things are looking great for the economy, if you don't count...well, the economy!
initial unemployment claims are up, and cost of benefits on the job (health insurance and pension) rose much more than wages in the last 12 months, says the kancitystar.
wages and salaries, stymied the past three years by a weak economy and lackluster job growth, climbed 0.6 percent in the second quarter, the same increase as the first quarter of this year.
over the past 12 months, wages rose by 2.5 percent, down from a 2.7 percent increase for the 12 months ended in june 2003 and far below the 4 percent rise for the 12 months ended in june 2000, when the country was still in the midst of a record 10-year economic expansion.
however, benefit costs have risen much more rapidly, climbing 7.2 percent for the 12 months ended in june, the biggest 12-month gain since early 1990. benefit costs include health insurance and pension benefits for employees who have pension coverage in their jobs.
“though wages remain under control, benefit costs are still soaring at an unacceptable pace,” said joel naroff, head of a holland, pa., forecasting firm.
in a second report thursday, the government said new claims for unemployment benefits edged up last week, climbing 4,000 to 345,000, indicating the labor market is improving after three years of lackluster job creation.
last week's increase followed a drop of 9,000 the previous week. claim figures have been volatile in the past month because auto plants shut down earlier than normal for retooling, which skewed the department's seasonal adjustments.
and as if that wasn't bad enough, the gross domestic product also slowed, because nobody was spending any money. (here's a hint: nobody had any money!) bloomberg:
the u.s. economy grew at a 3 percent annual rate from april through june, the slowest rate in more than a year, as rising energy prices led to the weakest pace of consumer spending since the 2001 recession.
the change in gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced, followed a 4.5 percent rate in the first quarter that was faster than the previously reported 3.9 percent, the commerce department said. u.s. treasury notes rose.
consumer spending slowed to a 1 percent annual rate after a 4.1 percent gain in the first three months. gasoline prices above $2 a gallon crimped sales at retailers such as wal-mart stores inc. consumer confidence and chicago-area manufacturing rose this month, signs the economy may emerge from what federal reserve chairman alan greenspan called a ``soft patch'' in june.
we're beginning to think the real soft patch is in greenspan's head.
holden caufield alerted us to pie's post over at eschaton pointing out not only has sandy berger been cleared of any wrongdoing in the 9/11 document fiasco, but nobody in the national media has bothered to report this side of the story:
officials looking into the removal of classified documents from the national archives by former clinton national security adviser samuel berger say no original materials are missing and nothing mr. berger reviewed was withheld from the commission investigating the sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks...
the conclusion by archives officials and others would seem to lay to rest the issue of whether any information was permanently destroyed or withheld from the commission.
archives spokeswoman susan cooper said officials there "are confident that there aren't any original documents missing in relation to this case." she said in most cases, mr. berger was given photocopies to review, and that in any event officials have accounted for all originals to which he had access.
where's bill o'reilly and sean hannity on this one?
the kids at the daily cookie sent us this alternet article detailing not only what really happened between teresa heinz kerry and the man she told to "shove it," but the long inacrimonious history between her and the richard mellon scaife rag he works for:
the tribune-review routinely sniped at teresa heinz during her marriage to pennsylvania's republican former senator john heinz. when the senator died in 1991, and the massachusetts junior senator john kerry stole teresa's heart, the paper's attacks grew increasingly slanderous. on december 28, 1997, the paper featured an anonymously penned cover story falsely insinuating that a woman named sheila lawrence had had affairs with both bill clinton and kerry. "far from giving all to bill, there was still something left over for sen. john kerry," who had "a very private tete-a-tete" with "sexy sheila," the columnist alleged. in another column, the tribune-review mocked john kerry as "mr. teresa heinz."
perhaps the most spurious of the tribune-review's attacks came in december, 2003, when it ran a piece accusing heinz-kerry of secretly "funneling cash" from her heinz endowment to the tides foundation, a group that "supports extreme left wing groups... anti-war protests... unlimited abortion rights, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender advocacy, as well as and [sic] environmental extremism." the piece was based on research conducted by the right-wing think tank capital research center, yet failed to mention that scaife granted the center $240,000 in 2002 or that he was connected to it in any way. the article also omitted the fact that the heinz foundation's grants were all strictly earmarked for mainstream western pennsylvania environmental charities, an inexcusable omission that could have been avoided if the paper had bothered to call either the heinz foundation or the tides foundation to confirm its wild claims.
out of the mouths of dead presidents' sons - part deux
ok, technically, this isn't out of his mouth...but rather from the pen of ron reagan jr.
he writes in equire a scathing attack on awol's presidency:
it may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. or smirking lynndie england and her leash. maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. the grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that saddam was in cahoots with osama didn't hurt. even the enron audiotapes and their celebration of craven sociopathy likely played a part. as a result of all these displays and countless smaller ones, you could feel, a couple of months back, as summer spread across the country, the ground shifting beneath your feet…
the l-word was in circulation. not the tired old bromide liberal. that's so 1988. no, this time something much more potent: liar.
politicians will stretch the truth. they'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. but george w. bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. on top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. they are a lie. and people, finally, have started catching on.
none of this, needless to say, guarantees bush a one-term presidency. the far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the kool-aid (liberals, rationalists, europeans, et cetera) as agents of satan… but these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. it's one thing to get trashed by michael moore. but when nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.
does anyone really favor an administration that so shamelessly lies? one that so tenaciously clings to secrecy, not to protect the american people, but to protect itself? that so willfully misrepresents its true aims and so knowingly misleads the people from whom it derives its power? i simply cannot think so. and to come to the same conclusion does not make you guilty of swallowing some liberal critique of the bush presidency, because that's not what this is. this is the critique of a person who thinks that lying at the top levels of his government is abhorrent. call it the honest guy's critique of george w. bush.
2/3 of a good idea is better than none (which is how much of it he wanted in the first place)
judd legum makes the case over at winning argument that letting awol get off with implementing only part of the 911 commission's recommendations is not only more pr than policy, it's just bad policy altogether.
cherry-picking allows the administration to avoid difficult but critical reforms. the administration has already hinted it will reject some reforms recommended unanimously by the bi-partisan commission. homeland security secretary tom ridge has "signaled administration opposition to the idea of a new intelligence chief" – a key recommendation of the commission. if the administration selects a subset of the recommendation it will enable officials "defend their turf" by lobbying against changes that would reduce their influence. this is the same mentality that contributed to the intelligence failures leading to 9/11. the cherry-picking could result in the administration "choosing harmless changes that involve little more than moving boxes on an organization chart."
out of the mouths of dead presidents' sons - a skippy rant last night on msnbc's convention after hours with joe "what's this dead woman doing in my office" scarborough, ron reagan jr. finally said out loud what the rest of the media (and the politicians) should have been saying for almost three years now.
turning to joe "i never touched the body" scarborough, reagan said something to the effect of (and here we paraphrase badly, which is, of course, the very definition of paraphrasing in the first place):
the problem with the war on terror is that 'terror' is a concept, so it's like the 'war on obesity,' you're fighting against a concept, and not individuals.
and to give joe "she had lots of medical problems before this" scarborough credit, he agreed.
we would refine rr jr's complaint a bit more precisely, ourselves. 'terror' is actually a technique, not a concept. "loving all mankind" and "the will of the people" and "more fun than a barrel of bloggers" are concepts. terror is a specific technique used by, admittedly, desperate and crazy people, in lieu of standing armies and icbm's.
it's rather like declaring a war on 'garroting,' or on 'torture,' or on 'surprise attacks.' these are tools of war.
'terrorism,' at least as defined by today's standards, is a relatively new technique in warfare (though we are wondering about the historical terms berserkers and kamikaze). so the old school warriors are at a loss as to how to defend against and fight this new approach. and it won't be pretty, or easy.
but you can't wage war against an idea, or concept, or technique. because even if you kill every single one of the mothercheneys who wage war in this manner, and wipe them off the face of the earth, someone somewhere later down the line will remember how they did it, and try it out themselves.
war is waged against nation states and groups of people. not against how they wage war (at least, not if you want to win the war. be sure you know who you are fighting).
the phrase 'war on terror' is simply a sound byte made up to stir the masses who think in black-and-white-us-v.-them-batman-v.-the-evil-doers ways of thought.
and in the end, as ron reagan was implying, this very two-dimensional approach only hurts the cause, not help it.
reader and contributor laura sends us this bit of sugar from reuters: sec investigating krisy kreme
krispy kreme doughnuts inc. on thursday said federal regulators are investigating the doughnut chain's repurchase of franchises as well as its recently lowered earnings outlook.
the informal probe by the u.s. securities and exchange commission comes as krispy kreme is struggling to revitalize slumping sales, particularly in supermarkets.
the company in may slashed its profit forecast for the year by 10 percent, blaming the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets such as the atkins and south beach, which frown on starchy foods like pastries and bread.
but most importantly, what's dick cheney going to do for breakfast now?
our buds at resident bush alerts us to thomas defrank's piece in the nydaily news: nancy & ron reagan spell dubya trouble:
much to the dismay of the bush campaign, nancy reagan has just said no to appearing at the republican national convention next month.
gop strategists had hoped the former first lady and hollywood actress would make a cameo appearance onstage after a video tribute to her late husband, particularly after her bush-bashing son, ron, agreed to speak at the democratic convention last night…
gop sources, meanwhile, confirmed his mother will not be at their aug. 30-sept. 2 convention - and some speculated her son might be behind the snub.
"i do not expect her at our convention but she knows she is welcome," republican national committee chairman ed gillespie told reporters here yesterday.
"if all of you might just keep in mind for a moment the year that mrs. reagan has had and be a little understanding of that, i think that would be appreciated by the public and, i suspect, by mrs. reagan," gillespie added.
republican officials refrained from publicly criticizing nancy reagan for the no-show. privately, however, some were upset as well as disappointed by the decision, which has been known to the white house for some time.
"i don't think she could have missed the symbolic significance of her son going to their convention and her not going to ours," a senior gop official told the daily news.
a downcast senior gop official confirmed nancy reagan had never committed to appearing at the convention, but was nevertheless dubious of the official explanation…
"the 'not feeling up to it' line is bull----," the official said. "something happened in the last month, and whatever it was was real."
an 83 year old woman feeling bad after her husband just died? the slacker!
today saw the worst violence in iraq since the handover of power a month ago. a huge car bomb exploded north of baghdad, killing over 60 people, among other bloody incidents. the international herald tribune:
a minibus packed with explosives blew up near a police station north of baghdad on wednesday, killing 68 people and wounding 30 in the worst attack since the handover of power exactly a month earlier. ..
seven iraqi police officers and 35 insurgents were killed in clashes southeast of baghdad, a u.s. soldier was killed in a bomb attack, and a police officer was assassinated.
iraqi officials have said they expected attacks to intensify as the country tries to edge toward democracy, and they worried a major political conference to chart iraq's future scheduled for saturday will be a target.
a health ministry official said 68 people had been killed and 30 wounded in the blast, which happened shortly after 10 a.m. in baquba, an often violent town 65 kilometers, or 40 miles, north of baghdad.
in other violence, 35 insurgents and seven iraqi soldiers were killed in early morning clashes in the city of suwariya, southeast of baghdad, lieutenant colonel artur domanski of poland, a multinational force spokesman, said in a telephone interview.
talkleft has some pictures of the free speech zone at the dem convention...we've seen gas station toilets that looked more inviting. and here's a rundown of exactly who is protesting there in bean town.
left is right thinks kucinich is awol on his promise, so left is right is now awol on kucinich.
the kids from the daily cookie link us to this nytimes piece about the votes from florida's electronic voting machine being lost in cyberspace...permanently.
the first family...does not snack...they are very good at respecting meal time hours and do not eat between meals...there is no snacking..."
- white house pastry chef roland mesnier, whitehouse.gov, 7/27/04 versus
"president bush fainted for a brief time sunday in the residence of the white house while eating a pretzel and watching a professional football game on television."
we are pleased as punch to find the transcript of cnn's show "live today" in which daryn kagan mentioned this blog.
daryn was talking about the blogging of the convention with aol on line advisor regina lewis, who was her guest yesterday when the original comments (about bloggers and rumors) that skippy took such exception to were made. (these comments, alas, are not available on yesterday's transcripts. c'est la blogue!)
the relevant part of today's program, en toto:
kagan: and here's a blogging angle for you, regina, you might know about. the bloggers are actually watching this show, and they watched your segment yesterday.
lewis: oh, absolutely.
kagan: i received an e-mail from a blogger named "skippy the bush kangaroo." not really sure where that comes from. but he or she, whatever skippy is, took offense at our discussion of perhaps that bloggers are not putting complete truth out there, and he said, "aren't mistakes sometimes made in journalism as well?" skippy, point taken. and we appreciate you watching.
lewis: yes, and i think what you're seeing is -- yes, i'm glad to hear that. the lines are blurring, too. you know, there's the opinion pieces, and a lot of the bloggers are also linking to resources like the associated press and talking about what they see on cnn. so it's kind of the merging of the best of both worlds, if you're mindful of what you're reading and where it's coming from.
kagan: absolutely, and we want all the bloggers out to know that this is a blogger-friendly program, and we do appreciate your viewership.
now, we are quite happy to be named on a national cable news network, and especially by someone other than wolf "how's my beard" blitzer. so we are never one to look a gift horse in the mouth (though, to be honest, ms. kagan is much prettier than a horse).
however, we find it amusing that ms. kagan, when continuing the discussion of veracity in different media (cable news versus blogging), actually completely misquoted what we said, thereby continuing to prove our point for us.
granted, our email was more actually personal than what she made it out to be, in that we asked her how she could impune the fact-checking abilities of bloggers after her own on-air presentation of the white house contention that letterman doctored a video of awol (he didn't). however, let it go on the record that, while we may have been snarky, we weren't mean or uncivil, merely ironic to the point of being embarrassing, if broadcast media had any shame at all (they don't).
we never said anything about "mistakes." we never even said "aren't" or "sometimes" or "made" or "in" or "journalism" or "as" or "well."
we were 100% misquoted. and not just some of our words. all of our words.
after all is said and blogged, we are too smitten with ms. kagan's national attention to call her on it. after all, when she mentioned us by name, our hit counter stood straight up.
but, still, when will the broadcast media ever get it right?
erratum: upon further review, we find we were incorrect in the assesment of being 100% misquoted. it turns out we did use the word "as" in the original email.
the kids at the daily cookie send us a couple of items:
this spinsanity article questioning the liberal use of the word "liberal" when describing the kerry/edwards ticket.
and a daily scribble musing about a candidate's wife, a reporter, and the words "shove it," versus a sitting vice president, a senator, and the words "go f^ck yourself."
markos zuniga, aka the daily kos, who is blogging from the convention, had a great interview/talk with rep. chris bell, the texas democrat who courageously brought charges against tom "bugman" delay up to the house ethics committee (we say courageously, because not only is delay a bully and a user of strong-arm techniques, but chris broke the "truce" between parties on ethics charges delay and gephardt wambled into existance five years ago).
some interesting tidbits:
i want the committee to investigate the matter. it's all i ask. if [delay] has nothing to hide, then the investigation will show that," bell said. his staff have put together a thorough package dealing with abuse of power (involving the faa and homeland security in an effort to track the fleeing killer d's during the redistricting saga), the use of prohibited corporate money for state legislative battles in texas, and the exchange of legislative favors for campaign contributions (westar's perks in the energy bill). and they could've added more...
last week, a decision on the complaint was delayed 45 days. many of us saw it as a bad sign, but bell is actually encouraged. "they could've swept it under the carpet. i take it as a positive sign that they are taking the complaint seriously."
interestingly, while some republicans initially threatened retaliatory ethics complaints, they were quickly swatted down by the gop leadership. and indeed, the parties agreed that frivolous complaints would not only be swatted down quickly, but their filers would suffer sanctions. a good sign indeed.
zizka, over at seeing the forest, argues that the 911 commission report does not exonerate awol.
reader and contributer rose sends us this washpost piece by richard cohen, doubting awol's claims to be considering the 911 commission's recommendations.
we are pleased as punch that daryn kagan, responding to our email to her story about bloggers (and their inability to check facts), mentioned skippy's site by name this morning on cnn live today.
skippy himself was in the kitchen making coffee and trying to wake up, when mrs. skippy, in the living room, shouted out "skippy the bush kangaroo! she just said 'skippy the bush kangaroo'!"
at first we assumed cnn was doing a piece about 60's australian children shows, but we walked in to hear ms. kagan talking about the email skippy sent her. ms. kagan said that skippy pointed out that broadcast media often make mistakes, too, and ms. kagan conceded it was a point well taken.
we appreciate ms. kagan's good natured mea culpa, and are thrilled she would mention our site by name (the google searches for "skippy the bush kangaroo" have hit the roof in the last hour).
but we must point out that that's not really what we said in our email.
what we said was, where would ms. kagan put herself on the scale of "not checking facts" and "rumor mongering" in light of her own misinformation reporting about the white house's accusation that dave letterman edited together a phony tape of a kid falling asleep behind awol's speech, when in fact it was completely above-board, real, and true.
however, at least ms. kagan admits broadcast media can make mistakes, even though she cleverly refused to mention herself by name.
and in the spirit of that, we admit bloggers can be snarky!
he was probably trying to chew gum at the same time
now this is getting ridiculous.
today awol fell off a bike for the second time in two months. reuters:
during an 18-mile ride, as bikers often do, the president took a minor spill and scraped his knee," spokeswoman claire buchan said. she said the president did not require medical attention after the spill.
bush had a similar mountain bike mishap at his ranch in late may, when he toppled over while riding downhill on soil loosened by rainfall, and suffered minor cuts and abrasions.
last year, he toppled off a high-tech segway scooter at the bush family estate in kennebunkport, maine.
and don't forget when he fell down after choking on a pretzel.
thanks to eric alterman, we find this latimes piece that tells us a ton of talent plans to tour the country this fall doing concerts to speak out against awol.
bruce springsteen, neil young, r.e.m., pearl jam and a deep roster of other rock stars will unite for politically minded concerts this fall that will give voice to dissatisfaction with the bush administration…
other artists expected to join the lineup include [steve] earle, the dave matthews band, the dixie chicks, bright eyes, ani difranco, death cab for cutie and international noise conspiracy. there also are reports that bob dylan and james taylor may be part of the bill.
the shows reportedly will benefit several organizations, chief among them moveon.org, the advocacy group that champions a liberal agenda through web-based grass-roots efforts.
with death cab for cutie on the bill, they'll draw thousands!
and now, it time for skippy's esoteric trivia guessing game! who can correctly tell us the band who sang the song from whence 'death cab for cutie' got their name, and for a bonus, who can name the act that band was parodying in that song?
steve is the california controller, and co-chair of california for kerry. you can sign up for an online chat this wednesday with delegates at the convention on steve's campaign site.
so says his online communications director, joel bush (no relation, joel tells us).
mrs. ketchup stepped in it yesterday, as she was caught on tape telling a so-called jouranlist to "shove it" because he kept insisting on misrepresenting her words.
we personally think more people ought to tell the mainstream press to go cheney themselves when they massage the meanings and twist the context of what folks say. (right, tucker "jacuzzi lawyer" carlson?)
apparently, an op-ed editor (not even a reporter) from a richard mellon scaife conservative rag, the pittsburgh tribune review, asked ms. heinz kerry what she meant by "unamerican activities" in remarks she just gave about the campaign process.
only trouble is, she didn't say "unamerican activities" which is a loaded red-baiting mccarthy are you now or have you ever been kind of phrase.
she said "unamerican traits." a whole different kettle of fish. the pittsburg patriot news:
citing negative ads president bush's campaign is airing about her husband, she said, "we need to turn back some of the creeping un-pennsylvanian and sometimes un-american traits that are coming into some of our politics."
when pittsburgh tribune-review editorial page editor colin mcnickle asked which un-american activities she was talking about, heinz kerry accurately denied that she used the word "activities." then, despite taped versions of her remarks, she repeatedly denied she had said the word, "un-american."
"i didn't say that, i didn't say that word," she told mcnickle. an aide rushed her off down a rope line, but heinz kerry shoved back past her aide, and leaning forward, shook a finger at mcnickle and said, "shut up. shove it."
heinz kerry (and the entire democratic party) have a history of tension with richard mellon the hunting of the president scaife. so it is no surprise that she told an operative from his paper who was twisting her words where to go.
it could have been worse. she could have told him to go cheney himself.
but the question is, how is the news media covering this incident? well, if you google "heinz kerry shove it" you get 210 entries.
"we have to turn back some of the creeping, un-pennsylvanian and sometimes un-american traits that are coming into some of our politics," she said. morning television shows broadcast the remarks.
when a reporter from a conservative pennsylvania newspaper, the pittsburgh tribune-review, pressed heinz kerry what she had meant by "un-american" she said repeatedly, "no, i didn't say that, i didn't say that."
she then turned away only to return moments later. "you said something i didn't say, now shove it," she said, pointing her finger at the reporter.
gee, it sounds a lot worse than what the patriot news said, doesn't it?
in your reporting of teresa heinz kerry telling op-ed editor colin mcnickle (not a reporter as you stated) to "shove it," you left a couple of important points out of the story, making her sound like a rude woman.
first of all, mcnickle asked her what she meant by "unamerican activities" which is not what she said.
we are sure you are aware that the phrase "unamerican acitivities," with its ties to mccarthy red scare hearings of the 50's, is so much more incendiary than what ms. heinz kerry actually said. for mr. mcnickle to twist her words and put new words in her mouth would be aggravating to anybody.
secondly, you failed to mention that the pittsburgh tribune review has often mischaracterized john kerry and in fact the entire democratic party, so no love is lost between the principals involved.
since you fail to provide context in your story, which could have been done in one more little paragraph, you are as guilty of twisting the facts as mr. mcnickle.
according to the book "news flash" (2004), by bonnie anderson, here are examples of some of the salaries that would be at risk if mainstream television news personalities told us the truth:
peter jennings $10- 11 million
dan rather $7 million
tom brokaw $7 -8 million
katie couric $12-15 million
paula zahn $2 millionyikes! guess we won't be seeing katie at the wal-mart anytime soon.
and we really don't want to offer an opinion about the others, but if paula zahn is worth $2 million, we've got a bridge we can sell cnn!
congrats to pandagon who had his web page prominently displayed on cnn this morning as daryn kagan discussed the phenomenon of bloggers at the convention, though ms. kagan seemed less than impressed concerning bloggers' record for "fact-checking."
true, daryn, we're not as good as the national media when it comes to fact checking. by the way, anybody find those wmd's yet?
addendum: over lunch one of our copy editors pointed out that it was daryn kagen who reported on air the white house claims that dave letterman had edited together a fake clip of a kid falling asleep during one of awol's speeches, when in fact it was a real, unedited clip, and cnn later claimed the white house never said anything about it to them. fact checking, anyone?
we watched your piece today on bloggers at the convention with great interest.
yet we detected from you a bit of, shall we call it, doubt, as to the veracity of what bloggers say.
perhaps it was when you mentioned that bloggers don't have to stick to "facts," insinuating that they spread rumors instead.
(no, it wasn't when you smirked and called the howard dean meeting with internet users a "love-fest." we know you were just being playful).
here is what we want to know:
if bloggers are less worthy to be listened to because they don't "check facts," and instead "spread rumors," then where are you on that scale?
wasn't it you who reported on air that the white house claimed that david letterman edited a videotape of that young man falling asleep behind a george w. bush speech?
how hard did you check those facts?
and, as it turned out to be not true, could you not also be accused of "spreading rumors?"
we'd like to know. please respond to our email address at ....
blogs that don't link to us because her co-blogger won't do it, but she says she "loves the bush kangaroo," though we are beginning to suspect otherwise
skippy is not responsible for the views and opinions of any website linked to from this page. take it up with them. leave us alone. we're tired, and we need a snack.
