You know, if true, there’s something poetically just, almost allegorical about this:
Editorial staffers on the third and fourth floors of the paper’s new Eighth Avenue building are gagging on the smell of dead mice trapped in the vents, an insider tells us. Now, the ad sales department is desperately trying to avoid a similarly stinky situation as vermin run through their offices.
Funny, usually rats flee sinking ships.
Strategy Page says that Al Qaeda is on the run, though you wouldn’t know it from the press coverage:
Al Qaeda is eagerly recruiting other Islamic terrorist organizations, usually ones that have recently taken a big beating in their home country, to become part of al Qaeda. That’s about the only growth al Qaeda is experiencing. In Iraq, former Sunni Arab allies of al Qaeda have openly turned on the organization, and are eagerly hunting them down and killing them. Al Qaeda is fighting back, now sending death squads after Sunni Arab tribal chiefs. Does that sound like something a winner would be doing?
Al Qaeda is having some success in the Western media, and among Moslems living in Europe.
Emphasis mine.
It seems to me that the other loser in this amnesty fiasco is the MSM, which has been fawning over and worshiping the “bi-partisan” “grand bargainers” that were trying to slip this stinker through with no hearings, review or debate. It was alternate media that led the charge against it, and the victory was much greater than they could have hoped. But I think that the two politicians hurt most by it are McCain and Lindsey Graham. The former can stick a fork in his presidential campaign. The latter may still face a strong primary challenge, and I wouldn’t bet that he’ll win it. As one of his constituents said, they expect him to negotiate with the Democrats and Ted Kennedy, but not to become one.
Note, my comment is independent of my views on immigration. This is a case where I objected much more to process than (necessarily) product. Of course, it’s hard to object to a product when you don’t even have time to read it, debate it, or think about it.
[Update]
I agree with Captain Ed:
The immigration bill is dead, yet again, after the Senate rejected cloture by fourteen votes. In the end, the compromise could not even gain a majority in support of what conceptually may have been a passable compromise, but in reality was a poorly constructed, poorly processed mass of contradictions and gaps. Many of us who may have supported a comprehensive approach to immigration found ourselves amazed and repulsed by both the product and the process of this attempt to solve the immigration problem.
Read the rest.
[Evening Update]
Bill Quick has put up a triumphalist post. He may be right, but he may also be premature. Don’t be cocky. And as is pointed out in comments, the left has been very strong in the blogosphere as well, if not stronger. The difference in this case was that is was a weak-tea compromise, that would appeal to no one except “moderates” who had no idea what was going on.
[Evening Update]
Kate O’Beirne describes how far out on a limb the president was with his own party:
The lopsided vote against the Senate bill by House Republicans (114? to 23) overstated House GOP support. According to a leadership aide, “The President actually had half that number (12?!) in favor of his bill.” And, the president’s team wound up with only 12 Republican senators. Ouch.
Ouch, indeed.
But the clueless persist in believing that George Bush is a conservative. And a Republican.
Ariane is touted in an article by Andy Pasztor in today’s Wall Street Journal with a new person singing its praises–Mike Griffin:
Mr. Griffin declared the launch system “probably the best in the world, very smooth and very impressive.”
One quibble: there is an apple to orange comparison of the commercial launch business ($2.7 billion) to US national security space spending ($80 billion). Commercial space launch supports tens of billions in satellite products, services and content. A more relevant comparison would be to look at how much the Department of Defense spends on launchers. The total space budget for military and intelligence is in the $50 billion range. Launch costs presumably would comprise about 3-4% of that if they were more competition. I’m having a little trouble finding a good source of Pentagon launch spending budget figures, but I’m guessing it’s in the 5-10% range.
Roger Simon has some depressing thoughts on press partisanship, and (what he hopes isn’t) the coming end of the Enlightenment:
As one who is fundamentally disinterested in whether one is a Democrat or a Republican – or even a liberal or a conservative, since those terms have been reduced to intellectual rubble – I found what Glenn wrote terrifyingly dark. Because even though I don’t much care any longer for political parties – they come and go and rename themselves, etc. – I care passionately about the Enlightenment, free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of assembly and the rest of that short but delicate list that makes life decent in the West.
And I agree with the commenters. I don’t think that Glenn was saying it was a good argument for electing a Democrat as president–just that it was the best one.
Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?
After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.
Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers’ deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers’ sacrifices.
The Associated Press’ dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: “U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours.” CNN ran with: “12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours.” The New York Times headline read: “14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days.”
Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: “U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad.”
I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.
Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?
After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.
Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers’ deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers’ sacrifices.
The Associated Press’ dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: “U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours.” CNN ran with: “12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours.” The New York Times headline read: “14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days.”
Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: “U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad.”
I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.
Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?
After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.
Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers’ deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers’ sacrifices.
The Associated Press’ dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: “U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours.” CNN ran with: “12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours.” The New York Times headline read: “14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days.”
Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: “U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad.”
I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.
That is, those who are wondering why anyone would think that the BBC is biased against the US (and against the West in general). Why would they want to know about allied troop movements in the current offensive? Surely not to publicize them, and tip off the enemy?
In today’s Wall Street Journal, an editorial applauded the Supreme Court for ruling in Credit Suisse v. Billing that investors could not sue investment banks under anti-trust law. They like Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion:
After the initial purchase, the prices of newly issued stocks or bonds are determined by competition among the vast multitude of other securities traded in a free market. To suggest that an underwriting syndicate can restrain trade in that market by manipulating the terms of [initial public offerings] (IPOs) is frivolous.
This is a red herring. If the underwriting syndicate can get super normal profits through commissions during the IPO, subsequent trading is moot.
The main finding in the Breyer Opinion (6 joining, 1 concurring, 1 abstaining and 1 dissenting):
In sum, an antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to the securities markets and by a diminished need for antitrust enforcement to address anticompetitive conduct. Together these considerations indicate a serious conflict between application of the antitrust laws and proper enforcement of the securities law.
I agree that there is a fundamental conflict between Justice and/or FTC pursuing anti-trust claims and SEC regulating securities. But this is not saying that there should be no anti-trust enforcement. SEC should enforce anti-trust laws.
Here’s what they can expect to reap.