The Wandering Donkey

Softball with Sean and the Dark Lord

Here is former Vice-President Dark Lord (also known as Richard "Dick" Cheney) and his 'interview' with wannabe journalist Sean Hannity. I hate posting FOX 'News' links, but you don't get to experience the sheer arrogance of the Dark Lord, or the utter sham of the 'questions' posed by the recently divorced (from Alan Colmes) Hannity.

Someone really needs to put the former Dark Lord in his place. I nominate two people who have excelled at this in the past: former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz. One, or both, of them need to give interviews that put the smack down on a) a former and b) Vice-President openly criticizing the foreign policy and national security policies of his succeeding administration, period. Never mind that we haven't even gotten to 100 days yet!

I realize that Dick still thinks he was his own branch of the government but he really needs to shut up. Baker and Schultz may be able to help that happen. Of course, they'll probably be attacked as liberal pansies by the Hannitys, Limbaughs and Becks. Never mind that just yesterday they helped end the "Cold War."

---

Next: A particular issue. Sean Hannity is not an interviewer any more than Ron Guidry is currently a major league pitcher. Sure, Guidry can throw batting practice and let hitters smoke balls into the center field stands but that doesn't mean he is still a major league pitcher. Similarly, check out this great big softball, not to mention totally leading, question about how Barack Obama handled his European trip:

Hannity: "Should he maybe have spent a little bit more time talking about the great sacrifice that America has made; While Europe was adopting totalitarianism and embracing appeasement, America was acting decisively to beat back totalitarianism?"

Um. First of all, he is apparently referencing pre-World War II America here. A country in which Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to struggle with Republicans like Arthur Vandenburg and Robert Taft with their increasingly anti-internationalist and isolationist points of view. We didn't actively stand up to totalitarianism! We, because of these guys, slinked off into our own corner. Things today celebrated as 'schemes' for Roosevelt to work our way into the war such as the "Lend-Lease Act" were vigorously opposed by Republican isolationists especially in the face of drawing us into a war. So any inference that we "were acting decisively to beat back totalitarianism" is utter nonsense. To the extent that we were acting at all, it was in spite of Republican (and to be fair there were Democratic non-interventionists also) non-interventionists and isolationists.

Further: Yes, we made a sacrifice. Was it purely out of the kindness of our own hearts? I don't think so. Roosevelt correctly saw that we had no choice but to go to war with Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo. He had to battle incessantly for years in order to get us involved in Europe. If we didn't? Well, we'd still be dealing with the ramifications of a German dominated continent. Hitler would never have had to pay attention to his western front, particularly if he did eventually overcome Great Britain. Stalin may never have been able to recover sufficiently to challenge Hitler's eastern front especially if Germany could have devoted more of it's resources there without a western front to worry about. (Admittedly, Stalin getting his ass handed to him does have it's benefits.) There is no way we could have allowed all of that to be the status quo.

So if you want to lord it over Europe. Fine. But don't expect to be considered anything other than an asshole by them for doing that. Just like you would consider the French assholes for lording over us the fact that we wouldn't ever have been a country if they didn't back us in the Revolutionary War. Which, by the way, is true: We would've been done long before 1780 if they hadn't come into the fray.

So, please, save your revisionist history. America is not always perfect. Expecting the world to constantly extol the virtues of this country and wonder why they get offended when you ask them to is idiotic. Obama and we on the left aren't ashamed of our country. Quite the opposite. We're just ashamed about the arrogance of some of our country's recent leaders.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Cap and Trade hijinks

If you want to try to understand the convoluted logic often used by those trying to rip apart cap and trade read on. (If you do not, I do not blame you.)

Read Greg Pollowitz's post at National Review. First we are pointed to this article at WSJ. Then Greg revels in the fact that Dallas Burtraw and Richard Sweeney of Resources for the Future write a letter to WSJ and get a "slap-down" from the editors at WSJ.

What neither WSJ or Greg Pollowitz bother to mention? A post as critical of the WSJ interpretation of the data as Butraw and Sweeney were. By whom? Tim Herzog, Director of Online Communications at the World Resources Institute. Yes, the same place that produced the data that WSJ relied on for the original premise of their article.

Instead, they chose to rip into two other people for not interpreting the data their way. Ignore the source of the data's interpretation? Well, I guess that Tim Herzog carried a little too much weight for the WSJ to just "slap-down."

There is a lot of "ignoring the source's interpretation" of data going around lately. George Will did his own interpretation of climate data a few weeks ago. Then defended it when he was attacked for misusing the data as I wrote here.

There is plenty of it going on with financial and economic data too. I guess once the data is out anyone can interpret it however they wish? Doesn't work like that. Especially when you are not the expert or even an expert.

Please, people. If you want to make your arguments come up with data and expert interpretations of that data that supports your case. You've got to have somebody to do it! Hell, Big Tobacco found 'doctors' who said that smoking wasn't a risk to your health for years!

Stop trying to twist the data to your mold in spite of what the experts say. That's how we got Iraq. Remember Wolfowitz and the "It'll pay for itself in a year!" meme? Yeah.

Postscript

One more thing. Click through to the WSJ article. It's entitled "Who Pays for Cap and Trade?" correct? Then answer me this: How come the title bar at the top of your browser says, "Barack Obama's Cap and Trade Progam is a Tax on the Working Class"? Considering I have yet to hear an actual Cap and Trade policy be put forth from the White House that is a little much, don't you think? Must be why they kinda snuck it up into the title bar. Too misleading to make it the actual title. Slimy. Very Slimy. The WSJ is becoming the New York Post. Wonder why? ;)

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Stewart v Cramer or Cramer v Stewart or .... whatever!

I've been following Josh Marshall's posts of reader comments (here, here and here) regarding the Jon Stewart - Jim Cramer "dustup." I've read through and agreed with most of the comments including when TPM reader DC says, regarding Joe Scarborough criticisms that Stewart attacked Bush daily but doesn't attack Obama, that:

Joe repeatedly says that Jon Stewart would always rip on Bush but now that Obama is in office he will not make fun of the President so he must go after people "in the arena," aka Kramer(sic). If any of them had been watching Daily Show last night or any other time recently they would have seen many segments making fun of the new administration and the Democrats in Congress.

Now just to understand better what I am, and will be, talking about, watch this video from TPM which included Jim Cramer on the Today show as well as Jim Cramer on Morning Joe:

First. Joe. Perhaps there aren't transcripts. Perhaps Viacom is a pain in the a$$ as far as putting stuff up on YouTube. But, if you want to know what Jon Stewart thought about ANYTHING on ANY particular day his show aired, his website kicks ALL of NBC's properties for ease of access. Go to the site, click "Videos" and then move the sliders to the appropriate date. For instance, this is an easily accessible clip from January 11, 2007. You know, the day after our dear departed President announced "The Surge":

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Daily Show: Surge Overkill

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Yup. Sure looks like he's hiding from all of his past calls. BTW, there are a lot of us who are happy that "The Surge" seems to have worked, who still will not, in retrospect, recant our opposition to the concept. (Actually, there are some who think that the result would have happened anyway and the the surge might have just sped things up a little but wasn't instrumental. That's a topic for a different day and post though.)

Apparently, Jim Cramer himself, though, is getting all buggy because Jon Stewart won't shut up, like last night:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

In Cramer We Trust

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

You know, I don't have anything in the market. I did 10 years ago. I was around when The Street was launched. I thought Jim Cramer was a loud-mouthed jackass then. Not much has changed.

I have long been talking with a very good friend of mine about the market. A little over a year ago, he started moving money out until he had zero exposure. I agreed that was the best move. You know why? Because we both knew something bad was happening with the subprime crap and neither one of us thought there was a safe haven within the market. In that TPM video, Cramer states that "any stock you recommended is down", and that "I told people to sell...everything."

Well, first of all, you kept recommending stocks. Even in an incredibly unstable environment. Why? That's your job. At least as you and CNBC see it. The people who trust you? They see you more akin to a financial advisor. That's what makes you and your network so dangerous. Yes, you told people to sell after you spent month after month telling people to buy! You finally told people to see on October 6, 2008. Gee, Jim. By then the DJIA was off over 23% ALREADY for the year. (Some would argue that a media stock pundit saying "sell everything this week!" isn't particularly useful to the economy or the market either. You don't care. Tact isn't your schictk.) Don't cry to us now, jerk.

Folks. Let's just talk sense. Jon Stewart tends to make sense. He tends to be funny making fun of other people not making sense. That's why he's funny. Jim Cramer, yesterday, could not be made to see sense by an anchor on his own network. Stomach as much as you can of this crap:

(Side note: CNBC's video embeds like crap too.)

You really want to follow this guy's advice? I think he could use some Ritalin. If you want to listen to Jim Cramer and CNBC, and be assured, the vast majority of Americans are happily ignorant of his existence, more power to you. The rest of us will watch Bloomberg and probably lose less money than you.

(I will not go on too much disputing the numbers they bandied about in that last clip right now. Such as the fact that the top marginal rate went to 79% not 73%. At least she had the right argument. I know there numbers were wrong. Suprise! Jim was reading from a slip of paper too! At least she threw a somewhat accurate fastball between his eyes extemporaneously.)

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Update: Forgot to include one of the many 'critical of Obama and the Dems' Jon Stewart segments has, just for you Joe "I speak of things I don't know" Scarborough:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Optimist Prime

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

It's OK Joe. I doubt Jon watches much of you either.

ABC revises story; still fail

I appended an 'update' to my original post on Emily Friedman of ABC's story "Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan." Here is what I posted on the update.

Update 3/4/2009

ABC is now running a 'revised' story at the above link. They have new expanded coverage of the financial advisor who actually explains that you are only paying the higher rate on the money above. But they still go on about 'reasons you might want to get under $250,000' for most of the rest of the article. I understand that there are proposed deduction limits that would kick in at that level, but still, this is just a stupid premise for an article. I am absolutely certain the lawyer and dentist in the article don't understand enough of the nuance of this to make an informed judgement but ABC continues to let their ignorance shine through. They literally can't understand it because nothing has actually changed yet! They should have just pulled the article.

At least they have this quote from the financial advisor:

Schatsky adds that he is not aware of very many people who would rather take a pay cut than pay taxes on the income that falls into a bracket that is taxed more.

"The last time I offered someone $500,000 of additional income there was very little instance of people saying ' no thank you,'" he said.

It distresses me when I think that the editorial department reviewed this and actually is alright with the premise of the article. It is really a false line of thought. The quote from Gary Schatsky says all you really need to know. And we wonder how the GOP gets the media to parrot it's more ridiculous talking points? Peter Jennings would rip someone at ABC News a new one for this story if he were still alive.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Epic Fail for ABC

ABC's Emily Friedman has an article up, hopefully it stays there (perhaps with a mea culpa as to it's ass-hattery), entitled "Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan." The premise the article starts with is, in essence, that if you make say...$251,000 dollars you are going to suddenly going to have a much larger tax bill that if you made $249,999. Yep, a major news organization let a reporter run a story essentially misleading her readers on how marginal tax rates work. Sad.

A brief lesson for those who still don't understand. You see, when the top marginal tax rate goes up to say 38% from 35% on income over $250,000, what it means is that you are now paying 38% on the income you make that exceeds $250,000. It has no effect on the income that is under $250,000. Yet the article is premised on the idea that you would suddenly pay 38% on your entire income! Income tax brackets only tax the income within that bracket! So, still, you are currently paying (married filing separately) 10% on all your adjusted gross income under $8,350, 15% on everything between $8,350 and $33,950 and so on. Everything above $186,475 gets taxed at 35%. NOTHING below $186,475 gets taxed at that full rate!

What is even worse is that she has a financial advisor that she quotes in the article who obviously understands this on page 2 of her article. Then, instead of pointing out the error of the lawyer (agh!) and dentist who completely misunderstand how tax brackets work, she continues on in her original premise! Perhaps she didn't understand the only tax professional that she spoke with? Perhaps her editor didn't either?

TNR has a great post on this here.

I simply can't believe that ABC would allow the perpetuation of this crap. This isn't a point of view people, it is fact. All you people who think those to professionals in the article are right can give me the difference between what the IRS actually wants and what you think you are being taxed. I'll be happy to take it.

Not for nothing folks but if you are really worried about taxes that much, maybe we should just go back to the days of Eisenhower. Sound good? I guess you like the idea of a 91% top marginal rate. No? Then quit your bitchin'.

If you would like to see income tax rates both now and historical go here. It is illuminating, especially for those of you who think we are overtaxed.

Update 3/4/2009

ABC is now running a 'revised' story at the above link. They have new expanded coverage of the financial advisor who actually explains that you are only paying the higher rate on the money above. But they still go on about 'reasons you might want to get under $250,000' for most of the rest of the article. I understand that there are proposed deduction limits that would kick in at that level, but still, this is just a stupid premise for an article. I am absolutely certain the lawyer and dentist in the article don't understand enough of the nuance of this to make an informed judgement but ABC continues to let their ignorance shine through. They literally can't understand it because nothing has actually changed yet! They should have just pulled the article.

At least they have this quote from the financial advisor:

Schatsky adds that he is not aware of very many people who would rather take a pay cut than pay taxes on the income that falls into a bracket that is taxed more.

"The last time I offered someone $500,000 of additional income there was very little instance of people saying ' no thank you,'" he said.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Goodbye Rocky Mountain News

For those who haven't heard, today the Rocky Mountain News published it's final edition, 55 days short of it's 150th anniversary. If you have twenty minutes to spare, watch this video documenting the last month of life of this great paper from the announcement that Scripps was going to spend a month trying to find a buyer through yesterday:

Final Edition from Matthew Roberts on Vimeo.

After 149 years and 311 days, the Rocky Mountain News published its final edition on February 27, 2009.

Somehow, someway someone needs to come up with a business model that keeps these great papers in business. The loss of local coverage is horrendus every time one of these papers shutters. Best wishes to the staff of the Rocky. We all hope you'll land on your feet.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.