nancynall.com » Fun with numbers.

Fun with numbers.

I’m won­der­ing if I need to stop pay­ing atten­tion to pol­i­tics for a while. It was a beau­ti­ful week­end, and while check­ing e-mail Sat­ur­day I surfed over to Meme­o­ran­dum to see what was going on with the teabag­gers. Michelle Malkin’s blog pro­claimed the march at 2 mil­lion strong. I rolled my eyes, shut down my browser and went back down­stairs to think about what to do with the pat­ty­pan squash I bought at the farmer’s market.

I’m one of the worst crowd-estimators in jour­nal­ism, in keep­ing with the long tra­di­tion of peo­ple who are good with words being stu­pid with num­bers. I always avoided mak­ing crowd esti­mates in sto­ries I wrote, and when I was pressed to do so, fudged with time-tested phrases like “a packed hear­ing room” or “scores,” or else found a less numer­i­cally chal­lenged source to give me a num­ber. But even I know 2 mil­lion is plain and sim­ple balder­dash. Nate Sil­ver at fivethir​tyeight​.com explains how the whop­per came to be — the very short answer: Some­one lied to Malkin — and adds:

Malkin her­self did not lie; she merely repeated a lie. It does not par­tic­u­larly call into ques­tion her char­ac­ter. It does, how­ever, call into ques­tion her judg­ment. The rea­son is that if there had in fact been 2 mil­lion pro­test­ers in Wash­ing­ton yes­ter­day, there would have been no need to lie about it — the mag­ni­tude of the protests would have been self-evident. I was in Wash­ing­ton for the inau­gu­ra­tion, an event at which there really were almost 2 mil­lion peo­ple present — and let me tell you, it was a Holy Mess. Hotels, charg­ing dou­ble or tre­ble their usual rates, were booked weeks in advance. Major sta­tions on the Metro sys­tem were shut down for hours at a time. The National Guard was brought in. At least 3,000 peo­ple got stuck in a tun­nel. Essen­tially the entirety of the National Mall, from the Capi­tol to the Wash­ing­ton Mon­u­ment, was dot­ted with onlook­ers. Heaps of trash were left behind. The entire city was basi­cally a war­zone for a period of about 20 hours, from mid­night through mid-evening.

“It does, how­ever, call into ques­tion her judg­ment.” That’s it in a nut­shell. That’s the prob­lem with jour­nal­ism as prac­ticed by mere mor­tals, but it’s espe­cially the prob­lem with mor­tals who are proudly par­ti­san, who scoff at “objec­tiv­ity” as a fic­tion, etc. I’m not one of those jour­nal­ists — and lately, I should add, I don’t con­sider myself much of one; I feel like I’m on a floe that has bro­ken away from the main ice­cap and is steadily drift­ing away — who wor­ries what will hap­pen to Jour­nal­ism when all the news­pa­pers have been hol­lowed out or killed. That’s because I already know (and excuse me if I’ve said this before; I think I’ll be say­ing it for a long time). We’re headed into an age when we will flock to the media source that flat­ters our own prej­u­dices with a unique set of facts. We had that for a long time, in fact; although nearly every­body here is too young to remem­ber when even mid­dling cities had mul­ti­ple dailies to reflect every read­ing niche, from labor to plu­to­crats. You could even make the argu­ment that the vaunted value of Fair­ness and Objec­tiv­ity, which in J-school you learn was handed down from Mt. Olym­pus, is really just a cold-eyed busi­ness tac­tic, that once the Work­ers Daily and the Plu­toc­racy Times folded, the net needed to be cast a lot wider and the mast­head slo­gan changed from Screw­ing the Pro­les since 1851 to Shin­ing the Light of Truth.

Most rep­utable crowd esti­mates put it in the “tens of thou­sands,” per­haps as many as 100,000. The Daily Mail in Lon­don, rely­ing on “Mail For­eign Ser­vice,” went with “up to two mil­lion.” Damn lib­eral media.

This isn’t really about pol­i­tics, any­way; it’s about numeric shenani­gans. I love Silver’s blog because he’s that rar­ity, a genius with num­bers and more than com­pe­tent with words. I love sto­ries that make a splash because some­one chal­lenged numeric con­ven­tional wis­dom. One of the Den­ver papers won a Pulitzer in the ‘80s for point­ing out that the num­bers of miss­ing and abducted chil­dren were wildly inflated, that if every face on the milk car­ton belonged to a kid who’d been snatched by a stranger, vir­tu­ally every­one in the coun­try would know some­one whose child had suf­fered such a fate. And yet, we repeat these whop­pers over and over.

Oh, well. It was a lovely week­end. Spent a chunk of it at a local block party, which fea­tured a DJ. I took a moment to mar­vel how it only took a cute dance to turn “Y.M.C.A.” from a tune about anony­mous gay sex in a pub­lic gym­na­sium (as Garry Trudeau amus­ingly put it), to a song adorable tod­dlers tum­ble to while their par­ents look on and snap pic­tures. Which Vil­lage Per­son are you? I think I’m the con­struc­tion worker.

If a woman this size shook her ten­nis rac­quet at me, I don’t know if I’d feel in fear for my life, but I might trem­ble a lit­tle. What a whiny baby; she deserved to lose that one. And what is it about ten­nis that seems to breed these uniquely awful tantrum-tossers?

And speak­ing of rude…

So another Mon­day begins? The Magic 8 ball says yes.

58 responses to
“Fun with numbers.”

  1. Jolene said on September 14th, 2009 at 8:07 am

    Nancy: Need to fix sen­tence that begins w/ “We are headed into an age …” You’ll see the pro­noun prob­lem when you look at it again.

    Oh, and good morning.

    N here: Thanks!

  2. Peter said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:01 am

    Sad but true. Unfor­tu­nately, we are way past headed into that age; I’m afraid in a few years peo­ple will cite TMZ as a stan­dard in objec­tive reporting.

    Sat­ur­day I got a view of what will pass for jour­nal­ism: the local PBS sta­tion had a half hour pro­gram of Eng­lish lan­guage Pravda, and their top story for Sep­tem­ber 12 was the cer­e­mony in New York com­mem­o­rat­ing 9/11. Except the cer­e­mony they cov­ered was a protest on Wall Street by 9/11 con­spir­acy the­o­rists, who kept shout­ing “Two planes — three build­ings — you do the math!” (I’m not sure; do they mean 2+3, or 2x3, or x2/y3?) The reporter, by ques­tion­ing sev­eral pro­tes­tors, came to the log­i­cal con­clu­sion that Amer­i­cans now real­ize that 9/11 was just another evil direc­tive of the Bush administration.

    I know throw­ing red meat to the yokels sells papers, but I always thought that one mark of an advanced soci­ety was the oppor­tu­nity to arrive at one’s own opin­ion based on the abil­ity to read an objec­tive review of the facts and argu­ments in the case.

  3. Julie Robinson said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am

    “an floe” Is that a jour­nal­is­tic usage I’m not famil­iar with? It must be nit­picker Monday.

    My Dad the jour­nal­ist would be rolling over in his grave had he not been cre­mated. His mantra was two inde­pen­dently con­firmed sources. The CNN Coast Guard train­ing exer­cise fiasco of 9/11/09 would never have hap­pened if this was being fol­lowed today.

    I started tun­ing out about the time of the birthers. I’ve come to believe it isn’t healthy for me to fol­low minute-by-minute all day long. Instead: more musicals!

    N here: This is what I get for post­ing before coffee.

  4. nancy said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am

    Peter, there was a really good piece on “On the Media” a cou­ple weeks ago, in which one party being inter­viewed (dunno who) said that being able to read for­eign pubs via the inter­net is no sub­sti­tute for the for­eign cor­re­spon­dent. S/he works as a bridge between cul­tures, fill­ing in back­story, telling you why this one is the guy to watch and this one isn’t, etc. And yet, there are a lot of peo­ple in the world who say we no longer need a man in Moscow if there’s an English-language Pravda avail­able via the web. Madness.

  5. Susan said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:12 am

    What did you end up doing with the pat­ty­pan squash? I’ve had one from our neigh­bor sit­ting on the counter for days — no idea what to do with it.

  6. nancy said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Haven’t decided yet. That’s the thing about squash — it almost always has another day of refrig­er­a­tor life. Maybe the class will have some suggestions.

  7. coozledad said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:22 am

    Seems to be a lot more of this stuff crop­ping up:
    http://​blogs​.phoenixnew​times​.com/​b​a​s​t​a​r​d​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​9​/​s​c​o​t​t​s​d​a​l​e​_​m​u​s​i​c​i​a​n​_​e​r​i​c​_​l​u​ke.php
    There’s a sav­agery implicit in this that makes you won­der how many shal­low graves Eric has left in his wake. He might just be a pathetic snuff fan­ta­sist, but I’d pre­fer to think even those were restricted from any unmedi­ated social con­tact. Actu­ally, I’d pre­fer them to be on gur­neys in an induced coma, but my gut level responses are usu­ally pretty rep­re­hen­si­ble.
    Is it even pos­si­ble to fix goods as dam­aged as this nutter?

  8. MichaelG said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:32 am

    I thought it was just us old folks who were set on ice floes and left to drift off into the mist.

  9. Sue said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am

    Number-crunching, local ver­sion: A com­mon coun­cil meet­ing last week regard­ing library fund­ing brought out a pretty-evenly split group of speak­ers, although those against the fund­ing seemed to want to get across the point that they spoke for lots of oth­ers. One of these said he had spo­ken to thirty of his neigh­bors and they all agreed with him, although unfor­tu­nately none were able to actu­ally attend the meet­ing. I leaned over to my hus­band and whis­pered that nod­ding politely while some­one talks at you does not nec­es­sar­ily con­sti­tute agree­ment.
    It’s all about how you want to view the issue, I guess.

  10. del said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:36 am

    The prob­lems addressed in Nance’s post will be expo­nen­tially com­pounded when the Roberts’ court unbri­dles cor­po­rate “Free” Speech in the Hillary doc­u­men­tary case. The jus­tices will likely drape them­selves in the Amer­i­can flag in so doing, pro­tect­ing our cher­ished free­doms. The Magic 8 ball says it’s so.

    Nancy, you oughtta move to the Park. Saturday’s block party on Not­ting­ham included a cou­ple who’d protested against the Tea Party in Troy. They also joined us in the adult time on the Moonwalk/Bouncehouse, no mean feat given that they’re grand­par­ents and it’s exhaust­ing. Cops shut the party down later.

  11. moe99 said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:15 am

    del, Noth­ing chills my soul like your pre­dic­tion on unleash­ing the cor­po­ra­tions to fund our elec­tions. With­out an inde­pen­dent press to stand fast against this, our lowly inter­net takes on more impor­tance. We are return­ing to the time of rob­ber barons with­out a Teddy Roo­sevelt in sight.

  12. jeff borden said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:20 am

    Del,

    You are ter­ri­fy­ingly right on with regards to the SCOTUS deci­sion on cor­po­rate fund­ing of cam­paigns. If you think we have a gov­ern­ment of the busi­ness, by the busi­ness and for the busi­ness now, the flood of moolah this will unleash even more greed and cow­ardice among our elected officials.

  13. Journalistic “Objectivity” as Marketing Ploy « Buffalo Wings & Toasted Ravioli said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:34 am

    […] 14, 2009 in Jour­nal­ism | by Jim Milles From Nancy Nall Der­ringer: I’m not one of those jour­nal­ists  —  and lately, I should add, I don’t consider […]

  14. brian stouder said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:46 am

    Regard­ing cred­i­ble news/credulous “reporters”/what to believe: Grant (our 14 year old) and I had an extended con­ver­sa­tion the other day about read­ing crit­i­cally — and how to decide what you’re going to believe. He had stated that Kurt Cobain’s wife got away with mur­der­ing him(!) — and when I asked where he read that, he named some web­site or other.

    Inter­est­ingly, later on I was flip­ping chan­nels and came across a for­mal debate (on C-SPAN) around the propo­si­tion “Win­ston Churchill was more of a lia­bil­ity than an asset to the Allied cause”…one could watch two cre­den­tialed his­to­ri­ans (plus one pop-history/pundit — Pat Buchanan!) argu­ing in favor of that flatly ridicu­lous propo­si­tion, against three other schol­ars and authors.

    Grant came and watched a lit­tle with me, and enjoyed how the crowd applauded Churchill’s defend­ers, and rejected his detractors…and we pon­dered the fact that all of those peo­ple had pub­lished books, vig­or­ously espous­ing their respec­tive points of view

    It just went to show that some folks will sin­cerely believe all man­ner of odd things, and some few of them will even mar­shall facts and fig­ures and cita­tions to but­tress their beliefs — and they may even make a salient point or two.

    But in the end, even if we refer to a sci­en­tif­i­cally mea­sured, care­fully applied dosage of bull­shit as “organic fer­til­izer”, it’s still bullshit.

    (and, of course! — there’s money to be made in the bull­shit market)

  15. LAMary said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:51 am

    Kanye West is not tal­ented enough to jus­tify what an ass­hole he is. Off­hand I can’t think of any­one who is.

  16. LAMary said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:53 am

    You can always peel the squash, cube it, and make a nice gratin. Make sure you add some gar­lic or the squash will taste like nothing.

  17. MichaelG said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:57 am

    I kinda liked the cute hair­cut. No, I didn’t watch the what­ever award show. I saw it on the news.

    Brian, if you bake a pie does that make you a Stouder-baker? Nyuk Nyuk. OK. Shoot me. Or set me out on an ice floe.

  18. Linda said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:11 am

    We aren’t headed for, we are already there. I was read­ing a thread on freere​pub​lic​.com, and some­one said that Fox was get­ting “too lib­eral” for them – now they only got their news from free repub­lic or Newsmax.

    The dif­fer­ence is, nowa­days, you can cre­ate your own mul­ti­me­dia wall of sound – radio, TV, inter­net – to rein­force your favorite prej­u­dices. Even Fark, which is fun if juve­nile because you see the opin­ions of peo­ple you don’t agree with, has an “ignore” fea­ture, so you won’t be dis­turbed by peo­ple dis­agree­ing with you. As if you couldn’t ignore peo­ple with­out software.

    BTW, I like win­ter squash cubed up and roasted with other win­ter veg­gies – car­rots, turnips, and the much-underrated parsnips. You can use savory herbs with them, or a lit­tle maple syrup for a sweet side dish.

  19. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Not quite a gratin, but you can make most any rata­touille out of squash. Replace the zuc­chini and/or egg­plant with it.

    Did any­one else catch Pres. Obama on 60 Min­utes last night? He’s get­ting his feet on solid ground with tying health care reform to man­ag­ing deficit growth based on cur­rent enti­tle­ments alone — if he’s try­ing to out­flank to the right, i think he will find an open field to maneu­ver across, since the GOP still hasn’t fig­ured out how to explain the pre­scrip­tion drug ben­e­fit jus­ti­fi­ca­tion in their own terms (prob­a­bly because any­thing coher­ent would have forced an expla­na­tion of how we were pay­ing for Iraq/Afghanistan).

    One of Nate Silver’s 538 cohorts posted a good look at the rel­a­tive socialisms at work in Medicare — http://​is​.gd/3gh9H — which indi­rectly makes the point that it’s inter­gen­er­a­tional social­ism that seems to get peo­ple riled, while seniors are gen­er­ally (regard­less of stated pol­i­tics) more will­ing to accept intra­gen­er­a­tional socialism/redistribution.

    Which means, i guess, that folks are fine with “soak the rich,” but not “soak my rich grand­kids.” Not say­ing it’s ratio­nal, just try­ing to dis­cern the pol­i­tics of it.

  20. Catherine said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Number-crunching, local ver­sion, pt 2: The Tour­na­ment of Roses Parade is locally noto­ri­ous for over­es­ti­mat­ing the crowd. The local news­pa­per edi­tor and his Cal­tech step­fa­ther showed that it’s math­e­mat­i­cally impos­si­ble for more than about 500,000 peo­ple to line up along the parade route, but the 1 mil­lion num­ber gets touted every year.

    It must have been a big week­end for disco every­where. My 9 YO asked me, “Why do they have a song about the YMCA?” Uhhhh, it was a place men could live inex­pen­sively in the city? No follow-up ques­tions about the cos­tumes, please.

  21. ROgirl said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:37 am

    I love the roasted veg­etable idea. In addi­tion to Linda’s selec­tion and depend­ing on what I can find, I like to use dif­fer­ent col­ored pep­pers, egg­plant, sweet potato, even cau­li­flower, some­times onions. Toss them in a lit­tle olive oil with salt and pep­per, a lot of herbs (cumin is really good), spread them out on a bak­ing sheet in a hot oven (450). Check them in 30 min­utes. I like to cook them until they get really soft and caramelized, with some a lit­tle charred around the edges, and leave them in longer.

  22. Connie said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:45 am

    I have been think­ing for some time about why I am a lib­eral and what I think is wrong with our coun­try. I’m not a pro writer like many of you, but here’s what I’ve come up with.

    Amer­ica is no longer a democ­racy. Democ­racy has been crushed by cap­i­tal­ism. It’s all about the money and the share­hold­ers and the rest of us are just cogs in the big money mak­ing machine. Why is share­holder profit the only real goal of big busi­ness? I believe that employ­ees and com­mu­ni­ties should be just as impor­tant as share­holder profit. All three of equal impor­tance. Instead we see busi­ness screw­ing their com­mu­ni­ties (asbestos mines, super­fund sites, sud­den shut­downs) and their employ­ees (low wages, pen­sion plans gone,)in order to build big­ger prof­its for share­hold­ers and big­ger bonusses for executives.

    I don’t think this makes me a com­mu­nist, but it might make me a social­ist which I no longer think is a bad thing.

    And that explains why I have not shopped at a Wal­mart in 7 years.

  23. adrianne said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:48 am

    What is this epi­demic of peo­ple behav­ing badly in pub­lic? Joe Wil­son, Ser­ena Williams and Kanye West — get a grip, people!

  24. Connie said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:48 am

    My roasted veg recipe is much like ROgirl’s,except 450 degrees and must have sum­mer squash or zuc­chini or even fresh pea pods. I will also some­times add a can of diced toma­toes near the end, and usu­ally add a can of drained gar­banzo beans. And sprin­kle with parme­san as it comes out of the oven. My orig­i­nal recipe came from the first Bare­foot Con­tessa cook­book, long before she had a TV show.

  25. nancy said on September 14th, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Michael’s never going to for­give me for describ­ing that Cal­i­for­nia horn­dog as an old man and there­fore too gross to have sex with. In my defense, I was bas­ing that on the grainy long-lens video. I’m sure you’re still on the hawt side of 70, M.G.

  26. mark said on September 14th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    Con­nie–

    “Why is share­holder profit the only real goal of big busi­ness?” Actu­ally, it’s the only real goal of all busi­nesses and for good reason.

    “Profit” is what is left over, if any­thing, after you pay all of your oblig­a­tions– mate­r­ial costs, wages, rent, debt ser­vice and taxes– and before you pay the own­ers any­thing. If you make no profit, and just break even, the own­ers get noth­ing and next year there will be no raises for the employ­ees, no money for extra ben­e­fits and no cash to fund expan­sion or prod­uct research. If you don’t “break even” and you want to stay in busi­ness, you have to reduce your expenses, often by reduc­ing the num­ber of employ­ees or the wages paid. Or both.

    The absence of prof­its is what has added 5 mil­lion or so to the ranks of the unem­ployed and has caused fed­eral, state and local tax receipts to plum­met in the last year. My father retired from Chrysler years ago, where he was a main­te­nance fore­man. While Chrysler was prof­itable, he had a good job and good ben­e­fits. Later, he had a good pen­sion and good ben­e­fits. When the prof­its dried up, the ben­e­fits (for retirees) were cut and then taken away. When the deficits con­tin­ued and bank­ruptcy was filed, the pen­sion went away– for good.

    Let’s assume you save some­thing for retire­ment or for col­lege expenses. Being a lit­tle bit lib­eral, you also donate some money for char­i­ties and your com­mu­nity. Being pru­dent, you bud­get these things so that your char­i­ta­ble and com­mu­nity con­tri­bu­tions don’t pre­vent you from being self-sufficient and pro­vid­ing for your depen­dents. You’re a con­ser­v­a­tive investor, putting your money where you get a return (profit) suf­fi­cient to meet your plans with risk (or no risk) with which you are comfortable.

    Tomor­row you get a let­ter from your 401k plan or mutual fund man­ager or what­ever. It tells you they have changed their phi­los­o­phy and from now on all of the money they make (profit) from the money you and oth­ers have entrusted to them will be divided equally between employee bonuses, con­tri­bu­tions to the com­mu­nity and peo­ple like you, who invested the money. This does mean, how­ever, that the return (profit) on your sav­ings will be about one-third of what it used to be.

    Do you shout with joy at their new-found enlight­en­ment? Or do you say I hope that works for you but I have to take my money else­where. If I can’t get the return I need I won’t be able to donate as much to my com­mu­nity and my char­i­ties, which are just as impor­tant as yours (maybe more so since they reflect your val­ues). And I won’t be able to pro­vide for myself in retire­ment or send my chil­dren to col­lege. So goodbye.

  27. LAMary said on September 14th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    That Orange County guy’s hot­ness deficit was not age related. He was just flat out not Mr. Sex Appeal. His choice to yak it up about his sex life made him even less desir­able. He was revolting.

  28. mark said on September 14th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    After my post I read that Lilly, where my brother works and where I hope he con­tin­ues to work, announced that they will cut 13% of their work­force over the next two years. Lilly has paid great wages, pro­vided excel­lent ben­e­fits, only recently started to phase out a tra­di­tional pen­sion plan and has a long his­tory of phil­an­thropy. With­out prof­its, none of those things can be maintained.

    And, of course, they are part of the evil health indus­try that will be forced to dis­gorge some of their ill-gotten gains to fund Obamacare.

  29. Jeff Borden said on September 14th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    I used to think there might be a form of “com­pas­sion­ate cap­i­tal­ism,” but my think­ing was utterly fal­la­cious. It’s like ask­ing a shark not to eat the whole fish. It won’t work.

    Gen­er­ally, I do believe the mar­ket­place solves most prob­lems, but it isn’t per­fect. Orphan drugs are a great exam­ple. There are drugs that could be an enor­mous help to cer­tain peo­ple, but because the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pany can­not gen­er­ate a strong return, they go unre­leased. I’m also not sure I want the low­est bid­der run­ning every­thing in my life. I don’t want the cheap­est air traf­fic con­trollers, for instance, I want the very best peo­ple, and if that means pay­ing them a hand­some salary, so be it.

    The health care debate has got­ten com­pletely out of hand and nei­ther side has done a good job of explain­ing itself. Pres­i­dent Obama con­tin­ues to be awfully vague about how this will work and how it will be financed. The Repub­li­cans absolutely should declare their oppo­si­tion if they must, but none of them have sug­gested any kind of option other than leav­ing things alone, which is ulti­mately unstainable.

    It’s easy for some­one like Joe Wil­son to shout “you lie” and not worry about the con­se­quences. Mr. Wil­son has enjoyed excel­lent health care by virtue of his sta­tus in the National Guard and as a mem­ber of Con­gress. All four of his chil­dren are in the armed forces, which mean they all receive government-funded health care. In short, he doesn’t know a frig­ging thing about what mil­lions of oth­ers face because he has never been in their shoes.

    All those folks march­ing in Wash­ing­ton, whether it was 60,000 or what­ever, make me won­der what they thought of the trillion-dollar Bush tax cuts, the expan­sion of the pre­scrip­tion drug ben­e­fit with­out addi­tional fund­ing or, of course, our most excel­lent adven­ture in Iraq, which could wind up cost up to $3 tril­lion when it’s all said and done. Appar­ently, these wild spend­ing sprees were okay by them.

    One last note on these gath­er­ings: why do none of the orga­niz­ers of these marches try to remove the bla­tantly racist posters some of these idiots are car­ry­ing? Some of these signs would’ve been appro­pri­ate in Selma in 1962 or at a week­end KKK dance. It’s sober­ing to see that there is a still a very large, wide and deep strain of racial hatred in our land. Sober­ing, sick­en­ing and sad.

  30. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

  31. Rana said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Mark — some­how, it seems that non­prof­its man­age it…

  32. Connie said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:30 pm

    Yup Mark, exactly the kind of response I expected.

    I am reminded that those who protested the actions of Pres­i­dent Bush 2 were called trai­tors and told to move to some for­eign place, (used to be Rus­sia). Those who crit­i­cize Pres­i­dent Obama in the same way con­sider them­selves patriots.

  33. Sue said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    Jeff, maybe there were no arrests because this heinous behav­ior took place in the protest zones blocked off away from Bush. Far away from Bush.
    As opposed to, say, bring­ing a gun to a rally. No men­tion if this gen­tle­man was arrested.
    http://​tpm​livewire​.talk​ing​pointsmemo​.com/​2​0​0​9​/​0​8​/​w​a​t​c​h​-​m​a​n​-​c​a​r​r​i​e​s​-​a​n​-​a​s​s​a​u​l​t​-​r​i​f​l​e​-​o​u​t​s​i​d​e​-​o​b​a​m​a​-​e​v​e​nt.php

  34. coozledad said on September 14th, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    All the rebel flags were a sweet touch, too. It’s good to see that “grass­roots” move­ment so thor­oughly dom­i­nated by peo­ple who don’t even usu­ally bother with the for­mal­ity of a spit cup. It’s even bet­ter that they’re now lin­ing up behind shakin’ Joe Wil­son. I look for­ward to them run­ning that clown for pres­i­dent almost as much as I look for­ward to him turn­ing up on Raw Story with a puppy hang­ing out his ass. You just know it from his pedi­gree. I’m bet­ting on Plott hounds.

  35. coozledad said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    Oh, and my health insurer just jacked our rates up 200.00 a month. Yay profit!

  36. crinoidgirl said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    I’m cur­rently doing free­lance edit­ing and proof­read­ing while I’m col­lect­ing unem­ploy­ment. I used to love the ser­ial comma, but I’m hav­ing a touch of cog­ni­tive dis­so­nance if I have to use Chicago or AP style. Ack! And no insur­ance or money to pay my psy­chi­a­trist, so now I’m in the hole for $2000, for his bill alone. For­get all the other med­ical bills and mis­cel­la­neous bills I owe. Dammit, I want uni­ver­sal health care now!

  37. ROgirl said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    The FBI is dig­ging in an old lum­ber yard in Detroit. Could they be look­ing for, I don’t know, Jimmy Hoffa?

  38. jeff borden said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Also miss­ing from those pho­tos cited by Jeff TMMO are any black peo­ple mock­ing W. for being a honky pig. Gee, now that I come to think of it, I’m not sure I saw any black peo­ple in any of the pho­tos of the protest.

    If you want to see and hear some of these folks, check out the brief (six min­utes) video pro­duced by gad­fly Max Blu­men­thal, who waded into the protest with cam­era­man in tow. When you’re not laugh­ing, you’ll be gagging.

  39. nancy said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    If you were a real Amer­i­can, c’girl, you’d buck up and not see a psy­chi­a­trist at all. Shrinks are for weak­lings, not Sarah Palin.

    If it’s the FBI, it’s gotta be Jimmy. I think they do this from time to time just to keep the mus­cles lim­ber. The last place they exca­vated, the peo­ple got a nice new horse barn out of it. I won­der what this prop­erty owner needs?

  40. jeff borden said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Speak­ing of La Palin, have you seen that her speech in Hong Kong, for which she will receive well into six-figures, will be closed to the press and that she will not take any questions?

  41. Jolene said on September 14th, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    What’s really amaz­ing about the Palin speech is that they invited her in the first place. I don’t know the name of the group, but I heard that it’s a high-level audi­ence inter­ested in inter­na­tional invest­ment. What could she pos­si­bly have to tell them? Seems unlikely that her abil­ity to see Rus­sia from her house would give her insights that would be use­ful in mak­ing invest­ment decisions.

  42. Jeff Borden said on September 14th, 2009 at 6:09 pm

    Your guess is as good as mine, Jolene. Aside from her recipe for moose chili, what is she knowl­edge­able about?

    My orig­i­nal thought that bring­ing her in to speak would gen­er­ate a lot of press cov­er­age is negated by the fact that no scrib­blers are allowed in the room.

    Pre­vi­ous speak­ers at CLSA Forums have included Bishop Desmond Tutu, Bill Clin­ton, Al Gore, Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger. How this feath­er­weight wound up on the same dais as these heavy­weights is an unknown.

  43. MichaelG said on September 14th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    It’s come to this? All I’ve got left is maybe being on the hawt side of 70?

  44. Rana said on September 14th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Jolene, Jeff, I’m bet­ting that she’ll be talk­ing about oil com­pa­nies. That is some­thing that she does actu­ally know a bit about.

  45. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on September 14th, 2009 at 7:58 pm

    I haven’t looked at the story for a while, but i thought it had come out that the Hong Kong speech was actu­ally a spoof? There’s a firm in HK that does that to pub­lic fig­ures from time to time, and it turns out to be more of a Borat kind of thing. Is it still on?

    As for num­bers and press cov­er­age: Sat­ur­day i was the speaker for a com­mu­nity event, ded­i­cat­ing a clock that hon­ors Vic­to­ria Wood­hull (check her Wikipedia page, fas­ci­nat­ing lady) which had not oper­ated for 25 years and more. No con­tro­versy in the vil­lage, which was and is ecsta­tic that we’d taken the effort to get this work­ing again. Big turnout, local paper sent a reporter — nice, con­sci­en­tious guy — and a photog.

    From where i stood, i could eas­ily tally around 200 peo­ple and a dozen kids under­foot (as a pas­tor, i can count the house with­out think­ing about it; it’s a reflex). The next day, the news story is posted, and Russ says “50 in atten­dance.” There’s a pic­ture with the story in print and online, and you can count, from the high spot in library where it was taken, over 70 just in that view, and the toes of those pressed up against the build­ing below to get some shade.

    Was Russ against our event? Was he spin­ning the expec­ta­tions? Did he have an agenda? No, no, and no. I have no idea why he said 50 showed up, and i’ll admit to being mildly miffed when i first read it. (And in the online ver­sion, i tacked on a com­ment men­tion­ing we had over 200 in atten­dance, yay the inter­nets.) But that’s nei­ther here nor there — he was dis­tracted, he thought 50 sounded about right, he con­fused it in his notes with one of the other three sto­ries he cov­ered before get­ting back to the news­room. I dunno.

    Either way, it just doesn’t mat­ter all that much. The longer term record can con­sult the aer­ial pho­tos and the traf­fic cams if it really mat­ters. I do think that the House & Sen­ate Dems write this off as a small gath­er­ing of nasty racists at their elec­toral peril, but if they do, and it works, i’ll have been wrong. As is often pointed out here, it’s not like the GOP has a happy-happy record on spend­ing and deficits right now, and there’s room for a clever Dem to out­flank on the right if they want, or at least feint that way. No less than Pres. Obama him­self, let alone Sen. Boxer seem to be tak­ing this week­end as a sign that ges­tures to revenue-neutrality will be well-received regard­less of party. The rally was nei­ther anti-Obama or pro-GOP, what­ever the num­bers, it was sim­ply a call for smaller, less intru­sive gov­ern­ment. Argue their con­sis­tency or party fidelity all you want, but there they were, how­ever many you think they counted for on the Mall or at home.

  46. coozledad said on September 14th, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    A heart­warm­ing story from the all too short-lived Pax Amer­i­cana:
    http://​www​.indy​week​.com/​g​y​r​o​b​a​s​e​/​C​o​n​t​e​n​t​?​o​i​d​=​o​i​d​:16759
    Obama has tram­pled these days of free­dom under the jack­boots of the Oak Pan­thers. We’ll never see the like of them again.

  47. Jolene said on September 14th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    Jeff: It may well be that the crowd on the mall on Sat­ur­day was not espe­cially pro GOP (although they invited at least three Repub­li­can mem­bers of Con­gress to speak), but to say that they were not anti-Obama strains credulity.

    Look around a lit­tle. You’ll find that the pro­test­ers demon­strated great cre­ativ­ity in gen­er­at­ing new insults to the pres­i­dent – signs that attacked his intel­li­gence and integrity, that ques­tioned his legit­i­macy, and that placed him in the com­pany of some of the worst mon­sters in his­tory. I some­how doubt that all that venom and dis­re­spect stems from oppo­si­tion to cap and trade or the pub­lic option.

  48. coozledad said on September 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm

  49. brian stouder said on September 14th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    The rally was nei­ther anti-Obama or pro-GOP, what­ever the num­bers, it was sim­ply a call for smaller, less intru­sive government.

    Pop­py­cock.

    As one poster at Coozledad’s link clev­erly said about the demonstrators -

    “They are clearly for a prin­ci­pled shrink­ing of gov­ern­ment. That, and no cuts to Medicare ever.”

    I heard Karl Rove go on, with great uncious­ness, about how “hard-left” Obama “really” is — how he asso­ciates with hard left­ists and how he doesn’t bat an eye at dou­bling the national debt!!

    But the disin­gen­u­ous old turd blos­som glossed right past the fact that in 2001, when the Great, Patri­otic and All Amer­i­can Repub­li­can party took con­trol of the White House, they inher­ited a bud­get SURPLUS of $128,000,000,000. The pre­vi­ous (and God-less) Demo­c­ra­tic left­ist draft-dodging per­jurer had reduced the deficit every year he was in office, up to and includ­ing turn­ing sur­pluses and reduc­ing the pub­lic debt.

    And what did that get him, from the All Amer­i­can, Right Think­ing, God-Fearing, Smaller, Less INtru­sive Gov­ern­ment Repub­li­cans in Congress?

    Impeached, that’s what!!!

    Our Great Patri­otic and Godly Leader, Pres­i­dent George Bush, ran a deficit every sin­gle year he was in office — dou­bling and then redou­bling the deficit num­bers ’til it hit $413 bil­lion dol­lars in 2005.

    His bril­liant, smaller, less intru­sive gov­ern­ment ini­tia­tive was to CUT TAXES while fight­ing two wars on the other side of the world!!

    Where were these shit-for-brains callers “for smaller, less intru­sive gov­ern­ment” when the white repub­li­can was poten­tially tap­ping any phone in Amer­ica with­out war­rant, grab­bing peo­ple any­where in the world and then whisk­ing them to our own archipeligo of secret pris­ons, and assert­ing that the pres­i­dent and vice pres­i­dent were beyond the reach or restric­tions of any mere law, when­ever they decided that they needed to do any­thing in the name of national defense?

    If they were angrily protest­ing for “a smaller, less intru­sive gov­ern­ment” back then, I surely missed it.

  50. Linda said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    Mark, I get what you are say­ing when cap­i­tal­ism works like it’s sup­posed to – busi­nesses make profit, work­ers get good wages, char­i­ties get money, etc. Except, those things are often achieved when some­one forces busi­nesses to give it up. I’m glad your father had a good job at Chrysler, but if the Reuther Broth­ers did not union­ize the Big Three, his wages would have been lousy.

    Nowa­days, this seems to have gone in reverse. Big­ger busi­nesses buy up per­fectly prof­itable smaller businesses..but they are some­how not quite prof­itable enough. And there are threats of mov­ing to the south. Or to Asia. And work­ers are re-negotiating for their jobs. Or the union is bro­ken entirely, and the work­ers are replaced with nonunion, or even alien work­ers, who will work a lot cheaper (read Meth­land for more detail). And it’s not because there was no profit. It’s just that busi­nesses now have the idea that if you only nick some­one once, you are a chump. Nick them at least twice.

    That’s the phi­los­o­phy behind end­less bank charges, and rises in credit card rates with the flim­si­est pre­textes. Peo­ple want to love cap­i­tal­ism in Amer­ica, but cap­i­tal­ists keep mak­ing it hard.

  51. derwood said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Con­nie, I have been Wal-Mart free for 4 years. Every­one can do it…it isn’t that hard.

    daron

  52. coozledad said on September 14th, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    Hey, I can’t really bitch about some­one cussing, but then again I’m not fuck­ing run­ning for the gov­er­nor of fuck­ing Vir­ginia as a fundie whack­job am I?
    http://​not​lar​rysabato​.type​pad​.com/​d​o​h​/​2​0​0​9​/​0​9​/​h​o​l​y​-​s​h​i​t​-​o​r​-​a​s​-​b​o​b​-​m​c​d​o​n​n​e​l​l​-​w​o​u​l​d​-​s​a​y​-​h​o​l​y​-​f​u​c​k​i​n​g​-​s​h​i​t.html
    I’m anx­ious to hear his twelve fuck­ing point plan.

  53. brian stouder said on September 14th, 2009 at 11:07 pm

    Well, as Otter once said — face it; he f*cked up!

  54. moe99 said on September 15th, 2009 at 2:49 am

    Speak­ing of roy­ally fuck­ing up, this for­mer Repub­li­can can­di­date for gov­er­nor of Ken­tucky has done so:

    http://​www​.ken​tucky​.com/​l​a​t​e​s​t​_​n​e​w​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​/​9​3​5​1​3​1.html

  55. Dexter said on September 15th, 2009 at 3:00 am

    This time celeb-deaths arrived three at a time again; Jim Car­roll died over the week­end . Jody Pow­ell and Patrick Swayze passed also. If Car­roll doesn’t ring a bell, you get a pass. Not a house­hold name, he was in the set of Warhol and Map­plethorpe in New York in the 70s. He wrote the clas­sic “Bas­ket­ball Diaries“
    which DiCaprio starred in when the movie was made.
    Every­body knows who Swayze was, young­sters might not know who Pow­ell was:
    Craig Craw­ford of CQ worked with him:
    http://​blogs​.cqpol​i​tics​.com/​t​r​a​ilmix/

  56. brian stouder said on September 15th, 2009 at 8:54 am

    Dex­ter, I’m taken aback by news of Powell’s pass­ing. To me, he always pre­sented a pleas­ant south­ern demeanor, when he was part of the new Carter Admin­is­tra­tion; and he com­mu­ni­cated that same southern-everyman essence as one of the voice actors for Ken Burns’ arrest­ing mini series The Civil War

  57. Danny said on September 15th, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Brian, I only have time for a quick note, but I wanted to let you know that I took a tour if the Indy 500 museum yes­ter­day and a group of us went around the track in a tour bus. Unlike you and some oth­ers here, I’m not very much of a motor sports enthu­si­ast, but it was dang inter­est­ing. In the museum, my eyes kept drift­ing back to two par­tic­u­lar cars: This Corvette and this Lotus. Beau­ti­ful machines.

    Very cool. I’ll never look at the race the same way again, but I can’t say that it would be a very enjoy­able event on a very hot day. Lot’s of con­crete and sun expo­sure cou­pled with a crowd of 300k would prob­a­bly get old quick.

  58. mark said on September 15th, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Linda,

    You raise a lot of good issues, many of which I agree with in whole or in part. Some want to throw a really great baby out with the bath­wa­ter. I don’t.

    Mar­kets, busi­nesses and peo­ple need gov­ern­ment to pro­tect against force and fraud, at least in my lim­ited gov­ern­ment world. The last thirty years of big busi­ness didn’t see a lot of “force” in the tra­di­tional sense, but huge amounts of fraud. It also saw, I think, the rise in the coopt­ing of gov­ern­ment by big busi­ness, with Repub­li­cans lead­ing the charge and Democ­rats close behind. To me, it’s “force” of a dif­fer­ent kind, with gov­ern­ment using it’s coer­cive pow­ers to force tax­pay­ers to sub­size busi­ness deals with tax ben­e­fits, grants and other leg­is­la­tion. Deals that ben­e­fit­ted the busi­ness and the politi­cian, but not the public.

    Per­haps the topic will come up again. Enjoy your day.