Me: Frank Lynch
Home
(Current
commentary)
These are my mundane daily ramblings.
For something
less spontaneous, I maintain The
Samuel
Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,700 Johnson quotes), with a
weekly essay springing from one of
Johnson's quotations.
Email:
frank
dot
lynch2
at
verizon
dot
net
Mickey Kaus could benefit from some
statistics courses. In his blog at Slate (see
"Nagourney buries the lede again") he suggests that New York
Times writer Adam Nagourney should have pointed out that
preference for Bush vs. Kerry had increased. In a prior poll,
Bush lagged Kerry by 5% points, but now by 3% points. Kaus's
mistake isn't uncommon, but here's where it is: the current poll
has an error range of 3% points; the prior one probably did also.
The error range on an estimate of whether or not there's a
difference from poll one to poll two is probably a little less
than twice 3% points — meaning that the 2% point change in
the preference difference is probably insignificant. Nagourney
shouldn't have written about it because it the difference isn't
significant enough (statistically) to discuss in any other
language but "we cannot conclude that preference is any different
now than it was before."
Oops update: Kaus is talking about more than a
whittling of the lead, but a reversal a shift of 8% points.
Link 7:07 PM
Tomorrow being St. Patrick's Day, you
may want to see how it's going in Dublin? Web cams abound, but
according to this route
map the parade will be going across the O'Connell Bridge...
Which means this
web cam should help, since it overlooks the bridge. Only, I
don't know if you'll be seeing the marchers' fronts or backs... I
haven't been to Dublin in almost 15 years, but I think
this shot is looking north across the Liffey. The parade starts
at noon in Dublin, so that's 7 AM in New York.
Link 1:17 PM
It's a wet snow, 
pretty, but pretty useless for anything a
kid would like. It's not sticking to the sidewalks at all. Just a
mess here.
Link 12:29 PM
The picture is getting clearer, and Bush must take ownership for the deficits. Bush has frequently blamed the deficits on the recession he said he inherited from Clinton. But according to a new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the recession only accounts for about 6% of the deficit. This is important, of course, because Bush advisers frequently argue for tax cuts for their stimulative, revenue increasing power. For instance, in a White House online chat, Greg Mankiw said:
The tax cuts were aimed to stimulate aggregate demand in the short run and promote sustained growth in aggregate supply in the long run. As the economy recovers, more tax revenue will flow in. Together with spending restraint, this will lead to reduced budget deficit.
(One major problem, of course, was that the tax cuts were
targeted towards the rich, who didn't need the help, and
apparently didn't create new companies or expand their employment
roles. (Not that anyone outside of the White House expected
that.) At any rate, Bush is going to have to accept the fact that
the deficits were mostly created by his
tax cuts.
Link 12:15 PM
It's started... I don't know if 
this
will be our last storm of the season, but the mix arrived a
couple hours ahead of schedule. This is a view out the front
window, after a half hour. Some areas could get 3-6".
Link 10:42 AM
Step right up! Step right up! It
really looks like we were played for chumps, and the
barker even called out to the news reporters at the same time
as calling out to the CIA and the Pentagon. Let's tally up the
impact of this deception: huge budget deficits; protracted the
hunt for Osama Bin Laden, while the administration was
distracted; a foreign policy in shambles; the dead in Spain, now;
and the downfall of President Bush this coming November. I bet
Bush is thrilled.
Link 10:28 AM
Our 2003 excursion in Iraq struck many as a diversion from the war on terror. Paul Krugman sums it up nicely in his column today (although the thought itself is not new):
...crucial resources were pulled off the hunt for Al Qaeda, which had attacked America, to prepare for the overthrow of Saddam, who hadn't. If you want confirmation that this seriously impeded the fight against terror, just look at reports about the all-out effort to capture Osama that started, finally, just a few days ago. Why didn't this happen last year, or the year before? According to The New York Times, last year many of the needed forces were tied up in Iraq.
I noted that this isn't a new thought; it was voiced loud and clear, early, by Al Gore. In a September 2002 speech he recognized the overall terror threat, saying "We ought to assume that the forces responsible for [September 11 attacks] are even now attempting to plan another attack against us." Yet even while he saw the importance of Iraq in its region, he was concerned about distraction:
To begin with - to put first things first - I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it. The vast majority of those who sponsored, planned and implemented the cold-blooded murder of more than 3,000 Americans are still at large, still neither located nor apprehended, much less punished and neutralized. I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than was predicted. Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another. We should remain focused on the war against terrorism.
I don't expect to tally how many are saying what about the
Spanish elections, but opinions seem split, with one side saying
the overturning of the government means the terrorists won, and
another saying that it's democracy in action, in response to a
blurring between terrorism and Saddam Hussein. No matter whether
or not the terrorists won, I think it's safe to say that a
government which ignored the will of its people lost. If George
Bush really wants to make his "Coalition of the Willing" more
permanent, he'd better get the UN to talk to Spain pretty
quickly: it doesn't look like he has much credibility with a
nation that just lost 200 lives in bombings.
Link 9:37 AM
Satan's Laundromat went to
Queens. The tram shot is great; so is the last of the bunch.
"Susan, the plans they made put an end to
you..." Last week I was fortunate to win an eBay auction on
an item I'd lost in my fire twenty years ago: a Blood Sweat &
Tears music book covering their first four albums, with detailed
arrangements written out. This was a book I'd had since high
school, and it was probably the most complex pop music book I'd
ever owned prior to Todd Rundgren. Getting it in the mail was a
great joy: Dick Halligan's and Fred Lipsius's arrangements were
every bit as responsible for the BS&T sound as David Clayton-
Thomas's voice was over those years. Clayton-Thomas was like the
brand logo, an obvious cue to whom you were listening to, but
Halligan and Lipsius were what made it interesting. If they had
stayed after Clayton-Thomas left, I think the band might not have
run off into obscurity so quickly — the other personnel who
remained mattered, but not as much. Anyway, if you don't have a
copy of BS&T 3, their recording of James Taylor's "Fire and Rain"
is just outstanding. They really re-work it, and quite nicely.
It's no longer a simple song, but neither is it heavily laden
with details either. It's just interesting in ways that go beyond
the words. You can listen to the song at Amazon on the page for the CD, but I honestly don't
know how complete the sample is. It's just so good: it builds
nicely, has some great guitar work by Steve Katz... Could well be
one of my favorite recordings of all time, depending on the size
of the list.
They make it so hard to keep up. Our
Ministry
of Information is here. Twenty years late, Mr. Orwell, but
it's here nonetheless. The NY Times reports: Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in
which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists
praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be
offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their
prescription medicines. The videos are intended for use in local television news
programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a
standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare
law on Dec. 8. The materials were produced by the Department of Health and
Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the
source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a
woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it
had hired her to read a script prepared by the government. That's not the only example. Read the
whole thing.
I'd say that's conclusive. Prior to
joining in a protest against Bush's handling of Iraq, Sue
Niederer prayed to her son who had died in compat in Iraq for a
message: if he didn't want her to protest, he was to see
that her tires were flattened. Another constituency has been
heard from, Mr. President.
Last week's horrendous bombings in
Madrid have prompted renewed questions about the war on
terror and whether or not John Kerry is sufficiently serious
about it. A statement John Kerry made in a January debate, as
extracted by the Washington Times back then, made it sound
as if Kerry is too soft. The Washington Times article went like this: The newspaper provides no other context beyond that, and in
that form it's been picked up by conservative web logs all
around. (Google lists 173 web pages with the phrase "misleading
all Americans in a profound way.") I've seen very few instances
where the quote is put into the context of the debate, and even
seen some that claim
it's the whole quote. But it's not. Here's the
transcript from the debate, as reported in the Washington Post: BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on
terrorism? KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass
destruction, number one. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass
destruction, number two. I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear
exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in
a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally
military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long
time. And we will need the best-trained and the most
well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have
today. At no point does John Kerry say that we don't need to
worry about terrorism, only that there have been instances where
it's been exaggerated. Is that charge correct, that it's been
exaggerated? First, let's start with making sure we understand what the
word exaggerate means, so there's nothing to quibble about. From
Dictionary.com, which
draws on the American Heritage Dictionary, we learn the verb is
defined as:
(Sorry to come off as pedantic, but sometimes people quibble
over definitions when defending their positions.) What instances do we have? With just these two pieces of evidence, it's clear that
Kerry's claim that the terrorism threat has been exaggerated is
on target. Another conservative web log has renewed the charge
that Kerry is complacent — offering nothing more than the
Washington Times reporting — but it doesn't hold water. And
I repeat, Kerry said nothing about ignoring the threat.
It reads as if Cyndi Lauper put on
one heck of a show the other night at Town
Hall, and I hope the DVD will be out soon. We haven't been
fans for very long, just a few years... We were convinced by her
Christmas album, and buying At Last seemed like a no-brainer.
Practicing a religion entails
sacrifice. Could anything be more clear? And Lent is a season
where those who observe it should understand that sacrifice is
part of the deal; even more so on Good Friday. I don't
know how many are grumbling about it, but with the Boston Red
Sox' home opener falling on Good Friday (a meatless day in the
Roman Catholic Church), that means no hot dogs at the ballpark.
None. And don't count on your local church to shut an eye for
you: opening
day is not that important. Didn't you learn anything
when you went to see Mel Gibson's movie? Cheeses!
If Al-Qaeda was really part of the Madrid
attacks, one of the hypotheses, I find it disconcerting that no one
has mentioned any of the chatter that gets cited when the US
feels the possibility of threats against the US is felt higher.
We'll have to wait to learn more, but I do hope that they haven't
found some new way of communicating which makes them more
difficult to detect.
New Jersey and the Netherlands? The
post below made reference to the population of Spain, drawn from
the CIA's
World Factbook. It's a valuable bookmark, so I would check it
out if I were you. When I looked up info on the Netherlands, a country I have a little familiarity with, I
learned that its size, comparatively, is almost twice the size of
New Jersey. I started to imagine two New Jerseys (which would
mean two of everyone I know there — a bit unsettling) and
then squeezing it into the Netherlands. At first that seemed like
fodder for comedy, but then I remembered that once you get out of
the industrial/refinery sections surrounding Newark, much of New
Jersey is agricultural, as
is the case with the Netherlands. And, because of the proximity
to New York City and Philadelphia, New Jersey is well-served by
public transportation, too, just like the Netherlands. I wish I
could close this with some flip remark like "now if we could only
get the Dutch to start wearing blue eye shadow..." but I'm more
overwhelmed by the similarities now.
March 11 really was Spain's 9/11. The
heartless could quibble about the body count, but Spain only has
40 million people, vs. the 290 million in the US. So 198
lives in Spain, in that context, is similar to 1435 lives in a US
context. Spain doesn't make these comparisons, undoubtedly, but a
smaller country knows how 198 feels. Hopefully, even larger
countries know how 198 feels. It was a horrific attack.
Bessie Smith is bigger on my radar
screen in the past few weeks. She recorded about 160 songs
for Columbia in the 1920's, and they're available on 5 different
2-CD sets. For some reason a few years ago I bought volume 4, and
only volume 4, and have listened to it off and on. A couple weeks
ago the New York Times ran an
article on Robert Johnson which acknowledged his importance
to 1960's musicians but noted that in his era, the blues torch
was held by singers like Smith and Ma Rainey. Now, I had been
listening to the Bessie Smith that I already owned occasionally,
but I stepped it up after that article, and have also bought the
rest. What a voice: she can really belt a song, and yet I can
tell she's keeping herself in check — those 1920's mikes
might have fallen over. I was really cheered to see that "Taint
Nobody's Business If I Do" was one of her signature songs: I fell
in love with that song in college, off sheet music, never knwoing
who sang it. (When Leon Redbone played a gig in Gainesville,
knowing he had an encyclopedic repertoire, I called that title
out, hoping he'd play it; alas, all he said was "Very good,
that's a good attitude.") I also picked up a pristine copy of a
biography of her by Chris Albertson at the Strand for about $15.
Too bad I didn't do all this at the onset of winter. Is spring
conducive to the blues?
My sincere thanks to those who have
put money in the tip
jar recently. I don't know who you all are, but I appreciate
it nonetheless. Also a thanks to one recent donor who emailed to
get my snail mail address to donate directly by check. Thank you
all!
It might only be symbolic, but the Senate
rebuked Bush over future tax decreases, passing an amendment
to a bill which will require a super majority (60%) to decrease
taxes further without compensating tax increases or specific
spending reductions. The move, of course, is designed to limit
future deficits. For you international readers, our deficit has
grown considerably under Bush (the budget was balanced under
Clinton), thanks largely to tax cuts which wound up mostly going
to wealthier Americans and did little or nothing to stimulate the
economy. (It's gotten so bad that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan floated the idea that we need to reduce Social Security.) Now,
the amendment may not go anywhere: the budget bill to which it's
attached needs to pass, and the Republicans recently shot down a
bill they liked because they couldn't accept two amendments
attached to it; and after that it has to survive reconciliation
with whatever comes out of the House of Representatives. But in
the meantime, coming out of a chamber that is controlled by the
Republicans, in a presidential election year, it's a reminder to
Bush that the world is not just his sandbox.
A strong indictment against the US war
against terror came from Great Britain, one of our staunchest
allies (of course). GB has released the five British detainees from
Guantanamo Bay, just days after we sent them home. Granted, there
are four more we haven't seen fit to release, but does this say
something about how many more that we're holding who might
deserve release? And how many of them might deserve legal
counsel? I assure you that Ken Lay is getting better legal
treatment.
Kerry is not allowed to make smart
political moves, is the implication of RNC chair Ed
Gillespie's complaint about Kerry's proposed trip to Iraq.
Gillespie says the trip is political, yet shows that Kerry's criticism
of Bush on Iraq "is uninformed." Clearly, Gillespie fears
informed
criticism like the dickens, and would far prefer that Kerry not
know what he talks about. This would be hazardous for the
Republican candidate.
Last month I joked about Scott
McClellan's evasive conversation style as if it carried over into his home life.
Asked by his "wife" if a pizza box bearing the name "McClellan"
might have belonged to anyone else in the White House with
the same name, I had no idea that for a while his brother Mark
worked in the White House, too. Mark McClellan is the current
head of the FDA, nominated to run Medicare, and discussed in the
post below. Maybe this refusal to
answer questions thing is in their genes?
Tim Russert was SO FUNNY tonight...
NBC News tonight opened with Tom Brokaw asking Russert about
polling figures on Kerry vs. Bush. Russert opened with the
closeness of the overall numbers. Now, I know that what he meant
was that there was little difference, but the words he
used were "It's too close to call." In March. Eight months before
the election. As if anybody is ready to call anything at
this point!
The evolving story of the intelligence
communications. During the Q&A following CIA Director George Tenet's speech at Georgetown University last
Febrary, Tenet said that the President gets his intelligence from
him, and him only. QUESTION: You've presented a very sobering view of the
intelligence community today. My question involves elements that
are technically outside of the intelligence community. Recent investigative reports, including a long piece in the
journal Mother Jones, which came out this past January, detailed
the creation of a Pentagon group a few weeks after September 11th
which, as of January of 2002, became known as the Office of
Special Programs. And it contained prominent neoconservatives with direct ties
to Dick Cheney and members of the administration. This group was shown to have a clear political agenda, to have
influenced people in the intelligence community, and definitely
used gross intelligence to promote their case. So my question is, can you confirm or deny the existence of
such a Pentagon group? And if so, how can we prevent small
ideological groups from influencing intelligence estimates? TENET: Well, I haven't read Mother Jones in a while, but let
me say this. (LAUGHTER) Let me say this. I'm the director of central intelligence. The
president of the United States sees me six days a week, every
day. I tell him what the American intelligence community
believes. There are always people all around town -- you know, "There's
gambling in this casino." Everybody has different views of what
the intelligence means or doesn't mean. I can tell you with certainty that the president of the United
States gets his intelligence from one person and one community:
me. And he has told me firmly and directly that he's wanted it
straight and he's wanted it honest and he's never wanted the
facts shaded. And that's what we do every day. The rest of it, I don't know. "The rest of it, I don't know" sounded unfortunately flippant
to me, coming against the backdrop of a speech which sounded
otherwise candid. Did he really not know, or was he just brushing
the rest off as "I don't care, because the President listens to
me?" Well, it turns out that his testimony
yesterday, to the Senate Armed Services Committee, indicated
that he wasn't aware of all the briefings on intelligence that
have been going on: In his testimony, Mr. Tenet hinted at private disputes with
policy makers. He disclosed that he had not learned until last
week about a highly unusual briefing given in August 2002 by
colleagues of Mr. Feith, the under secretary of defense for
policy, to senior aides of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. The briefing
outlined evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
contradicting the C.I.A.'s view that such links could not be
verified. According to government officials who have seen copies of the
briefing documents, the information was presented to Stephen
Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, and I. Lewis Libby,
Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, and included slides that were
strongly disparaging of C.I.A. analyses. So it would seem that Tenet overestimated the extent to which
Bush's radio only gets one station. We all knew that: we all knew
that Rumsfeld had set up this department headed up by Feith, and
could assume that Rumsfeld knew what it had to say. Did Tenet
really believe that Feith's positions never reached the President
via Rumsfeld? (Here, obviously, it was taking a route through NSA
Director Rice.) Sad, this, that the Director of Intelligence
doesn't understand the various chains of communication.
I've spent too little time writing
here about my reactions to those repugnant Bush commercials
with the 9/11 images, but with work on the book it's not going to
happen today. But I will say that it would be worthwhile
if some heavily trafficked blog would start making use of
my favorite footage showing Bush's leadership on that
day... That would be the film where he sits in a
classroom, immobile, for 5 minutes, listening to 1st graders
read aloud after having heard of the second jet crashing into the
WTC. Let's get it back into circulation, gang!
Chasing down a date. Early in his
"Life of Samuel Johnson" Boswell wrote that he sometimes chased
across London to verify a date — a major part of his claim
for accuracy. Well, too bad he didn't have the Internet. I just
spent considerable time figuring out when it was that on "Who
Wants To Be A Millionaire" they asked about Samuel Johnson. I had
two data points to work with: it was the same night as one of the
Presidential debates, and also a post-season baseball game. Got
it: it was October 11, 2000. Yes, it matters.
"But just wait 'till the tax breaks for my
rich buddies start to take effect!" Paul Krugman has a
priceless graph and
column on the continuing differences between what the Bush
administration projects for job growth, and the reality. Very few
words were necessary.
It must be great to watch this just before
midnight. It's a wonderful clock, learned about through Ishbadiddle.
Link 9:03 AM
Link 2:42 PM
Link 11:37 AM
Link 9:59 PM
"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when
asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of
terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way."
Link 1:13 PM
Link 9:51 AM
Link 1:15 PM
Link 11:10 AM
Link 10:27 AM
Link 8:41 AM
Link 9:19 PM
Link 9:02 PM
Link 10:09 AM
Link 8:55 AM
Link 11:24 PM
Link 10:30 PM
Link 9:56 PM
Link 8:27 AM
Link 2:31 PM
Link 10:02 AM
Link 9:56 AM
Link 8:23 AM