August 2004 Archives

Thanks to President Bush's leadership, we have experienced record growth in the exportation of American goods abroad.

Sadly, not.

It pays:

Chief executives of U.S. companies that outsourced the greatest number of jobs reaped bigger pay and benefits last year, according to a new study of executive compensation being released Tuesday.

Average CEO compensation at the 50 companies outsourcing the most service jobs rose by 46 percent in 2003 from a year earlier, compared with a 9 percent increase for CEOs at 365 big companies overall, the study by the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy found.

Outsourcing of jobs has become a sensitive issue, and President Bush has largely avoided the subject in public appearances during the political campaign. Some of his economic advisers have said that exporting labor to low-cost countries will reduce business costs, boost companies' financial performance and thereby improve the U.S. economy.

Of course this study doesn't establish a causal relationship between outsourcing and CEO pay. But it is an interesting how those CEOs have fared.

Speaking of outsourcing, yesterday Lou Dobbs had a lively discussion on it with Congresswoman Ann Northup (R-KY) (starts about 2/3 of the way down the page. It was refreshing to see a TV host actively challenging the assertions a politician made rather than just allow her to mindlessly rattle off the standard talking points.

When does "fair use" of copyrighted material not mean fair use? When you representing big media companies. The only real surprise here is how blatantly Mr. Valenti misrepresents the law.

Nice.

Time apparently caught President Bush in a chatty mood in a recent interview. Among other things, Bush blames the post-war mess in Iraq on the American military's "catastrophic success." Hmm, is that also the problem with our economy? Did the Bush tax cuts bring about catastrophic economic growth?

Bush also revealed that he doesn't pray for Saddam Hussein. ("But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." ).

Given how much of an influence Bush's faith supposedly is over him, wouldn't it be interesting to have a reporter who is well-versed in Christianity interview Bush on how his religion shapes his world view? Not just the standard questions on abortion and gay marriage. I'm talking about the morality of war, human rights, religious diversity, America's "moral" responsibilities in the world, the Middle East--that kind of thing. Questions that go beyond, "how important is your faith to you?"

If Bush's faith is that significant to him (it is used as a selling point for religious conservative voters), shouldn't voters know how it may influences his policies?

Just heard CNN's gray bearded one repeat another GOP talking point in asking if the protestors marching yesterday were there because they were upset at President Bush or because they liked John Kerry. The implied meaning of this being that people really don't like Kerry, they just lean that way because they are emotionally-driven Bush haters.

Really, how often in 2000 do you recall the media asking whether those supporting George W. Bush did so because they liked Bush rather than because they disliked Gore?

You'd be hard pressed to make stories like this up.

Uh oh. Are the Republicans committing a no no at their convention?

Laura, discussing the attack ads on Kerry's military service:

TIME: Critics throw out so many charges against the President. Is there any one that you found the most unfair?

BUSH: I think they're all very unfair. [Laughter.] I really do.

TIME: Do you think these swift-boat ads are unfair to John Kerry?

BUSH: Do I think they're unfair? Not really. There have been millions of terrible ads against my husband.

George W., on Kerry's military service:

President Bush said opponent John Kerry's service was "more heroic" than his during Vietnam, in an interview shown Saturday on NBC News.

"I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets," said Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard. "He was in harm's way and I wasn't. On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I would have gone."

Perhaps the first couple should iron out their position here.

We sure live in a confusing world, don't we?

If (1) the U.S. military has been fighting "terrorists" in Iraq, and

(2) the Iraqi government just signed a peace treaty with said "terrorists," doesn't

(3) application of the "Bush Doctrine" (we make no distinction between the terrorists who commit acts and those who harbor them) require that

(4) America now attack the government it helped establish?

If I was the skeptical type, I'd be thinking these terms being tossed around are pretty meaningless and only get invoked when the administration wants to pursue a particular agenda.

You may have noticed that I haven't been commenting on presidential election polls as much as some people have. A couple reasons for this. First, the election isn't today and the slight bobbing up and down of the polls over the next month or so isn't that significant. Second, the generic national polls are pretty meaningless, since we don't elect based on the popular vote.

Electoral College polls are a little better. And since Zogby has the reputation of being more accurate than most, I note his snapshot of where things stand heading into the Republican convention.

Based on polling in 16 battleground states Zogby has the current score as:

Kerry 286
Bush 214

Two states--Florida and Missouri--are too close to call. I'm not paying to read the full report, but according to the map shown on MSNBC, the only toss-up states Bush leads in are Ohio and West Virginia. All the rest, including Tennessee, are leaning toward Kerry.

So when is Kerry going to start doing some serious campaigning in the Volunteer State?

That's what some people would apparently like to see. Here's what fair and balanced commentator Bill O'Reilly should be done with unruly GOP convention protestors:

However, the new problem is that these potentially violent protestors damage security efforts against the terrorists themselves, who want to kill us. And that's a fact.

So what should happen is that any illegal activity by these protestors should be considered a terrorist act on its face. Putting the lives of New Yorkers in danger by distracting the police is terrorism, period.

There are reports of some anarchists who are going to douse themselves with gun powder to cause security alarms to go crazy. We also hear some of these people may roll marbles underneath the hooves of police horses. Any of that stuff is terrorism and the federal government should take over the prosecution.

Instead of being slapped on the wrist, violent and damage causing protestors should be slapped with federal prison time. Most Americans value protest. I certainly do. But we're fighting a war here. And any act that puts this country in danger is sabotage. Again, a terrorist act.

Homeland Security Czar Tom Ridge should lay it on the line to the protestors. Behave yourselves. You'll be respected. Put Americans at risk, you'll be severely punished.

Yes, if some protestors get out of hand and damage property or, heaven forbid, injure anyone, they should be punished . . . for those acts.

What does participating in a constitutional protest have to do with terrorism? Nothing. "Terrorism" is becoming a generic catchall phrase by proponents to empower the government to do whatever it is they want it to do. And fair and balanced citizens should find that troubling.

I have a question about something I saw last night. Perhaps a legally-minded reader can shed some light on this.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer was interviewing attorney Benjamin Ginsberg on the latter's resignation from working for Bush/Cheney '04. Blitzer appeared to be fishing to see if he could get Ginsberg to admit that the Bush campaign knew that the attorney was simultaneously working for the Swift Boat Veterans:

BLITZER: Did you tell people at the Bush-Cheney campaign that you were also giving legal advice to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

GINSBERG: Not until yesterday with the exception of a conversation on the legalities, a generic conversation of legalities of representing both campaigns and 527 groups. But nobody at the Bush campaign or the White House knew of my dual representation, which is appropriate under the legal ethics rules.

BLITZER: Since you were working for the campaign earlier, wouldn't it have been appropriate first to ask the campaign, do you have a problem if I also give advice to this other Swift Boat group?

GINSBERG: Well, Wolf, I didn't do that for three reasons. The first is that the legal ethics rules really require lawyers not to talk to different clients about the work that they're performing for other clients.

Number two, the campaign finance laws have strict provisions on any coordination, so to even raise the subject could potentially jeopardize my clients. And number three, starting months before I ever did this, my Democrat colleagues were doing precisely the same thing.

It's true that legal ethics may prohibit specific discussions of the work you are performing for other clients, but this prohibition doesn't preclude you from disclosing who those other clients are. Indeed, in cases where there is a potential conflict of interest between clients, ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b)(4) requires that the lawyer obtain the client's consent for the dual representation in writing.

Granted, Ginsberg's representation of both Bush/Cheney and the Swift Boat Veterans doesn't present a typical conflict of interest scenario--here the problem was that the client's interests are too similar, rather than conflicting. But it seems to me the same principles should still apply. Because as the resignation made clear, his dual representation interfered with his ability to represent a client.

Anyway, this reason for not telling Bush/Cheney of the Swift Boat Veterans seems strange to me; I'm wondering if anyone has a different take on this ethical issue.

From The Washington Times:

U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002 but paid only $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion, says a report issued yesterday by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

The report, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, also said if illegal aliens now in the country -- estimated at between 8 million and 12 million -- received amnesty, paid taxes and used services similar to households headed by legal immigrants, the estimated net deficit would increase from $10 billion to more than $29 billion.
. . .
The report said if the United States is serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the "only real option" is to enforce the country's existing immigration law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the United States.

I don't know if these figures are correct or not; let's assume they are in the ballpark. This means that what we are really doing is providing at least $10 billion dollars in indirect government subsidies to business.

How?

The business community opposes the enforcement of immigration laws because it relies on the continued flow of cheap labor. "Cheap" meaning that the employers don't pay the aliens a true living wage. So many employees end up drawing public assistance because they don't earn enough to pay for basic services from their jobs. In other words, the taxpayers foot part of the employer's true labor costs.

Security issues aside, I guess we can continue to this policy if we want. Just keep remember that when politicians talk about "free markets," they usually don't mean truly free markets.

Is no place safe anymore?

In a striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change, a new report to Congress focuses on federal research indicating that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades.

In delivering the report to Congress yesterday, an administration official, Dr. James R Mahoney, said it reflected "the best possible scientific information" on climate change. Previously, President Bush and other officials had emphasized uncertainties in understanding the causes and consequences of warming as a reason for rejecting binding restrictions on heat-trapping gases.

The "bureaucracy" must be hard at work again. Before you know it they will be coming out with some radical finding on smokestack emissions not being healthy to breathe.

Here's President Bush's statement on Monday against the right of private organizations to run political ads:

THE PRESIDENT: I'm denouncing all the stuff being on TV of the 527s. That's what I've said. I said this kind of unregulated soft money is wrong for the process. And I asked Senator Kerry to join me in getting rid of all that kind of soft money, not only on TV, but used for other purposes, as well. I, frankly, thought we'd gotten rid of that when I signed the McCain-Feingold bill. I thought we were going to, once and for all, get rid of a system where people could just pour tons of money in and not be held to account for the advertising. And so I'm disappointed with all those kinds of ads.

A silly statement, really. When he signed McCain-Feingold, Bush knew full well (or he could have if he bothered to ask) that there are loopholes in the regulations But anyway his position on 527s is clear: our decisive leader takes a strong stand against soft money ads on TV.

Fast forward two whole days. Here's what Bush-Cheney '04, Inc. wrote in a letter to Senator Kerry:

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran's right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Huh? A a veteran's right to openly express their feelings? You mean that suddenly groups of citizens may have First Amendment rights after all? That's a sudden reversal. One that, at the hands of Kerry, would be labeled a "flip flop." But since it's not, this is simply a clarification.

Still, it's a rapid turn. It wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it?

A day after President Bush called for an end to campaign spending by independent groups, one such Republican organization said on Tuesday that it had raised $35 million to counter Democratic attacks on television and hoped to wage a $125 million advertising campaign through Election Day.

The organization, the Progress for America Voter Fund, is the first Republican group to announce that it had raised a substantial amount of money to compete with Democratic-leaning groups that have collected tens of millions of dollars to attack the Bush-Cheney campaign on television.

Surely not.

Long-time Bush/Cheney campaign attorney Benjamin Ginsberg resigns due to his link with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Undoubtedly Mr. Ginsberg provided counsel on what each group could and could not legally do--a service not to be confused with "coordination."

Despite the egg-on-the-face nature of this disclosure, I suspect the folks at Bush/Cheney central are happy with the media coverage this issue continues to generate. Why? Because it continues to focus attention on the campaign system, not the truth.

Since day one the Rove-orchestrated strategy in responding to the swift boat ads is to divert attention away from the ads and place it on the groups sponsoring the ads. Why? Two reasons. First it allows the Swift Boat Veterans to continue to do their "dirty work" circulating unsubstantiated charges against Kerry, while Bush appears to be above it all. "We don't think anyone should be running such adds" . . . wink, wink. But just as important, it also generate negative media attention to 527s, where the "Democratic" side of the campaign has a huge advantage over Republicans.

So now, instead of discussing whether the swifties are truthful or liars (or worse yet, actual issues affecting Americans), a huge amount of media time has been consumed in a confusing he said/she said discussion of 527s, which is likely to leave the average viewer thinking that:

(1) All 527s must be bad, and

(2) Kerry is benefiting from this dirty political tactic much more than Bush.

Unfortunately, the Kerry campaign has done poor job handling this entire episode. First, it was slow in initally responding to the Swift Boat charges. Presumably, it assumed the news media would serve as a reasonable filter and the ads would go no where. But by now everyone should know that the right wing can turn up the political noise whenever it wants to.

Once it was clear this story did have legs, the Kerry campaign should have focused with laser-like precision on discrediting the charges and those raising them. Instead, it took an indirect approach, apparently thinking it could have the media pressure Bush into quashing the ads. Another miscalculation of the media. The primary reporting 24 hour news provides today is one-side-says-versus-the-other-side-says coverage; the truth is a secondary concern. So within the first couple days it should have been clear that this vague "denounce the smear" tactic wasn't going to work. Yet team Kerry is still attempting it, and we've consequently seen this issue being framed by the Bush campaign for the past week.

This swift boat story has lasted so long that it may now be impossible to kill it with a factual response. I'd rather not see the campaign go this way, but perhaps the only way to put these Vietnam attacks to bed is to fight fire with fire and revive the questions about Bush's own military record. I'd like to see a campaign based on legitimate issues. But it's becoming clear that Bush will run an attack-based campaign. And one can sustain only so many punches without swinging back.

Via Juan Cole, this AP article takes us down memory lane and reminds us why Bush I was against invading Iraq in Gulf War I. For instance, here's what then Secretary of State James Baker said in 1996:

Iraqi soldiers and civilians could be expected to resist an enemy seizure of their own country with a ferocity not previously demonstrated on the battlefield in Kuwait.

Even if Hussein were captured and his regime toppled, U.S. forces would still have been confronted with the specter of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify the country and sustain a new government in power.

Removing him from power might well have plunged Iraq into civil war, sucking U.S. forces in to preserve order. Had we elected to march on Baghdad, our forces might still be there.

What was true then is still true today. U.S. troops are going to be a fixture in Iraq for a long, long time.

As the Republican convention nears, someone in the Kerry campaign has distributed some interesting statistics from past presidential races:

* The average winning incumbent has had a job approval rating of 60%. Indeed, every incumbent who has won reelection has had his job approval in the mid-50's or higher at this point. In recent polling, Bush's average approval rating has been 48%. President Bush must emerge from his convention having dramatically altered public perception of his performance in office.

* In recent years, when incumbents have gone on to victory, 52% of voters, on average, said the country was on the right track. Now, just 37% think things are moving in the right direction. Thus, President Bush must convince the electorate that the nation is in much better shape than voters now believe to be the case. Every incumbent who has gone on to be reelected has had a double-digit lead at this point.

* Following their conventions, the average elected incumbent has held a 16-point lead, while winning incumbents have led by an average of 27 points. Bush will need a very substantial bounce to reach the mark set by his successful predecessors.

* Incumbents have enjoyed an average bounce in the vote margin of 8 points.

* On average, incumbents' share of the two-party vote has declined by 4 points between their convention and Election Day.

President Bush has the opportunity to achieve an average, or even greater, bounce from his convention. Typically, elected incumbents go into their conventions with a 9-point lead, while incumbents who have gone on to win enter their conventions with a 21-point lead. Most current polls show the race quite close. This gives the president substantial room to bounce. By contrast, Senator Kerry entered his convention in a far stronger position than the average challenger. The average challenger goes into his convention 16 points behind, while Senator Kerry entered his convention with a 1-2 point lead. This gave Senator Kerry much less room to bounce.

Obviously the point here is to point out that the typical incumbent receives a much larger bounce from their convention than Bush is going to receive, thus downplaying the impact of the GOP convention.

I suspect Bush will receive roughly the same type of convention bounce as Kerry got last month--not a very large one. Unless there's a significant event which shakes up the race, I expect it to remain close (margin of errorish) into October. Ultimately, the winner may open up some space between the loser, but that break probably won't come until late in the campaign.

No matter how much the media tries to play up the Iraqi soccer team human interest story, the bottom line is--it's still soccer. And thus very hard to watch.

Strange note from a Sally Jenkins column criticizing for a Bush 2004 ad for exploiting the Olympics:

"In 1972 there were 40 democracies in the world, today 120," says a narrator as flags of all countries wave over a stadium. "Freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise. And this Olympics, there will be two more free nations. And two fewer terrorist regimes."

The USOC is reviewing the ad and considering whether to ask the campaign to pull it, as an infringement of its exclusive rights to the Olympics. The IOC charter states that the Olympic word, symbol and concept belong exclusively to the IOC (and to the USOC in the United States) and should not be used for political purposes.

Looks like another case of property rights being stretched too far. I can buy the USOC wanting to protect its symbol--they have too or it will lose exclusive rights to the trademark. But wanting to block someone from using the word "Olympics"? And what's the "concept" which they supposedly have enforceable property rights over?

If they could get away with it, I suspect the IOC would try to forbid people from talking about the games without permission.

I don't think this is the biggest issue going. But if the media is going to air people questioning the size of Kerry's shrapnel 35 years ago, we might as well be talking about these questions too:

--Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

--What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

--Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years?

We won't find out answers with records remaining sealed and this type of thing going on:

Since February, the White House has banned all Guard and military commanders outside the Pentagon from commenting on Bush's records or service. Requests for information must go to the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Act office.

Of course many of these FOIA requests don't go anywhere without an accompanying lawsuit, which delays the process for months. But I guess that's the point; November is less than three months away. And if we can keep the focus on John Kerry's bleeding, it will be here before we know it.

Sadly, this fairly well summarizes where TV news is at today:

That kind of air-kiss coverage is typical of cable news, where the premium is on speed and spirited banter rather than painstaking accuracy. But it has grown into a lazy habit: anchors do not referee - they act as if their reportage is fair and accurate as long as they have two opposing spokesmen on any issue.

As long as the news is putting on two sides to the argument, it is being "fair and balanced." Reporters need not do the research necessary to sort through which points are credible and which aren't. Just frame the debate as a he said/he said type issue and give both sides an opportunity to do some shouting.

UPDATE: Atrios has the transcript of the Daily Show segment which covered this ground last night.

Related reading--E.J. Dionne:

Alas, this is the classic course a smear campaign takes. A group throws up accusations that, when subjected to scrutiny, prove to be full of holes. Supporters of the attack campaign say that, well, those charges may not pan out, but there must be something here. Let's just keep attacking.

The media have to do more than "he said/he said" reporting. If the charges don't hold up, they don't hold up. And, yes, now that John Kerry's life during his twenties has been put at the heart of this campaign just over two months from Election Day, the media owe the country a comparable review of what Bush was doing at the same time and the same age.

If all the stories about what Kerry did in Vietnam are not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation's editors and producers don't want to send a signal that all you have to do to set the media's agenda is spend a half-million bucks on television ads.

Well, we hope they don't. But that's exactly what has happened this month.

For months the White House has been attempting to peddle the so-called "FairPay Overtime Initiative" as a step to "simplify" overtime rules.

Interesting that with these simple rules, the Department of Labor has set up a web page to help people understand them, complete with guides and "training" videos.

Moreover, based on the sample coverage I've seen today, hardly anyone in the news media appears to understand how the new regulations apply.

South Knox Bubba posts on three articles in yesterday's Knoxville News Sentinel regarding traffic on the Tennessee River. I find this blurb in the cover story a bit ironic:

The type of goods transported into Knoxville varies from the primary products moved along the Tennessee River as a whole.

The primary No. 1 product for Knoxville is asphalt at about 50 percent of the traffic or 250,000 tons a year. It is followed by salt at 20 percent of the traffic or 100,000 tons. The remainder of the Knoxville traffic is coke and steel.

"Knoxville can't live without its road projects, so we feed those road projects," Nelson said, explaining the transportation of asphalt.

Yep. We need the river so we can continue building more roads! It's a good thing river freight is so much cheaper than road traffic--makes hauling the asphalt more economical for the road builders.

Congratulations to former University of Tennessee Volunteer Justin Gatlin for winning 100m gold in Athens.

Headed to New York City to protest the Republican convention? I'll likely not make it, but don't let that stop you. This lengthy post offers you much of what you need to know. A shot sample (on bathrooms):

This brings up another interesting corollary for the more violently inclined. The caf� whose window you smash today may be your restroom tomorrow. Or, more accurately, it won't be your bathroom, because you will have forced it to close. And even the most infamous rebel loses some of his or her romanticism with big pee-pee stains on the front of his or her black bloc outfit. In short, don't do it.

Indeed. I hope these protests make a loud statement . . . without any violence. We don't need to provide the media with another reason to not cover the real issues at stake this campaign.

Does anyone have any confidence in the Florida election?

Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows.

Registering in two places is illegal in both states, but the massive snowbird scandal goes undetected because election officials don't check rolls across state lines.
. . .
Computer records analyzed by The News don't allow for an exact count of how many people vote in both places, because millions of names are regularly purged between elections.

But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
. . .
Nearly 1,700 of those registered in both states requested that absentee ballots be mailed to their home in the other state, where they are also registered. But that doesn't raise red flags with officials in either place.

It's surprising that election officials don't at least conduct an effective check when they mail ballots to other states. Then again, I guess we've to the point where nothing should be surprising anymore.

This looks like a bad combination:

The Rev. Jerry Falwell will open a law school this month in hopes of training a generation of attorneys who will fight for conservative causes.

"We want to infiltrate the culture with men and women of God who are skilled in the legal profession," Falwell said in a telephone interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. "We'll be as far to the right as Harvard is to the left."

Graduates of the law school -- part of Falwell's Liberty University in Lynchburg, which is affiliated with his Baptist ministry -- could tackle such issues as abortion rights and gay marriage, Falwell said. Classes begin Aug. 23 for the first-year class of 61 law students.
. . .
Classroom lectures and discussions will fuse the teachings of the Bible with the U.S. Constitution, stressing the connections between faith, law and morality, said law school Dean Bruce Green, who has experience in civil liberties litigation.
. . .
Joe Conn, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the law school is part of a crusade by Falwell to get the government to carry out his religious agenda.

I don't have a problem with religious universities; I was an undergraduate at one. And it's not a bad idea for law students to have the option of taking a class which examines "moral" issues. But you don't need to set up an entire law school to teach someone how to fight abortion. My guess is that Mr. Conn is right when he suggests this is more an effort to train future government leaders who will pursue a religious agenda.

This is implicitly confirmed on the school's website:

We believe the rule of law is rooted in transcendent principles and objective moral order and, as a result, law places an extrinsic restraint on people�s actions, especially morally deficient people.

We believe that law should not be wielded as an instrument of political, social, or personal change, but that it should serve the common good of mankind.

Interesting phrase there, morally deficient people. Anyway, who is it that wields the law as an instrument of change? Those liberal judicial activists, of course. We must reverse their handiwork and get our country back to the religious mooring the founders intended.

Lest there was any doubt, this NY Times piece and accompanying graph details how angry Vietnam veterans and Texas Republicans united to form the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."

I'm not sure if it was a coincidence or not that Kerry finally came out swinging against Bush and the group yesterday. Perhaps he got tipped off that this type of disclosure was in the works. These revelations, coupled with Michelle Malkin's meltdown after accusing Kerry of shooting himself, should be a real credibility hit for the "Swift Boat Veterans." It will be interesting to see if the TV news continues to play up their claims.

RTB rebel blogger SayUncle violates the Athens 2004 Hyperlink Policy, which the good folks at the Olympics have established for our "protection." Ooops, looks like I just violated the "ATHENS 2004 Website General Terms and Conditions" as well.

I understand why a website like this wants to set up rules to govern how other commercial websites link to its content. But honestly, how many bloggers or private webmasters are going to go through those hoops just to make a link?

Kos has a post which juxtaposes screen shots of the Bush and Kerry campaign website front pages. The contrast is striking. Virtually the entire Kerry front page highlights Kerry's plan for America. In contrast, nearly the entire Bush page is devoted to . . . Senator Kerry.

It's remarkable that after nearly four years and office, apparently the best strategy the Bush campaign has come up with for re-election is to drive up the negatives of the opponent. What of Bush's accomplishments while in office? What of his vision for the future?

I know it's still early, and there's been rumors of Bush introducing a "reform agenda" during the Republican convention. But thus far a vast majority of his advertising has been attack commercials on Kerry. It smells to me like a campaign in trouble. An incumbent president needs to answer the questions, "Why should I be given another four years in office? What do I offer for America's future?"

So far Bush has done a pretty lousy job answering those questions.

I saw Ambassador Keyes on TV last night. He was asked about a comment he made in 2000 which appears to condemn his bid to become an Illinois senator:

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.

As you might expect, Keyes offered some rhetorical nonsense. Unlike Hillary, who ran for the senate to pursue her own agenda, Keyes is simply following the call of the people:

Hillary Clinton pursued an agenda of clear personal ambition. She fished around among the different states in the union, decided which state would be the best object of her personal ambitions, fermented interest in the state, for the sake of her personal agenda. She was a sitting first lady at the time, so there was even overtones of intimidation involved in all of that. And she simply used and abused the state as a platform of her personal ambition.

Quite the contrary, I had no thought whatsoever of running for the U.S. Senate in the state of Illinois. I have been called in by a decision of the people in Illinois, who say that they need my help. That is their choice, and that respects the sovereignty of the people, because they have made the determination that they need outside help. It also respects my own principles, because I am a strong believer in federalism, but as the Illinois motto indicates, there are two components, of federalism. State sovereignty and national union.

So what kind of ideas have we heard from this man of the people so far? Here's a few:

Repeal of the 16th Amendment (providing for an income tax) and the institution of a national sales tax.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment which specifies that voters select a state's senators rather than it's legislature. An ironic position for a senatorial candidate to take, isn't it?

Maintaining that September 11 was a warning from God to America regarding the abortion, since the procedure is a form of terrorism.

Offering reparations (an income tax rebate) for descendants of slaves. Presumably, this would only apply if Keyes failed to have said income tax abolished.

Based on the proposals we've seen so far, it's pretty apparent that this race is all about Keyes' "agenda of clear personal ambition" and not about the people of Illinois.

Somehow I missed this earlier in the summer. The powers that be in New York proposed a ban on general photography on subways and buses. Meta-Roj blog has more details and examples of potential terrorism.

I can kind of buy bans on aerial photography of nuclear installations and that type of thing. But banning pictures of the subway? And buses? A would-be terrorist can research those public places any time he or she wants. No need to take photos. Is the government trying to pull a joke on us?

I'm not sure what the current status of this proposal is. It hasn't been enacted . . . at least not yet. Don't know if it was dropped or just tabled for now.

This is another government restriction not intended to actually make the public safer, but rather to make people think the government is making them safer. Hopefully people will continue to see through this kind of thing.

We're not talking drugs, money, or those other petty issues. Here's the type of controversy that really gets at the integrity of sport (sorry, no pictures):

A team of bikini-clad dancers from the Canary Islands is entertaining fans but offending some female players at Olympic beach volleyball.

Wearing bright orange outfits during the day and shiny silver ones at night, the sun-bronzed babes race onto the sand between points and matches, gyrating to blaring techno-pop. Fans join in, wiggling hips and clicking cameras.

At least one women's team isn't amused.

"It's kind of disrespectful to the female players," said Nicole Sanderson, an Australian. "I'm sure the male spectators love it, but I find it a little bit offensive."

I'm don't know what Ms. Sanderson finds offensive. Couldn't be the dancer's appearance, because their dress is fairly similar to that of the players.

But as much as I'm sure that many fans appreciate the added entertainment, I'm not sure the Olympics will retain their character if we start adding dance teams, half time shows, corporate promotions, and the other trappings of contemporary professional sporting events. I'd rather the games maintain their traditional focus on competition and leave out the hoopla.

This past weekend the Bush campaign attempted to tap into the Olympic spirit by launching "morning in Athens" ad. The ad shows an athlete and boasts of "two more free nations" and "two fewer terrorists regimes"--those being Afghanistan and Iraq. Kind of odd, since Iraq competed in the Olympics before Bush appeared on the scene, but maybe they are performing better now. Or something. Gotta find a silver lining somewhere.

But the larger problem with the ad is its entire premise: Thanks to President Bush, "freedom is spreading throughout the world like a sunrise." The ad opens by noting that there were 40 democracies in the world in 1972; today there are 120.

Notice anything strange about those dates? Why yes. Bush actually didn't become president in 1972, he was elected in 2000. It's unclear to me what Bush did to spread democracy between 1972 and 2000. If you compare the figures from 2000 and today, it's more along the lines of 118 to 120. I guess that's why they used 1972.

Moreover, just how did the sunrise of freedom dawn in those two nations?

By an American invasion and occupation, that's how.

Is this our game plan for spreading freedom? How many countries might we enlighten with freedom in a second Bush term? How many more can we afford to cast the bright light of freedom upon?

Not many, I'm afraid.

No More Mister Nice Blog points out an Independent article which shares Ann Coulter's latest:

Meet Ann Coulter. In her opinion, "liberals are racists", the French are "a bunch of faggots", only property owners should be allowed to vote, and anyone who disagrees with her is a "fatuous idiot" or "evil".
. . .
Her next book, due out in October, is called How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must). And even this relatively emollient title is a concession. "They pushed this title on me," Coulter says when we meet at Orsay, a brasserie on the Upper East Side of New York. "All my titles were much more vicious. What I didn't like about How to Talk to a Liberal is that I really think the best way to talk to one is to hit them in the head with a baseball bat. So I threw in the parenthetical If You Must."
. . .
"Liberals don't want people to have sovereignty over their own mind and body," says Ann. "They take my money, they tell me how many gallons of water I can have in my tank, they define conservative speech as hate speech. They're total fascists, but they're going out and imposing their left-wing fascism on the rest of the country. The beauty of America is that you can have gay-rights parades in New York and you can perform abortions on your dining-room table, but who's flying to Mississippi and suing them to take down their Ten Commandments in a public park?"

Yes, it's those pesky liberals again. "They're not only fascist where they live, they're expanding their fascism to the rest of America." Wouldn't this case be a constitutional issue (to do with the separation of church and state)? "That's what liberals say about everything, including sucking the brains out of little babies."

One thing can be said for Coulter: she does not worry about causing offence. When we talk about the "war on terror", she sounds almost nostalgic for the Cold War. "When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages." The insouciance with which she drops race into the mix is so astonishing that it's disarming.

This concludes the column rather nicely:

Is Ann Coulter a nutcase? If she is, she's one listened to and approved of by a frightening number of Americans. Surely, I say, hoping she will concede that she sometimes provokes to amuse, she doesn't believe everything she comes out with. "This is the shocking thing for your readers," she replies. "I believe everything I say."

Yep. I'm sure she'll get plenty of publicity when this book comes out. And sadly, there will be viewers who take her seriously.

This is twisted:

Relatives of the U.S. soldier who sounded the alarm about abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison said on Monday the family was living in protective custody because of death threats against them.

Reservist military police officer Staff Sgt. Joseph Darby alerted U.S. Army investigators about the abuse by fellow soldiers of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, a move his wife says has angered people in their community in western Maryland.

"People were mean, saying he was a walking dead man, he was walking around with a bull's eye on his head. It was scary," said Bernadette Darby from Corriganville, Maryland.

Apparently some Americans are more consumed by ideology, or whatever, that they would punish those exposing human rights abuses. Pathetic.

What an embarrassment. Looks like all the pundits who have been talking for years about the decline of the NBA have been on point. Does the individualistic, I-can-win-this-on-raw-strength-alone approach of today's NBA player remind anyone of any American representatives in a different field?

As far as the coverage goes, I had been thinking that the more competition and the less commentary/editing we saw, the better. But it only took a few minutes of sailing last night to dispel that theory. I know there are parts of the world were a number of people enjoy sailing. But it sure isn't much of a spectator sport.

It's too bad that Hurricane Charley has veered slightly off it's projected path through the Tampa Bay area.

Why?

Not because it avoids the mass destruction of a direct hit on a major population center, but rather because it misses where the news channels had strategically placed their reporters to offer live coverage of the storm.

The dark side of me really wants to see one of those storm-chasing fools get swept away.

It's amusing to watch one of them file a report from the beach and comment on how everyone else shouldn't be there.

I agree that this latest Bush campaign ad is a strange one:

"I can't imagine the great agony of a mom or a dad having to make the decision about which child to pick up first on September the 11th," Bush says in the 30-second television ad, which started airing Wednesday. "We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must do everything in our power to bring an enemy to justice before they hurt us again."

I'm not a parent, but I imagine if I was one and there was an emergency which warranted them being picked up, I'd go first to (1) the one who I thought was most in danger; or (2) all other things being equal, to the one that was closest.

This is a strange point to make, however. Because of all the horror stories I heard regarding 9/11, I didn't hear many parents talking about the agonizing minutes they sat in cars deciding which child to pick up.

If I was attempting to exploit 9/11 for marketing purposes, I think a much more effective statement would be:

"I can't imagine the agony of trying to find out whether my loved one had made it out of the World Trade Center in time or not."

I think this better conjures up the horrors of that day.

Anyway, Bush had the opportunity on last night's Larry King Live to reflect on his own thoughts as the 9/11 attacks transpired:

KING: John Kerry, your opponent, has said at the convention: Had I been reading to children and had my top aide whisper in my ear, "America's under attack," I would have told those kids very nicely and politely, the president of the United States has something he needs to attend to. And there's a film showing you sitting. What was going -- let's explain this, so we hear it from the other side.

G. BUSH: Well, I had just been told by Andrew Card that America was under attack. And I was collecting my thoughts. And I was sitting with a bunch of young kids, and I made the decision there that we would let this part of the program finish, and then I would calmly stand up and thank the teacher and thank the children and go take care of business.

And I think what's important is how I reacted when I realized America was under attack. It didn't take me long to figure out we were at war. It didn't take me long to develop a plan that we would go after Al Qaeda. We went into action very quickly.

KING: So you think the criticism was unwarranted?

G. BUSH: Oh, I think it's easy to second-guess a...

KING: What was going...

G. BUSH: What is relevant is whether or not I understand and understood then the stakes. And I recognized that we were at war. And I made a determination that we would do everything we could to bring those killers to justice and to protect the American people. That is my most solemn duty.

Didn't Bush realize that America was under attack when Card said to him, "America is under attack"? His statement implies that this realization came at some later point when he decided to react (at the time, completing the photo op was more important than responding to the attack). Same goes for understanding the stakes. Aren't those pretty easy to grasp once you realize someone has flown an airliner into a building?

Ordinarily, I would think a presidents (1) recognition that "America is under attack" means that America is under attack, (2) beginning to respond to said attack, and (3) realizing the stakes of the attack would be a nearly instantaneous process. But we know that with our current commander in chief it entails at least 7 minutes of processing time.

Dan Froomkin wonders what has happened to . . . uh . . . who's that guy again . . . Osama . . . something?

Since the beginning of 2003, in fact, Bush has mentioned bin Laden's name on only 10 occasions. And on six of those occasions it was because he was asked a direct question.
. . .
Not once during that period has he talked about bin Laden at any length, or said anything substantive.

During the same period, for comparison purposes, Bush has mentioned former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on approximately 300 occasions.

There's more good stuff in Froomkin's report. Go take a look.

Howard Kurtz offers the Washington Post's mea culpa on pre-war coverage of Iraq, one and a half years after the fact:

An examination of the paper's coverage, and interviews with more than a dozen of the editors and reporters involved, shows that The Post published a number of pieces challenging the White House, but rarely on the front page. Some reporters who were lobbying for greater prominence for stories that questioned the administration's evidence complained to senior editors who, in the view of those reporters, were unenthusiastic about such pieces. The result was coverage that, despite flashes of groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks strikingly one-sided at times.

"The paper was not front-paging stuff," said Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks. "Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we're going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?"

In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

Hey, let's not fault the Post for this. It was simply fulfilling the duty of a good American citizen and helping rally the nation behind the government in the war against terror.

Why do the more skeptical among us question if the administration plays politics with terrorism? Take a look at this story in which the acting FDA commissioner cites terrorism as a justification for its opposition to imported prescription drugs:

"Cues from chatter" gathered around the world are raising concerns that terrorists might try to attack the domestic food and drug supply, particularly illegally imported prescription drugs, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Lester Crawford says.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Crawford said Wednesday that he had been briefed about al-Qaeda plans uncovered during recent arrests and raids, but declined further comment about any possible threats.

"While we must assume that such a threat exists generally, we have no specific information now about any al-Qaeda threats to our food or drug supply," said Brian Roehrkasse, spokesman for the Homeland Security Department.

Crawford said the possibility of such an attack was the most serious of his concerns about the increase in states and municipalities trying to import drugs from Canada to save money.
. . .
Crawford noted the 1982 Tylenol case, in which packages of the extra-strength variety of the leading painkiller were removed from store shelves on Chicago's west side, filled with cyanide and returned to stores for purchase. Seven unsuspecting consumers were killed, and the incident prompted widespread adoption of tamperproof packaging.

Notice what's said here, and what isn't. First, the sources of the alleged threat: vague, nonspecific "chatter." That seems to have become a handy standby these days. After all, "terrorists" do "chatter" about many things, don't they? Planes, trains, trucks, helicopters, boats, scuba diving, buildings, almanacs, chemical plants, and so forth. But as far as I can tell, the government hasn't attempted to ban any other chatter topics. But this one must be different, because pharmaceutical company profits consumer's safety is at stake.

Second, the probability of the alleged threat. Could al Qaeda operatives tamper with Canadian drug shipments and insert deadly poisons? Sure. That doesn't seem like the easiest plot to pull off, but it's possible. Then again, couldn't al Qaeda do the same with Canadian fruit shipments? Or domestic food protuction? Or even American prescription drug distribution? Yes, they could.

So why are imported drugs a "particular" threat? Could Crawford be mentioning this because pharmaceutical companies the FDA is against drug importation, while Senator Kerry is out campaigning to allow it? Certainly the administration wouldn't be using terrorism to scare people into agreement with its policies, would it?

I think these comments by former CIA intelligence analyst Larry Johnson on last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann pretty well sum up the news that the Bush administration blew a high level al Qaeda sting operation in order to pat themselves on the back:

I mean, look, at least we can say the White House is consistent. I mean you know--last year, White House officials leaked the name of a clandestine operative at the CIA, Valerie Plame. This year, they take out an al Qaeda mole who's helping us and leak his name so other al Qaeda guys escape. I mean, you know, how many boneheads do we need over at the White House before they figure this out? Shut up. Stop talking about this stuff.
. . .
[H]ere we have the guy who is sort of communication central that we're into, he's able to both send them messages which allows us to locate these individuals. That's one of the reason we've had this flurry of arrests over the last several weeks, and to take that opportunity and squander it, is�it's�frankly it's criminal in my view.
. . .
Look, I say this as someone who voted for Bush. I do not understand how Republicans sit back and say nothing when a Republican White House is divulging the names of clandestine assets. That is unbelievable to me and there's no excuse for it.

Actually, this would have been unbelievable three years ago. But, unfortunately, by now we have grown accustomed to this kind of incompetence.

I see MSNBC is already off and running with the Athens Olympics. It's a bit odd to see the games because:

(1) We haven't even had the opening ceremonies yet; and

(2) I hadn't seen as much Olympic build up/hype as I expected (though I have only been watching MSNBC and CNBC, not NBC).

Anyway, it's early, but I sense we're going to see a shift in the coverage this year. In the past couple games, the broadcast have been (all figures rough estimates):

70% Human interest stories
20% Action
10% Other

This time it looks like we will see:

60% Human interest stories
20% Action
10% Terror/security/scare updates
10% Other

It sure would be nice to simply enjoy the competition.

Last week Forbes.com announced that it was experimenting with a sponsored link technology which allowed it to embed links to advertisers within news stories on the website. So, for example, if an article mentions "Ford," the page might have a link on the word that would take the reader to the Ford Motor Company.

Now I'm not an expert in journalistic ethics, but it seems to me that even with a firewall between the writers/editors and the advertising, this kind of an arrangement is bound to have an influence over news content sooner or later.

At any rate, it looks like the Washington Times has come up with the next best thing. Today Bill Gertz has an article outlining the newest terror threat warnings. In the middle of the piece is this blurb, anonymously sourced, of course:

"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'"

Catchy phrase, that, "Anyone but Bush"? So catchy that near the top of the article (when I viewed it) there's a banner ad linking to this site which reads "10 out of 10 Terrorists Agree: Anybody But Bush.

Interesting coincidence, eh? What are the odds that a Washington Times piece just happens to work in concert with a GOP-leaning ad? But I guess a newspaper has got to do what a newspaper must do to get its "information" out.

After all, "who would Osama vote for?"

Earlier tonight I listened to a few minutes of the Michael Savage Show (there's not much choice if you want talk radio in this market).

As you might expect, he was railing against those who are complaining against an HHS rule requiring hospitals to ask patients their immigration status. Then he made a abrupt segue in his rant to foreign parents who come to this country to have conjoined twins separated:

"What is this with all these foreign conjoined twins coming into American hospitals to be separated at $2 million a procedure? We've got them coming from the Philippines, from Egypt, from Syria. Next thing you know we'll have some coming from Iran . . . then we'll have two terrorists growing up instead of one. In 30 years we'll have two suicide bombers in our face."

There's nothing like right-wing radio. Listening is like watching a car wreck in slow motion.

The Department of Homeland Security announces that it is expanding the "expedited removal" of those who are captured illegally entering the U.S.

Oh, there's these small exceptions to the policy:

• Only applies to those caught within 100 miles of the Mexican or Canadian borders


• Only applies if the migrant is apprehended within the first 14 days in the U.S.


• Policy not "primarily directed" at illegal aliens who are citizens of Mexico or Canada

Let's see, by my crude estimate those exceptions exclude 95% of all illegal migrants we might catch. But hey, we're getting tough on the borders!

Professor DeLong considers the weakness in the U.S. job market and wonders why the Bush administration hasn't responded with a "quick-fix" plan:

It is a substantial mystery--why there was nobody inside the Bush administration arguing for a good old-fashioned Keynesian fiscal stimulus program that got money to the people most likely to spend it. Even though their forecasts at the end of 2002 were predicting swift employment growth, there is always the questions, "What if something else bad happens?" You would certainly expect political operatives to ask it.

It is for this other other [sic] reasons that I find myself shifting my view of the George W. Bush administration. Political hacks seem to have less influence than I had thought. Anti-pragmatic ideologues--people who *know* what the truth is, *know* that it is sunny outside, and don't bother to raise the windowshade to check--have more influence than I had thought.

Good observation. I've also wondered why the administration didn't at least act like they were trying to do something new to bolster the economy. I guess it's easier to just say "we're turning the corner." Or perhaps they're concerned about alienating the base by offering any additional "big government" solutions.

Finally. A fuel-efficient SUV!

Most of the blogging discussing National Security Adviser Rice's appearance on Sunday morning talk shows centers on her admission that the Bush administration's outing of double agent Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, which blew a sting operation against al Qaeda.

From CNN's Late Edition:

BLITZER: Let's talk about some of the people who have been picked up, mostly in Pakistan, over the last few weeks. In mid-July, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan. There is some suggestion that by releasing his identity here in the United States, you compromised a Pakistani intelligence sting operation, because he was effectively being used by the Pakistanis to try to find other al Qaeda operatives. Is that true?

RICE: Well, I don't know what might have been going on in Pakistan. I will say this, that we did not, of course, publicly disclose his name. One of them...

BLITZER: He was disclosed in Washington on background.

RICE: On background. And the problem is that when you're trying to strike a balance between giving enough information to the public so that they know that you're dealing with a specific, credible, different kind of threat than you've dealt with in the past, you're always weighing that against kind of operational considerations. We've tried to strike a balance. We think for the most part, we've struck a balance, but it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike.

Another bungling due to incompetence.

A couple minutes after that admission, I was also struck by this weird comment:

BLITZER: And you're still fearful that they, the terrorists, might want to do in the United States what they did in Spain, on the eve of their national elections, disrupt an elections process?

RICE: Yes. Absolutely, we're concerned about it, and I think the terrorists need to believe and to understand that the American people are going to react very badly to any attempt to disrupt our electoral process. But I think that in some of their minds, this is a possibility, and we've indeed picked up discussion of trying to do something in the pre-election period.

That's why it is so critical for Tom Ridge to do what he did. We have a duty to warn. The president has always said that when he had specific information as to a place, or a method, or a time, that he would inform the American people. And it's inconceivable to me that we would not have informed the Citigroup or the New York Stock Exchange or the World Bank that known terrorists have cased their buildings.

Uh, exactly how would American voters "react very badly"? Let's say there were five truck bombings in October which killed 300 people. What would this "bad" reaction to the terrorism be?

Let me guess: the terrorists support Senator Kerry. So if they attack we will all rally around our steady leader Bush and re-elect him. Which would of course be bad for al Qaeda because he has destroyed there operations in Iraq.

Is that about right?

South Knox Bubba has details on a soon-to-be best seller.

I hadn't heard about this one:

On other points, Bush:

-Said he would consider supporting a constitutional amendment guaranteeing every American the right to vote in federal elections. ``I can understand why African Americans in particular are worried about being able to vote since the vote had been denied for so long in the South in particular.'' He said Congress had approved $3 billion for states and local governments to make sure the voting process is fair.

Uh, I thought we already had something in the Constitution that addressed this. I guess it's the trendy thing these days to propose a constitutional amendment to address every single situation that rubs someone the wrong way.

The Bush administration says it doesn't want anyone to enforce a nuclear weapons treaty it supports:

The Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty would ban the production of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons. In the works for 10 years, it was the result of collaboration among 66 nations, in part to tighten control over India, Pakistan and Israel which until now had rebuffed any effort to curb their nuclear stockpiles.

But the White House tossed in a monkey wrench: In a dumbfounding announcement, the administration said it supported the treaty, but not its call for inspections and verifications, without which the treaty is meaningless.

In other words, the administration wants everyone but America to follow the treaty.

So much for that tough talk about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

Hmm. I wonder if Bush really means we are headed back downwards:

Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations.

The Labor Department report showed only 32,000 new net jobs added to payrolls during the month, down from a revised 78,000 jobs that were added in June. The increase was the smallest since December, when payrolls rose by just 8,000.
. . .
Economists surveyed by Briefing.com forecast a 243,000 gain in jobs, and the unemployment rate staying unchanged at 5.6 percent, while economists surveyed by Reuters had a median jobs growth forecast of 228,000, with a range of estimates between 200,000 and 300,000.

Not only was this growth well below economist's estimates, but it's also below the number needed just to keep pace with population growth.

Cue the boilerplate talking points on 9/11 and how this proves we need to abolish the estate tax in 2011.

"Security" concerns threaten blogging freedom.

A headline warranting an entry:

" Bush 'seeks new ways to harm US'"

The White House scrubbers haven't gotten ahold of it . . . yet:

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

I recently read on a gossipy Internet site that Bush is under medication. Maybe it's causing him to let his guard down and the truth is starting to seep out.

Professor Wu posits a great multi-purpose question that should be raised when assessing any government action:

"What exactly is the purpose of this law (or proposed rule)?"

His analysis of government today?

I don?t think Government by reason is too much to ask for. But it certainly isn?t what we?re getting.

Indeed.

Not to make too much light of a tragedy, but it's weird that a 13-year-old boy dies merely from seeing a bear.

I found this factoid interesting:

New Hampshire has 3,500 to 4,000 black bears, which naturally fear people and avoid them. Rob Calvert, a Fish and Game biologist, said the last time a bear killed anyone in the state was in 1784.

At no extra charge, here's what you should do if you see a bear:

He said the best response when encountering a bear is to back away slowly, talk, clap loudly, and maintain eye contact - and to never corner or run from the animal.

And don't feed it, either.

The nuclear industry says it has everything under control and doesn't need any pesky public oversight:

Citing a need to keep information from terrorists, regulators say the government will no longer reveal security gaps discovered at nuclear power plants or the subsequent enforcement actions taken against plant operators.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the change in policy on Wednesday during its first public meeting on power plant safety since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It drew barbs from critics who said the secrecy would erode public confidence in the agency.

Until now, the NRC has provided regular public updates on vulnerabilities its inspectors found at the country's 103 nuclear power reactors, such as broken fences or weaknesses in training programs.Citing a need to keep information from terrorists, regulators say the government will no longer reveal security gaps discovered at nuclear power plants or the subsequent enforcement actions taken against plant operators.

It's remarkable to me that the NRC hasn't had a public meeting on safety in nearly three years. At any rate, I don't understand why the NRC can't at least make generic disclosures on security issues. If the public isn't aware of problems, who is going to provide the pressure to fix them? And odds are that if terrorists really want to learn of security vulnerabilities, they will regardless.

At a glance, I don't quite follow the methodology, but this professor says that if the election were held today, Kerry would have a 90% chance of winning.

At any rate, there's a pretty cool map illustrating each state's relative electoral college importance.

The child rape victim has filed a motion to end the no-contact order with just-released Mary Kay Letourneau after her seven years of taxpayer-funded imprisonment.

Doesn't seem like the sentence was a cost effective form of punishment or rehabilitation to me.

South Knox Bubba points out that the Kerry campaign has yet to get its act together in Tennessee, even though recent polling shows the race is a statistical dead heat:

Bush 48%
Kerry 46%

+/- 4.2 (Bush was up 10% in the prior poll).

I hope this is because Kerry is still getting organized. But he has yet to show any real interest in the Volunteer State.

Saw this quoted on a photo site, attributed to The Amateur Photographer's Handbook by Aaron Sussman (pp. 116, 117):

After Edward Steichen had put together that monumental photographic exhibition, The Family of Man, he summed it by saying: "No photographer is as good as the simplest camera." What he meant, of course, was that the wonders of even a simple camera are not fathomed by one man in a lifetime. Whether it's a ten dollar Instamatic, or a three thousand dollar Hasselblad loaded with accessories, there is one magical ingredient that brings the inanimate machine to life: the brain of the photographer.

Needless to say, if a good photographer does not match the simplest camera, a bad photographer (me) is lost with a more complex one.

But hey, it's fun trying.

From the Daily Show:

It seems like the Republicans are only against government they don't control.

Heh.

If you want to examine what might shake up the world economy, look no further than oil:

U.S. oil prices hit new record levels above $44 a barrel on Tuesday as the head of the OPEC producers' cartel said there was little the group could do to cool the red-hot market for the time being.

U.S. light crude rose 42 cents to $44.24 a barrel, marking the highest level since crude futures were launched on the New York Mercantile Exchange in 1983.
. . .
OPEC President Purnomo Yusgiantoro said on Tuesday the producers' cartel had no extra oil to immediately supply the world market to bring down prices.

"The oil price is very high, it's crazy. There is no additional supply," Purnomo told reporters in Jakarta.

That's bad enough. Of course if you are looking for a worst case scenario, things could get much worse if there's a substantial disruption.

Interesting factoid illustrating national priorities at work. Stephen Flynn, author of America the Vulnerable:

We are spending more every three to four days in the war in Iraq than we've spent for the last three years in federal grant monies to our 361 commercial seaports and that kind of asymmetry between about three cents on the dollar for defense versus offense I argue doesn't make much sense when our enemies are not going to take us on, on the traditional force to force.

They're coming after the non-military elements of our power, the things that underpin our power, our economy and our civil society. That is something that we're still struggling post 9/11 to come to grips with.

But hey, if Al Qaeda forms an armored column and stages an assault on our Baghdad schools, we'll be ready.

Never mind this, we're turning the corner!

Layoffs in the United States occurred at the second-fastest rate on record during the first three years of the Bush administration, a government report has found.
.
In the latest survey of how frequently workers are permanently dismissed from their jobs, the layoff rate reached 8.7 percent of all adult jobholders, or 11.4 million men and women age 20 or older. That is nearly equal to the 9 percent rate for the 1981-83 period, which included the steepest contraction in the American economy since the Depression.
. . .
In the latest survey, 56.9 percent of those who said they had been re-employed also said they were earning less in their new jobs than in their old ones. That compared with 46.6 percent in 1991-93, a similar period of recession followed by weak recovery, and 42.2 percent in 1997-99, a boom period.

Now, if we can only get rid of the "death tax" in 2011, all our economic problems will be over.

A flight is sent back to its departing airport and a 60-year-old Japanese man is hauled away in handcuffs after he copied the words "suicide bomb" from a newspaper he was reading.

Just another daily skirmish in the war on error.

The news channels have spend much more time offering mere speculation in the past 24 hours concerning the presumed murder of a Utah woman than they have spend covering the fire which killed over 300 people in Paraguay.

Nice to see the media finally zeroing in on some real issues in the campaign.

Once again, I'm with Kerry on this one. But I'd be willing to explore Bush's side of the argument if I was suitably equipped.

Via Len comes the 2004 Republican Convention Event Schedule.

Definitely more action-packed than the Democrats' was.

The New York Times reports infromation gathered from a captured 25-year-old Pakistani Al Qaeda computer engineer lead to the raised terror alert issued yesterday:

But the official said "documentary evidence" found after the capture had demonstrated in extraordinary detail that Qaeda members had for years conducted sophisticated and extensive reconnaissance of the financial institutions cited in the warnings on Sunday.

One senior American intelligence official said the information was more detailed and precise than any he had seen during his 24-year career in intelligence work. A second senior American official said it had provided a new window into the methods, content and distribution of Qaeda communications.

"This, for us, is a potential treasure trove," said a third senior American official, an intelligence expert, at a briefing for reporters on Sunday afternoon.

It's hard to know how much to make of some of these anonymously-sourced stories, particularly on the intelligence front. This significance of this may be exaggerated. But I have to wonder: Has the capture of this single individual gone further to foil a potential Al Qaeda attack than the thousand troops and hundreds of billions consumed in Iraq? Interesting thought exercise. And it goes to illustrate that tanks and missiles are no substitute for good intelligence work in the "war on terror."

UPDATE: It's also worth noting that this was at least the second significant Pakistani capture which conformed with the Bush administration-imposed Democratic National Convention deadline.

Funny how the timing of everthing has worked out.