April 2008 Archives

The Big Picture's Barry Ritholtz has done us all a great favor by posting the pdf of a recent Harpers Magazine article by Kevin Phillips that discusses the many ways Republican and Democratic presidential administrations have gamed the figures that supposedly show us the health of our economy.

As you can see from the graphic posted here, there are many ways to measure inflation. Look at the dramatic difference between the current method of measuring inflation and the methods used before 1983 between 1983 and 1998.

I think it is obvious that the pre-1983 number or the pre-1998 number sure seems to tell a more accurate story about our economy. As Ritholtz explains, stories about this subject are finally beginning to leak into the mainstream media.

The Federal Reserve is now in day 1 of their two day meeting. The statement we get tomorrow, and the minutes we will read next month are likely to be intriguing.

Why? The longstanding official myth that inflation is modest, and contained is starting to be recognized for the fraud that it is.

This could be a really rough ride.

It is so much fun to dig into the double standards and contradictions provided by members of our elite media. Today's example: Tim Russert.

The Seminal's Chris Edelson catches Russert's lack of balance, focusing on Rev. Wright's connection to Senator Obama while once again completely failing to mention Sen. McCain's connections to radical pastors who say outrageous things. As Edelson writes:

The only meaningful difference I see between Parsley and Wright is that Tim Russert doesn't breathlessly exclaim over Parsley's every utterance. If Russert is right about the uniqueness of Rev. Wright, it is only because he applies one standard when it comes to Obama and another for McCain. Can anyone shame him into doing real journalism?

No. Tim Russert knows no shame.

That's your so-called liberal media, hard at work.

It is stories like this one that allow me to continue to care about athletic competition. ESPN's Graham Hays writes about an outstanding act of sportsmanship worthy of a great deal of attention:

Western Oregon senior Sara Tucholsky had never hit a home run in her career. Central Washington senior Mallory Holtman was already her school's career leader in them. But when a twist of fate and a torn knee ligament brought them face to face with each other and face to face with the end of their playing days, they combined on a home run trot that celebrated the collective human spirit far more than individual athletic achievement.

This is truly an outstanding story.

Update: The New York Times' George Vecsey writes about this story in tomorrow's paper, available on line now. As Vecsey writes:

Something remarkable happened in a college softball game last Saturday in Ellensburg, Wash. At least, I am conditioned to think it was remarkable, since it involved an act of sportsmanship, with two players helping an injured opponent complete the home run she had just slugged.

As part of his continuing service to the blogosphere, Atrios helpfully provides a summary of a McCain campaign tactic, and how you can expect the so-called liberal media will do their job as willing enablers of the plan:

The Next Six Months

Some Republican or conservative group runs a dumb ad.

John McCain nobly distances himself from it.

Cable news spends all day talking about it and showing it for free.

Rinse. Repeat.

It's one way to get all sorts of media coverage when you don't have the cash to spend yourself. I don't blame the McCain campaign for taking advantage of the situation.

I do heap all sorts of blame on those who allow themselves to be used this way. But, since McCain takes our esteemed reporters all out for a barbeque, all of this must be A-OK.

These stories seem like pretty ominous news to me. First, from The WSJ's MarketBeat Blog:

Food-related protests have been occurring worldwide, and in the U.S. now major discounters are seeing runs on products, particularly rice, as both Sam’s Club, the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. operated discounter, and Costco Wholesale Corp. have seen shelves cleaned out of rice as consumers worry about higher prices.

“It is just unreal what can happen when we get fear being spread as it is now, and when the general populace goes out and starts doing idiotic things like lining up at the Sam’s Club and the Costco and not buying one bag but buying 10 bags just because they might run out,” says Neauman Coleman, introducing broker at Neauman Coleman & Co. in Brinkley, Ark.

Sam’s Club has decided to put limits (or rations, if you will) on the amount of 20-pound bags customers can purchase every week, and Costco earlier this week said it was considering such limits as well, which in a way is just as panicky a response. Even though July rough rice futures closed up 62 cents to $24.82 per hundredweight on the Chicago Board of Trade, Mr. Coleman says inventory figures show that the U.S. still has plenty of rice (this country exports a good deal of its rice), so the bubble-nature of this grain will recede over time. “It’s fear and panic and pandemonium,” he says.

And then we learn more troubling news from Reuters:

Already feeling the pinch from soaring wheat and flour prices, U.S. bakers are now beginning to experience some supply shortages.

Rye flour stocks have been depleted in the United States, and by June or July there will be no more U.S. rye flour to purchase, said Lee Sanders, senior vice president for government relations and public affairs at the American Bakers Association.

"Those that are purchasing it now are having to purchase it from Germany and the Netherlands, and that's very concerning," Sanders said.

She attributed the shortage to high demand for rye flour, which is used to make rye bread, and less acreage devoted to rye grain than in the past.

Grain prices have been soaring worldwide while stocks have been dwindling, causing riots in some poor countries.

In the United States concern is also growing over food costs. The chief executive of Costco Wholesale Corp (COST.O: Quote, Profile, Research), James Sinegal, told Reuters that the company is seeing some unusual buying with consumers stocking up as they fret shortages.

For bakers, rye grain is not the only supply stock that is declining. In the past the market has typically had a three-month surplus of wheat stocks to serve as a cushion against supply interruptions, but now the surplus is down to less than 27 days worth of wheat, Sanders said.

This is a developing story worth watching. As food prices continue to soar and shortages begin, doesn't this have to become a bigger political issue?

Okay, I should play along and go on the record.

I think Senator Clinton will win today's Pennsylvania primary by nine points.

That will be enough to keep her in the race until North Carolina and Indiana on May 6. After those two states, I think many superdelegates will go to Obama, effectively ending the race.

That's your free political prognostication from this tiny corner of the blogosphere.

Over at Altercation, George Zornick points out the latest free spin job performed by a member of the so-called liberal media on behalf of Senator John McCain:

Head over to the sponsors and check out this chart, "Comparing Their Wealth," that Wolf Blitzer ran on The Situation Room. It shows, in bar graph form, the income of all the presidential candidates, along with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Each candidate or official is shown with a picture of his or her spouse -- and the income total includes both people, which is especially notable in the case of the Clintons, because it increases the figure dramatically.

Humbly sitting at the very end of the chart, with the lowest income, is Senator McCain. He looks lonely -- his wife, Cindy, who incidentally is worth $100 million, isn't pictured. Nor is her income added to the total. Well done, Wolf! Incidentally, one wonders where his CNN salary
would appear on that chart ...

Dear Wolf, a couple of quick disclaimers about not including Cindy McCain's money does not work. Everyone knows that on the teevee, graphics and visuals are more powerful than words.

This won't be the first time the media, McCain's base, compares his apples to his opponents oranges in the name of fairness.

The Washington Post's Tom Shales knows how to write when a smackdown is required.

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates.

Actually, I think Shales is being charitable.

The next time anyone wonders why network news is dying, they need look no further than last night's failure.

ABC "News" should be absolutely ashamed of its moderators' performance last night. Taking more than 50 minutes to get to a policy question is a political felony.

Gibson and Stephanopoulous -- and ABC "News" -- should not be trusted with such an important role again. We can all listen to radical right-wing radio to get these questions on the airwaves.

Stan Collender finds himself on a full airline flight, mentions to a flight attendant that at least the airline is making money given the lack of empty seats, and is taken aback when the flight attendant answers "probably not."

Collender makes several important observations from this exchange:

1. If an airline doesn't make any money when a flight is completely full, shouldn't it RAISE ITS PRICES?
2. If an airline doesn't want to raise it's prices, why should anyone invest in it or lend it money?
3. Isn't the unwillingness to raise prices causing overconsumption of air travel?
4. Isn't overconsumption of air travel decreasing the likelihood that alternative forms for transportation will be created?
5. Why should an airline compete with a low-priced alternative when the low-price airline is probably losing more money than it is? (Isn't what happened to Independence Air an excellent example?)

It really is well past time for our nation to reinvest in other forms of transportation -- like train travel. We are going to have to do this anyway, so why not start this investment now?

I have to admit that I was wowed by this observation on The Big Picture: Apple today is now larger than CitiGroup: with a Market Cap of $135 billion vs. $115 billion.

I guess Ipods are better than subprime loans.

Eric Alterman, once again, gets it exactly right:

The self-evident stupidity of American politics can be almost as hard to stomach as it is to understand, but yes, it's possible the worst president in American history will be followed by one who embraces that legacy because Barack Obama said something that was inarguably true in San Francisco last week. The weird, almost supernatural power of the word "elitist" when used by elitists is the topic of the excerpt from Why We're Liberals that published in The Nation last week, and you can read it here. (Of course, the idea is still to get you to buy the book.)

Thing is, this silly issue was hatched and ready to sprout wings long before Obama made his easily manipulated and exploitable remarks, and not just by the morons on cable TV and talk radio. Look at the subhead of the profile of Obama in the current Newsweek: "Obama says he knows the globe better than his rivals. Does he know it too well?" Is it not a pathetic comment on this country's politics to ask if a presidential candidate knows the world "too well?" We all know what it means, and yet ... reels the mind, particularly since one of its authors is a Brit and one is the author of a book on foreign policy.

Over at Altercation, George Zornick raises a vital point:

On the topic of the raging debate over the veracity of Hillary Clinton's health care horror story, about a pregnant woman being turned away from a hospital because of a lack of insurance and later dying, Trudy Lieberman at CJR writes: "Beyond candidate stumbles, we would like to see news outlets find the real health care stories and problems that are out there -- there are so many -- and then ask a better question: How would each candidate's plan change the stories?"

That seems like exactly the right point. This is a clear case where discussing a candidate's policies is needed, instead of horse-race hysteria. It's true that candidates should always be truthful and be called on it when they're not, but the commotion over this incident seems out-sized. Does anyone actually challenge her underlying point, that thousands of people in America die every year because they don't have access to health care? Shouldn't we be talking about that? Hillary's missteps in telling the story were perhaps an issue of shoddy staff work, but she certainly wasn't foisting a fundamental untruth on the American public.

Alas, our reporters and pundits seem to be too interested in the horse race and other trivialities to do this harder. but absolutely vital, work.

For once, I agree with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who reportedly said this about meetings discussed in this ABC News report:

In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News.

The so-called Principals who participated in the meetings also approved the use of "combined" interrogation techniques -- using different techniques during interrogations, instead of using one method at a time -- on terrorist suspects who proved difficult to break, sources said.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings, which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically attended by most of the principals or their deputies.

How long is it going to take after this Administration leaves office for these "principals" to face indictment as war criminals in some court around the world? They may want to get their international travel in now.

And, really, does anyone think that a person who chaired such meetings can be a Vice Presidential nominee or return to Stanford? Then again, John Yoo is still teaching his perverted views of the Constitution at Berkeley, so anything may be possible.

The Obama campaign in the end did the right thing: it reinstated the delegate candidates about which I ranted this morning.

Mistakes happen. Fixing them, alas, is more rare.

The Contra Costa Times' Lisa Vorderbrueggen exposes an unconscionable tactic by the Obama campaign in the run up to the California Congressional District level national delegate caucuses: pruning from the eligible voter list approximately 950 of the 1700 people who were running to be a delegate.

Some of those who were cut include elected officials such Richmond Councilman Harpreet Sandhu and Martinez Councilman Mike Menesini. Former Pinole councilwoman Maria Alegria, who was recalled from office in February, was stripped off the delegate list.

Sandhu has been campaigning hard. His daughters have been helping him. He was lining up vanpools to bring fellow Seiks from the El Sobrante temple over to the Martinez where the caucus was being held. Others spent hours on Facebook and MySpace campaigns or door-knocking.

The campaigns, according to an Associated Press story, went through the applicant lists, cross-checked campaign finance records and made some phone calls to ensure that only party loyalists would be on the ballots.

Yes, it’s true that the delegates are not legally bound to vote for their pledged candidate once they arrive at the convention, although that has rarely happened.

And granted, the candidates are only permitted to cut the lists to within three times the number of delegates allowed in each district.

But really, so much for the open, diverse, democratic process the Democratic Party likes to trot out on display. If the candidates have hand-picked the delegates, why even bother to hold caucuses?

Heck of a job, Democrats. Just the type of question we need reporters to ask.

As someone who voted for Obama in the California primary February 5, I want to know why his campaign felt the need to cut 950 of the 1700 people who were campaigning to be a national delegate -- including elected officials, and people like Calitics Brian Leubitz, who was cut, blogged about it, and brought this insane process to our attention.

At a time when Democrats should be running against the authoritarian tendencies of the Bush-Cheney cabal, our party's leaders do not need to be acting this way.

Digby highlights a real problem for the Democratic Party -- the failure of efforts to raise money to run an advertising campaign to define Senator John McCain. Especially those aspects of his career his adoring friends in the media refuse to cover. As Digby writes:

The article says there is at least one big Hillary donor who doesn't want to spend money for the party unless Clinton's the nominee. And I have also heard that Obama donors don't want to fund any efforts that will be construed as "negative" for fear it will blow back on his campaign. Whatever the reasons, and I suspect it's complicated, this is the stupidest damned thing I've heard yet. It's almost as if the Democrats want to lose.

I don't care which candidate they are supporting in the primary, taking on John McCain will benefit their candidate if he or she wins. Surely they are all maxed out by now, so this is the logical place to put their money either way.

All of this might make some sense if McCain didn't have this ridiculously cozy relationship with the press that's been solid as a rock for more than a decade. He is going to be terribly difficult to redefine. It will take everything they have to do it. And if they don't do it, he could very well win this thing even if he is as old as Methuselah and has the campaign style of a pet rock.

I was talking to a staunchly liberal friend of mine over the week-end who told me that he really didn't worry about the primary because if the party is damaged and McCain wins, it will probably be ok. The reason: he's not stupid like Bush or crazy like Cheney. After I picked up my brains from the floor and put them back in my head, still reeling from the explosion, I tried to explain how that was wrong. It was pulling teeth and I don't think I succeeded. He just likes the guy and doesn't believe he's really capable of being as bad as Bush because he "thinks for himself" and isn't a GOP lackey.

The Democrats had better get themselves together. The Republicans picked the only candidate in the entire country who could elicit that kind of praise from my pal and others like him. He's the only one who could possibly win, and win he may very well do if just let this congenial image continue without challenge.

The most important job this year for Democrats is to work diligently to ensure McCain is not allowed to create a third term of the Bush-Cheney regime and is unlawful actions and unilateral foreign policy.

It really is a huge problem that there are Democrats who, in their primary fervor, do not understand this simple and vital situation. Why?

Torture. Iraq. Secrecy. Wiretapping. Guantanamo. Secret Detainees. Supreme Court. Economy. Environment. War on Science.

Any Democrat who looks at this list and cannot see the need to ensure either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama ends up in the White House next January needs to take a quick and urgent trip back to reality.

Harper's Scott Horton features a story about the presentation of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz.

Diaz deserves the support of every U.S. citizen who still believes in the rule of law and not of men. Who believes that even in a time of war, the president and his administration must follow our law and the treaties ratified by this nation.

Horton describes Diaz's heroic actions:

Matthew Diaz served his country as a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. He watched a shameless assault on America’s Constitution and commitment to the rule of law carried out by the Bush Administration. He watched the introduction of a system of cruel torture and abuse. He watched the shaming of the nation’s uniformed services, with their proud traditions that formed the very basis of the standards of humanitarian law, now torn asunder through the lawless acts of the Executive. Matthew Diaz found himself in a precarious position—as a uniformed officer, he was bound to follow his command. As a licensed and qualified attorney, he was bound to uphold the law. And these things were indubitably at odds.

Diaz resolved to do something about it. He knew the Supreme Court twice ruled the Guantánamo regime, which he was under orders to uphold, was unlawful. In the Hamdan decision, the Court went a step further. In powerful and extraordinary words, Justice Kennedy reminded the Administration that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was binding upon them, and that a violation could constitute a criminal act. One senior member of the Bush legal team, informed of the decision over lunch, was reported to have turned “white as a sheet” and to have immediately excused himself. For the following months, Bush Administration lawyers entered into a frenzied discussion of how to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.

For his efforts to uphold the rule of law, Diaz was subjected to retaliation by military and political authorities.

Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this.

And that is why we must celebrate anyone who is willing to try to hold the Bush Administration to account. Go read Horton's article and learn about an American hero -- and an unlawful political regime.

Yes -- how dare anyone ask a question of Senator John McCain. Thank goodness his friends in the so-called liberal media are there to protect him. Crooks & Liars' Nicole Belle has the details:

It is such an indictment on the pathetic notions of journalism from a journalist–especially when it comes to dealing with media darling John McCain–that CNN reporter Jim Acosta can’t even recognize a legitimate question being asked of a presidential candidate and characterized it as being under fire from a heckler.

Get ready for much, much more of this.

This is an excellent idea being implemented close to my home:

In the inner cities of western Contra Costa County, where corner liquor stores far outnumber grocery stores, it's easier to buy a beer than a fresh apple.

That's according to a new PBS documentary series that explores the relationship between where people live and their health.

Now the county Board of Supervisors is taking steps to correct this problem by trying to link the vast agricultural fields of East County with the produce-scarce neighborhoods of West County.

Last week, the board voted to direct the county Health Services and Agriculture departments to begin working with nonprofit groups and farmers to increase food education and improve distribution methods in order to get East County produce into West County kitchens. The resolution ties in with the existing Buy Fresh, Buy Local campaign.

"It gets to achieving two things," said county Supervisor John Gioia, who represents West County. "Getting more county residents access to fresh food at school and at home, (and) the second part of this is how it benefits our local farmers and improves their economic viability."

The board also declared June as Buy Fresh, Buy Local Food Awareness Month in Contra Costa County.

Media Matters for America's Eric Boehlert analyzes the media's apparent decision not to cover the Iraq War.

But here's the bottom line: News consumers' interest in Iraq remains relatively high, while news coverage has basically vanished. How's that for a disconnect?

As part of the analysis, Boehlert makes a stunning point about Nightline, a program founded, after all, to cover an important news event on a daily basis:

Last November, I noted that ABC's Nightline, its long-running signature news program, had essentially boycotted Iraq as a news story. I found that over an 18-week span, from mid-July through late November, Nightline aired approximately 230 separate news segments, only one of which was about events on the ground in Iraq. In the 17 weeks since then, Nightline has continued to look the other way, which means that over a nearly nine-month span, during which time more than 300 reports aired, Nightline has effectively ignored the war in Iraq as a news event.

It. Does. Not. Exist.

Just imagine what kind of uninspired effort ABC News would put forward if Iraq were not a "very important story."

This is nothing less than media malpractice. People should be fired for a failure like this.

Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. How is this not an important story?

It's been 1,800 days since President George W. Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner and declared that "In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Heck of a job, Mr. President.

As Brad DeLong writes, "Lack of Financial Regulation Was the Principal Aim..." You can then see a picture of the financial regulators cutting red tape -- that is, giving up on their role to protect the American financial industry.

This meltdown didn't just happen. It was the point of the Bush Administration. Look where those radical economic thoughts have now gotten us.

Dean Baker has an excellent analysis/rant about how people are leaving their ideological support for the free market now that it is not workers, but banks and high income people, taking the biggest hit.

Remember all the steel workers and autoworkers who lost their jobs due to trade agreements that were supposed to advance economic efficiency over the last quarter century? How about the workers in the airline, trucking, and telecommunications industry who lost jobs due to deregulation, which was also supposed to increase economic efficiency?

Well, it’s a new day. Nothing these people (or their economists) said matters anymore. It housing bubble support time!

For years, economic policy was supposed to be guided by market principles. If our autoworkers couldn’t compete with their counterparts in Mexico or China, who got paid $1 an hour, then it would be inefficient to have trade protection that would keep them employed here. The same applied to regulations that might keep high paying jobs in key sectors of the economy. Educated people all knew that interfering with the market was harmful to the economy, and if we ever forgot this basic truth, the Washington Post regularly ran sanctimonious editorials to remind us.

Well, it’s a new day. The housing bubble is melting down and Congress and the Fed are throwing money everywhere. After all, this isn’t about auto workers and truckers, it’s about Wall Street banks, and the politicians are pulling out all the stops to come to the rescue. In addition to the money that the Fed is throwing at the banks through subsidized loans at its discount window, it is also granting free insurance to the investment banks – a gift that is potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Anyone who hears a radical conservative free-market rant needs to rhetorically slap down the argument. If bailouts are good for Wall Street masters, they should also be considered for the hard working people who lose their jobs in the name of some economic theory.

The war on the middle class has been going on for decades. Perhaps now people will wake up to the fact that the free marketeers are out only for themselves -- and maximizing profits is not necessarily the only answer in a capitalist economy.

The problem is, of course, that Iraq and foreign policy are supposed to be Senator John McCain's strong points.

One wonders if the media members so in love with his purported straight talk will deign to ask him how both of these statements about Moqtada al-Sadr can be true.