Wednesday, June 08, 2005
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- Worker-owned SAIC says it may go public
SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro -- Worker-owned SAIC says it may go publicBG: "Sure seems like this would help sweep past actions under the carpet and let a lot of the culpable cash out..."
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
9/11 panel faults lack of FBI progress
9/11 panel faults lack of FBI progress
BG: What about being taken aback at the 911 Commission Cover-up
sept11
BG: What about being taken aback at the 911 Commission Cover-up
sept11
Monday, June 06, 2005
Liddy v. Ben Veniste about Deep Throat
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Deep Throat: Shallow story hides deeper history
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Beware the Holy War
Beware the Holy WarBG: I understand the criticism (in the linked article), but saying "Power of Nightmares" gets it wrong in places doesn't mean that there aren't psyops going on....
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Senator John Edwards is video blogging, and audio blogging. He is pleasant, seemingly a wonderful husband and father, Sadly, I can't imagine that he is such a sad exponent for anything about dealing with the current out of control US Govt. ... I even wonder if he is being honest with us. Perhaps I'm judging him too harshly and he is molding his presentation based on direction from some worthless advisors.
Reply to Scientific American's Attempted Debunking of 9/11 Skeptics
Reply to Scientific American's Attempted Debunking of 9/11 Skeptics
Link to Other Shoddy Work by Michael Shermer
Link to Other Shoddy Work by Michael Shermer
The Left Coaster: Why is it a surprise??
The Left Coaster: Why is it a surprise??Kevin Drum has expressed puzzlement at why liberals on TV almost always appear overmatched by their conservative counterparts [via TDH]. I'm not sure why this is perplexing to Kevin. The reasons are blindingly obvious.
Friday, June 03, 2005
The one politician I have the most respect for is [Georgia Democratic Congresswoman] Cynthia McKinney. She�s uncompromising in her views. She says what needs to be said. She represents the disillusioned and the disenfranchised, and she�s a sister in this system that seems to be hell-bent on the reduction of civil liberties and rolling the clock back decades for people of color and anybody other than the rich, white, corporate elite.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
POLITICS-U.S.: Security Whistleblowers Demand End to Retaliation
POLITICS-U.S.: Security Whistleblowers Demand End to RetaliationPOLITICS-U.S.:
Security Whistleblowers Demand End to Retaliation
William Fisher
NEW YORK, May 11 (IPS) - Fifty current and former employees of U.S. national security agencies are demanding that Congress end government retaliation against those who expose national security blunders.
Leaders of the new group, known as the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), have stepped up their efforts to win protection since testifying late last month before Congressional committees in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
They called on congress to take action to permit whistleblowers to sue government retaliators in their personal and official capacities and to bring suit against agencies for failure to rectify misdeeds by employees or provide sufficient safeguards against whistleblower retaliation.
The group is led by Sibel Edmonds, who has been trying to sue the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for firing her in 2002 after she blew the whistle on agency employees. Edmonds said she was fired from her job as a wiretap translator because she told superiors she suspected a co-worker was leaking information to targets of an ongoing FBI probe. The FBI said it fired her because she committed security violations and disrupted the office.
''In recent years the number of national security whistleblowers has grown exponentially, so has the level of retaliation and harassment against these whistleblowers by the government,'' Edmonds testified.
''The careers, marriages, lives, and physical and mental well-being of these conscientious patriots have been destroyed for doing the right thing, for fulfilling their first and foremost duty, protecting our nation,'' she said. ''AgenciesâÇÖ retaliation tactics follow the same blueprint, as if there is a government agency manual for retaliation against whistleblowers, truth tellers. They yank our security clearances, they force us to take polygraphs, they engage in humiliation, demotion, threats and the list goes on.''
Polygraphs also are known as lie-detector tests.
Currently, Edmonds said, ''we have no system in place that applies direct, individual accountability when it comes to retaliation against whistleblowers. Thus, there exists no deterrence for those who engage in government waste, fraud, and abuse, and criminal activities that jeopardise our nation's security, interests, and well being.''
Even when a whistleblower's complaints are confirmed, wrongdoers generally remain in their positions and many are promoted and rewarded, she said.
The new Coalition includes current and former employees of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Veterans of whistleblower protection campaigns backed the new group's demands.
''Given the tremendous stakes and the huge national investment, the American public need credible but non-official sources of information. These whistleblowers are in a position to authoritatively give the lie to official overstatements. In addition, these experts can be critical catalysts in sparking both open and informed public dialogue,'' said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the civil service support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
''If these whistleblowers function as watchdogs on our security agencies, they will perform an invaluable and irreplaceable public service,'' Ruch told IPS. ''The members of this coalition work for agencies where the legal climate for workers is, shall we say, unique. The stark absence of whistleblower rights in security, intelligence and military agencies is a growing vacuum that requires dedicated efforts to address.''
Members of the new coalition include a number of high profile whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defence Department official who in 1971 leaked the ''Pentagon Papers'' to the press, showing that the U.S. public had been deceived about the causes of and U.S. decision-making in the Vietnam War.
Other members include Coleen Rowley, the former Minneapolis FBI agent who reported to seniors, before the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that a known Islamist extremist, Zacarias Moussaoui, had paid some 8000 dollars in cash for lessons to fly a Boeing 747. The agency ignored her report. Moussaoui pleaded guilty Apr. 22 to six counts of conspiring with the hijackers in the Sep. 11 plot.
Edmonds said she is weighing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of reviving her suit against the government. John Ashcroft, the U.S. attorney general until earlier this year, had quashed Edmonds's case by persuading a lower court that the state secrets would be revealed if the action went forward.
Previously however, a report by the Justice Department's inspector general (IG) criticised the FBI's handling of the matter and arguments by Ashcroft that her lawsuit could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.
The FBI falls under the Justice Department, over which the attorney general presides.
The IG report concluded that the FBI did not adequately investigate the allegations and that Edmonds was retaliated against for speaking out.
”We found that many of Edmonds's core allegations relating to the (espionage allegation) were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds,'' the report said. It added that Edmonds's whistleblower allegations were ''the most significant factor'' in the FBI's decision to terminate her.
Whistleblowers at government agencies tasked with protecting the U.S. security have been excluded from the protections afforded the rest of the federal workforce. Employees at other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may seek protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act, but that law has been crippled by a series of judicial interpretations.
In her congressional testimony, Edmonds said that ''there has never been a determination or an accurate estimate of the millions of dollars expended by the government in misguided actions to first retaliate against whistleblowers and then to resist with extraordinary vigour the attempts by whistleblowers to clear their names, get their jobs back, and expose agency wrongdoing.''
She called on congress to direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog agency, to undertake a study calculating the costs in time, taxpayer money, and lost opportunities for diverted resources in retaliating against whistleblowers and defending against whistleblower claims for the years 2000-2005.
Jurors recently awarded 2.1 million dollars to a former employee of the top-secret Lawrence Livermore Laboratory after finding that she was illegally fired eight years ago chiefly because she was going to be a witness in a sexual-harassment case against the nuclear weapons lab.
Meanwhile, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democratic member of the House of Representatives committee on homeland security, said he plans to introduce a bill to protect national security whistleblowers, including those in agencies that have not had such protections, from retaliation.
The legislation would apply to all federal employees, contractors, and private sector workers who report homeland security or national security flaws, threats to public health and safety, violations of laws or regulations, or waste, fraud and mismanagement to their employer or to the Government Accountability Office, a government agency, or Congress.
The bill also would criminalise retaliation against whistleblowers, with a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. (END/2005)
Security Whistleblowers Demand End to Retaliation
William Fisher
NEW YORK, May 11 (IPS) - Fifty current and former employees of U.S. national security agencies are demanding that Congress end government retaliation against those who expose national security blunders.
Leaders of the new group, known as the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC), have stepped up their efforts to win protection since testifying late last month before Congressional committees in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.
They called on congress to take action to permit whistleblowers to sue government retaliators in their personal and official capacities and to bring suit against agencies for failure to rectify misdeeds by employees or provide sufficient safeguards against whistleblower retaliation.
The group is led by Sibel Edmonds, who has been trying to sue the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for firing her in 2002 after she blew the whistle on agency employees. Edmonds said she was fired from her job as a wiretap translator because she told superiors she suspected a co-worker was leaking information to targets of an ongoing FBI probe. The FBI said it fired her because she committed security violations and disrupted the office.
''In recent years the number of national security whistleblowers has grown exponentially, so has the level of retaliation and harassment against these whistleblowers by the government,'' Edmonds testified.
''The careers, marriages, lives, and physical and mental well-being of these conscientious patriots have been destroyed for doing the right thing, for fulfilling their first and foremost duty, protecting our nation,'' she said. ''AgenciesâÇÖ retaliation tactics follow the same blueprint, as if there is a government agency manual for retaliation against whistleblowers, truth tellers. They yank our security clearances, they force us to take polygraphs, they engage in humiliation, demotion, threats and the list goes on.''
Polygraphs also are known as lie-detector tests.
Currently, Edmonds said, ''we have no system in place that applies direct, individual accountability when it comes to retaliation against whistleblowers. Thus, there exists no deterrence for those who engage in government waste, fraud, and abuse, and criminal activities that jeopardise our nation's security, interests, and well being.''
Even when a whistleblower's complaints are confirmed, wrongdoers generally remain in their positions and many are promoted and rewarded, she said.
The new Coalition includes current and former employees of the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA), and the National Security Agency (NSA).
Veterans of whistleblower protection campaigns backed the new group's demands.
''Given the tremendous stakes and the huge national investment, the American public need credible but non-official sources of information. These whistleblowers are in a position to authoritatively give the lie to official overstatements. In addition, these experts can be critical catalysts in sparking both open and informed public dialogue,'' said Jeff Ruch, executive director of the civil service support group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
''If these whistleblowers function as watchdogs on our security agencies, they will perform an invaluable and irreplaceable public service,'' Ruch told IPS. ''The members of this coalition work for agencies where the legal climate for workers is, shall we say, unique. The stark absence of whistleblower rights in security, intelligence and military agencies is a growing vacuum that requires dedicated efforts to address.''
Members of the new coalition include a number of high profile whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defence Department official who in 1971 leaked the ''Pentagon Papers'' to the press, showing that the U.S. public had been deceived about the causes of and U.S. decision-making in the Vietnam War.
Other members include Coleen Rowley, the former Minneapolis FBI agent who reported to seniors, before the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, that a known Islamist extremist, Zacarias Moussaoui, had paid some 8000 dollars in cash for lessons to fly a Boeing 747. The agency ignored her report. Moussaoui pleaded guilty Apr. 22 to six counts of conspiring with the hijackers in the Sep. 11 plot.
Edmonds said she is weighing an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in hopes of reviving her suit against the government. John Ashcroft, the U.S. attorney general until earlier this year, had quashed Edmonds's case by persuading a lower court that the state secrets would be revealed if the action went forward.
Previously however, a report by the Justice Department's inspector general (IG) criticised the FBI's handling of the matter and arguments by Ashcroft that her lawsuit could expose intelligence-gathering methods and disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.
The FBI falls under the Justice Department, over which the attorney general presides.
The IG report concluded that the FBI did not adequately investigate the allegations and that Edmonds was retaliated against for speaking out.
”We found that many of Edmonds's core allegations relating to the (espionage allegation) were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds,'' the report said. It added that Edmonds's whistleblower allegations were ''the most significant factor'' in the FBI's decision to terminate her.
Whistleblowers at government agencies tasked with protecting the U.S. security have been excluded from the protections afforded the rest of the federal workforce. Employees at other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may seek protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act, but that law has been crippled by a series of judicial interpretations.
In her congressional testimony, Edmonds said that ''there has never been a determination or an accurate estimate of the millions of dollars expended by the government in misguided actions to first retaliate against whistleblowers and then to resist with extraordinary vigour the attempts by whistleblowers to clear their names, get their jobs back, and expose agency wrongdoing.''
She called on congress to direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog agency, to undertake a study calculating the costs in time, taxpayer money, and lost opportunities for diverted resources in retaliating against whistleblowers and defending against whistleblower claims for the years 2000-2005.
Jurors recently awarded 2.1 million dollars to a former employee of the top-secret Lawrence Livermore Laboratory after finding that she was illegally fired eight years ago chiefly because she was going to be a witness in a sexual-harassment case against the nuclear weapons lab.
Meanwhile, Edward Markey of Massachusetts, a senior Democratic member of the House of Representatives committee on homeland security, said he plans to introduce a bill to protect national security whistleblowers, including those in agencies that have not had such protections, from retaliation.
The legislation would apply to all federal employees, contractors, and private sector workers who report homeland security or national security flaws, threats to public health and safety, violations of laws or regulations, or waste, fraud and mismanagement to their employer or to the Government Accountability Office, a government agency, or Congress.
The bill also would criminalise retaliation against whistleblowers, with a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. (END/2005)
One America Committee: Speech In London
One America Committee: Speech In LondonFrom John Edwards Website
BG: Is Edwards worthless for not taking on the Bush / Blair Juntas?
BG: Is Edwards worthless for not taking on the Bush / Blair Juntas?
Big Brass Blog
Big Brass BlogThis latest information on the covert way in which the Bush Administration may have pushed the world towards war is based on a new report from Rupert Murdoch's London Times which reported over the weekend that "despite the lack of an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September [of 2002] with a 100-plane raid."
In fact, the original Downing Street Memo/Minutes mention that "The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
In fact, the original Downing Street Memo/Minutes mention that "The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
:::Mo(nu)ments::: ©Ine Dehandschutter: Haim Yavin takes a stand.
:::Mo(nu)ments::: ©Ine Dehandschutter: Haim Yavin takes a stand."Since 1967, we have been brutal conquerors, occupiers, suppressing another people," Yavin says in "Yoman Masa," or "Diary of a Journey," which he filmed over the past two and a half years with a hand-held video camera in the West Bank and Gaza. In the documentary, Yavin addresses settlers, Palestinians and soldiers.
Powderburns Home Page
Powderburns Home PageWelcome to the official website of retired DEA Agent Celerino "Cele" Castillo III. Cele Castillo served for 12 years in the Drug Enforcement Administration where he built cases against organized drug rings in Manhattan, raided jungle cocaine labs in the amazon, conducted aerial eradication operations in Guatemala, and assembled and trained anti-narcotics units in several countries.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Safe Haven | The Financial Endgame Slowly Plays Out - and then...
Safe Haven | The Financial Endgame Slowly Plays Out - and then..."Amongst the growing plethora of warnings, some erudite some emotional, Mr. Paul Volcker's commentary in the Washington Post entitled, "The Economy on Thin Ice", of April 10th, has to be taken very seriously, given the former's position as Chairman of the Fed from 1979 to 1987"
MP3-Audio Break for News - 050530
60,000 Iraqis 'Disappeared' into US Camps Dahr Jamail
Back in the area after a brief US
visit, hear Dahr's latest astounding
update --with Fintan Dunne
Back in the area after a brief US
visit, hear Dahr's latest astounding
update --with Fintan Dunne
05.31.2005 Robert Schlesinger
Do Conservatives Have a Problem With the Truth?
Ohio University Professor Kevin Mattson argues
Posted at 01:33 PM | email this post to a friend | permalink
NYTimes: Home - Site Index - Archive - Help
Welcome, bfgiltner - Member Center - Log Out
Go to a Section ----------------------- Arts Automobiles Books Business Cartoons Classifieds Corrections Crossword/Games Dining & Wine Editorials/Op-Ed Education Fashion & Style Health Home & Garden International Job Market Learning Network Magazine Movies Multimedia/Photos NYC Guide NYT Front Page National New York/Region Obituaries Readers' Opinions Real Estate Science Sports Technology The Public Editor Theater Travel Washington Weather Week in Review ----------------------- Services
Search: This Location All Forums All of NYTimes.com
Readers' Opinions > Forums > The Public Editor > Public Editor's Web Journal
Public Editor's Web Journal
Byron Calame, the public editor for The New York Times, comments here on matters that aren't appropriate for his column in the Sunday Op-Ed pages, or won't fit into it. He may address issues raised in reader e-mail or post e-mail from readers and responses to them.
Readers are invited to respond to the public editor's comments in this Web Journal by e-mailing public@nytimes.com.
Note: Any opinions expressed here, unless otherwise attributed, are solely Mr. Calame's.
First Post Latest Posts
Display Thread Check for New Posts
bcalame - 11:49 AM ET May 31, 2005 (#2 of 2)
New Public Editor Hosts Paul Krugman-Daniel Okrent Debate
Daniel Okrent, in his May 22 farewell column as the first public editor of The New York Times, criticized Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed columnist for the newspaper. Prof. Krugman, who disputed the validity of Mr. Okrent's comments in the public editor's regular reader-letters column in The Times on Sunday, elaborated in a longer e-mail message for this Web Journal -- with the understanding that Mr. Okrent's response would be posted simultaneously.
* * *
Krugman Lays Out Why He Believes Okrent Was Wrong
When I asked Daniel Okrent for the specifics behind his final attack, he offered two examples of what he claimed was improper use of numbers. This was the first time I heard from him, or anyone else, about either alleged problem.
Let me start with the example that, I think, sheds most light on what is going on: Mr. Okrent�s claim that I engaged in "blending, without explanation, numbers from the household survey and the establishment survey -- apples and oranges -- apparently in order to make a more vivid political point about Bush (5/25/04).�
He�s referring to two different surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provide alternative estimates of employment. Some people play games by mixing and matching numbers from the two surveys, and Mr. Okrent has apparently spent the past year firmly believing (without having checked with me) that I did the same thing, to score political points. But I didn�t. All the numbers in my 5/25/04 column came from the establishment survey.
Moreover, I not only played fair with my readers, I urged them to check the data for themselves. Here�s what I wrote in the column:
�Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site at stats.bls.gov. Click on �U.S. economy at a glance,� then on the green dinosaur next to �Change in payroll employment� for a 10-year chart of monthly job gains and losses.�
If Mr. Okrent had done that, he would have seen for himself that what I said about job growth was true.
For his other example, Mr. Okrent criticized me for �asserting that the 40 percent unemployed out of work for more than 15 weeks was a 20-year record" (2/10/04, 3/12/04) without acknowledging that the comparison only applies back to the redesign of the CPS questionnaire. See Polivka and Miller, The CPS After Redesign, on the BLS Web site.
This sounds like another accusation that I blended two sources of data, without telling readers. In fact, all I did was use the Bureau of Labor Statistics data series on long-term unemployment, which is available on the BLS Web site, where there is no indication given to the public of any problem with comparisons between different time periods. Lou Uchitelle did the same thing in an article published in the New York Times business section, "The New Profile of the Long-Term Unemployed," two days after Mr. Okrent�s blast. That article made the same point that I did in the columns Mr. Okrent criticized: long-term unemployment is unusually high.
After Mr. Okrent directed me to Polivka and Miller, I checked it out; it�s a 1995 research paper which suggested that the 1994 redesign of the Current Population Survey questionnaire might have raised estimates of long-term unemployment. It wasn�t an official statement that pre-1994 comparisons are improper, and the BLS didn�t consider the questions raised in that paper serious enough to warrant a warning for consumers of its data. Like most such consumers, I don�t go hunting for research papers suggesting possible problems with the numbers unless the BLS says there�s reason to be concerned otherwise, it would be impossible to get any work done. Let me also say that the issue is pretty trivial: adjusting the data might put long-term unemployment at a 10-year rather than 20-year high, but it�s unarguably very high by historical standards.
To summarize: when I asked Mr. Okrent for evidence of my malfeasance, he provided one example in which his description of what I did was simply wrong, and another in which he accused me of pulling a fast one on readers, when all I did was use official data in a standard way.
In correspondence with Mr. Okrent, I pointed out that his specific attacks -- especially the blatantly wrong characterization of my 5/25/04 column -- were unfair. I asked him to do what he would have expected me to do, and admit that he had been in error. He refused.
Let me repeat that Mr. Okrent never raised these issues as public editor. He now says that he didn�t because he �experienced your best-defense-is-a-good-offense approach, and found it futile to deal with it.�
Maybe a description of some of my experiences with him will give some sample of what he found difficult to deal with.
On 6/8/04, I made a numerical mistake, reading from the wrong line in a table of tax rates during the Reagan years. Although the mistake didn�t change the column�s conclusions, I reluctantly issued a correction. But I forgot to use the word �correction,� which I hear got Mr. Okrent upset.
Mr. Okrent questioned my assertion (10/12/04) that Congressional Budget Office estimates show tax cuts were responsible for two-thirds of the fiscal 2004 deficit. I explained that in each of its budget projections the CBO estimates how much of the change from its previous projection is due to changes in tax law, and that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities adds these numbers up to calculate the CBO�s implied estimate of the overall cost of tax cuts since 2000. I provided Mr. Okrent with the data used for that calculation.
Mr. Okrent challenged my assertion (5/9/05) that the Bush Social Security �progressive indexing� plan would impose its largest percentage reductions in retirement income on middle-income workers.
I explained that the term �retirement income� normally refers to income from all sources, not just Social Security benefits (the Social Security Administration says on its Web site that �you should not count only on Social Security for your retirement income.�) I supplied him with a study (pdf) that used Social Security Administration data to show that because high-income workers depend much less than middle-income workers on Social Security, they would have smaller percentage cuts in overall retirement income than middle-income workers. This was similar to a point I made, using different data, a week earlier (5/1/05), so I was surprised that Mr. Okrent even raised the issue.
If Mr. Okrent was unsatisfied with my explanations in these and other cases, it was his right to demand a fuller explanation, and, if he was still unsatisfied, to say something specific in his column.
I hope we aren�t going to get into an extended period in which Mr. Okrent, who failed to air his concerns when that was his job, then failed even in private to provide examples that bear any resemblance to what he accused me of doing, keeps throwing out new accusations.
* * *
Okrent Responds
For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to others. And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it.
Because only a fool or a supply-sider would eagerly engage in a debate on economics with Prof. Krugman, I�ll try to eschew argument and stick to facts � or, at least, the sort of statements that he himself represents as purely factual:
1. I offered him only three examples of �shaping, slicing and selectively citing� (for some reason, he�s left one out of his rebuttal) because I was at home when he began bombarding me with outraged demands for retraction and apology; I�d completed my tenure as public editor the preceding week, and did not have any files with me. When I had the chance to consult some of my reader mail later in the week, some of his greatest mis-hits immediately came to the fore. I�ll get to a few of those in point No. 5, below.
2. This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed �reluctantly� to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word �reluctantly�; I can�t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they�re entitled doesn�t mean I or you have to like it, or think it�s good for the newspaper.
3. The mixing of household and establishment numbers in his 5/25/04 column: Missing from the BLS chart he cites is any number that even resembles the 140,000 new jobs each month needed to keep up with the growing population a statistic he cites in the column, and upon which he seems to have based some of his computations. To my knowledge, that number only appeared in the household survey.
4. The Polivka-Miller paper: On the substance, readers can come to their own conclusions by examining the report themselves, particularly the chart and related narrative addressing �Duration of Unemployment� on page 23 (pdf). On Prof. Krugman�s defense of his unfamiliarity with it, he�s effectively saying, �If I didn�t know about it, it must not be important.� This is a polemicist�s dodge; no self-respecting journalist would ever make such an argument.
5. Some other examples of Krugmania that popped out of my copious files:
His 1/27/04 assertion that the cost of unemployment insurance �automatically� adds to the federal deficit. This two-fer misrepresents a pair of facts: that unemployment insurance is largely borne by the states, and that major federal contributions to the states come about only because of an act of Congress, which is hardly automatic.
His 2/3/04 assertion that tax proposals offered by Democrats would help the 77 pecent of taxpayers in the 15 percent bracket or less. The most recent generally accepted figures available at the time indicated that the number was actually 64 percent.
A very recent example that nonetheless escaped my memory until Prof. Krugman generously reminded me of it in his letter: His 5/9/05 column on progressive indexing. The column itself (without the ex post facto explanation) suggestively conflates �retirement income� and �social security benefits� without sufficient explanation, but with plenty of apparent point-making.
Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don�t want to engage in an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I�ll let him have what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.
I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame, but I�m hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.
* * *
bcalame - 4:29 PM ET May 24, 2005 (#1 of 2)
New Public Editor Looks at 'Downing Street Memo' Coverage
(Editors' Note: This post was originally published in Daniel Okrent's Web Journal)
The flood of reader e-mail criticizing The Times's coverage of the so-called Downing Street Memo has moved me to post about the issue.
Some background: The secret minutes of a July 2002 meeting of top advisers to British Prime Minister Tony Blair were published May 1 by The Sunday Times in London. Critics of the Bush administration and the Iraq war have focused on two matters in the minutes. One is the suggestion that Mr. Bush had decided to go to war earlier than he has acknowledged. The other is the statement that the chief of Britain's secret intelligence service had returned from a visit to Washington where he found that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Here's one of the less strident reader e-mails, from Leslie Lowe of New York City:
"After all the mea culpas about the poor job the NYT did on pre-invasion news analysis, I find it noteworthy that the paper has barely mentioned the memo by Matthew Rycroft [the foreign policy aide to Mr. Blair who prepared the minutes, according to The Sunday Times] that rocked the U.K. and nearly cost Blair the election. According to the Rycroft memo, the authenticity of which has not been disputed, the decision to invade Iraq had already been taken as of July 2002 and the 'intelligence' was subsequently cooked to justify what the U.K. Attorney General deemed an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.
"Please be good enough to explain why this story has not been the subject of further investigation on this side of the Atlantic and editorial demands for explanations from the White House? This memo is a bombshell and your one-day story, buried on page 9, certainly makes me wonder about your editors' news judgment. Or is it news censorship?
"Once again, The NYT is failing to give its readers the full story of how we got into the present disaster. Increasingly, we must turn to the foreign press and the Internet for critical information and analysis."
The Times's coverage of the once-secret memo started alertly with a May 2 article by Alan Cowell that laid out its contents in the context of the possible impact on the May 5 British election. But the news coverage languished until this morning when a Times article from Washington focused on the reaction to the memo there. This has left Times readers pretty much in the dark until today � and left critics of the paper's news columns to suspect the worst about its motives. (On the Op-Ed page last Monday, Paul Krugman did cite the memo high up in his column.)
My checks find no basis for Ms. Lowe's concern about censorship or undue outside pressures. Rather, it appears that key editors simply were slow to recognize that the minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue � their authenticity undisputed � probably needed to be assessed in some fashion for readers. Even if the editors decided it was old news that Mr. Bush had decided in July 2002 to attack Iraq or that the minutes didn't provide solid evidence that the administration was manipulating intelligence, I think Times readers deserved to know that earlier than today's article.
Phil Taubman, The Times's Washington bureau chief, believes that Mr. Cowell's May 2 story met some of this need for readers. That story, however, didn�t deal at all with the impact in Washington. (Ms. Lowe wasn�t the only reader to complain about the story's play inside the front section, but I think the play appropriate given its British election context.) Mr. Taubman explained in an e-mail to me how the bureau sorted out the need to follow up on the memo's suggestion that Mr. Bush had already decided to go to war:
"Given what has been reported about war planning in Washington, the revelations about the Downing Street meeting did not seem like a bolt from the blue. The minutes of the meeting suggest a degree of certainty about going to war that is newsworthy, but in thinking about this, the bureau recognized that Cowell had covered the report. If we were going to do something, it should, if possible, add to the story and offer some perspective."
I then asked Mr. Taubman about the comment in the minutes that was the most striking to me � the assertion that the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence estimates. His response, slightly defensive but holding fast to a high reporting standard:
"As I read the minutes, they described the impressions of the head of MI6, who had recently returned from Washington, where he had met with George Tenet. It is mighty suggestive that Lord Dearlove, the chief of MI6, came home with the impression, or interpretation, that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' However, that's several steps removed from evidence that such was the case. The minutes did not say that Mr. Tenet had told that to Lord Dearlove or that Lord Dearlove had seen specific examples of that. The minutes, in my estimation, were not a smoking gun that proved that Bush, Tenet and others were distorting intelligence to support the case for war."
In the end, Mr. Taubman said Thursday:
"All these considerations were factored into the decision that the bureau did not have to jump on the story immediately after The London Times account appeared. Given continuing reader interest, we decided to do the story that Doug [Jehl] is filing today."
(Mr. Jehl, it should be noted, was tied up earlier this month on the coverage of the John Bolton confirmation battle and was assigned early this week to do today's story.)
So Times readers finally have the Washington bureau's take on the Downing Street Memo to go with the alert coverage on the minutes the foreign desk provided back on May 2. Overall, it's better than the readers of most other newspapers got. It's just unfortunate that today's Washington perspective, much of it based on reporting that could have been done days ago, didn't land in readers' hands sooner.
Display Thread Check for New Posts
First Post Latest Posts
Readers' Opinions > Forums > The Public Editor > Public Editor's Web Journal
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help Back to Top
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Monday, May 30, 2005
World Watch - May 15, 2005 - The Riots of the Faithful - The Ornery American
BG: Idiot
For thoughtful commentary click here
World Watch - May 15, 2005 - The Riots of the Faithful - The Ornery American
For thoughtful commentary click here
World Watch - May 15, 2005 - The Riots of the Faithful - The Ornery American
Sunday, May 29, 2005
High noon for high news - The Washington Times: Commentary - May 28, 2005
High noon for high news - The Washington Times: Commentary - May 28, 2005: "Victor Davis Hanson"
BG: Idiot!
High noon for high news
By Victor Davis Hanson
Published May 28, 2005
The recent Dan Rather and Newsweek controversies hardly seem connected. But on closer examination, both incidents symbolize what has gone wrong with traditional news organizations. The old assumption was that opinion media -- such as the National Review, the Nation and the New Republic -- offer a slant on current events, but that major news outlets, outside their designated opinion sections, do not. This commitment to disinterested reporting -- and along with it the public's trust in mainstream media -- has been shattered in recent years. It's easy to see why people no longer feel they can rely on a CBS News or a Newsweek for information without bias. At CBS, Dan Rather persistently wished us to believe a clearly forged memo was authentic. Michael Isikoff's reliance on a single anonymous and unreliable source about supposed desecration of the Koran made an already jaded public believe Newsweek was too eager to deliver a one-sided story. Three now-common themes appeared in each controversy: (1) The misinformation erred predictably against the current American government. In CBS' case, anchorman Dan Rather impugned the president's past military service. The Newsweek article questioned the ethics and sense of the U.S. military. (2) These were not minor slips. The counterfeit documents Mr. Rather circulated undercut a sitting commander-in-chief in the midst of a national election. The fraud had the potential to alter the very governance of the United States. Newsweek's wrong information incited the Middle East's lunatic elements. Rioting and death followed, complicating the U.S. military effort. (3) Neither organization was markedly contrite when exposed. The culpable Mr. Rather refashioned himself as the maligned target of the blogosphere. Newsweek spokesmen whined that a vindictive administration was hounding their management. In response, the public assumed haughty news organizations were caught exhibiting the usual partiality -- and then on spec retreated to victim status when challenged. These recent controversies about our flagship news agencies were old news to the public. The New York Times still has not recovered from the Jayson Blair scandal, in which a young reporter wrote fictitious stories. Mr. Blair's compliant editors worried more about political correctness than the qualifications and experience of their own reporters. The same syndrome was true earlier at The Washington Post and the Boston Globe, which were red-faced over the fabrications of reporter Janet Cooke and columnist Patricia Smith, respectively. In other example of media bias, CNN executive Eason Jordan confessed his network censored coverage of a mass-murdering Saddam Hussein -- and later tossed offhanded false allegations that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. With each expose the harm has been cumulative, driving the public away from a stained mainstream media. News purists mock the yelling of conservative talk radio, hypersensitive renegade bloggers on the Internet and cable news' sharp elbows. They shouldn't. All provide an antidote to "disinterested" High News the public no longer entirely believes. Bigheaded lectures for the umpteenth time about the "century-old standards" at the New York Times, the "legacy" of Edward R. Murrow or the "prestige" of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism don't cut it anymore in a world of Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan and Dan Rather. Liberal copycats of talk radio fail, not because they are always boring but because there is little market or even need for such a counter-establishment media. The progressive audience already finds its views embedded in a New York Times or CBS "news" story. So why turn to a redundant and less adept Al Franken, Phil Donahue or Arianna Huffington? Yet the irony is that though our major media are considered liberal, they are hardly populist. When Dan Rather and Newsweek are exposed, they seek refuge in stuffy institutional reputations and huffy establishment protocols. Meanwhile, a million bloggers with pitchforks -- derided by a former CBS executive as "guys in pajamas" -- couldn't care less about degrees or titles but use their collective brainpower to poke holes in the New York-Washington gatekeepers. A fire-breathing Rush Limbaugh or snapping Bill O'Reilly might not receive many honorary doctorates, speak at Ivy League commencements or carry off the Peabody Award. Yet they come off as no more opinionated than an anointed Peter Jennings or insider Bill Moyers -- and a lot more honest about their own politics and the medium in which they work. If the left wishes to curb the influence of the new prairie-fire media, the answer is not to subsidize an Air America, the failing liberal talk-radio network. There is no need to lure Al Gore back into the picture, or to pour more George Soros money into another moveon.org-like Web site. Instead, liberals themselves must begin balking at the infusion of their political views in the mainstream media. Once the public again trusts major news outlets to be objective, media bias will no longer be news.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
BG: Idiot!
High noon for high news
By Victor Davis Hanson
Published May 28, 2005
The recent Dan Rather and Newsweek controversies hardly seem connected. But on closer examination, both incidents symbolize what has gone wrong with traditional news organizations. The old assumption was that opinion media -- such as the National Review, the Nation and the New Republic -- offer a slant on current events, but that major news outlets, outside their designated opinion sections, do not. This commitment to disinterested reporting -- and along with it the public's trust in mainstream media -- has been shattered in recent years. It's easy to see why people no longer feel they can rely on a CBS News or a Newsweek for information without bias. At CBS, Dan Rather persistently wished us to believe a clearly forged memo was authentic. Michael Isikoff's reliance on a single anonymous and unreliable source about supposed desecration of the Koran made an already jaded public believe Newsweek was too eager to deliver a one-sided story. Three now-common themes appeared in each controversy: (1) The misinformation erred predictably against the current American government. In CBS' case, anchorman Dan Rather impugned the president's past military service. The Newsweek article questioned the ethics and sense of the U.S. military. (2) These were not minor slips. The counterfeit documents Mr. Rather circulated undercut a sitting commander-in-chief in the midst of a national election. The fraud had the potential to alter the very governance of the United States. Newsweek's wrong information incited the Middle East's lunatic elements. Rioting and death followed, complicating the U.S. military effort. (3) Neither organization was markedly contrite when exposed. The culpable Mr. Rather refashioned himself as the maligned target of the blogosphere. Newsweek spokesmen whined that a vindictive administration was hounding their management. In response, the public assumed haughty news organizations were caught exhibiting the usual partiality -- and then on spec retreated to victim status when challenged. These recent controversies about our flagship news agencies were old news to the public. The New York Times still has not recovered from the Jayson Blair scandal, in which a young reporter wrote fictitious stories. Mr. Blair's compliant editors worried more about political correctness than the qualifications and experience of their own reporters. The same syndrome was true earlier at The Washington Post and the Boston Globe, which were red-faced over the fabrications of reporter Janet Cooke and columnist Patricia Smith, respectively. In other example of media bias, CNN executive Eason Jordan confessed his network censored coverage of a mass-murdering Saddam Hussein -- and later tossed offhanded false allegations that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. With each expose the harm has been cumulative, driving the public away from a stained mainstream media. News purists mock the yelling of conservative talk radio, hypersensitive renegade bloggers on the Internet and cable news' sharp elbows. They shouldn't. All provide an antidote to "disinterested" High News the public no longer entirely believes. Bigheaded lectures for the umpteenth time about the "century-old standards" at the New York Times, the "legacy" of Edward R. Murrow or the "prestige" of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism don't cut it anymore in a world of Jayson Blair, Eason Jordan and Dan Rather. Liberal copycats of talk radio fail, not because they are always boring but because there is little market or even need for such a counter-establishment media. The progressive audience already finds its views embedded in a New York Times or CBS "news" story. So why turn to a redundant and less adept Al Franken, Phil Donahue or Arianna Huffington? Yet the irony is that though our major media are considered liberal, they are hardly populist. When Dan Rather and Newsweek are exposed, they seek refuge in stuffy institutional reputations and huffy establishment protocols. Meanwhile, a million bloggers with pitchforks -- derided by a former CBS executive as "guys in pajamas" -- couldn't care less about degrees or titles but use their collective brainpower to poke holes in the New York-Washington gatekeepers. A fire-breathing Rush Limbaugh or snapping Bill O'Reilly might not receive many honorary doctorates, speak at Ivy League commencements or carry off the Peabody Award. Yet they come off as no more opinionated than an anointed Peter Jennings or insider Bill Moyers -- and a lot more honest about their own politics and the medium in which they work. If the left wishes to curb the influence of the new prairie-fire media, the answer is not to subsidize an Air America, the failing liberal talk-radio network. There is no need to lure Al Gore back into the picture, or to pour more George Soros money into another moveon.org-like Web site. Instead, liberals themselves must begin balking at the infusion of their political views in the mainstream media. Once the public again trusts major news outlets to be objective, media bias will no longer be news.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Eschaton
EschatonPeople have been murdered, tortured, rendered to foreign countries to be tortured at a distance, sexually violated, imprisoned without trial or in some cases simply made to "disappear" in an all-American version of a practice previously associated with brutal Latin American dictatorships. All of this has been done, of course, in the name of freedom.
Flickr: Merina
BG: As they used to say on The Monty Python Show, And now for something completely different....
Flickr: Merina
Flickr: Merina
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)