September 2006 Archives

« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

Harmonic Convergence

September 20, 2006 04:37 PM

Link · Chavez | United Nations

The Milibandite

September 20, 2006 03:34 PM

A great piece of writing (as always) from David Aaronovitch in the Times of London. He's puzzling over Gordon Brown's decision not to disown intra-party maneuverings intended to force out Tony Blair:

That’s what I have wondered all week. And in even wondering it, I sense the answer. I sense it in the knowledge that this article will be labelled as part of a Blairite attack on the Chancellor by his acolytes (many of whose devotions have been, to be fair, unsought) in the press and the Labour Party. They are, whether they know it or not, a terrible bunch of unimaginative bullies. In any case I am, I think, a Milibandite — partly because it sounds like something from the Cretaceous period, and partly because there are two Milibands, and that gives me wriggle room.

Fantastic.

Link · Journalism

SHHHH

September 19, 2006 01:27 PM

This blog is a regular recipient of stock-scam spam. Today's is my favorite so far.

----- Original Message ---- From: Brendan Dukes To: ethan@room12a.com Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:59:18 AM Subject: Tuesday.CRSVF.Waldrop talking to

Hello Brendan,

I hope this is your email. I received some inside information
from Garry Lompard (General Instruments INC). Buy CRSVF.

CRSVF is going to explode. Don't tell anybody about this opportunity.

Alert: Tuesday, September 19, 2006

________________________________
Company: CAPITAL RES CANADA LTD
Ticker: CRSVF
Current Price: $0.25
Target Price: $2.42
Recommendation: STRONG-BUY
Buy: "STRONG"

Expectations: Max
________________________________

When this Stock moves - WATCH OUT! This is your chance to get in
the low. Out CRSVF on your
radar's now and reap the benefits early.

John, you can also look the latest news for CRSVF. Don't invest more
then 100000$ at once. Better invest 10000$ each trading day. After first day you will see a significant increasement of the stock price and volume.

Don't waste that opportunity. Make a right decision now. I can spell the stock symbol for you. C R S V F

Waiting for your response

Sincerely,
Bob Gillahan

How helpful. All that's missing here is the address for turning yourself in to the SEC.

Link · Humor

The Scholar's Lament

September 14, 2006 02:36 PM

The New York Times ran a story this week about contributions from the Wal-Mart family's foundation to conservative think-tanks, some of whose scholars have written favorably about Wal-Mart. Why this ought surprise the editors of a publication that relies on advertising dollars, I do not know.

In any case, my father is a scholar at AEI, and he has written or delivered much of the material at issue. He detests rent-seeking, and has argued thusly[$] as banking interests try to block competition in their sphere from Wal-Mart. (You can find an example of the banking industry's measured response to his views here. Scroll down to "The Orwellian World of Mr. Wallison.") So last week he fielded queries from one of the Times reporters as we rode the train to my grandmother's funeral. With his permission, I have posted the full text of the email exchange below, in reverse chronological order.

From: Peter J. Wallison To: 'barbaro@nytimes.com' Sent: Thu Sep 07 11:24:09 2006 Subject: Re: New York Times Inquiry

Michael: I have tried to answer your questions below. Peter

1. No.

2. I am not involved in fundraising, and with few exceptions don't know who contributes to AEI. In general, the scholars at AEI, in my experience at least, have no role in the fundraising efforts. I have been told by Chris DeMuth, the President, that my job is to think, write and develop policy ideas; his is to raise funds to support AEI.

3. Although I was not aware of any contributions by Wal-Mart, even if I were I would not have disclosed it. AEI, I believe, also gets contributions from banks and others who oppose Wal-Mart. These contribuitions come from people who believe in AEI's efforts to influence the public policy debate in Washington. They don't agree with everything the scholar says, just as they may contribute to political officials whose views they generally support without agreeing on every issue. Will you, or the editorial pages of the Times, inconnection with this article, disclose how much advertising the Times receives from banks each year? Do you doubt that this article will increase that advertising? After all, these banks, the largest in NY, are opponents of wal-Mart's application. If you believe AEI should disclose, don't you have the same obligation? I for one will be very surprised if I see such a disclosure in your piece.

4. The funding hasn't influenced me, not only because I was not aware of it but also because the views I expressed have always been my views. I never write an op-ed for payment of any kind, and have turned down requests to do so because I don't want any implication that my views are for sale--not because I think it's wrong to be paid for expressing my views. Many of my articles are likely to be opposed or favored by AEI contributors, and it has never occurred to me or any other AEI scholar, I would guess, that this should be a consideration. Certainly, no one in the management of AEI has ever said anything to me about pulling my punches or favoring a particular company or idea, and I would be amazed if one of them ever did.

If I may make an editorial comment here, I think it is destructive to debate on important policy issues that the press, and particularly your newspaper, tries to demean substantive positions by implying that they are infleuenced by contributions. Even if they were, the positions should be debated on their substantive merits, not impugned by suggestions of bias.

Peter J. Wallison

Sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: barbaro@gmail.com
To: Peter J. Wallison
Sent: Thu Sep 07 09:54:04 2006
Subject: Re: New York Times Inquiry

Peter,

I am so very sorry to be pestering you on a day when you are attending a funeral. But in the interest of fairness, I do want to ask you these questions.

Our story will focus on the Walton Foundation's giving to think tanks, which has increased in recent years, and the disclosure -- or lack thereof -- of this funding stream from scholars at those think tanks who write about Wal-Mart. AEI has received significant funding from the Walton Foundation and so I am reaching out to several people there who have written about the company.

Here is what I would like to know (mind you these are thematic, sort of boilerplate questions; this story does not focus on you or AEI exclusively.)

(1) Were you aware that AEI has received funding from the Walton Foundation ($80,000 in 2003; $30,000 in 2004)
(2) If not, why?
(3) If so, why did you not disclose this fact in your op-ed pieces, interviews with reporters and testimony before the FDIC? (Or did I overlook such disclosures?)
(4) Do you feel this funding has influenced your thinking -- or that of any AEI employee?

Many thanks,

Michael Barbaro
The New York Times



On 9/7/06, Peter J. Wallison wrote:

It will be difficult for me to contact you today. I am on the way to a family funeral. If you have specific questions, I would be pleased to answer them with my blackberry between events. If you have seen my writings, you know that I believe the attack on Wal-Mart--like the idea of separating banking and commerce-- is an effort to fend off competition. In this case, it is the banking industry that is seeking protection. In other cases, such as the realtors, it's an industry trying to fend off the banks. Regards, Peter Wallison


Peter J. Wallison

Sent from my Blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: barbaro@gmail.com < barbaro@gmail.com >
To: Peter J. Wallison
Sent: Thu Sep 07 09:17:14 2006
Subject: New York Times Inquiry

Peter,

I am working on a story with my colleague here at The Times about Wal-Mart and its relationship with think tanks. We plan on touching upon several of your writings -- and testimonies -- in the story and would like to speak with you as early as possible today. I know you are on the road but please give me a call. My work phone is 212-556-XXXX and my cell is 202-321-XXXX. [X's mine]

Many thanks,

Michael Barbaro
The New York Times
barbaro@nytimes.com

None of this discussion was included in the Times article. Dad is not even mentioned in the piece, though it's his work that's being attacked by Wal-Mart's opponents.

On the contrary, the Times quotes another scholar from AEI who says he might disclose Wal-Mart's support for the think-tank in an upcoming book about the company. This, of course, leaves the impression that there might in fact be something to disclose here - a notion my father explicitly rejects and addresses directly in his correspondence with Barbaro.

So why, if it's his work at issue, and he directly rebuts the canard raised by his critics, did the Times leave Dad out of the story? I emailed Barbaro on Thursday to find out. (I accidentally called him "David" in the message. As my late grandmother might have said - Hey, if they didn't want him called David on occasion, his parents shouldn't have named him Michael.) I received an auto-reply saying that he would be out of the office, and unreachable, through Friday.

So let me hazard a guess: I think the Times started with the idea that conservative scholars were guilty of having "failed" - the Times' word - to disclose the Walton Foundation's sneaky effort to buy them; the only question was the degree to which they would acknowledge their awareness and culpability. The editors were not interested in answers that upset this premise. My father's point - which ought to have been obvious - was that AEI probably collects funding from Wal-Mart's opponents in the banking sphere as well. This was inconvenient to the theme of the article. As was the point that news outlets don't find it necessary to disclose their relationships with advertisers who are cited in the editorials they publish.

Intellectual slovenliness of this caliber befits, well, Paul Krugman.

In fact, there's a base absurdity to the whole premise of the Times article. It is embedded in the suggestion that free-market scholars who would likely pull far greater salaries in the corporate world are instead grubbing for Wal-Mart dollars at think-tanks. One wonders which is the greater offense: The suggestion that they could be bought - or the suggestion that they would sell so cheaply.

Link · American Politics | Journalism | News Media

The Clock's Ticking

September 8, 2006 01:20 PM

Bionically earnest press nanny Jack Shafer has yet to comment on the denouement of the Plame affair. Isn't this time for another scolding lecture on the responsibilities of journalists?

Link · American Politics | News Media

The Devil's Workshop

September 5, 2006 03:28 PM

The Washington Examiner:

WASHINGTON - Something almost without precedent in America will happen Thursday. That’s the day when McCain-Feingold — aka the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 — will officially silence broadcast advertising that contains criticism of members of Congress seeking re-election in November. Before 2006, American election campaigns traditionally began in earnest after Labor Day. Unless McCain-Feingold is repealed, Labor Day will henceforth mark the point in the campaign when congressional incumbents can sit back and cruise, free of those pesky negative TV and radio spots. It is the most effective incumbent protection act possible, short of abolishing the elections themselves.

I have nothing useful to add to this, nor to Glenn's succinct, though appropriate response. This law is a disgrace. Shame on them.

Link · American Politics | Congress