Informative and Factual, or Lazy and Misleading?

Yesterday's Chronicle had a front-page article titled Economic stimulus or just more pork?

Yes, it was as bad as you'd expect:

As Congress rushes toward what leaders of both parties predict will be a speedy passage of an $825 billion economic stimulus package, critics from GOP lawmakers to government watchdog groups are questioning whether key parts of the bill will spur economic growth or whether they're wasteful pork.

Included in the story:

• Cherry-picked examples of items in the stimulus package that are most likely to seem dubious on first reading: "$200 million to rehabilitate the National Mall...$276 million to fix the computer systems at the State Department...$650 million to repair dilapidated Forest Service facilities", all in the first paragraph.
• A quote from Representative Mike Pence about more money for the NEA ("This is stimulus?")
• A quote from Representative Dick Boner John Boehner with the cash for condoms talking point.
• A quote from "Citizens Against Government Waste" (representing the 'watchdog groups' in the first paragraph), a corporate-backed organization that has shilled for Microsoft and the tobacco industry and currently crusades against 'government-run healthcare' and the stimulus package.
• A reference to the CBO report saying most of the money won't be spent in the next two years.

Not included: More...

• Any analysis of the relative stimulus value of spending vs. tax cuts.
• Any evaluation of whether any given item is, in fact, justified (by economic impact, by need, by future cost savings). To use examples cited in the article, arts spending is an effective economic stimulus; updating Federal agencies' computer systems will save a lot of money in the future; and upgrading low-income housing responds to a real need.
• The fact that the 'CBO report' mentioned above doesn't exist

I don't think the reporter is ideologically opposed to the stimulus plan (there were, of course, 'balancing' quotes). I think he's lazy (or, more generously, overworked, on deadline, or whatever). The problem is one we'll always face: it's easier to mock than to defend--easier to show the cost of something than to demonstrate its value.

When False-Flag Wingnuts Attack

Tammy Bruce in yesterday's Chronicle:

In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn't the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Tammy Bruce in February:

Once again behind or with Barack Obama too close for comfort, Hillary replays the Crying Game. Instead of attempting to counter Obama with better ideas or more inspiring rhetoric, Hillary decides manipulating you is the better option....

Now it's not even enough to have the older Clinton woman injecting pandering emotionalism into the campaign trail. After Chelsea insisted she wasn't going to be involved in order to "protect her privacy" she's proving she's learned a lot from her cynical, manipulative parents.

And Tammy Bruce in January:

You have to give her some credit--she's a darn good actress. Or it may be that switch sticking out of her back. It's funny how her campaign announces the new, more accessible, more likable Hillary, she suddenly cries at discussion of her love for our country.

And there's plenty more where those came from. Yeah, she's real concerned about those sexist attacks on Clinton...

We Write More Letters...

...and another one gets published.

The Great Social Security Con, Part XLVIII

When someone like Debra Saunders takes it into her head to write about Social Security, you just know it won't end well. She starts with a summary of a Christopher Buckley novel (Christopher Buckley being, of course, one of our finest and most incisive thinkers on thorny socio-economic questions)...and it goes downhill from there:

According to Harry Zeeve of the bipartisan budget watchdog group, the Concord Coalition, Boomsday falls some time next year, as the first Baby Boomers become eligible for early retirement at age 62 in 2008.

Things will only get worse. The Concord Coalition figures that by 2018, Social Security will spend more than it takes in. (Medicare already spends more than it takes in.) In 1960, there were 5.1 workers for every 1 retiree. Today, the ratio is 3.3 to 1. By 2040, it will shrink to 2.1 to 1....

President Bush has made matters worse -- by pushing yet another entitlement, a prescription drug program that spends more than it takes in. With the 2008 presidential election looming, Washington won't touch entitlement reform until 2010 -- if then.

It doesn't help that Washington politicians know that older people -- the folks most likely to get more money from Social Security than they paid into the system -- vote. Which means Washington may not try to implement reforms to avoid federal bankruptcy until it is so late that any fix will be exceedingly painful. And extremely necessary, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates that entitlement spending and interest payments will consume 100 percent of federal revenues in 2020....

The Concord Coalition argues that Washington needs "a fiscal wake-up call." But as long as the Un-Greatest Generation produces politicians who get elected to higher office by spending more than the government takes in, that call will never happen....

And: "What happened to the concept of bequeathing our children a better world?" The answer: That was for the last generation. Not us.

Stop and savor the jaw-dropping chutzpah of this. Bill Clinton, whom Saunders hates with a fiery passion, built up a budget surplus in order to fund Social Security. Gore, whom she hates even more than Clinton, would have kept the surplus safe for exactly that purpose. Bush, whom Saunders defends more often than she (ever so mildly) rebukes, blew the wad on tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. Clinton and Gore: in favor of the bequeathing; Bush: opposed. These are the three basic, essential facts without which any discussion of Social Security is an exercise in willful ignorance. Saunders ignores all of them.

But, as I said, we knew this would end badly. Less expected and more depressing: that the Chronicle would devote an entire page to ill-informed and misleading anti-Social Security propaganda, including charts helpfully provided by the Concord Coalition and a stunningly shallow and ignorant commentary by one Caille Millner, who apparently (god save us) is a Chronicle editorial writer. Some excerpts to give you the general flavor:

ALL RIGHT, Boomers. Even if you haven't read Christopher Buckley's satirical novel "Boomsday," you've probably read about how your generation is on the verge of bankrupting the ones who come after you....

I'm sure you're shaking your heads as you read this, thinking how terrible, what a shame, but you still have no plans to give up your Social Security checks. After all, it's not as if the Boomers created the system, they just have to live with it (It's so tough to be a Boomer, isn't it? How do you manage to function, always getting victimized by the Man?).

Enter Mr. Buckley, who perhaps feels the same sort of resentment toward his generation as others do (Why will they never pack up their psychedelics, their self-righteousness, their dreadful Grateful Dead albums and their habit of insisting that the Vietnam War was the *worst*thing*ever -- and move offstage?)....

We don't want to fight the Man -- we want to be the Man....No doubt these beliefs were formed in response to the Boomers' hypocrisy and self-absorption, just as the Boomers' beliefs were shaped in reaction to what they deemed the stodginess of their parents....

Some experts have projected that, in order to maintain Social Security at its current benefit level, Congress would need to raise payroll taxes to 50 percent or more...Can you see my generation, obsessed as we are with making money and having families, agreeing to that? I can't.

And so that leaves us with only one option -- to default....We're not going to kill you off, Boomers, as much as we'd like to sometimes, but we're not going to pay for your old age, either. All the more reason to not only accept but lobby for cuts in benefits now -- before you turn to younger workers for a handout, and realize that we've fled for higher ground.

Yes, we're talking stereotypes so broad and simple-minded that your average braindead wingnut gibe would be ashamed to be seen with them.

Note that both Saunders and Millner conclude that the 'only' solution is to cut benefits--because the 'only' alternative is confiscatory payroll taxes. Both, whether dishonestly or stupidly, buy into the imaginary accounting that arbitrarily disallows funding Social Security from anything but payroll taxes (I think for Saunders it's more of the former, and for Millner more of the latter).

But the dishonesty goes much further than just how to fund Social Security. As Ezra Klein points out (repeatedly), the problem is not Social Security (which is 'insolvent' only under the most pessimistic assumptions, and only at a date that each year moves further into the future) but Medicare (the cost of which is spiralling out of control). Just for perspective: according to the (exceedingly pessimistic) Social Security Trustees' Report, Social Security can be 'fixed' with a 16% increase in payroll taxes; Medicare would take a 122% increase to fund over the long run.

And as Ezra further points out, when we talk about the problem of Medicare, we're really talking about the problem of health care costs in general--the non-Medicare portion of which is rising even more rapidly than Medicare costs. The real problem won't be 'fixed' by cutting benefits or increasing payroll taxes, but by massive change in the health care system as a whole.

All of this said, Millner is almost right in one respect: there really is a tremendous inter-generational injustice being perpetrated here. It's the shifting of the tax burden from taxpayers today to taxpayers in the future (and, more to the point, from wealthy taxpayers to middle- and lower-class taxpayers). This shift is not just something Bush did, it's GOP policy; it's not just GOP policy, it's their fundamental raison d'etre. This is the core of Millner's astonishing stupidity: there is an egregious injustice and an easily identifiable culprit, and Millner never notices either one.

The Chronicle on Pelosi: A Wingnut Responds

In response to the Chronicle story on Pelosi I wrote about yesterday, here's a devastating takedown from Sister Toldjah:

The liberal SF Chronicle lovingly steps in to defend and sweep aside any allegations of ethical problems/corruption on the part of one of their liberal heros, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The GOP attacking til “something sticks” is the gist of the article. Well, things would “stick” if news outlets like the SF Chronicle wouldn’t keep carrying her water for her.

Move along here, nothing to see.

That's it. In its entirety. Nothing more.

I'm sorry, but that's really just kind of...sad. She doesn't try to dispute the factual assertions in the story; she doesn't even bother to look up the GOP talking points she could use. Just a reflexive dismissa, a pro forma objection because, what the hell, somebody has to object.

Does anybody else get the feeling these people aren't even trying anymore?

Pelosi vs. the GOP Smear Machine

I never hesitate to rip the Chronicle when they blow it (which is not infrequently), so I figure I ought to give them credit when they get it right--as they do today, in a story on the GOP's smear war against Pelosi. Edward Epstein, probably the best of the Chron's Washington bureau, sets up the four big Republican attacks (the airplane, the Syria visit, the Samoa minimum wage exception, and the money for upgrading San Francisco piers) and systematically knocks them down. This is what journalism is supposed to do: not just blindly repeat the attacks (with obligatory denials, of course), but evaluate their truthfulness.

Of course, the story doesn't answer the bigger question: why any news outlet still prints anything those guys say. It's been pretty well established that if a story comes from the RNC (or from some GOP congressman's press office, or from some surrogate like Drudge) there's a 100% certainty that it'll be 90% false. Why, then do the news media still treat these smears as if they were news?

The Chronicle's Liberal Bias

Friday's Chronicle had an article about the House passing a card-check bill (see here for why this is important), and for the most part it wasn't bad...but there was one horrifying bit:

[Rep. George] Miller [who sponsored the bill] received $299,000 in campaign contributions from labor political action committees of his total $667,494 raised during the 2005-2006 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, who has received significant support from labor throughout her congressional career, received $349,000 in union contributions of the $1.7 million she raised during the 2005-06 cycle.

The article quotes three Republican representatives who oppose the bill. If you guessed that it doesn't say how much any of them got from anti-union interests, you would be right.

Intentionally or otherwise (probably otherwise), it reinforces the right-wing narrative in which Democrats are beholden to 'special interests' and Republicans act on principle.

I wrote to the Chronicle's 'reader representative' about this, and we'll see what kind of response I get (or don't get). Based on past experience, I'm not optimistic.

It Can Always Get Worse

Debra Saunders's latest starts out with what looks like it could almost develop into a grain of sense:

THE MOST NAIVE sentence in the English language is: It couldn't get any worse.

Yup, that's about right.

If she stopped there, it would be her Best Column Ever. Sadly, she doesn't:

That's an argument many who have protested the war give for getting out of Iraq -- that nothing could be worse than 3,000 U.S. troops killed as the Iraq insurgency has grown stronger.

There she goes with those voices again. Do you know anyone who made that argument? Neither do I. In fact, I recall people making the opposite argument.

And yet she forges ahead:

There is something worse: Some 3,000 U.S. troops dead, followed by the collapse of the Iraqi government, thousands of Sunni Arabs dead, Iraqis who worked with the coalition forces assassinated and their families butchered, and thousands more refugees swarming across the Middle East. Something worse would be 3,000-plus U.S. troops dead after a defeat that has emboldened jihadists, who want to kill Americans, and have become convinced that if they do, the United States won't fight back -- not for long, anyway.

Yup, that's worse, all right. But you know what's even worse than that? All of the above, with 5,000 U.S. troops dead (or 4,000 or 10,000 or however many have to die before we pull the plug).

And additional U.S. casualties are just a small part of the equation. The longer we stay, the more human lives and money and national prestige we invest throw away in Iraq, the worse it will be when we lose--for us, for Iraqis, for stability in the Middle East.

So yes, Debra, it can always get worse. That's why we need to leave now.

[That's all, folks]

Debra Saunders Argues with the Voices in Her Head

I remember this one time many years ago, in a Burger King at the Sacramento Greyhound station, there was a woman carrying on a heated argument with herself in two different voices. It was a little unnerving.

I hadn't thought about that woman for at least a decade...until I read this column by Debra Saunders:

THERE ARE certain arguments that partisans repeat as if they are holy and certain -- until the arguments are no longer convenient. Here are some bromides and political arguments that were broadly used in the last few years, but now have outlived their usefulness, so you probably won't hear them much in 2007:

What, the reader asks, are those arguments? Are they real arguments, advanced by people who are...y'know...real? Or are they...something else?

Let's take a look:

The Pottery Barn Rule: You broke it, you own it. There was a time you couldn't go a day without hearing an Iraq-war opponent invoke former Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous warning about sending U.S. troops into Iraq. Apparently these folks never really believed in the rule, because they now want America to disown an Iraq mired in chaos.

I don't recall anyone using this as an argument against invading Iraq, and a fairly diligent Google search confirms my recollection: not a single pre-war use of the line as an argument against invasion.

Except for those voices, of course.

Impeachment is an attempt to overturn a popular election. The left used that argument repeatedly when the GOP House impeached President Bill Clinton. Funny, you don't hear the left making that argument when Democrats call for the House to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

This is the Debra Saunders Rule of Semantic Moral Equivalence: if the same label can somehow be applied to two different things, then those things are exactly the same, as long as their equivalence bolsters one's preconceptions. (If it doesn't, then they're totally different.)

The president should be more skeptical of U.S. intelligence on Iraq. Forget former CIA chief George Tenet's assurance that it was a "slam dunk" Saddam Hussein had WMD. Bush was supposed to not believe that finding of U.S. intelligence on Iraq. But now, when U.S. intelligence estimates suggest that Iraq is unwinnable, editorial boards across the country assume the intelligence must be accurate.

So the voices in her head tell her the problem was too much deference to the CIA, not manipulation of dubious 'intelligence' for political ends. Meanwhile, the liberals in her head were calling for more manipulation of intelligence by the executive branch. That makes real liberals total hypocrites when they say the president should pay attention to actual intelligence instead of making up their own.

It all makes sense.

Washington's deficit spending is unconscionable. This year, Republicans will want to maintain the Bush tax cuts and Democrats will be enjoying their return to power. In 2007, many 2006 deficit hawks from both parties will go wobbly.

Right. Because if the Democrats, after six years of arguing against the tax-shifting bills that got us into this mess, don't immediately abandon their own spending priorities (while leaving in place said tax shifting), they're total hypocrites.

Americans need to sacrifice and cut back on their energy use to fight global warming. Global warming remains an article of faith, but you can say bye-bye to the notion that fighting global warming will require good citizens to cut back. GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger sees no problem with owning four Hummers and tooling around in a private jet -- while he orders the state to reduce its output of greenhouse gases. Former veep Al Gore, who once wrote that fighting global warming would require "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society," now tells gullible movie-goers that fighting global warming will be good for the economy and create jobs.

That Schwarzenegger--he's like the poster child for liberal hypocrisy. Except for, y'know, not being a liberal. No matter how much those voices say he is.

And if you can find the contradiction in what the voices in her head tell her Gore is saying, you're a better Republican than I am.

Bush hasn't asked Americans to sacrifice because of the war in Iraq. Most of the folks I see making this argument aren't sacrificing anything to further the war effort either -- they're just using the war to bolster their support for higher taxes on the rich. And they want the need for sacrifice to turn Americans against the war. Now that polls show that Americans don't support the war, the pro-sacrifice crowd will ditch the phony sacrifice argument. [emphasis added]

Isn't it nice that the voices in her head tell her all about the future as well as the present? Don't you just want to call her up and ask her for tips on the horse races...and bet on any horse but the ones she recommends?

[That's all, folks]

Consensus, Unanimity, and 'Controversy'

I sort of glossed over a point in this post (the distinction between consensus and unanimity) that bears a little more scrutiny, because it's essential to how scientific 'contrarians' like Singer operate. Consider this bit:

"Well, which is it?" Singer asked. If there is a consensus, there should be no deniers.

And apply it to, say, the Holocaust:

"Well, which is it?" David Irving asked. If there is a consensus, there should be no deniers.

Under the Singer/Saunders standard, there is no consensus that the Holocaust occurred; after all, if there is a consensus, there should be no deniers. There is no consensus that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, for that matter--not as long as a single person asserts that it is flat.

And so, knowing that many reporters unconsciously apply this standard, people like Singer are able to manufacture 'controversy' simply by asserting something contrary to the (genuine) consensus. (It's not just corporate shills, either; this is exactly what the creationists do as well.) It doesn't work so well with the Holocaust, probably because most journalists are better versed in history than in science, but it is maddeningly effective in matters requiring a modicum of knowledge in any area of science.

[That's all, folks]

Debra Saunders: Still Scientifically Illiterate After All These Years

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...and a very little knowledge is damn near lethal. See, for example, Debra Saunders, whose general impression that global warming is a crock makes her vulnerable to all sorts of misinformation.

As usual, she finds a scientist to validate her ignorance. Unfortunately for her, the scientist is Fred Singer. Singer, a professional global warming denier, is founder and president of the SEPP--which, in the past, has also argued against links between CFCs and ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke and lung cancer. You won't be shocked to read which industries fund them.

She triumphantly cites a couple of articles about the UN IPCC report that came out earlier this month. One is a Telegraph piece reporting that the IPCC has downgraded its estimate of the potential rise in sea level. Happily, Tim Lambert disposes of this neatly:

The reporter has confused climate sensitivity (how much warming you eventually get from doubling CO2), with predicted warming in 2100. In the third assessment report the top end of the range for sensitivity was 4.5, while the top end for warming by 2100 was 5.8. These numbers haven't changed in the new report, all that has happened is that the reporter has mistaken the 4.5 number for sensitivity as a new estimate for warming and reported it as a reduction from 5.8.

The other reports that methane from livestock is a greater contributor to global warming than automobiles. Saunders, of course, trivializes this as 'cow farts', and appears to think it's a 'trees cause pollution' sort of thing (hey, it's animals releasing those greenhouse gases!). If you read the UN press release, though, you see it's still all about human causes: increasing methane emissions are just another part of the heavy environmental price we pay for the fact that more people are eating meat. (Industrial agriculture appears to contribute in other ways, if I read the piece correctly; what livestock are fed, for example, appears to be a factor in methane emissions.)

But what does that matter when she has someone like Singer to reinforce her ignorance:

If there's one thing that irritates Singer, it is Gore's belief that there is a scientific "consensus" about human-induced global warming, even as Gore incessantly complains about scientists who deny global warming.

"Well, which is it?" Singer asked. If there is a consensus, there should be no deniers.

I don't know if Singer is being stupid or dishonest here; I'm inclined to guess the latter, as surely anyone with his background should understand the distinction between consensus and unanimity. Debra Saunders, though--I'm pretty sure she doesn't. And that's just one reason why science should get a restraining order to keep her from coming any closer than a thousand yards of it.

[That's all, folks]

"San Francisco Values"

Today's Chronicle has an article about the Republican demonization of what they call "San Francisco values". It's full of all the hateful quotes you would expect--from Bill O'Reilly and the other usual suspects--but the heartening part of the story is a sidebar in which area residents are asked to give their definition of "San Francisco values". The responses are wonderful:

Cherie Querol Moreno, Daly City
Progressive thought and action distinguish San Francisco and the Bay Area from the rest of the nation.

Chiang Hsu, San Francisco
Cable cars, hills, windy weather and multiple cultures are the images of San Francisco. In my opinion, It is the most beautiful city in the United States. Modern and Tradition coexist here. How cool!

Reg Bronner, Oakdale
I have lived in San Francisco several times in my life. It is definitely "a live and let-live" town. You have to accept people for who they are. Wherever I have gone in the world, particularly back East, Europe and the Mideast, the tolerance I learned in the city has paved my way to social acceptance and economic success.

Calvin Gipson, San Francisco
"San Francisco values" means freedom -- to be yourself and express yourself as you like, to be imaginative, inspired and included. To be free from judgments, hatred and disempowerment. Sadly, the city is becoming mainstream, less tolerant and more conservative, which means less freedom, creativity, diversity and acceptance.

Kitty Threlkeld, Wilton
It's usually meant to evoke fear of a liberal agenda far to the left of "normal." However, having lived and worked there for a major portion of my life, I have come to understand that it actually means "an oasis of tolerance," where one may be as flamboyant or as staid as one pleases, without consideration of a societal "normal."

Norm Van Maastricht, Redwood City
The phrase is often a prelude to a derisive condemnation of unspecified lifestyle and beliefs of a few being attributed to many. It is sometimes used to create a political boogeyman implying perverse, unpatriotic attitudes. A classic buzzword with no exact definition. Ask Karl Rove.

Mark Freeman, San Francisco
How about "caring for the 'least of them,'" for there could go you and I? Or maybe something radical like doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? Or just plain taking an interest in everyone, seeing them as worthwhile, or in local vernacular, "a trip"?

Byron Gordon, San Francisco
It means that we are a city inclusive of a diverse array of people from all walks of life. We question authority and demand greater insight into complex problems. But one thing we will never tolerate is hatred or violence.

Alan Jewett, Oakland
San Francisco values are my values, your values, their values, our values. People who are uncomfortable with the thoughts, feelings, opinions, lifestyles, politics, religions and choices of others will probably be uncomfortable here.

Amen to all of the above. The rest of the country could profit from values like these.

There was one dissenter from the common sense consensus:

Ted Mavrakos, Concord
A city overrun by people who are out for themselves. The louder, more anarchistic and more obnoxious, the more powerful. Bicyclists, bums, thugs, politicians who think that they can dictate world policy when they can't even control their own city -- they represent to me what San Francisco has become. Not what it potentially could be, but what it is now.

But obnoxious as he is, I don't have the heart to wish him ill; after all, living in Concord is its own punishment.

Also see Blognonymous for another excellent definition of "San Francisco values".

[That's all, folks]

Shiny Happy Iraqis...Or Not

Shorter Debra Saunders: "I wrote an entire column based on cherrypicked numbers from an outdated poll, and the newer poll results are so bleak that even I have to admit they aren't totally rosy, but I'm still going to pretend I was right in the first place."

The longer version is a study in the mental contortions necessary to sustain the faith of the dead-enders...

For example, a reasonable person might say that if the number of people who think Iraq 'is moving in the wrong direction' is itself moving in the wrong direction, it suggests that, in an objective sense, Iraq is moving in the wrong direction. Saunders, however, looks on the bright side: the current number "beats the 44 percent of Californians who told the Public Policy Institute of California that the state is heading in the right direction." (That just tells me Iraq would be even worse off if they had Schwarzenegger as governor.)

Or take this bit:

The majority of Iraqis still answer, despite all the hardships they have experienced since the U.S.-British invasion, that they personally believe ousting Saddam Hussein was "worth it." The latest number is 61 percent -- 81 percent of Kurds, 75 percent of Shia Arabs and 11 percent of Sunnis -- although the overall number is down from 77 percent in January. [emphasis added]

You or I might see the vast discrepancy between Sunni and Shiite (or Kurdish) opinion as an ominous sign of intractable differences; we might well wonder if the Shiites are happy because Iraq is moving toward a Shiite-dominated theocracy, or if the Kurds are happy because Iraq is moving toward dissolution. Not Saunders, who clings resolutely to the 61% figure as a kind of vindication. There is no bad news; there is only good news that hasn't yet been spun as such.

Even unspun, it seems to me that the poll results in question are probably overly optimistic--not through any fault of the pollsters, but because of basic Iraqi reality. I think it's a pretty safe bet that the most dangerous and discontented areas are probably undersampled. (Drastically undersampled, if the polling agency has any concern for the safety of its employees.) What's more, if I read the methodology correctly, they made no attempt to survey the 1.5 million Iraqis who have fled the country. (I think it would be fair to put them all in the 'moving in the wrong direction' camp.)

Questions of accuracy notwithstanding, though, I give the pollsters credit for trying to learn something of what Iraqis think. That's credit I don't give to people like Saunders, who care only about proving themselves 'right', and see only what they need to see to keep believing until the bitter end.

[That's all, folks]

Quote of the Day

Jon Carroll:

This war was an unnecessary failure. If we had not invaded Iraq, if we had just let the U.N. inspectors do their work, if we had neutralized Saddam Hussein by other means, the world would be better. It's not that we fought the right war in the wrong way; we fought a deeply stupid war in a deeply stupid way.

Yes, it's what we all know already...but he puts it so well.

[That's all, folks]

Experiments in Child-Rearing

Debra Saunders nearly always makes me want to bang my head against a wall, but yesterday she nearly gave me a concussion with a column headed Intolerance, a San Francisco treat.

The background: San Francisco supervisor Bevan Dufty, who is gay, had a child with a lesbian mother; they're now living together and raising the child together. Local anchorman Pete Wilson, who also has a radio show, devoted an hour of his show to criticizing the whole arrangement. Among other things, he said a baby is "not an experiment. It is not an opportunity to see how far you can carry your views on parenting, alternative lifestyles or diversity in family structures." In response, two other Supervisors, Tom Ammiano (who is gay) and Ross Mirkarimi (who is not) have called for Wilson to resign.

Which sets up Saunders' pet theme of The Intolerance of People Who Are Tolerant:

Yes, San Francisco is very tolerant -- unless you hold the wrong opinion. Then the supes will try to get you fired....gays and S.F. supes are...trying to get a man fired for expressing views they don't like. They clearly don't appreciate the beauty of free speech: When you don't like what someone says, you talk back. You don't silence dissenters, unless you are afraid of what they say.

Now, I think calling for Wilson's resignation was supremely silly. It's silly on a substantive level, and it's incredibly dumb on the level of appearances. It's crap like this that gives Saunders and her kind a fig leaf for the lie that lefties are 'intolerant'.

What's more, I don't think Pete Wilson's comments were necessarily bigoted. Narrow, yes, but bigoted...he's been a friend in the past, and I think it would be stupid and false to call him an enemy now.

That said, what Saunders completely misses is that Wilson's comments really were completely inappropriate and uncalled-for. They were inappropriate because it's none of his business. (Saunders not only fails to understand this but joins in the fun: "While I am sure Dufty's daughter is a beautiful child, I, too, wonder if this Instant Family will last." Thanks for sharing, Debra.) Nobody is accusing Dufty of abusing his child, or neglecting her, or doing anything at all that would make his home life our--society's--business. So while I wouldn't call for Wilson's resignation, I would cordially invite him to shut the fuck up.

Jon Carroll, writing in Monday's Chronicle, does get it:

Here's the breaking-news non-flash: It's all an experiment. Every adventure in parenting is trial and error, generally performed by people totally unqualified for the task. I think of myself at 23, which is how old I was when my first daughter was born, and I think: Would I entrust an infant to this man? Absolutely not. I remember him well. He was barely sentient. He meant well, usually, but he was deeply ignorant....

This isn't about political correctness, whatever the hell that means now. This is about raising a valiant child, and Dufty and Goldfader should be allowed to do that without having to worry about talk show hosts looking for a horse to ride.

Families are different. Families change. Traditional families become non-traditional, and vice-versa. What doesn't change is that raising a child is the most difficult thing in the world. Those people who have the courage to do it should be allowed to do so without unwarranted interference from bystanders with an agenda.

[That's all, folks]

Proposition 90: Revenge of the Property Rights Fundamentalists

The worst thing on this year's California ballot is Proposition 90.¹ It's a bait-and-switch kind of deal: the bait is limiting local governments' ability to use eminent domain to benefit private businesses (very popular after the Kelo decision); the switch is a requirement that government reimburse landowners for any regulation that diminishes the economic value of their property. The latter provision would cripple environmental and land-use regulation at the local (and probably state) level.

So who's behind this?

According to an article in Thursday's Chronicle, Proposition 90 is 92% funded by a network of groups controlled by Howie Rich, a wealthy Libertarian real-estate investor in New York.

It's fairly clear that the groups, which shuffle money back and forth among themselves, are set up in order to hide the source of donations. Rich says his donors want anonymity because they fear government retribution, but it seems more likely that voter retribution is the real fear. There also appears to be some astroturfing going on; Rich tries to spin them as sustained by thousands of small donations, but won't disclose any donor lists to verify the claim.

Proposition 90 is currently ahead in the polls--among people who are aware of it, which at this point is something like 28%. Unless a lot more people learn what it really means, and who's behind it, a single property-rights fundamentalist from the opposite coast will succeed in destroying California's ability to govern ourselves.

In the same edition of the Chronicle, there was also the heartening news that Eastshore State Park, a dream of East Bay environmentalists for 30 years, is finally becoming a reality. 30 years ago there was nearly no public access to the Bay between Emeryville and Richmond, and dozens of developments were planned for the waterfront; now, an 8.5 mile stretch of shoreline is protected as parkland. It took a lot of public action and intense negotiating over the years to make this happen. Without the leverage of land-use regulations, it would have been impossible.

If Proposition 90 had been in effect 30 years ago, there would be no Eastshore State Park. If it passes, nothing like it will be possible in the future. The story of one crucial victory serves as a timely reminder of what's at stake in this election.


¹This is not to slight the second-worst proposition on the ballot. Also, the whole governor Schwarzenegger thing--I still cringe when I hear that.

[That's all, folks]

Best Bad Reporter Ever

Yeah, I know I say that all the time...but this time, really. Click on the image for full-size (i.e., readable) comic.

[That's all, folks]

A Tale of Two Headlines

At the top of page A3 in today's Chronicle:

Alerts aid terror goals, study finds
Intense media scrutiny and politicians' rhetoric heighten sense of fear, researchers say

The next story down on the page:

Bush invokes bin Laden as he warns of terror

Any questions?

[That's all, folks]

Wingnuts, Armitage, and Plamegate

Debra Saunders, who never met a Republican talking point she didn't like, jumps on the Plamegate-is-really-nothing-because-Armitage-was-the-leaker bandwagon:

WITH the disclosure that former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the initial source for Robert Novak's July 2003 column that outed CIA operative Valerie Wilson -- also known as Valerie Plame, wife of former ambassador and Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson -- it is now clear that all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta against the Wilsons is bunk.

The basic premise (for Saunders, and for all the other wingnuts repeating the party line) is that only the leak to Novak could possibly be considered wrong, and that any subsequent leak was perfectly okay.

To illustrate one reason why this is ridiculous, here's a little timeline:

• June, 2003: Armitage tells Woodward about Plame; Woodward sits on the information.


• June 23, 2003: Libby tells Judy Miller Wilson's wife might work for the CIA.


• July 8, 2003: Libby gives Miller more details about Plame's position. Armitage meets with Novak and tells him.


• July 11, 2003: Rove tells Marc Cooper.


• July 14, 2003: Novak column about Valerie Plame.

In other words, both Libby and Rove leaked the information before it was common knowledge. Miller testified that Libby was her original source, and Cooper testified that Rove was his.

And then there's the enormous leap of logic to the conclusion that "all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta against the Wilsons is bunk." To accept that, we would have to assume that Armitage's leak erases the actions of Rove and Libby--that because Armitage was apparently first, what Rove and Libby did not only wasn't wrong but didn't happen at all. But we know it happened. We know they did what they did. We know that both of them lied about it (although Rove ultimately skated on that charge). We also know that Cheney gave Libby a copy of the Wilson piece with notes that appear to be marching orders for the anti-Wilson pushback ("did his wife send him on a junket?").

I won't go so far that the case is proven...but, really now: we have the documents; we know who Cheney is, and how he operates; we know who Rove is, and how he operates; we know what the administration as a whole is, and how it operates; and it all adds up to circumstantial evidence strong enough for ordinary people (if not a Federal grand jury) to judge them guilty. The claim that the Armitage leak vindicates the White House--that it proves their innocence--is a sad and desperate attempt to deny the obvious.

Update: Via Atrios, I see that the WashPo editorial board are also drinking the Kool-Aid.

[That's all, folks]

Climate Change in the Sierra

Well, that's it for fun in the Sierra (for now). Now we get the gloom and doom: an excellent article (from Sunday's Chronicle) on the effects of climate change on the Sierra. Likely scenarios include the extinction of rare amphibian and bird species; forests vulnerable to disease and catastrophic wildfires; shrinking alpine environments; and a 40-90% reduction in spring runoff, which is the primary water source for most of California.

And just to be clear, this is already happening. Average temperatures in the Sierra have risen 2 degrees over the last 30 years. Glaciers have already shrunk drastically. The yellow-legged mountain frog population has plummeted.

The word 'global' lends an unfortunate sense of abstraction to the phrase 'global warming'. People tend not to think much about the world--it's too big and varied to conceptualize. What they think about is where they live. Global warming is happening globally, but the effects are local. Every one of us will be affected at a local level; places we know love are being altered beyond recognition, not at some point in the distant future but now, within our lifetimes. That's the part we all need to understand if there is to be any mobilization to address the problem.

[That's all, folks]