I am referring, of course to The Daily Show, who follows the advice of Fox News®, and follows the money supporting the 51 Park development in Manhattan, which leads to Alwaleed bin Talal, who is the single largest largest non Murdoch investor in Fox News.
As to the dispute, whether Fox is stupid or evil, I think that evil and stupidity is orthogonal.
It costs a lot, and make you lose wars
One of the areas where SecDef Gates is looking to reduce costs is reducing the level of general officers (general and admirals).
An interesting sideline to this is that history shows that the more officers, particularly general officers, that you have, the worse that your military performs:
Militaries with proportionately large numbers of field [major through colonel] and general grade officers have historically proven to be losers, not winners, in war. At its current levels, the U.S. military is among the worst.
Of course, the voice of officialdom, The Washington Post, notes that an officer’s billet only costs about a ¼ million dollars a year, noting that, “Terminating a single general’s billet might save about $200,000 a year in salary and benefits, barely a rounding error in the Pentagon’s base budget this year of $535 billion.”
This is, rather unsurprisingly, about as completely untrue as one can be without actually making a verifiable lie.
When someone becomes a general, he doesn’t spend his days playing golf waiting for a war, they get a command somewhere.
If there isn’t a command somewhere, then one is created, or the supervision of a task is upgraded from a field officer to a general officer, and the office, staff and budget are increased accordingly.
Once the office has a general officer in charge, there is a bureaucratic imperative for it to become “essential” in some way or another, so it will find things to do, and doing those things, whether needed or not, will cost money.
I would agree to cuts, but I would also suggest repealing the provision of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act of 1980, aka “Up or Out”, which make promotions a requirement for continued service.
It creates an incentive for rank inflation, what Robert Gates calls “brass creep” in assigning roles in the services.
As to why these additional costs have not been addressed in their article, my guess is that the Post editorial board thinks that something would be missing from Sally Quinn’s cocktail parties if there were not a few generals in uniform there.
It’s been too ugly for too long
H/t Calculated Risk
Remember how I said that unemployment has been stuck between about 450,000 and 480,000 initial claims a week?
Well, not any more, today’s numbers were up by 12,000 to ½ a million initial claims, with the 4 week moving average rose by 8,000 to 482,500.
Of course, since the article was written by a financial journalist, which means that they feel the need to be a cheerleader, and they are innumerate, they found someone to say that the 13 K drop, to 4.48 million, in continuing claims as, “an encouraging sign,” but later they note that the number of people on emergency benefits, “increased 260,105 to 4.75 million in the week ended July 31.” (the week prior to this one)
Let me explain this slowly for the financial journalists who might read this The people who are on continuing claims are in the 26-week window, if they go beyond that, they are no longer counter as having a continuing claim, they are counted as being on emergency benefits, so the falling number of continuing claims is not people getting jobs, it’s people being unemployed even longer.
In any case, this is really grim. The already inadequate stimulus is winding down, and job losses are once again accellerating, and we have an election in 2½ months, and if the Republicans take power, they will drive the country even further into the ditch.
Yes, a half assed stimulus, which was then watered down by the dickwads in the Senate was such a good idea.
Seriously, the fact that Jon Stewart has so much material to work with makes me despair for the future of the Republic.
This sh%$ is not rocket science, and the idea that the press is not to call bullsh%$ over transparent bullsh%$ is not a mark of professionalism, it is a mark of cowardice, hypocrisy, and laziness.
In any case, on to the vid.
*Yes, my Geek Goddess, Rachel Maddow, is a close second.
On my brother’s all too infrequently updated blog, Stephen pointed out two articles that indicate why economics is called the “dismal science.”
He points to a Wall Street Journal article (get it through Google news, or you just get the first 2 ‘graphs) titled Hindenburg Omen Flashes Dread, where an obscure mathematical formula has somewhat dubious predictive powers:
The Omen was present at every market crash since 1987, but has also occurred many other times without an ensuing significant downturn. Market analysts said only about 25% of Omen appearances have led to stock-market declines that can be considered crashes.
So this doomsday equation has predicted something like 20 of the last 5 crashes.
The problem here is not one of economics, but rather of poor journalism.
The story is not “Astonishingly accurate algorithm predicts end of the world,” but rather, “Movers and shakers in financial markets spooked by bullsh%$ that is less accurate that checking chicken entrails.”
The second article, also from the WSJ notes that as interest rates hit record lows, companies are making record bond issues, particularly of the junk variety.
Of course if another crash is heading in, those junk bonds will be a bad investment, though if it doesn’t implode, an 8+% premium on government debt is a winner:
First Data Corp. sold $510 million of 10-year notes this week, at 9.125%, to pay down bank debt due in 2014. Peabody Energy sold $650 million of 6.5%, 10-year notes to pay off the same amount of higher-priced debt due in three years. MultiPlan Inc., a health-care cost-management provider, sold $675 million of notes this week, at 9.875%, to help fund a buyout of the company. Cott Corp., a maker of store-branded soft drinks, sold $375 million of debt at 8.125% to fund its purchase of another company, Cliffstar Corp.
But again, this is really not about economics, it’s about finance, greed, and human foibles.
To the degree that economics apply to finance, it is behavioral economics that applies: In order to understand markets, one needs to understand how they are irrational, which is in the rather quixotic juxtaposition of economics and psychology.
Paul La Monica does it again in his Panglossian pursuit of reasons for investors to reasons to reenter the market.
So, his advice to investors is to masturbate:
Investors need to follow the immortal words of the 80’s one-hit wonder Frankie Goes to Hollywood: Relax.
What? You mean that Mr. La Monica doesn’t know that the song was about masturbation?
<Facepalm>
The judge said that the safe harbor provision of the DMCA indemnifies Google, and granted Google’s motion for summary judgement, and dismissed Viacom’s lawsuit against Google/Youtube.
My guess is the fact that Viacom was itself posting illegal material to Youtube as a pretext for the lawsuit had a lot to do with this.
I will note that the author, Greg Sandoval quoted an “expert” from the libertarian group the PFF saying that it would be overturned without noting that both litigants funded the organization.
That’s just sloppy.
So, CNBC is calling the exiting decline in home sales in May “Unexpected.”
The home buyer tax credit expired, and it’s generally known that the primary effect was not to generate new home sales, but to move purchases up by a couple of months, so this is entirely expected.
This is completely expected.
Jon Stewart takes the Beckster to task using MSNBC, CNN, and Univision* to demolish Beck’s claim that no one else showed the blockade conflict video in showing the Free Gaza protestors used clubs.
Brutal.
*I think that the use of Children’s Television Workshop might be a trick.
I think Woodward’s capitulation to interviewing people in limousines, as opposed to people on the subway, is something I feel is partly responsible for the fact that we ended up in Iraq. Because so many reporters, Judith Miller is the most egregious of them, spoke to Scooter Libby and some other higher officials, and never spoke to intelligence people on the ground. They swallowed wholesale Colin Powell at the U.N., and [ultimately] their limousine reporting meant that 100,000 Iraqis lost their lives. I don’t think anything can be so neatly drawn, but I think in this case it can be neatly drawn.
—Novelist, and former Washington Post reporter Lorraine Adams on her former colleague Bob Woodward
(emphasis mine)
A very succinct indictment of what is wrong with the Washington DC press corps.
It’s really no one’s business but their own. They are both over 60, and they have been married for 40 years.
It’s really none of our business.
So, why am I writing about this?
Because once again, the Washington Post demonstrates just how horrible a human being you have to be in order to have some sort of gig writing opinions for them.
In this case, it’s Stephen Stromberg, who is suggesting that there was something “false” about their kiss at the Democratic Convention in 2000 because they are getting separated now.
He’s making a point about people complaining about Obama being too cook, but he can’t manage not to take a shot at a married couple who are breaking up after 40 years, because that’s what the Beltway Kule Kidz do.
Mr. Stromberg, I’m sure that you don’t read my screeds, but you are a miserable human being, and I would not piss on you if you were on fire.
Full disclosure: I did actually vote for Nader in 2000, because my vote did not matter, as I lived in Texas, and I regret that vote to this day.
In an otherwise ordinary article about how former Googlers in the Obama White House continue to talk with current Googlers, we have the following exchange:
In January, for instance, Google’s vice president and “chief Internet evangelist” Vint Cerf anxiously wrote to McLaughlin about the worsening chances for net neutrality — the notion that Internet Service Providers should be barred from favoring their own content or from offering “fast-lane” services to premium-paying customers. “Has there been so much flack from the Hill that you guys feel a need to back away” from a commitment?, asked Cerf, attaching a CNET article by a well-credentialed business consultant who was advancing that thesis.
“Don’t be silly,” McLaughlin responds. “No one’s backed away from anything. . . . Isn’t . . . the author of the article, an anti [net neutrality] zealot?”
“Yes, he is,” Cerf wrote. “Just wanted to confirm he’s full of biased baloney.”
“Absolutely,” McLaughlin replied.
If you go through the article, you will never see that name of the journalist in question, Declan McCullagh, who was best described as a “Draw by crayon libertarian,” by the inestimable Andrew Orlowski of The Register.
I deduce it from the Clues, “CNET,” “anti [net neutrality] zealot,” and “Biased Baloney,” if you are familiar with McCullagh’s oeuvre.
What is almost certain is that if the principals in this story were talking about a statement by a lawyer given to over-the-top statements, (Geoff Feiger, for example) you would have seen the name in the story.
It’s not in this story, because it is seen as inappropriate for a journalist to call out another journalist by name, even in the context of a quote someone else.
This attitude is corrosive to journalism.
The McMahon Campaign’s Statement, since scrubbed, that they were the source of the story
And neither did I when I commented the Times story on Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s statement that he had served in Vietnam, when he actually went through multiple deferments and a stint in the reserves to stay out of the war.
It appears that the paper, and me indirectly, swallowed a piece of opposition research from a political opponent without further checking the story.
Well, the New York Times posted a short clip of his speech where he clearly said that he served in Vietnam.
What they didn’t post was the whole speech, where he leads off with a statement that makes it clear that he is claiming that he simply served during that era, not making a claim of serving in the ‘Nam.
Hell, even Fox News’ Neil Cavuto says that the New York Times did a hack job:
Blumenthal didn’t. As far as I can tell, he quite often made a point of saying he didn’t do the heavy lifting in service, just that he appreciated his Marine Reserves service and really appreciated those who did far more in service. He almost always explained the difference, and almost always cited his gratitude.
What’s more, see the pic, with Republican Senate Linda McMahon’s campaign claiming that the Times swallowed their research lock, stock, and barrel, which falls under the, “What the f%$# were they thinking when they admitted that?” category.
Also, people are not talking with the Connecticut press, and it appears that Blumenthal was generally (an important modifier) clear about his status.
I still think that Blumenthal is dead meat because of this, and that the Dems should nominate someone else (who?) on primary day, though, hopefully, so is Linda McMahon, because they fingered themselves over this, and this is an opening for her Republican primary opponent, Rob Simmons, particularly since there are also credible allegations that she warned a drug (steroid) dealing doctor about a federal investigation.
This will be a crazy race.
Particularly when the person using them does not understand the underlying sport.
Case in point, Greg Sandoval, who in writing about a German court order banning an ISP from providing bandwidth, titles the article, ” Studios score another TKO against Pirate Bay,” in discussing the short-lived offline period.
Less than 12 hours later Pirate Bay was back on line.
I’m not sure if Mr. Sandoval wrote the headline, or if someone else did, but whoever it was, they have no f%$#ing clue as to the sport of boxing, nor what a TKO is.
TKO stands for “Technical Knock Out,” and when it occurs, it’s game over, and someone has lost:
A knockout (also referred to as a K.O.) is a winning criterion in several full-contact combat sports, such as boxing, kickboxing, Muay Thai, mixed martial arts, Karate and others sports involving striking. A knockout is usually awarded when one participant is unable to rise from the canvas within a specified period of time, typically because of fatigue, injury (serious or temporarily incapacitating, e.g. a bleeding cut above the eye can blind a fighter), loss of balance, or unconsciousness; that is, the person may literally be knocked out. A technical knockout (also referred to as a T.K.O.) is often declared when the referee or other judges (such as official ring physician, the fighter, or the fighter’s cornermen) decide that a fighter cannot continue the match, even though he did not fail the count, or, in many regions, a fighter has been knocked down three times in one round.[1] British records refer to TKOs as either “retired”, if the fighter refuses to continue, or “R.S.F.”, for Referee Stopped Fight. In amateur boxing, a knockout is scored as “RSC,” for Referee Stopped Contest. A technical knockout (“Outclassed”) can also be declared if a fighter is ahead by 15 points in a bout.
If you want to use a sports analogy, this is something like a yellow card. It’s inconvenient, and a warning, but the game is still on.
Better yet, Don’t Use a Sports Analogy!!!!
While it is true that senior enforcement personnel at the SEC spent a lot of time downloading pr0n on their PC’s, this story has been around for years, as ProPublica notes, and the reason that it’s hitting the media spin cycle now is because the Republicans, Darrell Issa specifically, are pushing the story because they want to stop reform.
Basically, they want to say that the failures were because of a few bad apples at the SEC, and pr0n is a good way for them to illustrate this, because pr0n attracts the media, and it is a simple narrative, which attracts the incompetent.
So it’s a win-win for the Republicans who want to side-track reform: It’s a pretty bauble to distract the press with, and they can claim that it shows that government shouldn’t regulate.
USA Today headline, “In good sign for economy: Hiring rebounds on Wall Street.”
More Wall Street brokers, cutting more deals, with other people’s money, using more and more opaque instruments is supposed to be a, “Good sign for economy.”
It’s a pity that the author, Paul Davidson, apparently understands neither English nor the economy.
*The quote is from The Princess Bride.
But do you have to hire a really stupid right winger?
Forget Erickson’s politics and whether you agree with them. It’s not whether he’s on the left or the right that matters — it’s the way he expresses his beliefs that’s the problem. Among other things, he’s had readers send fake dog poop to Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., because of the congressman’s support for his party’s healthcare reform proposals, he’s celebrated Chicago’s losing the 2016 Summer Olympics by writing, “Obama’s pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world,” he’s said that “leftists celebrate each and every death of each and every American solider because they view the loss of life as a vindication of their belief that they are right.”
I’m not asking that they find a smart wingnut, but at the very least, they should find someone who does not need help to cut his own meat, you know, someone who can at least pretend to have two brain cells on the teevee, see Will, George.
When you work at the Washington Post, and you report stories on Rahm Emanuel that are so slanted that it appears that they have been written by Rahm Emanuel, you are lame.
When these articles become so wankerrific that David Broder, the high priest of the Beltway Kool Kidz Klub feels compelled to call the authors as well out by name, chastizing Dana Milbank and Jason Horowitz, you are dealing with a density of wankertude which is almost unimaginable.
When you realize that he is also criticizing the paper running this story, The Washington Post, and the fact that Broder himself works at the Washington Post, the level of wanking at what Atrios calls the Kaplan test company is approaching a point where the paper is risking a collapse into some sort of wanking black hole.
I think we’re long past the time when most print newspapers could’ve been saved by simply providing a better product, but I also think there was a window to save, if not the print versions, the institutions which published them. Obviously the WaPo can survive as long as Kaplan Test Prep [The Washington Post] makes enough to keep them afloat, but I do wish more journalists bemoaning the losses in their industry would recognize that at least to some degree ceasing to be relevant and authoritative publications is a part of the problem. Why should people read them when they have to spend a lot of time figuring out when they’re being bullsh%$#ed?
I’ve said it before, many times: One of the problems with newspapers is that their management does not believe that newspapers can survive, so their business plan is to suck the marrow out of these institutions, not to provide good product.
You saw this phenomenon with the American rail industry in the 1970s.
She’s had a regular column, “The Party,” which was basically about throwing parties, in the print edition of the WaPo, but it’s going online only, or, as Gawker so evocatively states it, “Sally Quinn Relegated to WaPo Ghetto.”
Basically, she devoted an entire article to the horror that is a scheduling conflict between two weddings, and it crossed line between accommodating whatever affection that Posties might have her husband, Ex Editor-in-Chief Ben Bradley, and projectile vomit risking revulsion, so she’s gone, hopefully for good. (No link to Sally, you can get the link at the first link, look for, “enormous turd,” but I don’t link to Sally Quinn)
In any case, one wag had fun with it in an online chat with a Wapo columnist:
Burke, Va.: I’m so confused!
Our ex-boss’ wife (HIS third wife) still writes for the company newsletter. Last week, she wrote a column about how her son’s wedding is on the same day as her husband’s granddaughter’s wedding, on opposite coasts, and nobody can figure out why we’re supposed to care. I guess everybody likes the old man so much that everybody’s afraid to tell his wife that her column is absurd and makes the company newsletter look stupid.
Any suggestions?
Lily Garcia: It sounds like the column, although inappropriate, is basically harmless. You could try suggesting topics that you would like to see covered in the newsletter, but you should stop short of proposing that the ex-boss’ wife be excluded.
In any case, this means that the level of discourse in Washington, DC has improved by a small amount.