Oh wait, that was Paris, my mistake. I must say I am impressed, the French usually don't hold out this long against an attack.
Arsonists burned 1,295 vehicles nationwide overnight Saturday-Sunday — sharply up from 897 the night before, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said, adding that police made 349 arrests nationwide.
For a second night, a helicopter equipped with spotlights and video cameras to track bands of marauding youths combed Paris suburbs and small teams of police chased rioters speeding from attack to attack in cars and on motorbikes.
"What we notice is that the bands of youths are, little by little, getting more organized," arranging attacks through cell phone text messages and learning how to make gasoline bombs, Hamon said.
Police also found a gasoline bomb-making factory in a derelict building in Evry south of Paris, with more than 100 bottles ready to turned into bombs, another 50 already prepared, as well as fuel stocks and hoods for hiding rioters' faces, senior Justice Ministry official Jean-Marie Huet told The Associated Press. Police arrested six people, all under 18.
The discovery Saturday night, he said, shows that gasoline bombs "are not being improvised by kids in their bathrooms."
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Friday, November 04, 2005
Don't Tell Paul Krugman
Ahh, the socialist paradise of France.
Car torchings are a daily fact of life in France's tough suburbs, with thousands burned each month, police say.
Police intelligence has recorded nearly 70,000 incidents of urban violence this year, including attacks on police and rescue services, arson, throwing projectiles, clashes between gangs, joy-riding and property destruction, Le Monde reported.
Car torchings are a daily fact of life in France's tough suburbs, with thousands burned each month, police say.
Police intelligence has recorded nearly 70,000 incidents of urban violence this year, including attacks on police and rescue services, arson, throwing projectiles, clashes between gangs, joy-riding and property destruction, Le Monde reported.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Fortunately their parents don't read the newspaper
From a Seattle-PI article on a recent student walkout/war protest.
Many students said their parents knew they'd skipped school -- and wouldn't disapprove when they found out.
But some students weren't so sure. "I'll be grounded for the rest of my life," said one of the youngest protesters, 13-year-old Jeri Riley, from Hamilton Middle School.
Many students said their parents knew they'd skipped school -- and wouldn't disapprove when they found out.
But some students weren't so sure. "I'll be grounded for the rest of my life," said one of the youngest protesters, 13-year-old Jeri Riley, from Hamilton Middle School.
The Secrecy Trap
Zell Miller adds some brilliant insight to the whole Plame thing.
It's like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officer's resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.
But the rules on agents are clear. They can't purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.
But their spouse can!
The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can distort information, go public with classified information and use all this spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the current government, and it is all perfectly legal.
Suppose the spouse adds just one more brilliant, well-aimed lie: claim your foremost political opponent put the spouse up to the trip. As your spouse uses your agency's name to mount attacks, your enemy may fall into your trap. Will your enemy suffer your spouse's lies or take the bait and try to clarify his non-role? If he tells the press he didn't hire your spouse, the press will demand to know, "Then who did?"
Instead of you violating secrecy laws, it is your victim who is guilty because he tried to set the record straight. Heads, you win; tails, he loses.
It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King." But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away with the biggest sting operation ever.
It's like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officer's resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.
But the rules on agents are clear. They can't purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.
But their spouse can!
The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can distort information, go public with classified information and use all this spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the current government, and it is all perfectly legal.
Suppose the spouse adds just one more brilliant, well-aimed lie: claim your foremost political opponent put the spouse up to the trip. As your spouse uses your agency's name to mount attacks, your enemy may fall into your trap. Will your enemy suffer your spouse's lies or take the bait and try to clarify his non-role? If he tells the press he didn't hire your spouse, the press will demand to know, "Then who did?"
Instead of you violating secrecy laws, it is your victim who is guilty because he tried to set the record straight. Heads, you win; tails, he loses.
It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King." But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away with the biggest sting operation ever.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Why the Wall Street Journal has the best editorial page in the country
The Journal once again shows that it has the best editorial page. No Michael Moore hypocritical ranting or pointless pseudo populist Bill O'Reilly like screeds, just logical, fact based economic and political analysis.
Like bellbottoms and disco, all kinds of bad ideas from the 1970s are coming back with the surge in energy prices. Arguably the worst is a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies.
This not-so-golden oldie got a political boost last week when Exxon announced, almost apologetically, quarterly profits of nearly $10 billion -- the largest of any U.S. company in history. Apparently it's not enough that 35% of that profit will flow into the Treasury via the corporate income tax. Momentum is growing to raise $10 billion a year by slapping an extra 50% tax on all profits earned on oil above $40 a barrel.
The lead sponsors of the "windfall" levy are Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. These two are well known foes of business for whom the phrase "windfall profits" is redundant. More surprising is that GOP leaders Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert are also calling for Congressional hearings on oil profits. Bill O'Reilly, the chief economist for Fox News, has also been drilling for "windfall" cable ratings by blaming Big Oil for making too much money.
They all need a history lesson. Back when Jimmy Carter signed the windfall profits tax during the last oil crisis, the results were the opposite of what the politicians intended. The first adverse result, as recently documented by the Congressional Research Service, was that oil companies reduced their U.S. domestic production by 1.5 million barrels a day, or by almost 6%. Exploration for new supplies slowed because the tax, by design, snatched as much as a third of the profit from these investments.
Like bellbottoms and disco, all kinds of bad ideas from the 1970s are coming back with the surge in energy prices. Arguably the worst is a "windfall" profits tax on oil companies.
This not-so-golden oldie got a political boost last week when Exxon announced, almost apologetically, quarterly profits of nearly $10 billion -- the largest of any U.S. company in history. Apparently it's not enough that 35% of that profit will flow into the Treasury via the corporate income tax. Momentum is growing to raise $10 billion a year by slapping an extra 50% tax on all profits earned on oil above $40 a barrel.
The lead sponsors of the "windfall" levy are Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. These two are well known foes of business for whom the phrase "windfall profits" is redundant. More surprising is that GOP leaders Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert are also calling for Congressional hearings on oil profits. Bill O'Reilly, the chief economist for Fox News, has also been drilling for "windfall" cable ratings by blaming Big Oil for making too much money.
They all need a history lesson. Back when Jimmy Carter signed the windfall profits tax during the last oil crisis, the results were the opposite of what the politicians intended. The first adverse result, as recently documented by the Congressional Research Service, was that oil companies reduced their U.S. domestic production by 1.5 million barrels a day, or by almost 6%. Exploration for new supplies slowed because the tax, by design, snatched as much as a third of the profit from these investments.
Investigate the CIA
Not to beat a dead horse, but this is exactly what I just said.
Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name.
• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.
• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.
• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.
• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.
Two decades later, the CIA, either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name.
• First: The CIA sent her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.
• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.
• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.
• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.
Monday, October 31, 2005
The Real Story
If anyone at the White House broke the law, they of course should be held accountable, but I think the real story here is the incompetence of the C.I.A. The Weekly Standard agrees.
Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency's response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President's office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have "low level" bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's suggestion. Did no one at Langley think that Plame's identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was "shocked, shocked" that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate. . . .
While there is no suggestion that the Special Counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings.
Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: the Agency's response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President's office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have "low level" bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's suggestion. Did no one at Langley think that Plame's identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was "shocked, shocked" that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate. . . .
While there is no suggestion that the Special Counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings.
Why are leftwing journalist so paranoid?
Mary Mapes, of the forged Texas Air National Guard memos fame, is back, and accusing CBS of McCarthyism for (gasp), trying to impose journalistic standards. She also had this to say.
Mapes writes that she had felt the Guard segment was a big success after airing on Sept. 8, 2004, until the following morning at 11 a.m. when she learned that a bunch of "far-right" Web sites were claiming that documents were forged.
That same day about 3 p.m. she recalls staring at the Drudge Report and seeing a big picture of Rather at the top and a headline saying that he was "shaken" and hiding in his office. The phone rang and it was Rather, telling her he'd just heard about the Drudge deadline and he wanted to assure her that he was not "shaken" and was not even in his office. He signed off with a favorite expression of his: "FEA" for "---- them all."
She writes that what she didn't know at the time was that the attack on the "60 Minutes" piece was just part of the Bushites "sliming" of those who raised questions about the president.
Maybe I am just not high enough on the food chain to get invited to the meetings, but I am constantly amused by this Vast Right Wing Conspiracy theory of bloggers, that somehow we are all part of some Bush/Rove far right wing network dedicated to silencing enemies of the administration. What do they teach these people at journalism school that prevents them from understanding the simple fact that there are just plenty of people out there, who amazingly despite not having journalism degrees, know how to do things like web searches on Google, and use MS Word.
Mapes writes that she had felt the Guard segment was a big success after airing on Sept. 8, 2004, until the following morning at 11 a.m. when she learned that a bunch of "far-right" Web sites were claiming that documents were forged.
That same day about 3 p.m. she recalls staring at the Drudge Report and seeing a big picture of Rather at the top and a headline saying that he was "shaken" and hiding in his office. The phone rang and it was Rather, telling her he'd just heard about the Drudge deadline and he wanted to assure her that he was not "shaken" and was not even in his office. He signed off with a favorite expression of his: "FEA" for "---- them all."
She writes that what she didn't know at the time was that the attack on the "60 Minutes" piece was just part of the Bushites "sliming" of those who raised questions about the president.
Maybe I am just not high enough on the food chain to get invited to the meetings, but I am constantly amused by this Vast Right Wing Conspiracy theory of bloggers, that somehow we are all part of some Bush/Rove far right wing network dedicated to silencing enemies of the administration. What do they teach these people at journalism school that prevents them from understanding the simple fact that there are just plenty of people out there, who amazingly despite not having journalism degrees, know how to do things like web searches on Google, and use MS Word.
60 Minutes of Shoddy Journalism
The 60 Minutes Wednesday Air National Guard memo thing aside, I have always been a fan of 60 Minutes, but I found last nights piece on the Wilson (now Libby) controversy an example of rather shoddy journalism. They basically accepted Wilson's whole "martyr for telling the truth" story at face value without even doing the most basic attempts at journalism, and then just added some overly dramatic hyperbola for good measure, even going so far as comparing Valerie Wilson's situation with one of a CIA agent who spent 30 years in jail after being caught spying in China. The last I checked Valerie was not deep behind enemy lines, although I suppose a strong case could be made that Langley is behind enemy lines...
I found the most amusing part of the whole thing was when they went on in depth about the danger of exposing people who used to run spies for the CIA by... Interviewing and identifying two former agents by name... Who used to run spies for the CIA! Is there going to be a special agent appointed to investigate this? How many people will die due to the compromised intelligence operations that those two people used to run?
Then 60 Minutes interviewed Wilson where he dramatically, and without question, proposed that his life was being threatened because of this whole thing, by whom I have no idea. Wilson also lamented the end of his privacy, although oddly enough 60 Minutes made no mention of his book tour, photo spread in Vanity Fair, or work for the Kerry campaign. I just wish some reporter, although this is never going to happen except in the unlikely event that Robert Novak interviews him, would ask Joe Wilson the question. "Joe, if the identification of your wife as working for the CIA was so dangerous that it puts her life at risk, then why did you write a controversial editorial for the NY Times about a government trip that you went on that she helped set up, knowing that any scrutiny into this trip would unveil her role in it and thus her identity?"
Are there any reporters out there with the guts to ask real questions?
I found the most amusing part of the whole thing was when they went on in depth about the danger of exposing people who used to run spies for the CIA by... Interviewing and identifying two former agents by name... Who used to run spies for the CIA! Is there going to be a special agent appointed to investigate this? How many people will die due to the compromised intelligence operations that those two people used to run?
Then 60 Minutes interviewed Wilson where he dramatically, and without question, proposed that his life was being threatened because of this whole thing, by whom I have no idea. Wilson also lamented the end of his privacy, although oddly enough 60 Minutes made no mention of his book tour, photo spread in Vanity Fair, or work for the Kerry campaign. I just wish some reporter, although this is never going to happen except in the unlikely event that Robert Novak interviews him, would ask Joe Wilson the question. "Joe, if the identification of your wife as working for the CIA was so dangerous that it puts her life at risk, then why did you write a controversial editorial for the NY Times about a government trip that you went on that she helped set up, knowing that any scrutiny into this trip would unveil her role in it and thus her identity?"
Are there any reporters out there with the guts to ask real questions?
Friday, October 28, 2005
Odd standard for qualifications
In his latest editorial, which Don Luskin addresses, Paul Krugman attacks Bush by praising his fed nomination. I know that sounds odd, but if you read it, it makes sense in a typically Krugman way. One thing I noticed though, was a gratutious attack on John Snow, in which he says:
And even before the revelations surfaced about cronyism at FEMA and elsewhere, there was widespread concern that Mr. Bush would try to select a John Snow type - a businessman whose only qualification is loyalty - to run monetary policy.
OK, now even if you make the dubious assumption that being a businessman is somehow a disqualification from a role in government, and even if you concede that Snow would not have been the most qualified man for the job, how is that his "only" qualification? Let's look at his biography from the Department of Treasury website.
John Snow was born in Toledo , Ohio , on August 2, 1939 , and graduated in 1962 from the University of Toledo . He later earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia where he studied under two Nobel Prize winners. Snow graduated with a law degree from the George Washington University in 1967 and then taught economics at the University of Maryland , University of Virginia , as well as law at George Washington. He also served as a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in 1977 and a Distinguished Fellow at the Yale School of Management from 1978 until 1980
At least now we have Paul Krugman on record that being an economics professor (not to mention a law professor and secretary of the treasury) is not a qualification for running monetary policy.
And even before the revelations surfaced about cronyism at FEMA and elsewhere, there was widespread concern that Mr. Bush would try to select a John Snow type - a businessman whose only qualification is loyalty - to run monetary policy.
OK, now even if you make the dubious assumption that being a businessman is somehow a disqualification from a role in government, and even if you concede that Snow would not have been the most qualified man for the job, how is that his "only" qualification? Let's look at his biography from the Department of Treasury website.
John Snow was born in Toledo , Ohio , on August 2, 1939 , and graduated in 1962 from the University of Toledo . He later earned a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia where he studied under two Nobel Prize winners. Snow graduated with a law degree from the George Washington University in 1967 and then taught economics at the University of Maryland , University of Virginia , as well as law at George Washington. He also served as a Visiting Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in 1977 and a Distinguished Fellow at the Yale School of Management from 1978 until 1980
At least now we have Paul Krugman on record that being an economics professor (not to mention a law professor and secretary of the treasury) is not a qualification for running monetary policy.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Make this guy a recruiter
1st Lt. Bruce Bishop, 31, a Salt Lake County firefighter, said he'll stay "because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."
Bishop, who served in Afghanistan, is among the 450 Utah Guard members deployed to Louisiana. Most are volunteers.
Bishop, who served in Afghanistan, is among the 450 Utah Guard members deployed to Louisiana. Most are volunteers.
Next...
I haven't even gotten around to commenting on Harriet Miers yet, and now she has withdrawn form the nomination. Personally, she seems like a nice enough person, but not exactly Supreme Court material. Remember, this is the Supreme Court, not the Slightly Above Average Court. I am sure she would be great on a school board out there somewhere. I must say as a general rule, anytime Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein and John Kerry are all upset over something, it was probably the right decision.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Guess who is coming to town?
Everyone's favorite cigar store indian and intellectual fraud is coming to speak at Shoreline Community College. Now there is a good use of our education dollars. LGF points out that something is missing in the picture the college posts of him:
Why not, if you are inviting a fraud and a liar to speak, it is only fitting that you doctor the photo in the publicity material. Maybe if I have enough time I'll take my camera and go moonbat hunting.
Why not, if you are inviting a fraud and a liar to speak, it is only fitting that you doctor the photo in the publicity material. Maybe if I have enough time I'll take my camera and go moonbat hunting.
The Follies of the Minimum Wage
Wal*Mart, oddly enough, is getting grudging support from the likes of Ted Kennedy for calling for a raise in the minimum wage. This simply exposes the silliness behind minimum wage laws though, since it doesn't cost them! They already pay above the legal minimum wage, so this cost is bourne by their competitors. This would be the moral equivilant of me calling for an increase in welfare payments in the state of Florida and being praised for my support of the impoverished.
The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) sums this up:
It's understandable after years of pounding from unions, trial lawyers, anti-sprawl activists and the media that Wal-Mart would go on a PR offensive. What's troubling, and more than a little curious, is Mr. Scott's desire to make price controls for labor a part of his public atonement for the company's success. Given that anti-Wal-Mart types mostly fire populist blanks, why is Mr. Scott so eager to provide competitors with real ammunition?
The answer may be that calling for an increase in the minimum wage amounts to Wal-Mart calling for a hike in the labor costs of its smaller rivals, not to mention any potential start-ups. Wal-Mart already pays its workers an average hourly wage of close to $10 and so Mr. Scott is essentially asking Congress to strengthen its competitive advantage.
The CEO said his goal is to "help working families," but minimum wage laws have the opposite effect. By putting a floor under wages, regardless of skills or competition, they can force businesses to cut payrolls or even shut down. Hence, they reduce employment in general, and especially among the low-skilled and inexperienced.
The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) sums this up:
It's understandable after years of pounding from unions, trial lawyers, anti-sprawl activists and the media that Wal-Mart would go on a PR offensive. What's troubling, and more than a little curious, is Mr. Scott's desire to make price controls for labor a part of his public atonement for the company's success. Given that anti-Wal-Mart types mostly fire populist blanks, why is Mr. Scott so eager to provide competitors with real ammunition?
The answer may be that calling for an increase in the minimum wage amounts to Wal-Mart calling for a hike in the labor costs of its smaller rivals, not to mention any potential start-ups. Wal-Mart already pays its workers an average hourly wage of close to $10 and so Mr. Scott is essentially asking Congress to strengthen its competitive advantage.
The CEO said his goal is to "help working families," but minimum wage laws have the opposite effect. By putting a floor under wages, regardless of skills or competition, they can force businesses to cut payrolls or even shut down. Hence, they reduce employment in general, and especially among the low-skilled and inexperienced.
More Great Moments in Journalism
Has there ever been so much written about so little? CNN reports:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity could hand up charges as early as today, but Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not expected to make any public announcements Wednesday, one source with knowledge of the probe told CNN.
The grand jury is meeting Wednesday in U.S. District Court and is believed to be taking up the CIA leaks case in some manner.
Many legal experts and lawyers not involved in the case had expected the grand jury to vote on an indictment Wednesday -- if the investigation is going to result in indictments -- and that the outcome would be announced publicly.
The grand jury's term is set to expire Friday unless Fitzgerald requests an extension.
Several experts told CNN it is possible the grand jury on Wednesday still could consider the question of indictments and if it votes to return one or more, the indictments could remain under seal and made public later.
These experts also said it is possible the grand jury could consider indictments later this week, or that no charges will be brought.
It is also possible Fitzgerald will let this grand jury term end and take his case to a new panel.
Well I am glad they are keeping their options open, but have you ever seen more hedging in one article? I am going to make a bold investment prediction here, write this down; the stock market could go up by the end of the year, although if the economy doesn't do well it could go down. There is also the slight possibility it may stay the same. You can take that to the bank!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity could hand up charges as early as today, but Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is not expected to make any public announcements Wednesday, one source with knowledge of the probe told CNN.
The grand jury is meeting Wednesday in U.S. District Court and is believed to be taking up the CIA leaks case in some manner.
Many legal experts and lawyers not involved in the case had expected the grand jury to vote on an indictment Wednesday -- if the investigation is going to result in indictments -- and that the outcome would be announced publicly.
The grand jury's term is set to expire Friday unless Fitzgerald requests an extension.
Several experts told CNN it is possible the grand jury on Wednesday still could consider the question of indictments and if it votes to return one or more, the indictments could remain under seal and made public later.
These experts also said it is possible the grand jury could consider indictments later this week, or that no charges will be brought.
It is also possible Fitzgerald will let this grand jury term end and take his case to a new panel.
Well I am glad they are keeping their options open, but have you ever seen more hedging in one article? I am going to make a bold investment prediction here, write this down; the stock market could go up by the end of the year, although if the economy doesn't do well it could go down. There is also the slight possibility it may stay the same. You can take that to the bank!
Monday, October 24, 2005
It is all Bill Gates' Fault
This is just too funny. Yeah, I want to give the control of the Internet to these yahoos. It just shows that you have to pay attention to all those settings in MS Word.
Bashar al-Assad may become the first dictator to fall from power because U.N. functionaries are incompetent with computers, suggests a report in the Times of London:
The United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged [Friday].
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.
I am sure Kofi Annan is sending out e-mail to all employees right now, "TURN OFF WORD REVISION TRACKING!!!!"
Bashar al-Assad may become the first dictator to fall from power because U.N. functionaries are incompetent with computers, suggests a report in the Times of London:
The United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged [Friday].
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.
I am sure Kofi Annan is sending out e-mail to all employees right now, "TURN OFF WORD REVISION TRACKING!!!!"
Friday, October 21, 2005
Winston Churchill joins Moveon.org
In a fit of amusement I thought what would happen if Winston Churchill were a modern liberal (begin dream sequence now).
We shall probably not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end (at least until it gets too hard) we shall fight in France (but we don't want to look like occupiers), we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air (but we don't want to look arrogant), we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be (well, unless it is too expensive, we do need to pay for that new prescription drug program), we shall fight on the beaches (except in federally protected wetlands of course), we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields (in keeping with Department of Agriculture policy) and in the streets (but we have to make sure not to make an undue impact on lower income neighboorhoods), we shall fight in the hills (just not near LA, Barbra Streisand would be pissed); we shall face the enemy with honesty and humility.
It just loses a little in the translation.
We shall probably not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end (at least until it gets too hard) we shall fight in France (but we don't want to look like occupiers), we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air (but we don't want to look arrogant), we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be (well, unless it is too expensive, we do need to pay for that new prescription drug program), we shall fight on the beaches (except in federally protected wetlands of course), we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields (in keeping with Department of Agriculture policy) and in the streets (but we have to make sure not to make an undue impact on lower income neighboorhoods), we shall fight in the hills (just not near LA, Barbra Streisand would be pissed); we shall face the enemy with honesty and humility.
It just loses a little in the translation.
The Sound of Silence
Following up yesterday's post on Patty Murray's mafia-like threat against the Coburn ammendment I looked on google news to see if any of the mainstream media picked up this outlandish statement. Seattle Times, Seattle-PI, New York Times, Washington Post... thus far zero, zilch, nada. I know it has always been an unwritten rule that in the Senate you pretty much spend what you want, but have we really become so used to this that when a senator states that out loud, it doesn't even make the paper? Based on this rule, if Senator Joe Smith proposed $500 million for the Joe Smith Insitute of Underwater Basketweaving, by the tradition of the Senate all the other Senators would have to support it, because he "knows best what is good for his state" and any attempt to stop this waste of money would result in retaliation.
Pathetic.
Pathetic.
Non Sequitur
From a NY Times article on the Wilson case:
In that article he wrote that he had traveled to Africa in 2002 to explore the accuracy of intelligence reports that suggested Iraq might have tried to purchase uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson said that he had been sent on the trip by the C.I.A. after Mr. Cheney's office raised questions about one such report, but that he found it unlikely that any sale had taken place.
It has been two years now, and the Times still hasn't figure out that "tried to purchase" and "sale had taken place" are two separate things! I guess they don't teach logic at the newspaper of record.
In that article he wrote that he had traveled to Africa in 2002 to explore the accuracy of intelligence reports that suggested Iraq might have tried to purchase uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson said that he had been sent on the trip by the C.I.A. after Mr. Cheney's office raised questions about one such report, but that he found it unlikely that any sale had taken place.
It has been two years now, and the Times still hasn't figure out that "tried to purchase" and "sale had taken place" are two separate things! I guess they don't teach logic at the newspaper of record.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Patty "The Enforcer" Murray
First she was a PR manager for bin Laden's charitable foundations (and perpetual winner in the stupidest person in the Senate poll), now she is the mob enforcer for the transportation appropriations committee. Powerline reports:
Mrs. R. reports that Patty Murray is now speaking against the Coburn Amendment, and has just issued a threat against any Senators who vote for the amendment: we on the Appropriations Committee will take a "long, hard look" at any projects in your state. Can anyone say, "culture of corruption"?
KIRO, The local CBS affiliate omits this, but does have this choice Murray quote:
Washington Sen. Patty Murray said the sculpture park is a critical economic development project for Seattle that will encourage jobs and investment in the city. She said there are other ways to reduce the federal deficit.
"If the senator from Oklahoma wants to look for a culprit for the fiscal situation in this country, he should look at the tax cuts granted to multi-millionaires," Murray said.
Yeah, it is just the tax cuts, it has nothing to do with spending. As Ross Perot would say, let me go to my charts.
And I know I am only in my first year of business school, but how exactly does a sculpture park qualify as a "critical economic development project for Seattle that will encourage jobs and investment in the city"? What exactly are they teaching at WSU?
UPDATE: Radioblogger has an MP3 of the quote, plus a rather interesting interview with Senator Coburn, who sponsored the ammendment that drew shorty's wrath. The exact quote is:
You know, as the old saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I tell my colleagues, if we start funding for individual projects, your project may be next. And so, Mr. President, when members come down to the floor and vote on this amendment, they need to know if they start stripping out this project, Senator Bond and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects, to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations.
Mrs. R. reports that Patty Murray is now speaking against the Coburn Amendment, and has just issued a threat against any Senators who vote for the amendment: we on the Appropriations Committee will take a "long, hard look" at any projects in your state. Can anyone say, "culture of corruption"?
KIRO, The local CBS affiliate omits this, but does have this choice Murray quote:
Washington Sen. Patty Murray said the sculpture park is a critical economic development project for Seattle that will encourage jobs and investment in the city. She said there are other ways to reduce the federal deficit.
"If the senator from Oklahoma wants to look for a culprit for the fiscal situation in this country, he should look at the tax cuts granted to multi-millionaires," Murray said.
Yeah, it is just the tax cuts, it has nothing to do with spending. As Ross Perot would say, let me go to my charts.
And I know I am only in my first year of business school, but how exactly does a sculpture park qualify as a "critical economic development project for Seattle that will encourage jobs and investment in the city"? What exactly are they teaching at WSU?
UPDATE: Radioblogger has an MP3 of the quote, plus a rather interesting interview with Senator Coburn, who sponsored the ammendment that drew shorty's wrath. The exact quote is:
You know, as the old saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I tell my colleagues, if we start funding for individual projects, your project may be next. And so, Mr. President, when members come down to the floor and vote on this amendment, they need to know if they start stripping out this project, Senator Bond and I are likely to be taking a long, serious look at their projects, to determine whether they should be preserved during our upcoming conference negotiations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
