underhanded going on with Barack Obama ("declaring Team Obama’s hands clean — especially with Blago crony and indicted Obama donor Tony Rezko in the middle of it all — is premature. . . . this raises more questions than it answers about who on the transition team may have talked to Blago and his shakedown artists about what and when"). It also contains her generic claims of "liberal media bias" and speculation about how they would have behaved if it were a Republican (which it was with the previous Illinois Governor).
As an aside, I'd just like to point out again that Michelle Malkin is a crazy person, who writes books in defense of ethnic internment camps and publicly berates consenting adults for creating pornographic films for other consenting adults.
UPDATE III: In another column, titled "This is what patriotism looks like," Malkin offers a childish vision of patriotism that apparently involves not much more than reflexively assuming that the government and military can do no wrong:
If I were Dong Yun Yoon, I might want to at least ask some questions. It doesn't involve "bashing the military" to want to know what went wrong, and how it came to be that a military jet crash could happen on top of your house. I know that this man went through a lot, but I don't see how this makes him a hero and a patriot, and I don't respect how Malkin uses his story to prop up her own vision of patriotism (which apparently also involves internment camps).
A naturalized American from Korea loses his entire family in the military jet crash that wrecked his house and killed his infant daughter, toddler daughter, wife, and mother-in-law. But he refuses to blame the pilot or bash the military. Reader Mitch in San Diego e-mails: “I’m not even religious and I’ll say a prayer for this man. He has my utmost admiration. Truly an amazing gesture of forgiveness and patriotism on his part. There would be no discussion about immigration, illegal or otherwise, if this was the caliber of most coming here. Amazing.”Keep Dong Yun Yoon in your prayers.
UPDATE IV: Rush Limbaugh is still an intellectually dishonest partisan.
UPDATE V: All 50 Democratic Senators Call on Blagojevich To Step Down
UPDATE VI: Tony Soprano vs. Rod Blagojevich: Can you tell which is which?
UPDATE VII: Glenn Greenwald is always right about everything. You should all read his column every day.
06 December 2008
I'm not going to write a detailed post about it (since I've been pretty busy here lately), but I just want to say that the religious display controversy playing out in Washington right now is hilarious.
05 December 2008
- "[L]egions of anti-Obama bloggers are so convinced he was born in Kenya that they’ve filed more than a dozen lawsuits nationwide." There is an interesting legal question involved here (through what procedure would one bring a challenge based on the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause?), but let's not forget that the people filing this lawsuit are insane conspiracy theorists. [McClatchy D.C.]
- "The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide the most fundamental question yet concerning executive power in the age of terror: Can the president order the indefinite military detention of people living in the United States?" Let's see if Justice Kennedy (a Ronald Reagan appointee) does the right thing here. [The New York Times]
- Roger Lowenstein believes that the ratings agencies deserve a good measure of blame for our recent economic troubles. [The New York Times]
- Even Michelle Malkin believes that the "Kenyan birth" conspiracy theorists are insane. [Michelle Malkin]
- Open Congress (a great website) puts up video highlights of the Big Three bailout hearings. [Open Congress]
- Charles Rangel writes in to the New York Times to complain about their coverage of him. The New York Times responds. [The New York Times]
- Now is not a good time to be working in Legal Aid. [The New York Times]
- Tom Daschle (D-SD), the next Secretary of Health and Human Services (who happens to wear weird red glasses), says that health care reform will be a "top priority" for the next administration's economic recovery plan. [Bloomberg]
- Did I mention that the "Kenyan birth" conspiracy theorists are insane? [Mother Jones]
- Yogurt and Cucumber do not seem like appealing soda flavors. [The Onion]
- If you have a Netflix account, I recommend that you watch Street Fight and Lake of Fire. Two very good documentaries. [Netflix]
- Bill O'Reilly is giving up his radio show. However, he will keep appearing on television and will presumably keep comparing everyone to Nazis. [Daily News]
01 December 2008
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) just confirmed that we have been in a recession since December 2007.
This is what leading conservative economic expert, and graduate school dropout, Larry Kudlow had to say about the economy in that same month:
There is no recession. Despite all the doom and gloom from the economic pessimistas, the resilient U.S economy continues moving ahead—quarter after quarter, year after year—defying dire forecasts and delivering positive growth. In fact, we are about to enter the seventh consecutive year of the Bush boom.Looks like the "pessimistas" were right, and Kudlow was wrong.
The pessimistas are a persistent bunch. In 2006, they were certain a recession was just around the corner. They were wrong. Instead, the economy posted two consecutive quarters of near or above four-percent growth.
Earlier today, a doom and gloom economic forecast from Macro Economic Advisors was released predicting zero percent growth in the fourth quarter. This report is off by at least two percentage points. These guys are going to wind up with egg on their faces.