-
sponsorship
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Time to Burkle: Zip Off! Clinton buddy Ron Burkle wants 7 cents per copy more for magazines his Source Interlink Cos. delivers to retailers, according to the New York Post's Keith Kelly:
"Time Inc. has basically told Source to drop dead," said one industry veteran. ...[snip]
The showdown will come on Tuesday when most of the celebrity weeklies roll off the presses and onto wholesalers' trucks for placement in stores.
And at least one publisher is betting on massive foul-ups in the delivery of magazines.
"I don't think copies will be shipped next week," said one publishing executive. "It is kind of like a labor dispute. There will be blood."
Will People get delivered? Will stacks of magzines accidentally be ... misrouted? This is so exciting. ... 12:39 P.M.
___________________________.
Buried Lede? WaPo reports that ex-Sen.Tom Daschle, while serving his patron Leo Hindery since 2005, was "rewarded handsomely" for investments "in small niche media corporations." Wait a minute ... Daschle made money in media in the past three years? What's he got that Steve Rattner hasn't got? ... 12:11 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, January 30, 2009
Obama has issued a late Friday executive order requiring that when a government service contract expires--and there's a new contract to perform the same services at the same location--the new contractor has to keep the old workers. Why?
The Federal Government's procurement interests in economy and efficiency are served when the successor contractor hires the predecessor's employees. A carryover work force reduces disruption to the delivery of services during the period of transition between contractors and provides the Federal Government the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Government's personnel, facilities, and requirements.
But what if the contract got switched because the previous work force, you know, sucked? ... P.S.: For example, the Obama administration itself can be seen as having won a new contract to perform the same Federal services, at the same location, as the previous contractor, the Bush Administration. Did Obama keep all of Bush's employees in order to reduce "disruption" and enjoy "the benefits of an experienced and trained work force that is familiar with the Federal Governments ... facilities"? I don't think so! ... [via Shopfloor] 3:12 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Fist Next Time: What if Obama's first foreign policy crisis is a new Tienanmen Moment in China? Bob Wright and I discuss (after trying to figure out what it means, in Obama language, to "unclench your fist"). ... 11:23 P.M.
____________________________
Geithner: I am not not not being eaten alive by Larry Summers! (Turns out Geithner's just been "exerting subtle bureaucratic influence"!) ... P.S.: For some reason I'm looking forward to the press coverage of mindlessly vicious bureaucratic infighting in the Obama administration. (That sort of ego-tussle can be productive--see Ickes vs. Hopkins.) Was there no domestic policy infighting under Bush, or did the press just not care enough about it to report? ... 10:50 P.M.
____________________________
In Gambling, I Think They Call This A Lock: When Obama gives a rousing speech, it just shows what a brilliant wordsmith he is. When he gives a dull speech, it's "perhaps by design"--he's intentionally deflating excessive expectations!--and his "Spare Inaugural Rhetoric Signals Strategic Mastery." ... Nice work if you can get it. ... 7:28 P.M.
____________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
kf Energizes Its Automotive Vertical: Why did Honda design its new hybrid to look exactly like the Toyota Prius? I like the Prius' appearance, but a lot of people don't. This seems like a missed opportunity to create a new trademark design. Timid.** ... Meanwhile, Mercedes' styling isn't timid, it's vegetative. The new E-class looks exactly like you worried it would look, only drearier. Another reason not to be rich. ... Car & Driver's Patti Maki offers a terse review of the Scion xB's stability in a crosswind: "Made my dog barf in his crate." ...
**--Various readers suggest that people buy hybrids in large part to advertise how environmentally conscious they are, so Honda had to make its car shout "hybrid." That's fine. But it still didn't have to ape the Prius. Come up with some freshly unconventional and distinctive shape that shouts "hybrid" and "Honda" at the same time. Why let the Prius define how hybrids have to look? ... 8:09 P.M.
___________________________.
The "Dear Colleague" letter on card check reveals labor-centric Dems' newest argument for ducking secret ballot elections in the workplace: they're "divisive"! ... So unpleasant, elections. People disagreeing with their union. Management saying nasty things. Why make all that trouble--all that ... what do they call it, "adversarialism"? That's not what today's unions are about! Why can't we just get along? Workers, organizers, employers. We can all ... I know, we can all apply for a bailout together! ... P.S.: What's that you say--aren't strikes "divisive"? That just shows you aren't paying attention. Under the Employee Free Choice Act, unions don't have to go on strike. If management doesn't come around, an initial agreement is simply imposed on them by an arbitrator. No fuss, no argument--and no strike. Everyone's on the same page! It's a new era. ... 6:00 P.M.
___________________________
Is Davos Dying? Julia Allison's going. That could do it. ... Can Rex Sorgatz be far behind? ... 5:39 P.M.
___________________________
Dr. Elders, Call Your Office: I can't believe my colleague Will Saletan hasn't blogged on this yet. It's totally in his wheelhouse. Do the stats reflect just correlation or causation? The viability of a peculiar kind of theraputic, sexually permissive liberalism--most unfortunately symbolized by Bill Clinton's Surgeon General--hangs in the balance. (What if it's healthy to keep it all bottled up?) ... Plus, the cheap, hit-grabbing headlines write themselves! ... We do still want hits, don't we? 5:25 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, January 26, 2009
1) This smells too bad to be true--as if it were a hoax designed to drive me mad. But I got an email pointing to a Rhode Island blogger (Pat Crowley) who says that last week Harry Reid promised to pass both of kf's must-stop bills:
I just left an amazing meeting with a number of members of the US Senate including Sherrod Brown, Debbie Stabenow, Bernie Sanders, Ron Wyden, Carl Levin and Majority Leader Harry Reid, ... Senator Reid promised to pass EFCA by the Summer, give Carl Levin more money for investigations of the Bush administration, and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
All he left out was confirming Chris Bangle as Minister of Culture. ... P.S.: Crowley has Reid on video proclaiming card check "fair" and dismissing worries about preserving the secret ballot as a "bunch of garbage." The audio is indistinct--maybe you'll be able to discern what, exactly, Reid promises to do by the summer. ... P.P.S.: And here you can figure out what exactly, he promises to do on this year on immigration. ...
Meanwhile ....
2) Marc Ambinder continues to falll under the spell of a labor source who has him repeating bogus spin about the EFCA (the "card check" bill):
In effect, EFCA switches the choice to the workers; they can choose whether to hold a card check election or whether they want a regular secret ballot election.
As Jennifer Rubin notes, the EFCA doesn't provide for a worker "choice" of a secret ballot election. If the union gets 50% of its cards signed, the secret ballot election is eliminated. How does this let the workers choose to have a secret ballot? (The "cards" in question don't address the election issue at all--see sample here.) Put it another way: The whole question is how we can determine what "the workers'" legitimate choice is--by a show of signed cards ("card check") or by secret ballot. It's circular for Ambinder to say, in effect, that it's OK to let 50% of the cards determine whether there's a union because, hey, 50% of the workers have signed cards and "chosen" that way to form a union! That only makes sense if you assume the "card check" process is fair and free of intimidation, which is the whole question at issue. If you think secret ballots are the more accurate way of determining individual "choice," for all the traditional reasons we have secret ballots, then there's not much of an argument for letting a non-secret ballot process "choose" to cancel having the secret-ballot process. ...
Finally
3) T.A. Frank's Washington Monthly account of the organizing drive at a Rite-Aid warehouse is being taken by many of my colleagues as explaining why "card check" is necessary. It's a good piece, but a) it doesn't argue for passing "card check." It argues for abandoning the "card check" and passing the rest of the EFCA, especially provisions to increase punishments when employers "undermin[e] the secret ballot process" by doing things like firing union sympathizers; b) Frank's discussion of the other big proposal in the EFCA--imposing a mandatory, arbitrated first contract settlement on employers--is cursory-to-nonexistent. What will it mean to the economy if wages and other contract terms stop being set by the push and pull of negotiation and come to be set instead by arbitrators operating in accordance with some sort of de facto non-market custom? c) Frank suggests fiddling with the election process in ways that would help unions: speeding up the votes, for example, or granting "union members equal access to the workplace during a campaign." But he doesn't acknowledge the ways in which the current Wagner Act unionization process--even the secret ballot process--already departs from common-sense democratic principles in ways that tilt the scale in unions' favor. (For example, an employer "cannot threaten to move or shut down if workers vote for the union. Nor can he promise higher wages" if the union is rejected. Why not? Why not let the workers decide, in each case, whether the employer is bluffing? Employers also aren't allowed to actually give raises in order to win worker support, or to find out what's bothering workers, lest that be interpreted as a promise to fix the problems). ... 6:07 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
On Wednesday, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger predicted there would be no wage cuts as part of the union's concessions to GM and Chrysler. Gettelfinger argued Toyota's workers actually make $2-per-hour more than UAW workers, if you count bonuses. But ... but. ... Toyota did not go bankrupt. ... Toyota hasn't had to be rescued with $17.4 billion of taxpayer money. ... If Toyota can afford to pay its workers $2/hour more than UAW workers--perhaps because it doesn't have to build cars under the union's legalistic work rule system--that's great. It doesn't mean Gettelfinger's workers have a right to $28/hour if at that wage their employers can't stay in business without an ongoing multi-billion dollar subsidy. I'm sorry if this seems obvious. It's apparently not obvious enough. ... P.S.: So will promoters of greater unionization now boast that with unions, workers can earn $2/hour less? ... P.P.S.: The simplest solution would still seem to be to simply not give the Detroit companies more money. Let them keep the bailout funds they've gotten. Fine. A little gift. Beyond that, they have to work out amongst themselves--employers, union, creditors, bondholders, investors--how to survive. A car czar, or board of czars, increasingly looks mainly like a way to provide cover for ongoing subsidies, no? ... [via Autoblog] 11:38 P.M. Post restored 2/2
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Any club that won't have me... : I was surprised to learn that there were special VIP areas at several otherwise extremely enjoyable pre-inaugural parties. Talk about a violation of social equality: how can a party claim to want all Americans treated equally if, you know, the party doesn't treat them equally? Why aren't these things stigmatized like skyboxes at ballparks? These events weren't even fundraisers, for the most part--it wasn't as if the VIPs had paid extra for exclusive first class seats. It was pure status rank--i.e., social inequality.
I see three possible policy initiatives that might restore American values to debauched celebrations:
1. Heap opprobrium on those who go to VIP areas in otherwise perfectly good parties. (It would be unfair to single anyone out. Like Jon Alter!) This might involve turning status striving on itself by suggesting VIP sections are where the losers go. Girls won't make passes at men who have passes, etc.
2. Create a second, tiny glass-walled V-VIP area within the regular VIP area--reserved for special VIPs who are above mingling with mere Alter-level VIPs. This would be a bit of performance art designed to emphasis the self-defeating, infinite-regress quality of mindless status differentiation.
3. Give an award--a sort of Social Egalitarian Oscar**--to celebrities who go to events but don't go to the designated "VIP" areas. ...
Pursuing option 3, kf honors ... Forest Whitaker and Natalie Portman!*** Also Jerry Yang, if he counts. ... I'm sure there are others. ... P.S.: I don't blame the organizers of these events. I assume it's some of the celebrities themselves who demand protection from annoyingly non-famous invitees. The system is to blame, I tell you. ... [If they'd let you in, would you have written this?--ed What makes you think they didn't let me in? You really think they didn't let me in?] ....
**--Suggestions for names gratefully accepted. The Velvet Scissor? ...
***-- These distinguished celebs were spotted mingling harmlessly with mere attendees. Of course, it's always possible they snuck off to the VIP areas to talk to Alter when I wasn't looking! ...
Update: There apparently actually was a glass-walled V-VIP area for J.Lo. and Marc Anthony at ... Cafe Milano. It kept them from Jake Tapper. ... 5:34 P.M.
___________________________
Whippersnappers "Juicebox Mafia": Good label! May it outlast the Israel-Hamas confilct. ... P.S.: For its use in context, see this fabulously pissy Marty Peretz post. ... 5:17 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Quincy Jones campaigns for Minister of Culture by hitting on Soledad O'Brien on national television [Emphasis added]
JONES: My biggest dream is -- I know he's got his hands full with the economic fallout and with the Gaza, et cetera, and so (INAUDIBLE) long time.
And, on a parallel path, though, I'm going to -- as soon as it's feasible, to talk to him. We're getting a petition together for a secretary of the arts with a real Cabinet membership and all, because America is the only country -- whose music is probably most imitated in any country in the world -- the only country without a minister of culture or a secretary of the arts. And I think it's very important, could change this country...
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: I know you put that proposal forward before.
Quincy, Soledad O'Brien is here. She wants to talk to you as well.
JONES: Who is that?
O'BRIEN: I was going to ask you about the impact of Barack Obama, but actually...
BLITZER: Soledad O'Brien is here. And she's going to ask you a question.
O'BRIEN: Hey, Quincy. It's Soledad.
(CROSSTALK)
JONES: You're so cute, girl, Soledad.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: I'm so cute?
(LAUGHTER)
O'BRIEN: Quincy, you know I love you right back.
(CROSSTALK)
JONES: You're so cute, good God. O'BRIEN: Who did you think should be secretary of the arts?
(LAUGHTER)
BLITZER: She's asking a serious question, Quincy, and you're trying to be not so serious.
(CROSSTALK)
O'BRIEN: I'm getting nowhere.
BLITZER: Yes.
Who do you want to be the secretary of arts or the culture minister in the United States?
JONES: Who is that?
BLITZER: Who do you want to be secretary of arts?
JONES: Well, what we're doing before that is we're putting together a summit, so you will have the greatest minds on the planet, you know, that can be like an advisory board to that. ...
We want video. ... Wonkette, asleep at the switch! ... [Thanks to alert viewer M.] 4:50 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Speech: a) Fine. Much better than Bill Clinton's unmemorable inaugurals; b) Short. Or at least seemed short,** relative to what he could have gotten away with. Made three or four non-obvious points ("hard choices," "patchwork," foreign policy realism, service) and ended it. A Johnny Cash song; c) Creeping SOTUism: Clinton learned that while pundits want grand themes, voters like laundry lists of policy specifics. Now the lists even make an appearance on January 20th--e.g.,"raise health care's quality and lower its cost." Aren't Inaugural Addresses likely to be more powerful when they are pitched entirely at a higher level? d) As in, for example, what I thought was Obama's best paragraph, at least when I heard it:
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
Now that I'm actually reading it, as opposed to hearing it, the One-Worldiness of the last sentence seems more salient, and potentially controversial--not simply because of the implications for American "sovereignty," but also because it leaves undefined the terms on which this "common humanity" is revealed and expressed. The outgoing President Bush's wildly ambitious second inaugural ("ending tyranny in the world") made it clear whose terms they were--our terms, "liberty" and "self-government." Is Obama's ambition less "hegemonic," as the left would put it--or only less well-defined (which is not the same thing as 'nuanced')? That question was only partly answered by ...e) Best image (because it's trying to convey a potentially uninspiring concept, namely a fairly brutal foreign policy realism):
To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
f) "Programs will end." We'll see! g) You got the impression that the much-touted "service" portion of the speech was less prominent than anchors like Tom Brokaw would have wanted. That's a sign it was a serious speech, no? "Service" is the ultimate Neutral Story Line--a seemingly substantive idea you can push without seeming partisan (and losing potential customers/viewers/readers/advertisers). Who could be against service? (Not me.) ... Update: h) I suppose "remaking America" is a wee bit grandiose. But it's such a cliched grandiosity it's been drained of meaning. Standing alone, it hints at some deep flaw in the country that demands a makeover. But the context suggests Obama means only responding to the current "crisis" (a "new foundation for growth," etc.)--something like "rebuild" or "renew," not "refashion." The phrase is also followed by reassuring talk of a "return" to "values" that are "old." Yes, I'm making excuses! But they don't seem very upset by it over at The Corner (though Jonah Goldberg finds a few other annoyances). ...
**--As Peter Robinson would predict, I was shocked to learn that Clinton's first Inaugural address was only 14 minutes long. Seemed like forever! ...10:05 A.M.
___________________________
Pre-Oath: Feinstein's little speech seems somehow inappropriate. Why does she get to try to set the tone and talk about "necessary" change? As if that's her role on this day, as opposed to the new President's--as if the audience needs that stage directions read to them. It doesn't help that her words are banal. ... 8:52 A.M.
___________________________.
Conservatives I've met in D.C. so far have been near-ebullient, not downcast or bitter. Why? a) They know how unhappy they'd be now if McCain had won; b) Obama has not fulfilled their worst fears, or even second-to-worst fears; c) now they can be an honest, straight-up opposition. .... 8:37 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Monday, January 19, 2009
Warning (from Politico's Josh Gerstein) 'Be Alert. Be Very Alert': From a January 21, 2001 AP story, "Settling into White House, Bush welcomes the public"--
The president and Mrs. Bush stood at the door of the Grand Foyer to greet some of the 3,000 tourists lucky enough to snag a ticket for the afternoon tour. "I just want to remind everybody that this is not our house," Bush said.
"It is the people's house and one of the grand traditions in the White House is to share the people's house with people from all over the country."
The estimated 300 people greeted by the first couple during about an hour of handshaking had obtained their tickets in advance through the inauguration committee and were first in line. The president and first lady had gone by the time the people who got their tour tickets on a first-come, first-serve basis reached the door.
"I'm disappointed, but obviously he can't greet everybody," said Greg Packer of Huntington, N.Y., who camped out for 12 hours to be first in line when Park Service personnel started handing out tour tickets at 7:30 a.m. Sunday. [E.A.]
You know he's out there. ... It doesn't matter if there are 2 million people in Washington for the Inauguration. Greg Packer, the "entire media's designated 'man on the street' for all articles ever written," will not not be quoted. ... You cannot deny him. You can only hope to contain him. ... 2:08 P.M.
___________________________
"Obama on the Auto Bailout: From the 1/15 Washington Post interview--
Reporter: Sir, you have a tough call coming up on the auto industry ..
Obama: Yes
Reporter: ... and I would like to ask you a little bit about how that's developing. In particular, some members of the party, as you know, feel that it is unfair to require as part of this TARP loan that UAW equalize its wages with the nonunion plants in the South. I would like to ask your view on that particular point. More broadly, how far you think we're going to have to go and how much money we're going to have to spend to rescue this industry or whether you have in your own mind some sense of an end point where it is sort of beyond salvation.
Obama: You know, I'm not yet enough of an expert on the auto industry to give you a detailed answer. We have--Larry Summers has put together a working group to focus on autos in anticipation that they are going to be coming back with either a plan for sustainability or not. But either way we're going to have to make some decisions.
So I'm awaiting that report back from them. What I can say in terms of my general views--and this predates the current crisis-- is that we have to build a sustainable business model for these guys or they have to build it.
And I don't think an acceptable outcome is for us to just keep them on their lifeline through taxpayer dollars in perpetuity. So there is going to have to be a restructuring, and that restructuing is going to have to involve everybody from labor to management to creditors to shareholder, giving something up. ... [E.A.]
Obama goes on to say that the business model "has to anticipate" rising gas prices. ... Anti-UAW reading: He didn't agree with the 'no-equalization" position. He says everyone has to give something up. He says he doesn't want a subsidy "in perpetuity." How can they come up with a "sustainable" business model if they don't match Toyota on wage costs? ... Pro-UAW reading: He didn't disagree. More important, he didn't say he wouldn't support another round of subsidies, as long as they weren't open-ended. (A date certain for withdrawal! The auto bailout sounds more like Iraq every week.) ... kf reading: Another punt (similar to his card check punt). Obama injects some pressure, but not the long-awaited fear of God, into the current Detroit-UAW negotiations. ... 1:57 A.M.
___________________________
One of Henry Kissinger's problems at parties, I'm told, was that people used to come up to him and try to tell him personally how angry they were about his conduct of the Vietnam War. I would imagine that George Lucas, who's been seen at various inauguration parties,** has a similar problem. People are probably more scared of telling off Lucas, though. ...
**--Including at Maureen Dowd's remarkable party, where you had to elbow past Tom Brokaw to get to somebody famous. ... 1:22 A.M.
___________________________
After four D.C. parties I'm in such a state of Washington/Hollywood disorientation that when I saw a handsome lantern-jawed man coming down the stairs, surrounded by fawning admirers, I couldn't figure out if it was Matthew Perry or Joe Scarborough. ... I'm still not completely sure. ... 1:10 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, January 16, 2009
Matt Yglesias defends his manhood! His site wasn't hijacked by Jennifer Palmieri! Rather, he assumed her proposed blog post
"represented her putting her foot down, so I kind of didn't say anything more about it, and just stuck if up there ...."
Hmm. Does that make it any better? ... P.S.: The point is that until recently Yglesias had a nice perch at the Atlantic, where nobody was going to put their foot down simply because he offended a Democratic interest group. But he opted for the joys of cocooning "community," so now when a ranking politico like Palmieri puts her foot down, he rolls over. ... 4:39 P.M.
___________________________
Card Check Slow Track Watch: Labor strategists deny (to Mark Ambinder) that Obama's remarks to WaPo constitute a slow-tracking of "card check." And I know that some business groups still think there's no slow-tracking of "card check" (if it's not in fact already a done deal). So let's assume there's no slow-tracking of card check! ... But it sure sounds to me like the only bill Obama expects to pass soon would be a compromise (for example, retaining the secret ballot but speeding up various time limits or altering other provisions in ways that would still aid unionization drives). ... If you were Obama and you wanted to slow-track "card check," or force a "reform" compromise that feel short of eliminating the secret ballot, you would tell the Post what Obama told the Post, no? If you were a labor strategist and you were worried that Obama was slow-tracking card check, you wouldn't tell that to Ambinder. You'd tell him that there was "every reason to believe" that Obama would keep his "committment," in order to keep the heat on. ... Update: Anti-card checker Peter Kirsanow is still worried. "Unions understand that the planets won't align for them like this again. ... They won't back down." True. But that's also a reason to discount the bravado they show to Ambinder. They're not going to give up this early and say, "Gee, looks like 'card check's' not going to happen.' ... Not that they might not ultimately win. [via Shopfloor] ... See also Rubin. ...
P.S.: Obama's framework is admirably clear. (It's not mine!)
"[I]f the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me."
Of course, the issue isn't only whether it will get far with Obama, important as that is. It's also how far it gets with 41 senators. ...
P.P.S.: Obama says
Here's my basic principle: that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody's control: globalization, technology and so forth. Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom. I think unions serve an important role in that.
The obvious initial question is whether, in a more fully unionized economy, the net productivity gains would be there to be "leveraged" down. Not a lot of gains being leveraged to UAW members these days. ... 2:59 P.M.
___________________________
"You Call This a Downturn?" Well, it depends if that ugly red line keeps going in the direction it's going, no? ... P.S.: Keep in mind, the line measures how much employment has fallen versus all other recessions after x number of months. So the current recession started mild, but is now somewhere between "medium" and "harsh." Trending "harsh." ... 11:45 A.M.
___________________________
Thursday, January 15, 2009
'We Had a Hat': UAW workers rally against wage concessions to GM in Michigan. ... Old Rules: You demanded higher wages and held rallies against your employer. ... New Rules: You demand higher wages, help drive your employer into bankruptcy, and then you hold rallies against the government that bailed you out. ... P.S.: Shouldn't the mayor of Warren, Michigan be more worried about preventing GM from disappearing, taking all its jobs, than preventing a 10% or 20% pay cut? ... P.P.S.: I just took a 10% pay cut! Do you see me protesting? No! But I'm going to milk it for all its worth. ... P.P.P.S.: I see a parallel to the counterproductive Gran Marcha: A few more rallies like this and GM won't see another dime from Congress. ... [via Brian Faughnan]10:19 P.M.
___________________________
Andy Levy turns today's airplane heroism into a pitch to America's Last Employer. ... [via Insta] 9:47 P.M.
___________________________
“I know as much or more than Cheney." Mr. Biden said. "I’m the most experienced vice president since anybody.” Wow. a) Biden has no private sector experience after age 30, right? b) How insecure is this guy? Getting close to dangerously insecure, no? ... And here we we'd just succeeded in explaining away the "I have a much higher IQ than you do" aria of credentialist braggadocio. ... 9:45 P.M.
___________________________
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Inaugural Schmoozalism: kf discovers that the mood in Washington among veteran Beltway Dems is a lot more skeptical of Tim Geithner's innocence regarding his tax errors than public reaction by offical Dems (or some GOPs) would lead you to expect. Maguire would feel right at home. ... 9:32 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
UAW President Gettelfinger pisses on Steven Rattner's possible selection as "Car Czar." Has the union been rummaging around in NEXIS? ... P.S.: But then he'll have to go back to writing for Portfolio and losing money on Maxim. After all those contributions!. ... He still has my full support. ... P.P.S.: You'd expect to see this revealing controversy fully covered in the pages of the New York Times, right? Even though Rattner is the NYT publisher's friend, right? ... Hello? ... Correction: The NYT's oddly formal, bland, unbylined Tuesday story (which I missed) is here. If it wasn't written under special Pravda-esque constraints, it does a good job of seeming that way. ... Update: The NYT story was actually printed (at the bottom of page B3) in Wednesday's paper, which means there was plenty of time to have included the Gettelfinger comments, which seem kind of relevant. ... It's asking too much to expect Pinch's paper to mention, in its potted bio of Rattner, his recent business setbacks. According to the Wall Street Journal, Rattner's firm, Qadrangle, "has struggled as of late. Quadrangle closed down a poorly performing hedge fund late last year ...." ... Update: The Big Money goes where the NYT fears to tread. 11:10 P.M.
___________________________
Uh-oh: General Motors' talks with the UAW over bankruptcy-avoiding wage and work rule concessions have barely begun and already GM CEO Rick Wagoner is talking about asking for more bailout money from Congress, even after the alleged March "deadline." Getting billions more from the taxpayers is something the union and management can agree on! If Obama actually wants them to come up with a cost-cutting deal ... well, it's never too early for a second veto threat. ... P.S.: He'll need to control his own party, yet again:
A Democratic bill circulated last week included provisions that could alter the terms of the loan and ease the requirements on the union to lower labor costs. (WSJ)
None dare call it triangulation. ... 10:57 P.M.
___________________________
Sen. Voinovich won't seek reelection. So how are labor unions going to scare him into supporting "card check" with the threat of campaigning against him? Just asking! ... 10:46 P.M.
___________________________
Early Veto is Like Yeast: "I don't think that's the way you start out a presidency," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va, speaking of the possibility that newly-sworn President Obama would veto a Congressional resolution disapproving the second $350 billion bailout. Why not? A veto seems like a terrific way for Obama to start out his presidency, by showing Congressional Democrats that he won't be pushed around. Legislators will always claim that vetoes are negative "optics"--conflict!--because vetoes are what constrain them. They'd rather have their bloated budgets and other deals sail into law on a wave of backslapping Washington comity. George W. Bush didn't veto anything in his first five years in office--is his success at controlling his own party's Congressional majority's excess something Obama wants to emulate? ... The only veto Obama should be worried about is a veto that would be overridden, but that is said to be highly unlikely in this case. ... 10:40 P.M.
___________________________
Kevin Drum argues a tight labor market isn't an alternative to "greater unionization" when it comes to increasing wages at the bottom of the distribution, saying I've
never explained just how we're going to get to this paradise of perpetual high economic growth and tight labor markets — even though there's a Nobel prize waiting for him if he does. The dotcom bubble managed to accomplish it for three or four years out of the last 30, but that's about it. So until I hear the plan, I'll stick with my support for unions, flawed though they may be.
And Drum has a plan for "low-end wage growth" that doesn't involve restoring the economy? Good luck with that. There's a double Nobel waiting for him, I guess. A triple Nobel if he can boost wages at the bottom while simultaneously letting in millions of unskilled low-wage immigrants. ... P.S.: Drum seems to be explicitly embracing "pie-slicing"--redistributing shares of a non-growing economy--as an alternative to "pie enlargement." Nothing, at first glance, so terribly wrong with that. But can Drum point to a period in modern American history when low-end wages grew without an expanding economy? At least I've got the '90s (and the 60s). ... My crude default view: If we have robust economic growth, we don't need greater unionization to boost low-end wages. If we don't have economic growth, then greater unionization isn't going to do much to boost low-end wages by itself. And greater unionization will actually make economic growth less likely.**
**--Why? Because the litigious, adversarial, cumbersome everything-must-be-negotiated culture and structure of American unionism is incompatible with the flexible, rapidly changing workplace required to be globally competitive in the twenty-first century! (E.g., compare Toyota's production system with Detroit's model.) That's one reason why. ... Also, greater union power (at least until you get to near-universal unionization) promotes the wage-price spiral, requiring depressive Fed action to tame inflation. That's another reason. ... 10:04 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
In mid-death throes, Chrysler actually shows a good-looking car at the Detroit Auto Show. ... Model designation: 2L-8 GT. ... 12:12 A.M.
___________________________
Monday, January 12, 2009
An idea so crazy it just might be crazy! Facing an economic slowdown, possible deflation, declining readership and competition that gives away its product for free, the Los Angeles Times raises newsstand prices 50%. ....Update: Alert reader B emails, "It's even crazier than you say. It's not just the "competition that gives away its product for free" -- the Times gives itself away for free." ... 12:42 P.M.
___________________________
Does the GOP Congressional leadership dare launch a fight over whether Davis-Bacon style wage schedules, beloved by organized labor, apply to various projects that use Obama's stimulus funds? They'd almost certainly lose (as they did when the issue came up in the context of Katrina relief), but that wouldn't be the point. The point would be to take a stand that would a) ventilate the arguments against Davis Bacon; b) highlight Obama's dependence on Big Labor; and c) deter Obama from moving very far in the direction of non-market, bureaucratic determination of wages (through mandatory arbitration under the "card check" bill, direct setting wage scales by the federal government under Davis-Bacon, and eventually, maybe, court-imposed wage-rejiggering to eliminate male/female disparities under the doctrine of "comparable worth").
In a bad recession, why shouldn't we use the government to boost wages above market levels (which is what conservatives say the Davis-Bacon schedules in fact do)? It's not just that, if the Davis-Bacon wage is higher than the market wage, lower wages mean you can employ more people and get more done. The incoming Obama team should actually want wages on stimulus projects to be a little below normal market wages, in order to nudge people to move into regular, non-stimulus private and public projects as the economy recovers, no? That was FDR's policy for the WPA, though he had to break a strike to get it. ... 1:24 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, January 9, 2008
OK, "Caterpillar" didn't make it. (No legs!) But give "Mr. Aflatoxin" time. The left is on the same side as kf on that one. ... 11:50 P.M.
___________________________
The kf Curse! It turns out that alleged CarCzar Designee Steven Rattner, endorsed in this space yesterday, has a large and embarrassing** conflict of interest. NY Post covers. ... More suprisingly, the New York Times picks up on the Post's sniping at Pinch Sulzberger's BFF. But only online (as far as I can see). Rattner's ... special status seems to continue in the print edition (although I won't know for sure until tomorrow)...
**--[Embarrassing?--ed He bought Blender!] According to the NY Post:
Cerberus [which owns Chrysler] recently notified Rattner and his group that they're in technical default of terms to repay a $125 million loan that he used to bankroll his $250 million purchase, two years ago, of sexy lad magazine Maxim and pop-music magazine Blender.
Guy who can't run Maxim wants to run GM! But he still wrote a great union-bashing article. ...11:25 P.M.
___________________________
Thrown into the Burris patch: What makes everyone so sure that Majority Leader Harry Reid was "beaten" and "outfoxed" in the matter of Roland Burris? He was beaten and outfoxed into having one more Democratic senator than he was counting on having. A few more of these beatings and he'll pass card check with 5 votes to spare. ... 10:00 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Thursday, January 8, 2009.
I'm a skeptic when it comes to the genius of reporter-turned-banker and Pinch-buddy Steven Rattner. But he might make a good Car Czar, a position for which he's rumored to be the leading candidate. Why? Rattner covered the decline of the British auto industry for the NYT in the 1980s, and in the process wrote one of the best newspaper pieces ever published about autoworker unions [$]. Rattner compared the production of Ford Escorts at a German car plant with the production of the exact same vehicle at a U.K. plant. The German plant [in Saarlouis] was roughly twice as productive. The difference? An adversarial, work-rule-oriented union culture in Britain. Some excerpts:
But the resemblance ends at physical appearance. This [German] plant produces some 1,200 cars a day, more than the 1,015 that Ford planners had anticipated, and requires 7,762 workers. Its counterpart at Halewood, with virtually identical equipment and production targets, has averaged only about 800 cars a day this year, and 10,040 workers have been needed to achieve even that production level.
''Our standards say it should take something like 20 man-hours of labor in both the body and assembly plants to make an Escort,'' said Bill Hayden, vice president of manufacturing for Ford Europe Inc., in an interview. ''At Saarlouis, they do it with 21 hours. At Halewood it takes 40 hours.'' ...[snip]
Aside from statistics, subjective differences between the two factories become evident. Halewood seems to overflow with workers - some of them reading or eating, others kicking a soccer ball - while Saarlouis seems almost depopulated and nearly every worker in evidence is hard at his job. At Saarlouis, workers dash to open doors for visitors touring in electric carts, while at Halewood, one worker greeted a news photographer by exposing himself. ...[snip]
For their part, the workers at Halewood maintained in recent interviews that shop conditions at Saarlouis were unsafe. ''If that was in England, I'd stop the job immediately,'' said Stephen Broadhead, the ''convenor'' at the body plant, who has visited the German plant twice. ''It was such a violation of our health and safety regulations we couldn't live with it.'' Nonetheless, the Saarlouis plant has the lowest injury record in Ford's entire Europe subsidiary.
In one example mentioned by Mr. Broadhead, the Halewood union summoned a company doctor to rule that two men were required to lift the car hood onto the body, a job performed by one man at Saarlouis. But the other day at Halewood, only one man was lifting the hoods; the second man watched.
''From the very beginning it was always one man who picked up the hood, said Lothar Kotalla, a German worker here, as the dull silver car bodies moved along behind him, 58 an hour. ''It's heavy so we switch every hour.''
Such differences are found to pervade the two plants. In May, the workers at Halewood went on strike for 11 days because they contended that four men could not produce 60.2 transaxle assemblies an hour, as the company and the German experience suggested they could. Five months later, the four men are still assembling about 55 an hour. ...[snip]
Management's efforts are now concentrated on raising productivity, a painstaking process of identifying a bottleneck - at the moment, the assignment of workers and work in the paint shop - and negotiating at length with the unions to remove it. With various shop rules, moving one worker, part of a process known as ''rebalancing,'' often requires that five be shifted.
Does the U.A.W. read Times back issues? ... 2:54 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Bill Clinton in the Oval Office: "I just love that rug." I wonder if that means the same thing as "nice tie"? ... 12:46 P.M.
___________________________
Old lists never die: Will Obama ever stop asking me for money? Or is it all fundraising, all the way out? Here's an excerpt from an email I got recently:
From: Obama tor America....
Subject: Join us at the Inauguration
Friend: ...
You helped shape history, and now you can be a part of it.
Ten supporters and their guests will be selected to come to Washington, D.C. for several days of inaugural events. You could be chosen to fly to Washington, attend the welcome ceremony, the Inaugural parade, the swearing-in, and an official Inaugural ball.
Donate $5 or more now. You could be part of the historic events you made possible.
Not only is he still milking his supporters for money, he's doing it in an obnoxious way, no? "Join us at the inauguration" turns out to mean "pay for other people to party at the inauguration you're not going to"! (Even The Atlantic didn't think of that one.) As if Obama's campaign thinks his supporters are not only suckers, but a particular type of sucker--the type of sucker who contributes because of the tiny chance of striking it rich. ... It's like a crude old-left parody of capitalist ideology (except in capitalism there's a middle class, not just a few winners and millions of gullible chumps). ...
Update: Ambinder agrees, then makes the mistake of listening to the other side. ... 2:15 A.M.
_____________________________
I submit that if the best evidence of Obama's subservience to the Dem "left" is his appointment of ... Leon Panetta, there's not yet much reason to worry about Obama's subservience to the left. ... 1:37 A.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Now Obama's gone and pissed off Slashdot. ... 2:15 A.M.
___________________________
Liberal Media Bias: Occasional Slate contributor Tom Geoghegan is running for Rahm Emanuel's congressional seat. He's a friend of mine, a terrific writer and a man of honor. I'm for him even though I'm sure he's for card check. ... P.S.: You can't call Geoghegan unthinkingly left. In 1972, he wrote a justly famous analysis of the McGovern rebellion in the Democratic Party and its relationship with the student left--still one of the best pieces on the nervous breakdown of post-WWII liberalsim I've ever read. It's online. ... 1:28 A.M.
___________________________
After giving in to a lazy inconclusive lede on whether Richardson's withdrawal might or might not hurt Obama's Southwest strategy (Answer: It might or might not!) NYT's Adam Nagourney finally gets around to asking the obvious key question:
[W]hether the Obama administration’s eagerness to get Mr. Richardson into the Obama cabinet might have contributed to what appeared to be an uncharacteristic laxness ...
And, Nagourney might have added, if there was eagerness why the eagerness. Specifically, was there a pre-endorsement deal?. ... Nagourney doesn't seem to even make an attempt to find out the answer to his question. WaPo at least has some reporting on the vetting process-- and it doesn't reflect well on the expert Obama "team" that "scoured" Richardson's background. If there wasn't eagerness/laxness, it certainly looks like there was incompetence. After all, even if Richardson didn't fully disclose the scope of the investigation that scuppered his nomination, what kind of savvy Washingtonian would take Bill Richardson at his word? A scout for the Kansas City Athletics, maybe? ... P.S.: WaPo certainly didn't get to the bottom of the issue. We demand "tick-tock"--accounts of who said what to whom. And what they were eating. ... Backfill: Byron York notes that, if WaPo's report is right, the FBI seems to have started its background check one (1) day before the appointment was formally announced. ... 1:17 A.M.
___________________________
We'll all be working for Andrew Breitbart one day (if we aren't working for Arianna). In the meantime, he's launched Big Hollywood. ... I'm not sure he can succeed in his mission of getting conservative entertainment industry types to come out of the ideological closet--they're too worried about losing paying work. But that's kind of his point, no? ... 12:25 A.M.
___________________________
Enjoyable anti-DiFi sniping by William Bradley. ... He notes that CIA nominee Leon Panetta is more than just a Clinton loyalist (for one thing, he hasn't been all that loyal). ... But Bradley describes the Iraq Study Group, on which Panetta served, as
"widely excoriated on the right two years ago but whose blueprint is basically being followed today."
Really? I must have missed the part of the blueprint where the Iraq Study Group called for the Petraeus "surge" strategy. ... Update: Fred Kaplan joins the "Keep Kappes" choire, and has a suggestion for breaching the CIA's own internal wall to coordinate intelligence in specific problem areas. ... P.S.: We need a czar! ... Oh, wait. We already have a czar. ... 12:09 A.M.
___________________________
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Michael Hirschorn has seen the future, and it is ... Arianna.
In this scenario, nytimes.com would begin to resemble a bigger, better, and less partisan version of the Huffington Post, which, until someone smarter or more deep-pocketed comes along, is the prototype for the future of journalism: a healthy dose of aggregation, a wide range of contributors, and a growing offering of original reporting. This combination has allowed the HuffPo to digest the news that matters most to its readers at minimal cost, while it focuses resources in the highest-impact areas. [E.A.]
Hmm. OK! .... But I don't quite understand Hirschorn's argument that the proliferation of "lifestyle fluff" in the Times has "undermined the perceived value of serious newspaper journalism." That seems a bit like the argument that gay marriage undermines the perceived value of traditional marriage. How? I don't know anyone who doesn't read the news because of the presence of the fluff. And I know quite a few people who read the news and also love the fluff. ... My problem with the fluff is that the need to generate so much copy, coupled with the subliminal need not to piss off advertisers, leads to what my old collegaue H.R. called "hearty hack" writing. But it's not as if most of the serious Times national reporters are great writers who are tragically infected by the hearty-hack virus. They would be hearty hacks without "Thursday Styles." ... Anyway, HuffPo has started its own lifestyle-y sections--e.g., "Living," and "Style"--for obvious commercial reasons not dissimilar from the Times' reasons. ... 11:30 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Why do people seem to think saying
"I don't get ulcers. I give ulcers."
is winning, as opposed to obnoxious? ... It's not like saying "I don't make art. I buy art." ... 2:23 A.M.
____________________________
Michael Kinsley used to say that every time journalists use the "from A to Z" form of expression--as in "spans the spectrum from A to Z," or "everyone from X to Y"--it only serves to show how narrow the spectrum being described is, not how broad. There's a good example of this Kinsley iron law** in the press-releasey piece The Big Money ran on Mayor Bloomberg's newfangled poverty measure:
For decades, scholars and policymakers across the political spectrum—from Patrick Moynihan to researchers at the American Enterprise Institute—have argued that [the old poverty] measure is broken. [E.A.]
I submit that the distance between Daniel Patrick Moynihan and AEI is something less than vast. It would be more accurate to say that Moynihan is revered at AEI, especially Moynihan's neoconservative tendencies. Chris DeMuth, AEI's president from 1986 until recently, worked for Moynihan. And here's a Charles Krauthammer showpiece AEI lecture that builds on praise for Moynihan.
It's hard to tell if the Big Money's author, Georgia Levenson Keohane, is credulous or simply thinks her audience is. Are you impressed that in developing his new poverty measure, Mayor Bloomberg "met extensively with Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington, who in September introduced the Measuring American Poverty Act of 2008 in the U.S. House of Representatives"? Then you are easily impressed. Keohane doesn't even deal with some of the obvious potential controversies surrounding the new measure (which produced a poverty figure for New York City that is 20% higher). Specifically,
a) Should Medicaid and other government health benefits really be counted at full dollar value? They cost what they cost. But you can't eat fancy health insurance--if it might one day pay for a $100,000 heart operation for you or someone else on the plan, that doesn't mean you're not destitute today.
b) Counting regional variations in the cost of living is a bit fishy, no? If I make enough money to live semi-comfortably in Tennessee, but choose to live uncomfortably in New York City, should I really be counted as part of America's failure to eradicate poverty? Keohane cheers Bloomberg's measure for apparently carrying this to ridiculous extremes by adjusting for varying costs of living "even within the city." It's one thing to suggest that New Yorkers shouldn't be expected to seek cheap rents in Tennessee. It's another to say people in Manhattan can't be expected to move to Brooklyn. And there's an obvious pecuniary incentive for a New York pol like Bloomberg to take into account geographic variations in cost of living--it makes New Yorkers look needier and helps him beg for more federal assistance.
c) The poverty line is just a line--a necessarily arbitrary line. It's mainly useful to show trends--i.e., is there more "poverty" or less? If the line is reformulated so more people fall below it, they are no better or worse off than before. But moving the line serves an obvious propaganda point--if "advocates" can say 23% of the population, not 18%, is officially "poor." Why not avoid the "propaganda" charge by doing what Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution once suggested to me: refine how we measure income, but then set the poverty line so that, for the first year, there are exactly the same number of poor people under both new and old measures. That would make it harder for those on the left to use the new formula as part of a rhetorical scare campaign. Why do I have a feeling that would also reduce much of its appeal to Keohane?
**--Another journalistic iron law: Every time a reporter says a person is funny and gives an example, the example won't be funny. As in yesterday's NYT piece on Bill Richardson--
He is known for his easy sense of humor — during the 2004 Democratic convention, he distributed jars of salsa with his picture on them ... [E.A.]
This rule holds even, perhaps especially, if the person in question really is funny. I do not know whether that's true of Richardson. ... 1:23 A.M.
___________________________
Monday, January 5, 2009
A knowledgeable insider notes a source of labor leverage over on Big Business that I hadn't thought of in discussing (below) a possible Big Business sellout of small business on "card check":
Also, don't forget, the Business Roundtable [i.e., Big Business] in particular has a strong incentive to keep the unions happy on card check because of the pressure unions are exerting on capital markets issues such as access to the proxy, "say on pay," precatory proposals etc. - issues that BRT CEOs really care about. If people really want to understand the leverage unions have, despite their small size, they should look to the power of union pension funds and such groups as CII. [E.A.]
CII seems to be the Council of Institutional Investors, whose membership includes lots of union funds. ... P.S.: It's kind of a sad commentary on American capitalists if they aren't scared of what might happen to their actual production process, but are scared of what self-styled do-gooder investors might say at a shareholders' meeting, no? ... After all, they can always ship those union production jobs overseas. They can't do that with shareholders. ... 8:22 P.M.
___________________________
LAT vs. CFL: The PC Times turns against compact flourescent bulbs, on aesthetic and environmental grounds. I'm with the Times, against the times. Does that put me to the right of Wal-Mart or the left? ... P.S.: Or just in the Shade? ... 6:08 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Too early to gloat on card check: From a respected weekly email written by a top D.C. Hill observer--
In the 111th Congress' first week, House Democrats plan to pass organized labor's first priority, the Card Check bill that would make organizing workplaces easier. Republicans and business passionately oppose the legislation. Timing of Senate action is uncertain, as Senators are consumed with confirmation of President-elect Obama's nominees to the cabinet. [E.A.]
It's tempting for "card check" opponents to gloat about it's deteriorating prospects in the Senate. I've indulged in some near-gloating myself. But it's ill-advised, to say the least. (I'm certainly not going to rely on WSJ's Kimberly Strassel after her disturbingly similar sneering on immigration). ...Among the alarming-but-plausible possibilities, there remains the threat of a deal in which Big Business effectively sells out Small Business by cutting some sort of compromise with Big Labor that would make organizing drives much easier. ...Remember that big companies are probably better positioned to absorb the costs of fighting unions, and they are more comfortable, perhaps, dealing with union bureaucracies. Plus it's likely that big corporations have already been the targets of unionizing campaigns if they are vulnerable. Smaller companies, on the other hand, might not have been worth organizing under the status quo but might become targets if the rules are changed to make organizing less time-consuming. ... The case for a big business/small business sellout doesn't seem as clear-cut as with government regulations (where bigger businesses are almost inherently better able to deal with paperwork). But it's worth watching out for. ... 9:35 P.M.
___________________________
Bill Richardson doesn't even 'vet for Commerce'! Always trust content from kausfiles [see, e.g., last item]. ... P.S.: A HuffPo rundown of questionable Richardson behavior here. ... 9:15 P.M.
___________________________
Rod's Army: Never mind the issues of race or electability. Will labor unions and other powerful Dem constituencies be pressuring Senate Majority Leader Reid to seat Roland Burris, the appointee of tainted Gov. Rod Blagojevich, simply because they think they desperately need one more vote in order to quickly pass controversial bills (i.e. card check!) over a GOP filibuster? Is that why Reid waffled on Meet the Press? Does the pressure to seat Burris actually depend on whether Al Franken gets the contested Minnesota seat--because, at least according to Nate Silver, if only Burris or only Franken is seated, the Dems don't get any closer to their goal (they gain a seat but the cloture-breaking bar rises from 59 to 60 votes)? Did Blagojevich know all this before he made his pick? It's not like he's tight with the SEIU, the major proponent of "card check" within the labor movement. ... Oh, wait. ...
Update: Alert reader S suggests I've misconceived the sitution--that Reid wants Burris seated (for the extra vote) but can't show it for fear of seeming to approve of Blagojevich. Reid would prefer to have the courts to force him to do it--that would be the ideal Kabuki. But this doesn't change the possible role "pressure" might play in forcing Reid to accept something less than the ideal Kabuki--a negotiated deal, for example, or quickly abandoning an appeal after an unfavorable initial ruling. ... 2:26 P.M.
___________________________
-
sponsorship
Friday, January 2, 2009
New Yorker's Sasha Frere-Jones has found a way to make himself readable--limit himself to 140 characters at a time. Unfortunately it seems to be a stunt, not a hard technical limit. [Via Rachel Sklar] 4:16 A.M.
___________________________
Footnote to a footnote to a footnote: Those closely reading the complaint in the Vicki Iseman libel suit against the NYT (and who isn't, really) may notice a quote from Matt Yglesias on page 21, calling the Times' Iseman story "a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt." Q: What's that "Kaus-like" all about? A:Yglesias was almost certainly referring to this 2007 kf post, which isn't about McCain and Iseman but about John Edwards and Rielle Hunter. It argued that Edwards' initial denial of the National Enquirer's original story was too sharp and confrontational (he'd said it was "made up") which was "not necessarily a smart move for a politician in Edwards' position." Yglesias thought I had assumed Edwards' denial was b.s. (which of course it was). I claimed I didn't assume his guilt--that even if Edwards was innocent it would be unwise for him to directly attack his accusers, lest that spur them redouble their efforts and make it a two-day story or worse. I admit it was difficult to avoid assuming Edwards' guilt since I pretty much knew he was guilty.
P.S.--Yglesias wrong, so very wrong: In the event, Edwards' denial spurred the Enquirer to redouble their efforts and they nailed him. ... Meanwhile, Yglesias had argued: "No doubt by now we've had all the legitimate news organizations in the country looking into it and it seems that . . . nobody can come up with any evidence." It turned out, of course, that "legitimate" news organizations hadn't spent a lot of effort looking into it. ...
Whatever you do, do not let this man speak for the Center for American Progress Action Fund! ... 3:17 A.M.
___________________________
1) Immigrants are leaving Southern California. 2) Crime is falling in Southern California (contrary to criminologists' 'hard-times=crime' predictions).
Is there a connection? I don't know. But don't expect the Los Angeles Times to even ask. ... [Thanks to alert reader R.] :2:07 A.M.
___________________________
I missed "The Music of Seal on Ice" TV special. Did someone liveblog? ... 1:44 A.M.
____________________________
You're No LGM, or even FMK: Exhausted by 24 hours of nonstop mindless piece-rate sneering, Gawker's Alex Pareene resorts to one of the oldest tricks in the book! (But you'll have to be nastier than that to make me link, buddy!) ... 1:39 A.M.
___________________________