Our subscription drive is over.  The next one will start in late January.  But we always welcome subscriptions, and our Subscriber Services have now begun.  You can subscribe in the right-hand column.

-----------------------------------------------------

SNIPPETS, our daily collection of short items and comments, is here.

--------------------------------------------- 

Answers to the last "Current Question" are here. The new "Current Question" is here, in the right-hand column.

----------------------------------------------------

Audio commentaries are posted periodically.

FRIDAY,  NOVEMBER 14,  2008

THE HILLARY THING

Posted at 6:55 p.m. ET

Clearly the most intriguing political story of the day is about Hillary Clinton possibly becoming secretary of state.  There is no doubt that this is serious.  No one is denying that it could happen.  Martha Raddatz of ABC has a report.  I stress that this has not been confirmed, but she's a pretty decent reporter:

ABC News' Martha Raddatz reports: President-elect Barack Obama met with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Thursday in Chicago to discuss the possibility of the senator becoming secretary of state.

A source with knowledge of the transition process describes the meeting as not a hard offer. Obama is more cautious than that.

He is doing this more elegantly, but a source said Obama took a big step toward Hillary.

Of course he did.  She wasn't flying out to Chicago to chat about old times.  Like international summit conferences, these things are worked out in advance.

He was extremely respectful, saying she was great, and giving her a huge amount of support. He said that he knew how much she cared about health care but said there are other challenges, and wanted to reach out to her about secretary of state.

I've always loved that term, "reach out."  What does that mean?  In this case, it means a blood oath, as noted:

Obama does not want to be seen as being rejected by her, but it is “hers to turn down,” one source put it.

They have an agreement to have another meeting or phone conversation about this very soon.

Of course she could turn him down.  But then she becomes the bad girl of the party, humiliating the new president.  So Obama wins both ways.  If Clinton takes the job, he eliminates a rival power center.  If she rejects him, she's the sore loser who won't help. 

Smart politics on his part.

November 14, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 6:15 P.M. ET:  UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Syria said on Friday it was heartened by U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's plan to pull U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office since it reflects the desire of Iraq and its neighbors.

COMMENT:  With friends like these...

UPDATE AT 4:37 P.M. ET:  The Dow closed down about 338, wiping out most of yesterday's gains.  As we've said here, this is not about investment.  This is a casino.  You might do better in Vegas - and have more rational people giving you "expert advice."

UPDATE AT 11:33 A.M. ET:  From the Hollywood Reporter:  Conventional wisdom dictates that Hollywood could always shrug off economic downturns because worried consumers spend more on entertainment when times are tough.  Not this time. Everywhere one looks, the entertainment business is in a world of hurt. The downturn is slamming the balance sheets and stocks of major media companies. Banks and hedge funds are cutting or eliminating movie financing, putting projects at studios and independents in peril.

COMMENT:  This may be the greatest contribution the recession makes to the nation.

USAGE NOTE AT 11:01 A.M. ET:  We don't discuss English usage enough here, although I promised to do it when Urgent Agenda first started.  A question arises as to the term "president-elect." Should the "president" part be capitalized or not?  Surprisingly, there is no guidance for this given in the Associated Press Stylebook, or in our standard dictionary for usage, the American Heritage Dictionary.

Generally, titles are capitalized when they're put before the name, but not after.  Thus, it would be President George W. Bush, but George W. Bush, president of the United States.  President-elect, though, is actually a description, not a title.  There is no such office.  Still, I would capitalize the word "president," if before the name," so a phrase might read, "early today as President-elect Barack Obama..."  I think it's jolting to see the word "president" before a name, without capitalization.  So that will be our usage here.  If you differ, please let me know.  Different news organizations are using differing styles.

UPDATE AT 10:44 A.M. ET:  From The Politico:  Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele shook up the emerging race for chair of the Republican National Committee Thursday, announcing that he would join the contest in an appearance on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes."  "I want the gig. I'm ready to lead this party," Steele said. "I think we have been kind of wandering and doubting ourselves for far too long.

COMMENT:  Good man, great choice.

 
UPDATE AT 10:40 A.M. ET:  The Dow is down 194.  It was up yesterday.  This has nothing to do with investing.

UPDATE AT 8:30 A.M. ET:   From The New York Times:  WASHINGTON — The prospects of a government rescue for the foundering American automakers dwindled Thursday as Democratic Congressional leaders conceded that they would face potentially insurmountable Republican opposition during a lame-duck session next week.

COMMENT:  This is a train wreck in progress.  Watch it day by day.  We're talking about the bankruptcy of America's most symbolic companies, and they're finding that few Americans love them enough to bail them out.

UPDATE AT 8:10 A.M. ET:  From The Los Angeles Times:   Well, Barack Obama's Senate career didn't last long -- about 46 months.  But long enough to mount a 21-month campaign to move on to bigger digs. The Democratic president-elect announced today he'll resign his Illinois seat in the U.S. Senate on Sunday, just before the Senate is set to resume sessions.  Something about a presidential transition period.

COMMENT:  The ethically challenged governor of Illinois will select a replacement.  Jesse Jackson Jr. wants the job.  Obama would do well to discourage that notion.  Looks like a fix.

JUICY

Posted at 7:57 a.m. ET

The internet is alive with the sound, not of music, but of eyes popping.  Can it be true?  Will President-elect Obama select Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state?  This is the juiciest story to come along in days, as ABC reports:

There's a lot of buzz in DC tonight about the fact that the Obama Transition Team is, according to one knowledgeable source, "very serious" about Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, being under consideration for Secretary of State.

George Stephanopoulos reported Clinton's name being in the mix last week on Good Morning America, but the buzz grew louder today after Clinton was spotted boarding a flight to Chicago.

Her spokesman Philippe Reines would not discuss Clinton's schedule, and of course the Obama Transition Team would not comment.

Now, look, some history:  A lot of women at the Democratic barricades were burned when Obama didn't name Hillary as his v.p. candidate.  Now this story about State is out there, and we wonder whether Obama can risk disappointing that same faction again.  He may have to name her.

She brings instant stature to the job, one Democrat told me. Many world leaders have known her for almost two decades.

"Clinton is the gold standard around the world, " said Chris Lehane, a former spokesman for Vice President Al Gore.

Well, at least the bronze standard.  And there's this:

There are drawbacks, of course. Her husband Bill Clinton's vast and varied international business dealings and relationships, which have put him at odds with her policy positions.

When have truth and corruption been issues in that crowd?

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?  I'm thinking about that line from "The Godfather" - "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."  Naming Clinton to his cabinet instantly eliminates a rival power center in the Democratic Party. 

We obviously don't know yet if Clinton wants the job.  But apparently she did meet with Obama in Chicago, and I'm sure she knew what it was about before she bought her economy ticket.  However, she'd have to leave the Senate, where there is potential power as majority leader.  She'd have to follow Obama's instructions in foreign policy, which may not interest her.

Obama could do a lot worse.  Clinton, in foreign-policy terms, is a centrist, and her selection would signal "no Carter," which is a good signal to send. 

Stay tuned.  This is what makes politics great.

November 14, 2008.      Permalink          

EXPERTS?

Posted at 7:15 a.m. ET

Harry Truman once said that you can't tell an expert anything.  Then he wouldn't be an expert anymore.

And so it comes to pass that some self-proclaimed "experts" are about to dump on President-elect Obama their wisdom about Iran.  There is no wisdom here.  AP reports:

US President-elect Barack Obama, plotting his strategy on Iran, is getting this advice from a panel of American diplomats and other experts: Don't pile on economic and military threats; it doesn't help.

Suspicious already?  So was I.

"An attack would almost certainly fail" while coercing Iran with economic sanctions has very little chance of success, the experts say in a report to be presented next week at a conference on the future of US-Iran policy.

Why would an attack "almost certainly" fail?  Do these boys understand what 800 planes and a thousand cruise missiles can do?  Should someone give them a slide show?

The Iranian people "have seen the outcome of US-sponsored regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq. They want no part of it," the report said.

I wonder how these "experts" would know that.  Who is their pollster?  John Zogby? We know that the regime is hated by many, and that most Iranians are pro-Western.  That statement doesn't add up.

Far more likely to succeed, said former US ambassadors Thomas Pickering and James F. Dobbins, Columbia University scholar Gary G. Sick and 17 other experts, is to "open the door to direct, unconditional and comprehensive negotiations at the senior diplomatic level."

Oh please.  Oh come on. My friend and real Iran expert Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi points out that "a senior French government official, recently visiting Washington, urged the new administration to abandon the folly of negotiations with Tehran.  'We've been negotiating with the Iranians since 2003,' said French nuclear advisor Therese Delpech. 'We came to the conclusion that they are not interested at all in negotiating, but in buying time for their military (nuclear) program.'"

And that's a French negotiator speaking.  The French passion for negotiating is as great as their passion for passion.

By the way, Gary Sick was Jimmy Carter's chief White House adviser on Iran.  Gives you confidence, doesn't it?

The "expert" analysis continues:

The report originated from conversations among a number of experts on Iran who were concerned about the course of American diplomacy on Iran, Dobbins said Thursday. "We got together to offer the administration a different approach, one that is focused on communication and with a view to making progress over time on a range of issues," he said.

Oh, I see.  Over time.  And over this same time Iran will build, perfect and maybe use a 20-kiloton monster.  But they wouldn't be rude enough to do that while the experts are talking, would they?  Let's not insult those mullahs.

And...

Richard Parker, a professor at the University of Connecticut, organized the report, which will be presented Tuesday to the National Iranian American Council.

One of those groups that wants us to "understand" the mullahs.  Not people you want in your home on Friday night.

On other fronts, the experts advised giving Iran "a place at the table" in shaping the future of Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.

The United States and Iran support the same government in Iraq and face common enemies in the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, the report said.

Yeah, and both Hitler and Roosevelt liked dogs.  It's all the same thing. 

Is this a serious proposal we're looking at?  You can just see how the American people will react to our opening the door to Iranian influence.  Does the phrase "one-term president" interest these "experts"?

Labeled "Myth ..1" in the report is the notion that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls the shots on Iran's nuclear and foreign policy.

The ultimate decision-maker is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, commander in chief of Iran's armed forces, the report said. Despite frequent hostile rhetoric aimed at Israel and the West, "Khamenei's track record reveals a cautious decision maker who acts after consulting advisers holding a range of views, including views sharply critical of Ahmadinejad."

If Mr. Supreme Leader didn't like what Ahmadinejad is saying, he could arrange for the esteemed president to suffer a sudden misfortune.  No arrangements have been made.

I get the feeling that this panel of "experts" had its last meeting on that ride in Disneyland where they play "It's a Small World After All."  They were influenced.

Yuch.

November 14, 2008.      Permalink          

THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER 13,  2008

ENCORE

Posted at 7:51 p.m. ET

It is with pride and humility that we present an encore performance by the winner of our first Pompous Fool Award, details available in Subscriber Services.  Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, richly deserves the award for his contributions to both pomposity and foolishness.  Today he demonstrates that, although he's won the coveted prize, he hasn't lowered his standards:

The United States is the only country in the industrialized world where children are less likely to graduate from high school than their parents were, according to a new study by the Education Trust, an advocacy group based in Washington.

True.  No problem with citing that.  But we simplistic readers would hope that Kristof, and others along the Manhattan cocktail circuit, would try to understand why.  No such luck.  He writes about the brilliant growth in American education during much of our history, but says:

Then in the 1970s, the United States education system began to stagnate, with high-school graduation rates stuck at about three-quarters of all students. Probably as a result, income inequality increased again.

Why?  Isn't that an important question?  Well, being a good and fashionable leftist, Kristof gives us an answer, the wrong answer, but the acceptable one:

Meanwhile, the rest of the world invested heavily in education and caught up with, and in some cases surpassed, us. As Fareed Zakaria notes in his terrific book, “The Post-American World,” the problem with American education is not the good schools. White suburban schools still offer an excellent education, comparable to those in Singapore, which may have the best education system in the world.

Note the word "invested."  Kristof, who tends to be thirty years out of date, still believes that money is the problem.  No, Mr. Kristof, it's not.  Washington, D.C. spends more per capita than any school district in the country, and produces the worst results.  But why be bored with facts?

A study by the Hamilton Project, a public policy group at the Brookings Institution, outlines several steps to boost weak schools: end rigid requirements for teacher certification that impede hiring, make tenure more difficult to get so that ineffective teachers can be weeded out after three years on the job and award hefty bonuses to good teachers willing to teach in low-income areas. If we want outstanding, inspiring teachers in difficult classrooms, we’re going to have to pay much more — and it would be a bargain.

Kristof would have been a great dancer, for he dances around things better than any other columnist.  Some of those recommendations are good, but they barely touch the issue.

So Mr. Obama, let’s give others the chance to board the escalator that you and your father enjoyed. Let’s pick up where we left off in the 1970s and mount a national campaign to make high-school graduation truly universal, and to make a college education routine.

As Dana Carvey used to say, isn't that special? 

There are several real reasons for our educational decline, none of which Mr. Kristof wants to touch.  First, and foremost, is culture.  Why is that wherever Asian-Americans move, the schools get better?  Why is it that New York City's special high schools, the elite secondary schools of the nation, like the "Fame" school, are flooded with qualified Asian-Americans, yet have trouble attracting other groups?  Culture.  Education begins in the home, not the school.  The parent is the first teacher.  If that parent is absent, or not interested, the child won't excel.

Yet, we are not permitted to discuss culture.  It's not politically correct.  I once asked a guidance counselor from an inner-city Los Angeles school if he could tell in advance which parents would come to PTA meetings.  "Of course," he replied.  "It's the parents of the A and B students."  He then paused and said, "That's why they're A and B students."

The second reason for failure is that we've turned many schools into political instruments of the left.  Consider bi-lingual education, now a complete failure.  Why does it take eight years for a Hispanic child to learn English, whereas a new immigrant to Israel learns Hebrew in six months?  Politics.  It's not in the interest of the Hispanic political establishment for that child to learn English.   Once the child does, he or she is no longer dependent on that establishment. 

But Kristof won't go there either.  He gives us the bromides about spending, suggesting that we're cheap with education.  In fact, we're very generous.  But spending can't overcome culture, and we'll never address that issue unless we acknowledge it, and acknowledge that political corruption can destroy education, no matter how many dollars are thrown at the schools.

Kristof gets an F, but keeps the award.

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 7:04 P.M.  Bill Ayers (remember him?), the radical extremist whose relationship with Barack Obama played a role in the campaign, has written a new afterward to his memoir, "Fugitive Days."  The Chicago Tribune says the "new description of the relationship seems to contradict Obama's statements."

COMMENT:  We find this out, of course, after the election.  Ayers will appear on ABC, which did not show any notable interest in him when his connection with Obama was hurting The One.

UPDATE AT 6:35 P.M. ET:  CHICAGO (CBS) — The warning is out – Mayor Richard M. Daley says a parade of corporate chief executives have told him huge layoffs are planned around the city and will carry into next year.

COMMENT:  Their guy is moving into the White House.  How many billions do you think will flow to Chicago?  Class? 

UPDATE AT 4:15 P.M. ET:   Incredibly, the Dow closed up 552.  I'm sure the "experts" you see on TV can explain this, the way they explain everything else.  But imagine being a member of the public, watching the Dow go up this much in the face of bad news, and then go down the same amount the next day, when the news doesn't change.  Great confidence builder.  The casino plays on.

UPDATE AT 2:47 P.M. ET:  The Dow is up 196.  There is no rhyme or reason for this.  It's a casino.

BRITS ON ICE

Posted at 2:42 p.m. ET

The president elect has said that "global warming" will be a major concern of his administration.  It's also a major concern of the scientific community, some of whose members are starting to wonder whether we've gotten it right at all.

Now some researchers at the University of Edinburgh, which is not exactly a slouch school, are saying that some really chilling things - and I mean chilling - things could happen to the UK, despite all the hoopla about "warming":

It has plagued scientists and politicians for decades, but scientists now say global warming is not the problem.

We are actually heading for the next Ice Age, they claim.

British and Canadian experts warned the big freeze could bury the east of Britain in 6,000ft of ice.

Do not tell Al Gore.  He gets upset easily.  Ditto Barbra and maybe even Barack.

But, according to these scientists, parts of Britain could look like this:

Not exactly a foggy day in London town.

Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases – such as carbon dioxide – could actually be the key to averting the chill.

Look, there have to be prisons for people like this.  There just have to be.  I hope they don't allow them to teach students.  Do they?

The team says we are approaching a turning point, in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years, which will lead to the new ice sheets smothering much of Europe, Asia and South America.

Well, at least Barney Frank will be retired, and won't be able to mess it up.

The theory, which is based on computer models, suggests ice sheets will also slash sea levels by up to 300m, so Russia and Alaska will be connected by land.

See, Sarah was right.  She'll see Russia from her house.

Professor Crowley said the stark findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming.

But he urged: ‘Don’t push the panic button.’

‘There’s no excuse for saying “we’ve got to keep pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,”’ he told Reuters.

‘Geologically it’s tomorrow, but we have lots of time to argue about the appropriate level of greenhouse gases.’

Look, I'm no expert on this.  These boys can be way off.  But they raise serious questions.  Many of the "global warning" scares ar based on the same kind of computer modeling represented here.  And more and more scientists are expressing doubts.

"Fight global warming" is a phrase, not a scientific conclusion.  It involves vast sums of money.  Before we start to fight, and write the checks, maybe we should be sure what exactly we're fighting, why, and on whose behalf.

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

UPDATE AT 1:43 P.M. ET:  The Dow has rebounded somewhat and is down only 41, at least for now.

UPDATE AT 1:09 P.M. ET:   From WaPo:  In the six weeks since lawmakers approved the Treasury's massive bailout of financial firms, the government has poured money into the country's largest banks, recruited smaller banks into the program and repeatedly widened its scope to cover yet other types of businesses, from insurers to consumer lenders...

...Yet for all this activity, no formal action has been taken to fill the independent oversight posts established by Congress when it approved the bailout to prevent corruption and government waste. Nor has the first monitoring report required by lawmakers been completed, though the initial deadline has passed.

COMMENT:  Do you see a backlash coming?  Wait 'til some news organization catches some executives lounging at a pool...on your money.  It's a matter of time.

UPDATE AT 12:55 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 162. 

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC AUTO COMPANY

Posted at 12:54 p.m. ET

Mr. Obama, breaking from his pledge not to get involved in policy making until sworn in, is pushing a policy designed to "save" the auto industry, apparently from itself.  Bloomberg reports:

Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama is pushing Congress this year to approve as much as $50 billion to save cash-starved U.S. automakers and appoint a czar or board to oversee the companies, a move that would require President George W. Bush's support, people familiar with the matter said.

Obama's economic advisers are now convinced that if General Motors Corp. doesn't get a financial lifeline soon, it will have to file for bankruptcy by the end of January. And if the companies don't get almost $50 billion, Obama will be dealing with the issue again by next summer.

I don't know which is worse, bailing them out or having America's most symbolic industry run by a board appointed by a leftist administration.

The president-elect also wants the Federal Reserve to extend emergency loans to General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC, according to Obama aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The failure of those companies would likely bring down parts-makers, dealerships and suppliers in addition to inflicting a deep psychological blow.

If the plan were to offer no strong guarantees against layoffs it would likely draw fire from unions. But Obama advisers have been persuaded that the impact on current workers and retirees would be staggering if the companies went into bankruptcy.

Any auto czar or committee would presumably have the job of overseeing a restructuring of the auto industry.

You know, as Jack Benny used to say, I was thinking...

We didn't hear about any of this before the nominating conventions.  Then came the very conveniently timed economic meltdown, guaranteed to elect Obama.  Now we're talking moves that border on real socialism.  How did all this happen so fast, and at this particular time?  I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be opposed to a team of independent investigative reporters, if one could be found, looking into some of these remarkable coincidences.

``The auto industry is too big to fail,'' said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight Inc. in Lexington, Massachusetts. ``While the Obama administration can wait until Jan. 20 to address other matters, on this one they need to move quickly.''

...A GM bankruptcy could send the U.S. jobless rate as high as 9.5 percent, up from a 14-year high of 6.5 percent in October, and produce a recession comparable in length to that of 1980-82, according to Behravesh.

``If it does collapse, it could make the recession deeper and longer,'' he said.

Questions:  What happens after the bailout?  What happens if they still can't produce cars Americans want?  Is this fair to other companies who have made quality cars with American workers, like Toyota and Honda?   And who audits the "chump change," like those hundred-thousand-dollar weekends in the Bahamas for "executives" who must meet there to project their grand visions...like the ones that wrecked their companies? 

November 13, 2008.       Permalink          

UPDATE AT 12:32 P.M. ET:  From InstaPundit:  JAKE TAPPER WILL BE ABC'S senior White House correspondent for the new Administration. That bodes well for non-in-the-tank coverage, as Tapper was more willing than most to report bad things about Obama during the campaign.

COMMENT:  Correct.  It's a good choice...if he's allowed to do his job.  And that's a big if.  

UPDATE AT 12:22 P.M. ET:  The Dow is down 105, after a morning during which it was relatively stable.

UPDATE AT 9:40 A.M. ET:  From The New York Post:  CBS anchor Katie Couric thinks Sarah Palin has a thing or two to learn about politics before she contemplates a White House run in 2012. "I think she should keep her head down, work really hard and learn about governing. But I'm not anyone to give advice to anyone about anything," she told Page Six at Glamour Magazine's 2008 Women of the Year Awards dinner at the Essex House.

COMMENT:  I believe Ms. Palin is a high-rating governor and Ms. Couric is a low-rating anchor.

UPDATE AT 9:01 A.M. ET:   BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) – Asian stock markets tumbled Thursday as more signs of a sharp downturn in the U.S. economy spurred investors to dump shares of exporters like Sony and resource companies like BHP Billiton.

COMMENT:  Day by day economic declines eat at the political scene like a virus.  The political vacuum in Washington as a result of the election isn't helping.  Obama can't take direct action yet, but he can appoint an economic team to give some reassurance of competence.

UPDATE AT 8:25 A.M. ET:  From The New York Times:  DETROIT — Momentum is building in Washington for a rescue package for the auto industry to head off a possible bankruptcy filing by General Motors, which is rapidly running low on cash.  But not everyone agrees that a Chapter 11 filing by G.M. would be the disaster that many fear. Some experts note that while bankruptcy would be painful, it may be preferable to a government bailout that may only delay, at considerable cost, the wrenching but necessary steps G.M. needs to take to become a stronger, leaner company.

COMMENT:  Follow this carefully.  We wrote last night at Urgent Agenda about growing doubts.  At some point the American people may actually want to know where their money is going...and into whose pockets.

The president-elect of the United States makes a phone call.  Immedidately thereafter, all 4,926 of his foreign-policy advisers advised him that it would sound better if he spoke into the other end of the phone.

NOTE:  THE ABOVE PICTURE IS A HOAX, BUT WE'LL LEAVE IT UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT'S FLOATING AROUND.  THE WHOLE THING IS EXPLAINED HERE.  THANKS TO LOYAL READER JEAN SPIK, WHO SENT US ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL 

SEE NEXT STORY ABOUT ANOTHER HOAX, THIS MORE SERIOUS.

THE OTHER HOAX

Posted at 7:17 a.m. ET

You mean - wait a minute - you mean she does know that Africa is a continent and not a country?

Uh, well, yeah, maybe.

One of the worst smears against Sarah Palin is that she's stupid.  This was reinforced by the "report" that, during preparations for her debate with Joe Biden, she said that Africa was a country, not a continent.

Apparently, the report was a hoax.  The New York Times, and we grudgingly applaud its courage, has the story this morning.  It will give you such confidence in the fact-checking that the media did when dealing with Governor Palin:

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. “Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,” Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn’t exist. His blog does, but it’s a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow — the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy — is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

And none of the ace reporters who have risen to the pinnacle of their profession apparently knew this.

The perps are two guys - Eitan Gorlin and Dan Mirvish.

(For what it’s worth, another reporter for The New York Times is an acquaintance of Mr. Gorlin and vouches for his identity, and Mr. Gorlin is indeed “Mr. Eisenstadt” in those videos. He and his partner in deception, Dan Mirvish, have entries on the Internet Movie Database, imdb.com. But still. ...)

There is no apology rendered:

They say the blame lies not with them but with shoddiness in the traditional news media and especially the blogosphere.

“With the 24-hour news cycle they rush into anything they can find,” said Mr. Mirvish, 40.

Mr. Gorlin, 39, argued that Eisenstadt was no more of a joke than half the bloggers or political commentators on the Internet or television.

Out of the mouths of hoaxters, like babes, the truth comes.

Last month Eisenstadt blogged that Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, Joe the Plumber, was closely related to Charles Keating, the disgraced former savings and loan chief. It wasn’t true, but other bloggers ran with it.

Among those taken in by Monday’s confession about the Palin Africa report was The New Republic’s political blog. Later the magazine posted this atop the entry: “Oy — this would appear to be a hoax. Apologies.”

But the truth was out for all to see long before the big-name take-downs. For months sourcewatch.org has identified Martin Eisenstadt as a hoax.

You have to ask what other false stories are out there?  And why so little is done about them?

And then there is William K. Wolfrum, a blogger who has played Javert to Eisenstadt’s Valjean, tracking the hoaxster across cyberspace and repeatedly debunking his claims. Mr. Gorlin and Mr. Mirvish praised his tenacity, adding that the news media could learn something from him.

“As if there isn’t enough misinformation on this election, it was shocking to see so much time wasted on things that didn’t exist,” Mr. Wolfrum said in an interview.

Yeah.  This story should be on the desk of every journalism student in America. 

November 13, 2008.      Permalink          

FEELINGS

Posted at 7:15 a.m. ET

It is no insult to the president-elect to say that many who voted for him did so out of emotion, rather than reason.  It's usually that way.  Emotion plays an enormous role in politics, something, I'm afraid, that our side didn't quite master in this campaign.  Well, maybe Sarah Palin mastered it, but not many others did.

Ronald Reagan mastered it.  "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" is an emotional chant, not an intellectual pursuit of policy.

Franklin Roosevelt mastered it. "With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God," was a rallying cry, not a statistical projection.

Barack Obama mastered it.  "Yes we can!" meant nothing, but it had impact.

Here at Urgent Agenda we often print stock-market bulletins.  We don't do it because we're economists who can interpret the market.  We do it because the market has an emotional impact on the American people, and therefore on politics. 

Mitchell Parrish, pictured left, was a distinguished lyricist who wrote the words to "Stardust," Moonlight Serenade" and other standards.  Some years ago his work was featured at a series in New York that honored lyricists.  Just before the program began, Parrish addressed the audience.  He said, "When you hear my lyrics, don't analyze them, feel them."  We know what he meant.

We are facing tough times.  A new president soon takes office.  But don't look only at policy pronouncements, numbers, and quotes by Ivy League professors.  Look, and feel, the way the emotions of the nation are flowing.  They will determine, as much as policy, how the new president is perceived by the public.  Some of those emotions may seem completely divorced from facts, and floating on their own.  But not everything can be dissected or analyzed.  Please recall what Oscar Hammerstein II wrote in "South Pacific," trying to explain why people fall in love:  "Fools give you reasons, wise men never try."

Many fools will try to explain everything that will happen in America in the coming era.  Wiser men will be more careful.

November 13, 2008.      Permalink