I’ve asked before, when I was still in Dallas, for more details on how and how much an Examiner gets paid. And got no answer. Between that, having a paid job in traditional media, and having a blog where I get paid on a click-through basis, and know how much I make off it, unless Examiner can answer my specific questions, I wouldn’t consider working for it. Or, any similar organizations.
I would also want to know, of course, the Examiner’s profit margin and other things; given than Mr. Anschutz is a billionaire, it’s certainly a reasonable request to find out what his profit margin is on Examiner blogs in order to determine if he’s paying people fairly.
July 07, 2010
Rod Dreher, still stupid and arrogant
Leaving the Dallas Morning News op-ed staff obviously didn't remove those traits from Roberto, judging by his "praying for Hitchens" blog.
If only there were an "anti-praying" for someone, eh?
If only there were an "anti-praying" for someone, eh?
July 06, 2010
Americans DO WANT more stimulus spending
In fact, a solid 60 percent wants more stimulus spending over having immediate deficit concerns.
An even higher percentage favors other things, like lifting the payroll cap on Social Security taxes.
An even higher percentage favors other things, like lifting the payroll cap on Social Security taxes.
Petraeus jumps in bed with Max Boot
Yes, America's Political General sucks up to one of the top academic neocons to the point of denying his own Congressional testimony a couple months back that the US was too much in bed with Israel.
Sidebar: Is he thinking of running for President?
Sidebar: Is he thinking of running for President?
July 05, 2010
The Douthat bubble
Ross Douthat claims that too much pessimism in an economic downturn can be as bad as too much optimism in a bubble.
True, at one level.
But, not at another, not at all.
To riff on Tolstoy, bubbles are all alike in their giddiness, but burst bubbles each have their own separate sadness.
Then, of course, you have Douthat not telling that Reagan ended the 1979-82 double dip recession at the price of big tax giveaways and expanding income inequality. Per the unique pain angle, you also have him ignoring that the mild recession at the end of Poppy Bush's presidency in no way compares to either 1979-82 one or the current one.
As for the competitive advantages he says the U.S. has, not so fast.
Were it not for immigration, the U.S. would be at zero population growth (at best), just like some of "old Europe." In fact, it might not be but a smidge above zero even counting legal immigration in the mix.
The EU isn't all follies.
While Russia, as well as Japan and parts of the EU, may face demographic issues, Brazil and India certainly don't. (Well, their growth rates remain high enough they may face demographic issues other way.)
Anyway, Douthat is somewhat right, but not as right as he'd like to make us think he is.
True, at one level.
But, not at another, not at all.
To riff on Tolstoy, bubbles are all alike in their giddiness, but burst bubbles each have their own separate sadness.
Then, of course, you have Douthat not telling that Reagan ended the 1979-82 double dip recession at the price of big tax giveaways and expanding income inequality. Per the unique pain angle, you also have him ignoring that the mild recession at the end of Poppy Bush's presidency in no way compares to either 1979-82 one or the current one.
As for the competitive advantages he says the U.S. has, not so fast.
Were it not for immigration, the U.S. would be at zero population growth (at best), just like some of "old Europe." In fact, it might not be but a smidge above zero even counting legal immigration in the mix.
The EU isn't all follies.
While Russia, as well as Japan and parts of the EU, may face demographic issues, Brazil and India certainly don't. (Well, their growth rates remain high enough they may face demographic issues other way.)
Anyway, Douthat is somewhat right, but not as right as he'd like to make us think he is.
Bipartisan political shenanigans
The Senate may consider a bill to reduce or eliminate many of the egregious tax breaks and write-offs that go to Big Oil.
Just one problem: The bill's sponsor, New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, hasn't included refineries (including the many in New Jersey) under the bill. A staff aide says he didn't talk to any refinery companies.
And, of course, that's not the point. He didn't need to.
Meanwhile, an Ohio defense contractor has found its way around a bill banning earmarks to for-profit companies: Create a nonprofit that just happens to support the mission of the for-profit. And, Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, the beneficiary of campaign largesse from the for-profit, just happens to think this is a great idea.
And, so far, at least, it's been all Democratic representatives doing this.
Just one problem: The bill's sponsor, New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, hasn't included refineries (including the many in New Jersey) under the bill. A staff aide says he didn't talk to any refinery companies.
And, of course, that's not the point. He didn't need to.
Meanwhile, an Ohio defense contractor has found its way around a bill banning earmarks to for-profit companies: Create a nonprofit that just happens to support the mission of the for-profit. And, Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, the beneficiary of campaign largesse from the for-profit, just happens to think this is a great idea.
And, so far, at least, it's been all Democratic representatives doing this.
July 04, 2010
Today Newspapers, RIP 1 year ago
To some of my friends back in Dallas, it's time to, belatedly by a day or two, mourn the one-year anniversary of the demise of Today Newspapers. That said, more than just ownership issues were involved with its end, though of course, that was a problem. But, a market that just wasn't ready to support journalism gets the lack of a newspaper it deserves. And, the lack of circulation numbers (along with the inflated ones at Focus Daily News) show south suburban Dallas just didn't want to support much in the way of a newspaper.
Part of how NYC burnishes its crime stats; other cities?
Instructing police officers to downgrade crimes, like robberies to stolen property or rapes to misdemeanor sexual assaults, is certainly one way of doing that.
It also means you can justify having fewer police officers (hence the incredibly slow response times in this would-have-been-downgraded rape), because, well, because there's not a lot of serious crime!
That said, New York City was the metropolis that got busted, because it was a journalist who was sexually assaulted. Especially during the ongoing recession, I wonder how common this is elsewhere.
It also means you can justify having fewer police officers (hence the incredibly slow response times in this would-have-been-downgraded rape), because, well, because there's not a lot of serious crime!
That said, New York City was the metropolis that got busted, because it was a journalist who was sexually assaulted. Especially during the ongoing recession, I wonder how common this is elsewhere.
MoJo Dowd now can't even SPELL right
In talking about her childhood-start crush on vampires, she spells the first name of Bela Lugosi (what other "Bela" could it be?) as "Bella."
July 03, 2010
With gays like this ...
With a gay man like Jonathan Rauch defending California's Prop. 8, and with an argument that could have been used to defend "separate but equal" AND defend the idea that the Supreme Court had no right considering Brown as a case, gay marriage advocates don't need the Mormons, the Christian Religions Right or any other enemies.
Rauch is also, along with people like Michael O'Hanlon onforeign warmongering policy, more proof that Brookings is NOT a "liberal" think tank.
Rauch is also, along with people like Michael O'Hanlon on
Ideological flexibility can go WAYYY too far
In defending Bill Clinton's new take on Robert Byrd's early-life Klan membership, Salon cites Clinton not just signing the Defense of Marriage Act, but bragging about it, on Christian radio stations.
That's not flexibility, that's unscrupulousness.
Steve Kornacki apparently doesn't know the different between ideologically "flexible" and ideologically "unscrupulous."
Why didn't he at least try to ameliorate DOMA's worst by executive order after the 2000 election? Or, why didn't he do what Obama doesn't have the courage to do now, end DADT by executive order, per Truman and military desegregation?
Or, why did he push for Glass-Steagall repeal, only to "repent" a full decade later, and that only, in all likelihood, because of worries about his "legacy." (Hint: Jackson Stephens surely liked all the financial dereg the Slickster promulgated.)
That's not flexibility, that's unscrupulousness.
Steve Kornacki apparently doesn't know the different between ideologically "flexible" and ideologically "unscrupulous."
Why didn't he at least try to ameliorate DOMA's worst by executive order after the 2000 election? Or, why didn't he do what Obama doesn't have the courage to do now, end DADT by executive order, per Truman and military desegregation?
Or, why did he push for Glass-Steagall repeal, only to "repent" a full decade later, and that only, in all likelihood, because of worries about his "legacy." (Hint: Jackson Stephens surely liked all the financial dereg the Slickster promulgated.)
July 02, 2010
Confusing Obama cause and effect at TPM
Josh Marshall seems to want to blame the lack of a stronger stimulus package on Congressional Democrats (with the Senate GOP in the background, of course) and NOT President Obama.
Of course, facts are different. Obama's clueless and soon-to-be-departing Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, started compromising away the stimulus store long before the proper time for compromises was at hand.
Since then, the only "initiative" has been continued extensions of unemployment benefits (until now). Thinks like an infrastructure repair bill haven't even come close to coming out of the White House.
Meanwhile, per the overall tenor of Josh's comments, the White House let go of keeping a firm hand on the "narrative" of this issue long ago, too.
Abroad, it probably could have "swapped" support, at least lip support, for additional stimulus spending by first, backing what some Eurozone countries have done already on financial reform rather than trying to pretend the US was at the lead, and second, citing what China had actually done in the way of stimulus spending.
Of course, facts are different. Obama's clueless and soon-to-be-departing Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, started compromising away the stimulus store long before the proper time for compromises was at hand.
Since then, the only "initiative" has been continued extensions of unemployment benefits (until now). Thinks like an infrastructure repair bill haven't even come close to coming out of the White House.
Meanwhile, per the overall tenor of Josh's comments, the White House let go of keeping a firm hand on the "narrative" of this issue long ago, too.
Abroad, it probably could have "swapped" support, at least lip support, for additional stimulus spending by first, backing what some Eurozone countries have done already on financial reform rather than trying to pretend the US was at the lead, and second, citing what China had actually done in the way of stimulus spending.
July 01, 2010
Obama: First female Prez?
Riffing on Maya Angelou's famous observation about Bill Clinton, Kathleen Parker raises the above rhetorical question about Obama.
Stereotypes aside, and also setting aside how much of real male-female relational and socializing style in America is cultural and how much is genetically engendered, I'd say Parker isn't all wrong.
That said, is Obama's style "wrong"? No. But, if it's ineffectual, the search for compromise, or getting along, or whatever, has to be junked. Unless you'd prefer being popular (or trying to be popular, or conciliatory) to being effective.
Stereotypes aside, and also setting aside how much of real male-female relational and socializing style in America is cultural and how much is genetically engendered, I'd say Parker isn't all wrong.
That said, is Obama's style "wrong"? No. But, if it's ineffectual, the search for compromise, or getting along, or whatever, has to be junked. Unless you'd prefer being popular (or trying to be popular, or conciliatory) to being effective.
How did Scott Brown get to be the financial reform "decider"?
Salon asks the "duh" rhetorical question column of the week, and never even mentions the Obama-Dodd-Schumer troika's refusal to deal with Russ Feingold. (Which is, of course, the non-rhetorical answer to the rhetorical question.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)