Monthly Archives: October 2009

Boy in a Balloon

Oh will there be some ‘splainin’ to do!

boy in balloon

UPDATE:  This could turn tragic.  The balloon has landed…and no boy is aboard.

UPDATE 2: MSNBC is reporting that KUSA-TV in Denver is reporting that the boy has been found…alive….in his house.  If true, this is good news – for all of us.  For the cops and the family, there are questions.  A police sheriff is saying that the boy was in a box – but not in the balloon, but one in the attic of his family’s garage.  It was the boy’s brother who told police the boy had climbed in the box attached to the balloon before it took off.  There is a question whether there ever was a box attached to the balloon.

Everyone is speculating why the 6-year old kid was hiding. 

Now MSNBC is dragging this story out.  A woman who switched places with his mother for a reality show said the kid was “a prankster.”  But she speculates that the kid was probably hiding not to fool somebody, but because his father would kill him when dad finds out he let the balloon take off.

Now Ed Schultz, who often is enough to turn me conservative, keeps trying to make this story about what bad parents the boy has.  He’s exploring lines with this woman whether the father cooked this up as a publicity stunt, or that he was a bad parent because he let the 6-year old swear and fart in the house.  Or that they are a weird family because they are storm chasers and believe in extra-terrestrial life.

If you think this was a simple mistake by the kids launching the balloon and a story with a happy ending, think again.  MSNBC is not content.  They want to embarrass the family.

Arian Huffington is now the guest, and she asks “why are we still talking about it?”  She and Schultz are arguing about it.  He is now touting that MSNBC has the biggest interview of the day.  She is making my point and Schultz is getting angrier.  She calmly tells him, now that the boy is safe, we need to move on.  He relents.

So, move along, folks.  Nothing to see here.

Kudos to Sen. Warner

I’ve got to give credit to Virginia Sen. Mark Warner for trying to get not only his hands around financial reform but doing it in a bi-partisan fashion.  He and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) are organizing sessions with financial leaders to educate themselves and apparently a good number of their colleagues about the financial system and the different ideas for reforming it.

I can’t imagine that it will mean the two will play  major role in the legislation, but if they seed the discussion with informed views maybe it will help.  In any case, it sounds like a novel approach, and I credit him for doing it.

‘Negative Connotation’?

You got to love when people out-speak themselves.  Seems Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, explaining why he spent a week on a deserted island, said, "I’ve felt like a pansy, I guess, and this made it feel like I was actually doing something again."

When I fist read about his adventure, I thought, OK, not my cup of tea, but hey, whatever floats your boat.  Besides, I admired him for going there with virtually no food, though he did bring salt and pepper, which I thought at least showed a little refinement.  (If he brought thyme, basil, oregano and capers, I would have really been impressed.)  He caught fish to survive.

So then somebody raised an issue about his use of the word “pansy.”  Was it Ben Smith of Politico?  He had a piece on this headlined “Flake apologizes for ‘pansy’ remark.”

Why apologize?

"Pansy" can be used as a (somewhat dated) slur on gay men, and the comment raised some eyebrows for that reason. [Editor’s Note:  Whose eyebrows?  Smith’s?]

Flake’s spokesman, Matt Specht, emails that he didn’t mean it that way.

Well, I’m “outdated” enough to recall the use of the word to refer to gays.  (Hell, I’m old enough to remember when gay meant having a good time.)  But really, apologize?  Well, Specht doesn’t just dig the hole deeper.  He employs a backhoe.

"Congressman Flake didn’t realize that that word can have a negative connotation. He simply meant ‘wimpy.’ He apologizes if anyone took offense to it," Specht writes.

Flake, who one might say lived up to his name by his week-long stunt, wasn’t referring to gays when he employed the term.  He was talking about himself not “actually doing something.”  But he wasn’t referring to himself as gay – because that would be “negative”?!

Oy vey. (Oh, sorry, I apologize.  I’ll have my spokesman email a statement that I didn’t mean to be anti-Semitic.)

Boy in a Balloon

Oh will there be some ‘splainin’ to do!

boy in balloon

UPDATE:  This could turn tragic.  The balloon has landed…and no boy is aboard.

UPDATE 2: MSNBC is reporting that KUSA-TV in Denver is reporting that the boy has been found…alive….in his house.  If true, this is good news – for all of us.  For the cops and the family, there are questions.  A police sheriff is saying that the boy was in a box – but not in the balloon, but one in the attic of his family’s garage.  It was the boy’s brother who told police the boy had climbed in the box attached to the balloon before it took off.  There is a question whether there ever was a box attached to the balloon.

Everyone is speculating why the 6-year old kid was hiding. 

Now MSNBC is dragging this story out.  A woman who switched places with his mother for a reality show said the kid was “a prankster.”  But she speculates that the kid was probably hiding not to fool somebody, but because his father would kill him when dad finds out he let the balloon take off.

Sounds good to me.  Move along, folks.  Nothing to see here.

Who Put Adam Nagourney Up to His Thinly Sourced Article?

New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney has an article suggesting Virginia Democrats are regretting their choice of Creigh Deeds as their candidate for governor.  Nagourney’s analysis of Deeds’ poor campaign is accurate, but there are several problems with it.

1.  It is thinly sourced.  The only  source cited is Virginia political analyst Robert Holsworth.  Generally, Holsworth provides credible insight (though his blog posts are written in a weird one sentence per paragraph style that disjoint his thinking), but no one else is cited in the article.

2.  Maybe it is “hard not to forgive some Virginia Democrats for thinking that they might have been better off with Mr. McAuliffe at the top of the ticket,”  but Nagourney offers no one, quoted anonymously or even referenced, to support his contention.

3. Nagourney’s conclusion – for with no sources that’s all this article is – is ludicrous.  Whatever disabilities Deeds has -– and he is, at best, an ineffective, some might say bumbling, campaigner -– the idea that Terry McAuliffe, an abrasive interloper in the Commonwealth’s politics, could draw more votes than Deeds isn’t credible.  Would he excite Democrats more?  Yes, probably.  Would he have more money to spend?  Most definitely.  But would he get anything more than the most yellow dog Democrats outside of Northern Virginia to vote for him?  Absolutely not.  With Dems reminding everyone of their fecklessness on Capitol Hill and Obama appearing uncertain, weak and all hat and no cattle, the idea that McAuliffe could win the race is unsupported. Obama won Virginia.  Bill Clinton didn’t.  With McAuliffe’s ties to the Clintons, there is little chance he could win this year – or any year, really.

So the question is, who put Nagourney up to this article?  In it, he states that McAuliffe himself and aides to Deeds and his opponent Bob McDonnell “did not respond to a request for comment.” So what possessed the reporter to write this story?  Someone’s pitch worked.  I doubt it was Holsworth, but whoever it was, they are still smoking – and inhaling – something.

Cross posted on News Commonsense.

Who Put Adam Nagourney Up to His Thinly Sourced Article?

New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney has an article suggesting Virginia Democrats are regretting their choice of Creigh Deeds as their candidate for governor.  Nagourney’s analysis of Deeds’ poor campaign is accurate, but there are several problems with it.

1.  It is thinly sourced.  The only  source cited is Virginia political analyst Robert Holsworth.  Generally, Holsworth provides credible insight (though his blog posts are written in a weird one sentence per paragraph style that disjoint his thinking), but no one else is cited in the article.

2.  Maybe it is “hard not to forgive some Virginia Democrats for thinking that they might have been better off with Mr. McAuliffe at the top of the ticket,”  but Nagourney offers no one, quoted anonymously or even referenced, to support his contention.

3. Nagourney’s conclusion – for with no sources that’s all this article is – is ludicrous.  Whatever disabilities Deeds has -– and he is, at best, an ineffective, some might say bumbling, campaigner -– the idea that Terry McAuliffe, an abrasive interloper in the Commonwealth’s politics, could draw more votes than Deeds isn’t credible.  Would he excite Democrats more?  Yes, probably.  Would he have more money to spend?  Most definitely.  But would he get anything more than the most yellow dog Democrats outside of Northern Virginia to vote for him?  Absolutely not.  With Dems reminding everyone of their fecklessness on Capitol Hill and Obama appearing uncertain, weak and all hat and no cattle, the idea that McAuliffe could win the race is unsupported. Obama won Virginia.  Bill Clinton didn’t.  With McAuliffe’s ties to the Clintons, there is little chance he could win this year – or any year, really.

So the question is, who put Nagourney up to this article?  In it, he states that McAuliffe himself and aides to Deeds and his opponent Bob McDonnell “did not respond to a request for comment.” So what possessed the reporter to write this story?  Someone’s pitch worked.  I doubt it was Holsworth, but whoever it was, they are still smoking – and inhaling – something.

Cross posted on Commonwealth Commonsense.

GOP Plays Hardball…Dems, Not So Much

From Political Wire:

Matthew Yglesias: "The Republicans do this the right way. The Senate Republican caucus is organized, like the House caucuses of both parties, like a partisan political organization whose objective is to advance the shared policy objectives of the party. The Senate Democratic caucus, by contrast, is organized like a fun country club trying to recruit members. Join Team Democrat and Vote However You Want Without Consequence! But it’s no way to get things done."

Steve Benen: "It often goes overlooked, but it’s worth remembering that the Senate Republican caucus, unlike Senate Democrats, have mechanisms in place to enforce party unity and discipline. When Democrats break party ranks on key bills, there are no consequences. Those who let GOP leaders down, however, know in advance that enticements like committee positions are very much on the line."

60

We Boomers never age. Now 60 is the new 50, just as 50 was once the new 40, 40 the new 30, and 30 the new 20. But it’s getting harder to convince ourselves.

A week ago I helped a close friend celebrate her 60th birthday. She embraced the other decade milestones. But not this one. She lamented her body breaking down. Nothing major, but we don’t heal as quickly. I could empathize. I’m 61. A month ago a slipped disk started to complain. Within days I couldn’t walk. I still have pain. But her angst was more existential. At 60, there’s no question but that you’re more than half way home. What is yet to be accomplished? She and I can look at our children, all in their twenties, with a sense of pride. We see young adults with strong moral foundations. They ask the right questions. They’ve made mostly good choices. They haven’t found their calling yet, but we feel confident that they will. But we wonder, what has been our calling? “At 60,” she said, “there may be only 20 good years left.”

Or even less. The day after her celebration, my wife’s brother died. Jimmy was 63. It was sudden, though not unexpected. His health was poor, for which he bore a lot of responsibility. The cause of death is unknown a week later. We may never know, but it would surprise no one if the official explanation is that his body just gave out.

Karla and I spent most of the week in Dallas. We cleaned his house and inventoried his possessions. Where were his bank accounts? Where is the title for his truck? Does he have any insurance policies? Where is all his stuff?

He and I didn’t have much in common, except Karla. He has the largest vehicle I have ever seen on two axles. His pick-up truck has huge tires, a jacked-up suspension and a front grill that look as if it were made to substitute for dynamite. In his obituary, his family wrote not that he was the proud brother of two sisters or of two nieces and a nephew. No, he was “a proud NRA member.” There were dozens of guns in his house. Some were in a gun rack but others stashed around the house as if he were expecting a raid by cowboy marauders. We loaded the guns into our little red rental car to move to safety. I feared if I were stopped by the police, I would end up in Gitmo. There would be no explanation for that arsenal other than I was a terrorist.

He left no children behind, but both parents survived him. Their father is 89. Mother is 90. “Parents shouldn’t bury their children,” she kept saying. It wasn’t the only thing she repeated. She’s a physical marvel, but her short term memory is going. While Karla and her dad were off to examine the contents of Jimmy’s shed, my job as to take her with me on my errands and then to her son’s house. She wanted to help out. As we left, she couldn’t find her glasses. We told her she wouldn’t need them. She agreed, but over the next hour, she remarked no fewer than three dozen times, “Where are my glasses? I can’t see anything without my glasses.” She proved it when I assigned her the task of cleaning the refrigerator that had already been emptied of food. She wiped a damp rag over a few spots, but clean it wasn’t.

It’s hard when a young child dies. That short life is potential unfulfilled. But when one dies at 63, surviving parents see the entire arc of that life. I think that must be just as hard. Did his life fulfill its potential?

My wife has cousins throughout Texas. Many of them came to pay their respects. Childhood friends eulogized Jimmy as a happy-go-lucky kid who was respectful of women. I never knew him to be disrespectful of women, but it was nice to hear that that quality struck a chord in a woman who knew him as a boy. Unfortunately, I never knew him as happy-go-lucky. His life was hard, especially in his final years. He served his country but paid a price, suffering post-traumatic stress. In his last years, there was little to be happy about.

Had he taken care of himself, he might have some years left to find happiness. That he didn’t was tragic. Instead his father found him in his bed, cold.

At only 63.

It wasn’t the new 50.

60

We Boomers never age. Now 60 is the new 50, just as 50 was once the new 40, 40 the new 30, and 30 the new 20. But it’s getting harder to convince ourselves.

A week ago I helped a close friend celebrate her 60th birthday. She embraced the other decade milestones. But not this one. She lamented her body breaking down. Nothing major, but we don’t heal as quickly. I could empathize. I’m 61. A month ago a slipped disk started to complain. Within days I couldn’t walk. I still have pain. But her angst was more existential. At 60, there’s no question but that you’re more than half way home. What is yet to be accomplished? She and I can look at our children, all in their twenties, with a sense of pride. We see young adults with strong moral foundations. They ask the right questions. They’ve made mostly good choices. They haven’t found their calling yet, but we feel confident that they will. But we wonder, what has been our calling? “At 60,” she said, “there may be only 20 good years left.”

Or even less. The day after her celebration, my wife’s brother died. Jimmy was 63. It was sudden, though not unexpected. His health was poor, for which he bore a lot of responsibility. The cause of death is unknown a week later. We may never know, but it would surprise no one if the official explanation is that his body just gave out.

Karla and I spent most of the week in Dallas. We cleaned his house and inventoried his possessions. Where were his bank accounts? Where is the title for his truck? Does he have any insurance policies? Where is all his stuff?

He and I didn’t have much in common, except Karla. He has the largest vehicle I have ever seen on two axles. His pick-up truck has huge tires, a jacked-up suspension and a front grill that look as if it were made to substitute for dynamite. In his obituary, his family wrote not that he was the proud brother of two sisters or of two nieces and a nephew. No, he was “a proud NRA member.” There were dozens of guns in his house. Some were in a gun rack but others stashed around the house as if he were expecting a raid by cowboy marauders. We loaded the guns into our little red rental car to move to safety. I feared if I were stopped by the police, I would end up in Gitmo. There would be no explanation for that arsenal other than I was a terrorist.

He left no children behind, but both parents survived him. Their father is 89. Mother is 90. “Parents shouldn’t bury their children,” she kept saying. It wasn’t the only thing she repeated. She’s a physical marvel, but her short term memory is going. While Karla and her dad were off to examine the contents of Jimmy’s shed, my job as to take her with me on my errands and then to her son’s house. She wanted to help out. As we left, she couldn’t find her glasses. We told her she wouldn’t need them. She agreed, but over the next hour, she remarked no fewer than three dozen times, “Where are my glasses? I can’t see anything without my glasses.” She proved it when I assigned her the task of cleaning the refrigerator that had already been emptied of food. She wiped a damp rag over a few spots, but clean it wasn’t.

It’s hard when a young child dies. That short life is potential unfulfilled. But when one dies at 63, surviving parents see the entire arc of that life. I think that must be just as hard. Did his life fulfill its potential?

My wife has cousins throughout Texas. Many of them came to pay their respects. Childhood friends eulogized Jimmy as a happy-go-lucky kid who was respectful of women. I never knew him to be disrespectful of women, but it was nice to hear that that quality struck a chord in a woman who knew him as a boy. Unfortunately, I never knew him as happy-go-lucky. His life was hard, especially in his final years. He served his country but paid a price, suffering post-traumatic stress. In his last years, there was little to be happy about.

Had he taken care of himself, he might have some years left to find happiness. That he didn’t was tragic. Instead his father found him in his bed, cold.

At only 63.

It wasn’t the new 50.

Brauchli’s Troops Advance on Liberals

A couple of weeks ago, Washington Post Ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote that he thought the newspaper was tone deaf to conservatism.  He cited both the ACORN story about the prostitution imposters and the firing of Van Jones after allegations that he once thought Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.  Alexander said The Post ignored the stories for too long.

One explanation may be that traditional news outlets like The Post simply don’t pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints.

It "can’t be discounted," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. "Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up by non-ideological media because there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms."

"They just don’t see the resonance of these issues. They don’t hear about them as fast [and] they’re not naturally watching as much," he added.

Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worries "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It’s particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."

To guard against it, he said, "I challenge our reporters and editors with great frequency to look at what is going on across the political spectrum . . . at the extremes, among the rabble-rousers, as well as among policymakers." He said he pressed the National desk this week to provide more ACORN coverage.

Conservatives are getting their payoff from Brauchli.  Today we have two stories, one about the labor union SEIC.  The planned attacks on SEIC were discussed last week on the Rachel Maddow show.

Now, both SEIU and ACORN – they find themselves under attack, both from Republicans, as we documented on last night‘s show, painted a bull‘s-eye on ACORN as soon as ACORN started registering large numbers of likely Democratic voters and from corporate interests who aren‘t crazy about things like minimum wage hikes, corporate interest that‘s gin up suspicions of groups they don‘t like by funding PR efforts to destroy those groups, PR efforts run by guys like Rick Berman, a Washington, D.C.-based lobbyist who we talked about on this show before. 

Brauchli, perhaps afraid as are many journalists of being accused of being liberally biased, assigned a reporter to follow the SEIC story, no mOrly Taitzatter how thin it might be.

But at least you could make an argument that there was some news value there.  The Style section has a front page story and big photo about Orly Taitz, the woman obsessed with proving Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii.  The photo shows her as a dentist, giving her argument a patina of credibility.  It’s one thing to make the right wing echo machine your assignment editor; it’s quite another to give legitimacy to an issue with no credibility.  The Post expended nearly 2,500 words on this discredited woman.

It’s little wonder that The Post is going under.  Its top editors are cowards.  Perhaps they should heed the advice of one judge who had to deal with a frivolous lawsuit she brought before his court.

In September, U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land dismissed a Georgia case that Taitz brought on behalf of a military doctor, Connie Rhodes, which held that Rhodes should be spared deployment to Iraq because Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be commander in chief. More than just rejecting it, he excoriated it.

"Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so," Land wrote scathingly in his order dismissing the action. Singling out Taitz for criticism, he accused her of using the legal system to further a political agenda.

But no, Brauchli and his malleable ilk will continue to prostrate themselves to the echo machine.

The doubters have put themselves on the public’s radar. Eight in 10 Americans in a July Pew poll said that they had heard "a lot" or "a little" about the contention that Obama was not born in the United States and is ineligible for the presidency.

Hearing relentlessly about a charge, even if it’s been disproven, is enough for some in the media to reverberate it.  They also must bear some responsibility for what they enable.

At a minimum, organizations who monitor extremist groups say that the fantasy of Obama’s ineligibility is now a central tenet. "The birther conspiracy itself is now totally widespread among military and paramilitary [militia] groups and new, what we would call quote-unquote ‘patriot’ groups, which are groups that are virulently anti-government," says Heidi Beirich, director of research at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

In oh so many ways, Brauchli played right into her hands.

And although she criticizes the mainstream media, she calls after the interview to see when this article will run. So she can flag it on her Web site.