alternative hippopotamus

For instance, there’s an article in today’s ePost posted at 11:10 am that will presumably form the basis for an article in the print edition tomorrow. Here’s the lede:

WASHINGTON — The economy grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter, slightly less than initially estimated but still a solid performance, especially given galloping energy prices.

The new reading for the gross domestic product (GDP) for the April-to-June, quarter released by the Commerce Department on Wednesday, showed a tad less robust growth than the 3.4 percent pace first estimated for the quarter by the government a month ago.

The article goes on to mention that after-tax profits rose by 6.9% and unemployment was steady at 5%.

Sounds pretty good, no? Without looking I’ll bet that one of the usual suspects is typing away something along the lines of “this will be last gasp for the trickle-down naysayers. Reaganomics worked then, and it’s working now- the left’s blind hatred of Bush is just keeping them from seeing it. Meanwhile, the so-called ‘reality-based’ wonder why the American people won’t trust them with the economy.”

The catch here is that on page A3 of today’s Post, we have:

Poverty
Rate
Continues
To Climb
2004 Census Data
Show Labor Market
Is Still Struggling

---

Despite robust economic
growth last year, 1.1 million more
Americans slipped into poverty in
2004, while household incomes
stagnated and earnings fell, the
Census Bureau reported yesterday.
The number of Americans
without health insurance rose by
800,000, to 45.8 million.

The Census Bureau’s annual report
on income, poverty and
health insurance sheds light on
voter discontent with the economy
in the face of seemingly strong
economic data. The broad data
draw a picture of a labor market
still struggling to find its footing,
three years after the 2001 recession.

…

The median household income
stood at $44,389 last year, down
slightly from the 2003 level of
$44,482. But that level was
propped up by more people going
to work for lower earnings. A fulltime
male worker earned a median
income of $40,798 last year, down
$963 in inflation-adjusted dollars
from 2003. Women’s median earnings
fell $327, to $31,223.

Think about that: tax incentives for the wealthy have resulted in lower median household income.

“So many right-wing Christians, so few lions.”

I’ll take an excerpt towards the end that I particularly liked:

And then, there was a very strange, Dr. Seuss-y moment, where the Dust Speck spoke, proving unequivocally that there was a whole, inconceivably tiny, foreign world sitting in full view of the American White House. A visiting Japanese journalist was called on. He stood up with his hands folded, formally, respectfully. His English was pretty rough, but his point was clear:

JAPANESE JOURNALIST: Thank you. I was born and raised in Hiroshima, Japan. (Inaudible). And August 6th (the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima) is coming again …I believe the use of automatic weapons during World War II was cruel and (inaudible), against international law … So in the history of human beings, losers cannot say anything, winners make history as they like.

McCLELLAN: Is there a question?

Yes. Sixty years have passed … I would not necessarily ask, recommend President Bush or someone say someone should apologize, but I believe some statement or comment is needed…

McCLELLAN: I understand. I think I’ll leave the history to historians. I mean, we’re all well aware of the history. But the president is focused on the future, and we do have a great relationship with Japan. The president has a good friend in Prime Minister Koizumi.

This is an example of how freedom leads to peace, because 60 years ago, as you pointed out, and the president often points out, we were enemies. Today we’re working together to advance freedom in places like the broader Middle East, and what we’re doing is laying the foundation of peace for our grandchildren and our — for our children and our grandchildren. And I think that’s important, to remember the past, but to look to the future and how we can continue to build upon the great relationship that we have. And the president is pleased to have a good friend like Prime Minister Koizumi, who understands the importance of that.

It was such a singularly dissatisfying response to what was a very moving question that one corps regular felt horrified enough to have a real, live emotional meltdown outside, ranting, “Talking out the side of his neck! God! I feel unclean!” Others looked on numbly, saying nothing.

I was told that everybody freaks out like this occasionally — it’s an occurrence not unlike acne or parking tickets. The mendacity and disgust hits a fever point and somebody loses it, as quietly and anonymously as possible, and everyone collectively pretends it didn’t happen, out of politeness, because, after all, everybody has those days, and they all have to come back tomorrow.

Note that single pencil stroke of description: He stood up with his hands folded, formally, respectfully. Can’t you picture him? Doesn’t that make the words that follow that much more penetrating?

SETTING: Drs. Rice, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush, dressed in full surgical gear are gathered around a patient. Wolfowitz and Powell are making the noises associated with expensive hospital machinery. Bush is examining the patient with a stethoscope shaking his head. After a moment, Rice notices that Bush has forgotten to put the earpieces in, which she does finally.

BUSH: Holy September 11.
RICE: What is it, Dr. Bush?
BUSH: It’s cancer, Condaleeza. The cancer of the evil-doers. The cancer of those that hate us for our freedom. (points at patient as if he is arguing with him) The Doctor will always stand between cancer and his patient.
WOLFOWITZ: We must operate immediately.
POWELL: I advise caution. Think of the cost, Dr. Wolfowitz.
WOLFOWITZ: Nonsense, Dr. Powell. The operation will pay for itself.
POWELL: The patient might not approve.
WOLFOWITZ: Nonsense. He’ll thank us with candy and flowers.
POWELL: Do we even know where the cancer is?
WOLFOWITZ: We can assume the cancer is everywhere. That’s the lesson of September 11.
POWELL: You’re not even a real doctor, you’re a Poly-Sci PhD.
WOLFOWITZ: For the purpose of this sketch that’s not important. The point is that we need to operate. We all have different reasons for wanting to operate, but we can agree on a common name: cancer.
POWELL: What then are you proposing?
WOLFOWITZ: I say we start by taking out his kidneys.
POWELL: But we don’t know there’s anything wrong with his kidneys.
WOLFOWITZ: After September 11 we can’t take that risk. By taking out his kidneys we’ll make that part of his body more stable. That stability will spread throughout the rest of his body.
POWELL: It’ll spread all right. Like rigor mortis.
WOLFOWITZ: You surprise me, Dr. Powell. We can remake this patient. Form him in our own image. Make him free and independent.
BUSH: And under my control.
WOLFOWITZ: And most importantly free of cancer. Granted, taking out his kidneys may not cure the cancer. We may need to remove his lungs, stomache, liver, who knows where it may end up. But we need to start with his kidneys.
POWELL: And why’s that, Dr. Wolfowitz?
WOLFOWITZ: Because, in many ways, it’s the easiest. Because we have the right to. Because September 11 gives us the moral authority.
POWELL: Europe won’t agree.
WOLFOWITZ: Then fuck ‘em. We can pull off this operation without them.
POWELL: Dr. Bush, I urge caution.
BUSH: Colin, the Doctor can’t be cautious when cancer is at stake.
POWELL: World opinion will be against us.
BUSH: The Doctor will not be held hostage by French and German physicians.
POWELL: Are we even sure the patient has cancer?
BUSH: That’s a simple question to answer, Colin. September 11.
RICE: I know. Let’s take the argument directly to the American people.
BUSH: Condaleeza has the right idea. The Doctor will hold a press conference.

The biggest sickness in our politics is this top down, elitist mentality in which people are fed a diet of information, entertainment, products and ideas that are focus grouped, soulless and commercial — and which are then filtered through a ruling media class that is so psychologically cramped, so emotionally sterile, so stuck in their own feedback loop that they are presenting a totally distorted version of reality. It’s important that we look elsewhere for wisdom and leadership.

Personally I fear that DC is turning into an aristocratic nest. Napolean’s palace. A Washington Versailles consisting of those in power and the media corporations they’re in bed with. The reason that the fourth estate is not currently functioning in a meaningful sense is that it’s no longer separate from the government it is supposed to report on. And by government I don’t mean the Executive branch per se, I mean this separate socio-politic-economic class they’ve created. If the military-industrial complex was the open secret of the 1960’s, the White House-media-corporate elite is the open secret of 2005.

Take this soiree described in today’s White House Briefing:

About 50 members of the White House press corps accepted President Bush’s invitation last night to come over to his house in Crawford, eat his food, drink his booze, hang around the pool and schmooze with him — while promising not to tell anyone what he said afterward.

It’s something of a Bush tradition, a way of saying thank you to journalists for whom an extended stay in the Crawford area is anything but a vacation.

And in spite of all the recent press demands for senior administration officials to stay on the record more often, the press corps can’t resist an offer of face time with the president, pretty much no matter what the conditions.

Later in the post Froomkin mentions that Karl Rove has also been having off-the-record dinners with reporters. Speaking of which let’s not forget that members of the Washington Post and Time magazine had damaging information on Karl Rove, information that could have affected the outcome of the last election, but decided to keep this information to themselves.

This first occurred to me as I was reading about the woman who was threatening some form of retaliation against her doctor for telling her she needed to lose weight. (here)

Then there was the one about the Missing White Woman found at her friends house. (here)

Finally, a commenters response to Norman Lear when Lear wondered whether Pat Robertson’s remarks were falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater:

Norman Lear is nothing more than a Meathead! Norman, why wouldn’t that same “young man” you refer to, become a racist because of Archie Bunker? Fictional character or not, if that”young man” can be so influenced by Pat Robertson, why not Archie Bunker?

And you talk about Sunnis rising up. I mean, the Sunnis have got to make a choice — do they want to live in a society that’s free, or do they want to live in violence. And I suspect most mothers, no matter what their religion may be, will choose a free society, so that their children can grow up in a peaceful world.

Anyway, I’m optimistic about what’s taking place.

Dynamite and a match, via Slate:

Here is the Sunni nightmare in plain black and white: The Kurds are allowed to form a single supra-region in the oil-rich north, the Shiites to form theirs in the oil-rich south, while the Sunnis are left in the oil-dry center.

The Post’s editorial board, which I believe has the complete confidence of The Post’s owner, has been largely supportive of Bush’s war effort. Although I should note that today’s lead editorial took a surprisingly jaundiced view of the current goings-on in Iraq. For instance: “In short, what some Shiite and Kurd leaders are calling federalism looks dangerously like a recipe for partition or civil war.”

Writing about Bush’s imagery, conflations and mischaracterizations, furthermore, could and should legitimately be the province of the reporters and editors, not editorial writers.

There were several things, for instance, that Bush said just yesterday that merited journalistic scrutiny and maybe even clarification or refutation. One of his statements — a classic Bush “straw man” argument, suggesting that “those” who oppose the war are calling for an immediate pullout from the entire Middle East — was in fact picked up by several reporters.

But consider this statement by Bush from yesterday: “We had a policy that just said, let the dictator stay there, don’t worry about it. And as a result of dictatorship, and as a result of tyranny, resentment, hopelessness began to develop in that part of the world, which became the — gave the terrorists capacity to recruit. We just cannot tolerate the status quo. We’re at war. And so this is a hopeful moment.”

Doesn’t that sort of beg for a journalistic postmortem?

And then there was his dubious assertion that that the Iraqi constitution only talks about Islam as “a religion” not “the religion.”

I think that every arguably false, confused or misleading statement made by the leader of the Free World should be addressed by the journalists whose job it is to cover him.

I think this is important for a few reasons. First, it’s important to point out that Bush’s style always has been to caricature the positions of his critics, and then to make sweeping statements amounting to a rejection without further analysis of the caricature. It’s a style so hacky that even Jonah “I support the troops by hacking” Goldberg occasionally has second thoughts.

Second, for those of us “truth seekers” out there, and I count myself as one, Bush is to the truth, what a snowstorm is to a barbecue. While there is no physical law that says the two cannot coexist, in practise the union is unheard of.

Finally, some of the journalistic post-mortem can be done in the blogosphere. There are certain journalistic things that are difficult if not impossible for bloggers to do. Few if any of us have access to the White House, so it’s not like we can play Helen Thomas with McClellan or Bush. Fact checking is something we can do, and some of us are pretty good at it.