Archive for 2006

PUSHING FOR TRANSPARENCY: Check out the new Sunlight Foundation website. Plus the Congresspedia. And here’s a story from the Washington Post. These people are lefties, which has engendered some suspicion (see the WP story), but I think that this stuff transcends partisanship.

porkbustersnewsm.jpgPORKBUSTERS UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation’s Andrew Grossman notes that the White House is finally showing some backbone on the railroad to nowhere. It’s even making veto noises!

Let’s hope this amounts to something. There’s much more background here, including this observation:

Keeping spending down below the President’s initial request level is important, but how that money is spent matters, too. The President should therefore threaten to veto a bill that contains any extraneous spending items–that is, anything that is not truly emergency spending. Funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq qualifies and is fair game for a supplemental bill. Hurricane-related funding that addresses immediate, on-the-ground needs qualifies, too. But not pork projects. Whatever its merit, the “Railroad to Nowhere,” for example, is just not an emergency need. Little, if any, of the junk that the Senate has thrown into the supplemental and is still considering adding makes the cut, either.

If it’s not an emergency need, it shouldn’t be in the supplemental. That’s a simple rule, and one that the President should enforce.

Yes. It would be political gold for the White House (which, God knows, needs it!) and it might win over some of those many disgruntled Republican voters who are otherwise likely to stay home in November.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL declares an intelligence insurgency:

We’re as curious as anyone to see how Ms. McCarthy’s case unfolds. But this would appear to be only the latest example of the unseemly symbiosis between elements of the press corps and a cabal of partisan bureaucrats at the CIA and elsewhere in the “intelligence community” who have been trying to undermine the Bush Presidency. . . .

The deepest damage from these leak frenzies may yet be to the press itself, both in credibility and its ability to do its job. It was the press that unleashed anti-leak search missions aimed at the White House that have seen Judith Miller jailed and may find Ms. Priest and Mr. Risen facing subpoenas. And it was the press that promoted the probe under the rarely used Espionage Act of “neocon” Defense Department employee Lawrence Franklin, only to find that the same law may now be used against its own “whistleblower” sources. Just recently has the press begun to notice that the use of the same Espionage Act to prosecute two pro-Israel lobbyists for repeating classified information isn’t much different from prosecuting someone for what the press does every day–except for a far larger audience.

We’ve been clear all along that we don’t like leak prosecutions, especially when they involve harassing reporters who are just trying to do their job. But then that’s part of the reason we didn’t join Joe Wilson and the New York Times in demanding Karl Rove’s head over the Plame disclosure. As for some of our media colleagues, when they stop being honest chroniclers of events and start getting into bed with bureaucrats looking to take down elected political leaders, they shouldn’t be surprised if those leaders treat them like the partisans they have become.

Ouch.

MORE NOTEBOOKS ON THE GROUND: Bruce Kesler writes in Editor and Publisher

Journalists are reviled by many for alleged negativism and over-focus on bad news in Iraq. Or perhaps the problem is: Their employers are just trying to do it on the cheap. Ironically, the same media that criticizes the U.S. for sending too few troops to stabilize Iraq send too few reporters to cover much more than the dramatic bombings around Baghdad.

“I hope we keep out of the post-Vietnam thing that the press lost the war,” Joe Galloway, soon to retire military editor for Knight Ridder, recently told me in an interview. But discrepancies in what’s reported, or an imbalance, are daily highlighted by military bloggers in Iraq and conservative commentators here at home.

J.D. Johannes agrees with Kesler:

As one who has been an embedded reporter in Iraq, I would answer in the affirmative. . . . I can name all the other reporters I met last Summer–because there were so few of them. I actually met more radio talk show hosts than major media reporters.

Ouch.

ALTERNATIVE-FUEL-O-RAMA: Popular Mechanics crunches the numbers on various alt-energy schemes.

UPDATE: Mr. Bingley asks: “Is it me, or has Popular Mechanics quietly become the most respected news service in the country? My goodness, they do great in-depth research and present the facts on a variety of issues.” It’s a novel approach, but hey — maybe it’ll catch on!

YOU CAN SEE THE ENTIRE ZARQAWI VIDEO HERE.

TERROR NEWS FROM LODI:

Hamid Hayat, the 23-year-old Lodi man on trial for terrorist-related activities in Sacramento federal court, was found guilty Tuesday, just hours after a mistrial was declared in the related trial of his father, who was accused of lying to the FBI to cover up for his son.

Hayat was found guilty of providing material support to terrorists by allegedly attending an al-Qaida camp while visiting Pakistan in 2003 and three counts of lying about it. He faces up to 39 years in prison if convicted of all charges against him.

(Via John Stephenson. )

POLICE BRUTALITY — It’s Bush’s fault, of course. Especially that Rodney King thing.

UPDATE: But accusing someone of hurting puppies is over the line.

CONDOLENCES TO TERRY HEATON, whose wife died suddenly last night. Please send him your thoughts, prayers, and good wishes.

JAMES GLASSMAN:

With gasoline prices close to $3 a gallon, President Bush this morning gave a disingenuous speech to an alternative fuels association about what he was going to do to stem the rising tide. There were a few flashes of candor and insight, but, on the whole, it was a sad example of political capitulation by a former Texas oilman who certainly knows better.

I heard part of Bush’s speech in the car, and the part I heard didn’t impress me much. Ethanol’s okay, though he talked mostly about ethanol from corn and I don’t see much future in that — corn’s expensive to grow, and depletes the soil. Ethanol from waste biomass, which he finally got around to mentioning just as I got out of the car, is better but not as easy.

Of course, there’s lots of loose thinking on energy and gas prices, as Ron Bailey recently noted:

With some headlines blaring about “record oil prices,” a bit of perspective is in order. It is true that in nominal dollars, the price of crude oil has never been higher. However, in inflation-adjusted terms, the picture looks somewhat different. It turns out that the price for a barrel of oil peaked at about $98 in December 1979.

Still oil prices have tripled in the past four years, but the economy nevertheless chugs along. . . . the price of oil would need to double from today’s $70 per barrel to have the same impact on the U.S. and world economy that prices had during the 1970s oil crisis.

As he notes, that could happen, as we haven’t had enough investment in additional capacity, but news reports and political sloganizing about “record high” gas prices are mostly evidence of sensationalism and innumeracy. Apparently, however, the public isn’t so dumb:

Consumers shrugged off higher gasoline prices in April and sent a widely watched barometer of consumer confidence to its highest level in almost four years, a private research group said Tuesday.

Somebody tell Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly.

UPDATE: Lynne Kiesling isn’t happy.

Neither is Pat Cleary.

TOM MAGUIRE REPORTS on a Washington Post online chat regarding Mary McCarthy.

UPDATE: “Promising confidentiality to a non-source?”

REMEMBERING HOLOCAUST DAY.

I’VE WONDERED why the Bush Administration hasn’t been more exercised about gas prices, but now I understand — it’s all been a devious Rovian plot to sucker the Democrats into supporting tax cuts. I should’ve seen that one coming!

AN ARMY OF MICHELLE MALKINS? I wrote her about Hot Air, and she replied:

The newscast is filmed in my basement with a Sony HVR-A1U Digital HDV Handycam and edited with Avid Xpress DV and Adobe After Effects. There’s a green screen behind me. Bryan does all the wizardry. We’re having fun and it is truly amazing how all this fairly inexpensive software and hardware is revolutionizing broadcast media. We’re living the Army of Davids dream. (Can’t count how many times someone has written and said “when are you going to have your own TV show?” Now, I don’t need to wait!)

Nope. None of us do.

UPDATE: Read this piece from The Economist, on new media, too. This piece on blogs is good, too.

TONY SNOW AS WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Joe Gandelman has some thoughts.

TOM MAGUIRE: “If It Is Worth Reporting, Isn’t It Worth Reporting Right?”

IN THE MAIL: Carrie Lukas’ new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism. I handed it off to the Insta-Wife, who was lukewarm: “I think this is just an ‘in the mail’ mention,” was her response. The reader reviews, however, seem to indicate stronger sentiments, pro and con.

porkbustersnewsm.jpgPORKBUSTERS UPDATE: USA Today reports:

Sen. Arlen Specter obtained a $200,000 grant last year for a Philadelphia foundation represented by the son of one of Specter’s top aides,the latest example of how the Pennsylvania Republican has helped clients of lobbyists related to members of his staff.

Bill Reynolds, Specter’s chief of staff, said an investigation found two lobbyists who sought financial favors and who were related to staff members. Specter has changed his office rules to ban lobbying by staffers’ relatives.

“The better practice is what we have now. We’re living and learning,” Specter said in an interview.

So are the rest of us. One lesson is that when members of Congress “help” people get grants, it’s a lure for people who want them to use whatever influence they can. And no, the Reynolds here is no relation.

UPDATE: Meanwhile Ed Cone notes a report from the WSJ:

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, the West Virginia Democrat whose real-estate holdings and financial disclosures have drawn federal scrutiny, last year bought a 300-acre farm with the head of a small defense contractor that had won a $2.1 million contract from funds that the congressman added to a 2005 spending bill.

The joint purchase of the farm, which sits on the Cheat River in West Virginia, is the most direct tie yet disclosed between Rep. Mollohan and a beneficiary of the federal spending he has steered toward his home state. It raises new questions about possible conflicts of interest by Rep. Mollohan and his use of such spending. House ethics guidelines warn lawmakers to avoid business deals with those who benefit from their official acts. . . . Over the past five years, Rep. Mollohan steered more than $200 million to a network of nonprofit groups in West Virginia, including more than $20 million in the latest fiscal year, often through narrow spending provisions known as earmarks. The Wall Street Journal reported in an April 7 story that executives of these groups and companies had contributed regularly to Rep. Mollohan’s campaigns and to his family foundation. They included at least two people who were partners with the lawmaker in various real-estate investments.

I agree with Ed that the “Cheat River” part is priceless.

UPDATE: And don’t miss this enormous pork-news roundup from the Heritage Foundation.

SOME THOUGHTS ON DEMOCRACY AND ECONOMIC DETERMINISM, from Chester.

STRATEGYPAGE says that while the media are focusing on retired generals, they’re missing the real story on the troops:

But the troops also exchanged information on tactics and techniques, as well as anything else they knew that could help keep them alive in combat. This alarmed the Department of Defense, which put some restrictions on active duty bloggers. The troops did not fight back, as, once reminded, they understood that, in public forums, anyone could read what they were saying, including the enemy. So a lot of this information continued to be exchanged email and private message boards. The military got into the act by establishing official message boards, for military personnel only, where useful information could be discussed and exchanged. All this rapid information sharing has had an enormous impact on the effectiveness of the troops, something that has largely gone unnoticed by the mass media.

This hierarchy-flattening effect is something that Tom Ricks got in his novel, though his portrayal was mostly negative, but it’s not getting that much media attention in general. It’s easier to interview retired generals, I guess.

Meanwhile, here’s a report on this weekend’s Milbloggers’ conference, which explores the same theme.

WARD CHURCHILL TO YALE? Roger Simon says why not?