COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

A year after Washington rescued the banks considered too big to fail, the ones deemed too small to save are approaching a grim milestone: the 100th bank failure of 2009.


There are now a number of companies... private insurers... who have more in cash reserves backing their own promises than the FDIC has available to back the banking system...

While the parade of failures still represents a mere fraction of America’s small banks, it underscores a growing divide between them and large institutions like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and U.S. Bancorp, which are slowly growing stronger as the economy improves.

Leave it to the New York Times to fall for the 'rich get richer' divide. I mean, they already went for "grim milestone." Why not go whole hog for the stupidity? News flash for the Times: It's called "consolidation." Solid banks get a chance to purchase distressed assets of failing banks at a discount and thank God they do! It's good for everyone, and is saving the system from collapse right now.

Burdened by worsening commercial real estate loans, many small banks’ troubles are just beginning. Many analysts say that the now-toxic loans could sink hundreds of small lenders over the next few years and place a significant drag on the economy.

Already, the bank failures are placing enormous strain on the F.D.I.C. and its fund, which keeps depositors whole. Flush with more than $50 billion only two years ago, the fund recently fell into the red.

The prospect of more failures has led the F.D.I.C. to seek new ways to replenish the fund with higher and earlier payments by healthy banks, even after setting aside reserves for future losses.

Those commercial loans aren't turning around yet, either. And there's a new wave of ARMs due to reset soon, which should trigger a new round of foreclosures.

Yippee.

The initial wave of failures has also unsettled some communities, even though most of the troubled institutions have been bought by other banks rather than shuttered. While deposits are safe thanks to federal insurance, the new buyers often do not have the same ties to local businesses as the former owners.

More stupidity. Deposits are safe? Only deposits up to $250,000. And that's not really sustainable, because we upped the limit from 100k to 250k without a supporting increase in premiums. Oh, and what's this "federal insurance?" Kemosabe?

In some cases, they tighten lending and make it harder for longtime customers to obtain loans or favorable terms. In other cases, managers of the new bank make other changes, like ending offers for high-interest certificates of deposit and calling in certain lines of credit. In the longer term, some new owners are likely to close branches of the bank they have acquired in order to cut costs.

Ok, time to hit the Times reporter over the head with a clue-bat: Larger banks don't pull back on CD rates because they're out of touch with local businesses, moron. They do it because they aren't desperate and stupid. There's a reason banks offer above-market CD rates. Think about it: They are trying to raise cash in a hurry, to stave off a short-term crisis. Often it doesn't work, and the bank fails. Sometimes, the smart money sees their bank offer a significantly above-market CD rate, and they yank their money, and the bank fails as a result of what amounts to a large-depositor run on the bank. (Small depositors tend to be lazier.)

Once the bank is acquired by a healthier bank, the crisis is past, and banks no longer have a reason to offer CD rates significantly above market.

(Here's another clue: If you are looking for a good deal on a loan, don't go to the bank offering crazy-good CD rates! They're not looking to lend, and will be very picky and jack up rates to exceed their new higher cost of capital.

This calls for a song!

Labels: banking, economy, finance, New York Times

The New York Times Public Editor looks into how the Times ran an article with seven factual errors in it.
Not a huge deal in my book. Just an interesting look at how the sausage is made.

It's amazing to me how newspaper folks can be ready to commit sepukku over trivial shit like whether Cronkite was 64 or 65 years old when he retired, while at the same time glossing over the institutional biases that lead to David Carr mis-analyzing the entire war - and then not giving a shit, Purple Stars, Congressional Medals of Honor for Songwriters, Sadr Stupid, and this whole bag of shit.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: New York Times, The media

This time from David Brooks:

But it’s not right to end on a note of cultural pessimism because there is the fact of President Obama. Whatever policy differences people may have with him, we can all agree that he exemplifies reticence, dispassion and the other traits associated with dignity.

Wow. Let's see that vaunted Obama dignity in action!








Obama.

Can you smell the dignity?

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: New York Times, Obama, stupid

Cedarford, a racist, bigoted, Jew-hating jerk who comments on Althouse, nails the recent escape of a NYT reporter from Taliban captivity:

Oh, to have been a fly on the wall during the NYTimes hostage negotiation for their reporter.

"Look, we gave you info on the Afghan Predator program, America tapping into SPRINT to find Islamoid financiers. We regularly give page 1 to any "wedding party atrocity" you alledge. We helped kill hundreds of American soldiers by working hard to inflame Muslims with endless stories of Abu Ghraib, GITMO torture, Haditha, Koran desecration..Details on jammer devices the military was trying against IEDs. Endless advocacy of terrorist's precious rights and civil liberties."

"Frankly, you Taliban and Al Qaeda owe us! Release our guy!"

Labels: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, journalism, New York Times, War on Terror

The New York Times editorial board didn't see fit to write an editorial on Iran today. But they did weigh in on Obama's effort to destroy the American health care system as we know it.

As the debate on health care reform unfolds, no issue has caused such partisan rancor — and spawned such misleading rhetoric — as whether to create a new public insurance plan to compete with private plans.

The nation already has several huge public plans, including Medicare for the elderly (once reviled by conservatives, it is now only short of the flag in its popularity) and Medicaid for the poor.

Great. How is that Medicare balance sheet looking these days, morons? Wait. Don't answer that.

Now the issue is whether to establish a new public plan to encourage more competition among health insurers

Garbage. Why do these idiots swallow this crap? If the government gets involved in this marketplace, a number of insurance carriers, and thousands of agents, will simply pull out of the market altogether. The result will be fewer options. Not more. Less competition (except with tax-subsidized public plans on less than a level playing field, in which the true cost of coverage is masked.)

Most Democrats and some Republicans have already accepted the need to create one or more health insurance exchanges where individuals without group coverage and possibly small businesses could buy insurance policies.

These morons are too dumb for words. People without group coverage purchase health insurance every single day. I hold an individual plan myself - even though I have access to a similar plan through my employer. My risk pool is better than theirs, so I stay with my own plan. Small businesses purchase health care plans every single day.

An exchange would give the government (federal or state) a lot more power over insurers that choose to participate in order to tap a vast new market of previously uninsured people.

There you have it. These trotskyite bastards just let the mask slip. They think giving the government more power over private entities is a GOOD thing.

They are also blindingly ignorant. State regulation of insurance companies is a long tradition in this country - and a good one. The state insurance commissioners do a much better job of financial regulation, with closer accountability, than the SEC and their grubbing FINRA handmaidens.

It would determine the range of benefits that all participating plans would have to offer.

So much for offering more competition and more choices, huh?

But it gets worse than that. When government gets involved in dictating what benefits to offer, they start mandating coverage for uninsurable risks. The result is that insurance policies gradually cease to be vehicles of risk transfer, as they should be, and become nothing more than hyper-expensive, glorified discount plans.

It would presumably require those plans to accept all applicants, regardless of “pre-existing conditions.”

Unless you make health coverage MANDATORY, for all Americans, like auto insurance, and enforce it with jail time, this is totally unworkable. It becomes a factory for adverse selection. I don't even think the imbeciles at the New York Times know what adverse selection is, or why it's important. I'd love to quiz them.

There is no serious consideration in Congress of a single-payer governmental program that would enroll virtually everyone.

Who are they kidding. That's the dream. Government money always drives out private money: If the government plan is made universally available at very low cost, that is precisely what will happen, as people flee their private plans to suckle on the government tit with a giant sucking sound. It's been tried on a small scale in Hawai'i already. With disastrous results.

Nor is there any talk of extending the veterans health care system, a stellar example of “socialized medicine,” to the general public.

The Times is talking out of its ass here. The VA system can't handle its own case load. Non-service-related injuries are way down the totem pole. Vets who rely on the VA system alone don't get the benefit of competition. And scroll down for an example of just how 'stellar' the quality of care and administration of VA health care is. Just a few days ago, CBS News ran a story on how 40 different VA Medical Centers were under investigation for tainted colonoscopy procedures, putting thousands of veterans at risk for Hepatitis, HIV, and other illnesses.. My God, they are calling the VA a "stellar example of socialized medicine" on the very same day they're running this story.

There is just no end to the level of arrogance and ignorance in the NY Times editorial offices.

A public plan would have lower administrative expenses than private plans, no need to generate big profits, and stronger bargaining power to obtain discounts from providers. That should enable it to charge lower premiums than many private plans.

Dreamy. Why not fucking socialize EVERYTHING, libtards?

But I don't buy for a moment that a public plan would have lower administrative expenses than private plans. The DB plans on public sector workers alone would blow that argument out of the water. Further, much of the administrative expense in running a health insurance company comes out of HIPAA compliance. That's right... it costs millions each year just to keep up with the government's own ideas! So the government comes up with requirements, forcing the health insurance companies to spend money to comply. Then they get blamed for high administrative expenses. But government will still have the same compliance issues. If they don't, then there is no privacy in government plans.

It would also provide an alternative for individuals who either can’t get adequate insurance from private insurers

This is truly the crux of the matter. What are we to do with people who are uninsurable? But every state already has measures in place to provide an insurer of last resort. We have already addressed portability issues with HIPAA - so just because you lose your job doesn't mean you have to lose your health insurance. Yes, you do have to pay the premium, including the portion formerly paid by your employer. This is health care - the fervent, childlike wishes of libtards not withstanding - isn't free.

Further, any young and healthy worker who declines health insurance, gets sick or hurt, then blames the system for not providing him or her a health insurance plan they didn't want to support when they were healthy, doesn't deserve a health insurance plan. Let them bankrupt themselves first, then go on to Medicaid. You make health coverage MANDATORY, and enforce it, and you won't have a problem with this.

The prospect of competing with a government plan terrifies the private insurers. But in our judgment, if that many Americans were to decide that such a plan is a better deal for them and their families, that would be a good thing.

That's because you are a bunch of commie rat bastards with no understanding of where money comes from or how wealth is generated.

Innovative private plans that already deliver better services at lower costs would survive. Inefficient private plans would wither

.

Again, I ask the libtards at the New York Times with the 10th-grade understanding of economics: If that's the case, why not socialize everything?

I have an idea. Let's put a government-owned city newspaper in New York City. Let's see how the argument changes.

LIGHTER VERSIONS Other proposals are circulating that would level the playing field with private plans. They would require the public plan to hold the same reserves as private plans and sustain itself from premium income without drawing on the federal treasury.

Wonderful. Who would put up the "reserves," dipshit? Or do we just waive around some magic faerie dust?

STATE-BASED PLANS A bipartisan group, led by three former Senate leaders — Republicans Bob Dole and Howard Baker and Democrat Tom Daschle — has proposed leaving it to states to create public plans if they wish. The federal government would be able to step in after five years if a state has failed to establish an exchange with affordable insurance options. That looks like a formula for delay and inaction.

Why? Because libtards HATE the states. Their instinct is to centralize everything, all the time, and send power as far away from the people as they can. They can't get away with sending it to the UN yet, so they'll settle for Washington. Just for fun, next time you're hanging out with a libtard, ask them this question: "What does the 10th Amendment mean to you?" Press them on it. Hang on to it like a bulldog on a bone. Don't let the bastard change the subject. Progressivism is a bankrupt ideology. Force them to confront it. "Why do you think the founding fathers included the 10th amendment in the Bill of Rights?"

COOPERATIVES Propelled by a belief that no public plan could survive a Republican filibuster, Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, has proposed instead setting up private nonprofit cooperatives — run for the benefit of their members rather than stockholders — to compete with profit making insurance plans.

The presumed advantage of this approach is that cooperatives might be able to charge lower premiums because they would not have to earn large profits. Their performance, too, would be a yardstick against which to measure whether profit making plans are charging fair premiums.

Oh, wow. Geez. Mutually-owned insurance companies. What a concept! Genius!

TIGHT REGULATION Right from the start of the debate, some experts have suggested that much tighter regulation of the new insurance exchange could achieve many of the goals of a public plan.

Great idea. Because if there's anything that attracts new competitors to the marketplace, fosters innovation, and lowers administrative costs, it's tight regulation.

Regulators could insist that insurers not exclude people with pre-existing conditions or charge them higher premiums.

Yes. Because that will help control costs. We can also evoke, by legislative edict, entities called the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too, to make children happy. I swear to God, this article looks like it was written by idealistic 10th graders - not by hard-bitten, realist journalists. But liberalism, deep down, is fundamentally childishness.

And the near-universal coverage in Massachusetts was achieved without a public plan option.

That was achieved by making health coverage mandatory, geniuses. A detail that seems to have escaped you.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: health care, New York Times, The Left

MONUMENTS

We are not statues

Standing among the trees,

A tribute to what has passed.



We are not statues,

Though our faces are stone,

Chiseled by time, shaped by history

That we are now part of,

As it is part of us.



We are living monuments,

Stoic in the shadows

As the world around us moves.



Colin Halloran, 23, senior

Central Connecticut State University

More here.

Labels: Afghanistan, Iraq, New York Times, Poetry, soldiers' issues, the Arts, veterans

Did you know that the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah and the country that is currently pursuing a nuclear program and whose head of state has repeatedly promised to wipe Israel off the map has not fought a war of expansion in more than 200 years?

Well, you wouldn't know that unless you read the New York Times.

Oh, and Iran's Jews have a few inconveniences, sure, compared to Muslims. But according to Cohen, "to suggest they inhabit a totalitarian hell is self-serving nonsense."

I'm sure these guys will be happy to know that.

Oh, and watch this:



Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Iran, New York Times, stupid, The Left

If you're curious to learn more about AIG and why they required a lifeline of hundreds of billions of dollars, there's a good piece in the New York Times today on the rotten trades they were making.

These guys are the Enron of the insurance world. Not because they committed fraud, mind you. I haven't seen any evidence that their transactions were fraudulent. I'm speaking simply of their sheer hubris and recklessness in their investment decisions, considering the sacred trust they had with thousands and thousands of annuitants and life insurance clients depending on them for one thing and one thing only: maintain their continued solvency so they may keep their promises to their customers in 5, 15, 30 and 50 years.

AIG put their future in doubt for what? A few basis points more for stockholders and a handful of bonus-hungry executives.

For regular folks, the lesson to take home is this:

There are two kinds of insurance companies: Stock companies and mutual companies.

Stock companies are owned by their shareholders. Mutual companies are owned by policy holders.

The advantage with stock companies is that they are frequently cheaper, in the short run. The disadvantage is that there is an inherent conflict of interest within the stock company, between the interests of the policy holders and the interests of the stockholders.

The stockholders are constantly hungry for dividends. They want dividend payments because if the company skips one, then the stock price frequently goes down, since stock prices are simply the baked in value of the expectation of future dividends. The quarterly shareholder report is king. Policy holders are a means to an end.

Large cash reserves benefit the policy holder, whose primary interest is in the claims-paying ability of the insurance company in future years. Large cash reserves do not benefit the stockholder, because they don't kick off much in the way of dividend payments. The stock company does not pay a dividend to the policy holder, but to the stockholder. Stockholders, in turn, pressure management to maximize short term dividends. Managers who resist their impetus are frequently weeded out in favor of management who are more shareholder-friendly - frequently at the expense of policy holders.

A mutual insurance company, on the other hand, still seeks to turn a profit. But when the company is profitable, then earnings are either put to reserves and surplus, which benefit policyholders because they provide an increased margin of safety for tough times, or they are returned to policyholders in the form of dividends.

Premiums can be lower in stock companies - initially, anyway. Because their policies are worth less. They don't earn dividends. Dividends are routed to shareholders, not policy owners.

AIG fell into the stock company trap: They succumbed to the temptation to chase returns on risks they didn't understand, jeopardizing policyholders and the future viability of the company, in order to please stockholders one quarter at a time.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: business, economy, finance, insurance, New York Times

This is it.

Japan offers possible road map for U.S. economy.

Labels: Economics, economy, finance, New York Times, stupid

The New York Times is looking for stringers out in Jesusland, and so has taken out an ad on JournalismJobs.com, a popular internet watering hole for the unemployed, underemployed and soon-to-be-laid-off.

I think it's encouraging that they're making an effort to improve their coverage of heartland America and expand cultural diversity among their editorial staff.

Oh, and before you rush to send in your clips, make sure you mind the Times' editorial guidance:

"Do not submit ideas regarding dog fights, cock fights, or the Confederate flag."

I swear, you can't make this shit up, folks. What a bunch of condescending pricks.

How offensive is this? Well, let's imagine an ad that reads thus:

The Metro News Journal is looking for experienced freelance writers to cover the African-American community. Please do not submit any ideas regarding watermelon recipes, fried chicken, or "I Found My Baby-Daddy" confessionals.

Post your story ideas for the New York Times below.

Splash, out

Jason

Hat-tip: Instapundit

Labels: culture, New York Times, The Left, The media

The bodhran is an "Irish tambourine."

Labels: Music, New York Times, The media

First, its David Carr, a man who neglected his own child to feed his own drug addiction, writing that "journalists wrinkled their noses in disgust" when Piper Palin was filmed kitty-licking her brother's hair into place.

Taking their cue from the clueless David Barr, the scumnuts at HuffPo go after Piper, and use that adorable six year old as a weapon with which to bash her mother.

Class!

Sample comments:

You Right Winged Hypocrites weren't crying when Michelle Obama was getting blasted. Remember you said Family was FAIR game. So let the games continue!!!!

Totally creepy. Hasn't she been taught not to lick her hands? And to put it on her baby brother...eewww...makes me cringe. Needs more home trainig - nothing cute about this no matter howthey change to spin it. Disgusting...

I agree. This is probably a result of HOME SCHOOLING by her mom. She can't train her own children, how can she lead a country!!!!!!

1. Pregnant + an Alcoholic
2. Lacks home training

Do we really want her running anything at the White House?

No way! No how! No McCain/Palin!!!! HRC


Shows her lack of home training further pointing to her mother's incompetence!!!

It is one of the sickest perversions of politics yet that a 6-year old was co-opted to perform a stunt in front of a camera ready to tape it. Who told her to do that? Was Karl Rove under the seat whispering instructions?

this is just amazingly gross

I feel the same way. I turned my head when the clip was shown on television.

I question if Piper is being home-schooled just so she's around to take care of Trig.

Now that was too cute! Too bad her parents won't let her go to school with her friends instead of babysit.

I guess hair licking must be commonplace amongst you conservatives. What other strange behaviors do you have that we 'Libs' don't know about?


Those are from just the first few pages. Just keep scrolling!

Labels: Media, New York Times, Palin, The media

Howie Kurtz, whom I have a good deal of respect for, relates his interview with a McCain senior official about the press coverage over the last week - and he is spitting mad.

Sen. John McCain's top campaign strategist accused the news media Tuesday of being "on a mission to destroy" Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin by displaying "a level of viciousness and scurrilousness" in pursuing questions about her personal life.

In an extraordinary and emotional interview, Steve Schmidt said his campaign feels "under siege" by wave after wave of news inquiries that have questioned whether Palin is really the mother of a 4-month-old baby, whether her amniotic fluid had been tested and whether she would submit to a DNA test to establish the child's parentage.

Arguing that the media queries are being fueled by "every rumor and smear" posted on left-wing Web sites, Schmidt said mainstream journalists are giving "closer scrutiny" to McCain's little-known running mate than to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The McCain camp has been unusually aggressive in pushing back against the media, and it seems to hope to persuade journalists to back off in their scrutiny of Palin. Obama campaign officials have complained to news organizations that their man has been subjected to considerably more investigative reporting than McCain has, but they have done so in more low-key fashion.

By contrast, Schmidt spoke on the record in denouncing as "an absolute work of fiction" a New York Times account of the process by which the McCain campaign vetted Palin. He also charged that Newsweek columnist Howard Fineman was predicting that the governor might have to step down as McCain's vice presidential choice.

Just to be clear, the New York Times is looking pretty idiotic after the whole "Palin was a member of a secessionist party" and "Palin was a Buchananite" memes.

But that's nothing new to readers of this blog.

Let me zero the sights a little more precisely on New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller. Bumiller reported that Palin was a member of the American Independence Party for two years.

Bumiller told Kurtz that she's "completely confident" in her story. (Quoted on page 2 on the online version)

Yeah, those "unimpeachable sources" are a bitch, eh, Bumiller?

That's what happens, though, when you rely on DailyKos for your story ideas.

Splash, out

Jason

P.S., Kurtz himself blows it here:

Bloggers on the left and right increasingly drive media coverage by turning up the volume on questions until they are difficult to ignore. Sometimes they are right, as when they questioned what CBS's Dan Rather said were National Guard documents in a 2004 report on President Bush's military service that led to Rather's ouster as the network's anchor. And sometimes they are wrong. Last year, the New Republic retracted a soldier's dispatch on petty wartime cruelty in Iraq, and National Review Online acknowledged that two blog postings by a former Marine about military movements in Lebanon were misleading.

No, Kurtz...you're filling sandbags for your buddies over at the New Republic. The bloggers were RIGHT on that one. Beauchamp's articles were not blogs, and Beauchamp was not a blogger. Beauchamp's serial fabrications were feature articles, vetted by the editorial staff of the New Republic. (It helps to be fucking your fact checkers).

It was the BLOGGERS who kept that story alive, despite every attempt and stonewalling, delay and deception by the New Republic in their biggest embarrassment since Stephen Glass.

Labels: Media, New York Times, Palin

The decisive point in the Iraq war is now in and around the city of Mosul. That's where the fight is, that's where the action is, that's where the story is.

So how does the New York Times cover the news?

By sending the dumbest reporter in the country to Baqubah!


Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Iraq, New York Times, The media

...Actively rooting AGAINST U.S. interests in Iraq.

These scumbags would just cream themselves if there were no deal by the end of the UN mandate, wouldn't they?

Labels: New York Times, The media

David Carr has responded to my call on Monday for a correction or clarification for his Memorial Day piece, The Wars We Choose To Ignore, in the New York Times:

His unedited response:

jason,

all do respect, I see nothing to correct. last year was the bloodiest of the war. last month was the bloodiest so far this year. it is still a dangerous place to be a soldier.
david

My response:

David,

That's ridiculous, and you know it. Your assertion was that the surge should not be misconstrued as making Iraq a safer place for American soldiers. That is clearly false, looking at the data.

Last month may have been the bloodiest of the year so far, but even the casualty figures last month are sharply reduced from year-end 2007, and May may turn out to be the second quietest month of the war.

That being true when you wrote the article, it certainly does not support your point. It directly undercuts it. Taken together with the rest of the data last year, it falsifies your argument.

You know perfectly well it is possible to use perfectly accurate data to construct a wholly misleading argument. I could look at Sandy Koufax's career from 1955 to 1961 and conclude that Koufax was a mediocre fastballer with serious control problems. When someone points out that during the years 1962-1966 he became the most dominant pitcher in the major leagues, establishing record after record and building a hall of fame career, if I then came back and said "there's nothing to correct.. after all, Koufax 5 games in 1963," (his win/loss record was 25-5) you could rightly characterize me as an obtuse twit.

Except you've constructed precisely the same argument.

This is what passes for intellectual honesty and critical reasoning at the Times?

Jason

jason,
early in the piece, first quote is about reduction in violence and success of the surge. lower in the piece I used casualty numbers to suggest that it is still a dangerous place to be an American soldier. believe it or not, both things can be true at the same time.

Ok, so let's take a look at the assertion itself: "The tactical success of the surge should not be misconstrued as making Iraq a safer place for US soldiers."

Here is the full passage, including the part to which Carr wants to divert attention:

“Ironically, the success of the surge and a reduction in violence has led to a reduction in coverage,” said Mark Jurkowitz of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. “There is evidence that people have made up their minds about this war, and other stories — like the economy and the election — have come along and sucked up all the oxygen.”

But the tactical success of the surge should not be misconstrued as making Iraq a safer place for American soldiers. Last year was the bloodiest in the five-year history of the conflict, with more than 900 dead, and last month, 52 perished, making it the bloodiest month of the year so far. So far in May, 18 have died.

Carr is flat wrong. It is NOT possible to reach any other conclusion than that Iraq has, indeed, become safer for US troops since the surge. Carr does NOTHING to address the facts, he does NOTHING to address the data or timeline. He makes a foolish assertion that is falsified by the available facts, and sticks with it despite being confronted with evidence. He compounds his stupidity by inventing a straw man: Nobody claimed that Iraq isn't a dangerous place to be a soldier; I am arguing that by any measure, Iraq is a less dangerous place to be a soldier than it was before.

At this point, I'm not sure how much to chalk up to intellectual dishonesty and how much to stupidity. But if a reporter at the NY Times can write things like "all do respect," I'm inclined to be charitable.

Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: Welcome Gateway Pundit readers! And if you didn't come from Gateway Pundit, Gateway and his readers have more on the subject.

UPDATE UPDATE: Welcome also to readers of , The Virginian, who's been all over the Times himself!

Labels: Iraq, Media, New York Times

A look at the dishonest way the New York Times treats conservative and liberal books on the Iraq war.

James Risen, a well-known reporter for the New York Times, tried to get the new Feith book a decent writeup in the Times, but had the effort squashed by the higher-ups. According to Risen, the powers that be told him that they didn't see fit to review the Feith book because it had already been written up in the Washington Post.

So why did Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks' book Fiasco get not one, but two write ups in the New York Times?

I don't have time these days to do it, but I suspect a look at the Book Review sections against the Times and the Post would reveal a rather damning list of books that had received write-ups in both papers.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Books, Media, New York Times

Dear Mr. Carr,

It's too bad you took what should have been a moving profile of Jessica Ann Ellis and turned it into a journo's whine-fest.

Coverage is down on Iraq because American troops are bleeding less, and for no other reason. If Americans were bleeding more, it would be right back on the front pages. And every reporter knows this.

Katie Couric didn't get crap ratings because she went to Iraq. Couric got crap ratings because it was HER going to Iraq. Nobody cares what that twit thinks about Iraq. She never should have been promoted past any one of fifty real journalists at CBS to the anchor's chair, and the ratings bear that out.

Further, you wrote of American indifference to a "war that refuses to end.' Curious construction, that. But you need to get out more: The American public isn't indifferent to the war. We're indifferent to your crap coverage of the war. And that's a huge difference. Your very own newspaper once described a soldier's decoration as a "Purple Star," and ascribed the Medal of Honor to an award presented to songwriters.

And your own reporter, Alissa Rubin, who hilariously wrote earlier this month that "It's not clear who won" in Sadr City, has got to take the cake for being the dumbest journo in the country. (She's an ok reporter, if she sticks to reporting. But when she tries to do analysis, or editorialize, she's way, WAAAAAAY out of her depth.) (I'm assuming it's the same Rubin, here, but if someone knows I'm wrong, let me know. The Times hasn't responded).

As for your own "analysis" of US casualties, just what in God's name are you smoking?

Here's what you wrote:

"But the tactical success of the surge should not be misconstrued as making Iraq a safer place for American soldiers. Last year was the bloodiest in the five-year history of the conflict, with more than 900 dead, and last month, 52 perished, making it the bloodiest month of the year so far. So far in May, 18 have died."

But a casual glance at this graph of US deaths in Iraq, by month, establishes that you've been practicing the fine art of lying with statistics.



There is no doubt, based on these numbers, that the tactical success of the surge HAS made the country safer for US troops. Deaths have been cut to roughly half of the rate of last year, and the rapid falloff in casualty rates since about November of 2007 is obvious. Jeez...last year was, you guessed it...LAST YEAR, and half of that year had elapsed before the surge elements were fully operational in the summer of 2007. Furthermore, you mention the 18 deaths so far in May, as if that supported your conclusion. But May is on track to becoming one of the safest months for US troops since our arrival in 2003. Why did you include it?

Sometimes you have to write an article with the data you have, not the data you wish to have.

I believe a correction is in order.

Unfortunately, I have less faith in the NY Times to publish that correction than for any other newspaper.

I'm sorry Corporal Ellis' memory had to be sullied by association with your piece.

She deserves better.

Jason Van Steenwyk
OIF I Veteran
Ramadi, 03-04
Fort Lauderdale, Florida


UPDATE: Carr Responds!

Labels: Iraq, New York Times, The media

According to a story in the NY Times today,

1. Iran pulls the rug out from under the Sadrists by throwing its support behind the Iraqi government and Maliki.

2. The government gains control of Sadr City

3. All of Sadr's fighters are still subject to arrest

4. The Sadr militia has lost the popular support of Sadr City residents.

5. The political establishment has turned against the Sadrists.

6. The government maintained a stranglehold on resupply for the Sadrists.

7. The Sadrists are outgunned and outclassed, militarily.

8. The militia has ordered their gunmen to "disappear from the streets"

9. Under the terms of the deal, the government is allowed to search Sadr City for weapons

10. The Iraqi Army gains invaluable operational experience, taking the lead in the operation against the Sadrists in Sadr City

...And yet according to reporter Alissa Rubin, "it's not clear who won."

Seriously, Alissa. Does that look like a draw to you? Or did you just wake up and heat up a can of dumbass for breakfast?

Alissa Rubin is no stranger to Countercolumn. Formerly the Vienna correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, it was her who famously blew the Ambassador Bremer farewell speech, slandering Bremer in the process. (See also here for her response to my post, and my counter to it.)

Maybe you could at ease with the editorializing? I mean, every quote in the story you got undercuts your "analysis." The parliament member you talked to - who I would wager knows Iraqi politics somewhat better than you, TOLD you that Sadr was politically isolated.

Congrats on your hiring at the New York Times. Well, congrats to the Los Angeles Times, I guess.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Iraq, Media, New York Times

That's Phil Carter's take on this piece of trash published in the New York Times today.

So, basically, the reporters went trolling on Lexis-Nexis and other databases to find "murder" within the same paragraph as "veteran" or "soldier," and built a front-page story around that research. They compared the pre-war numbers to the post-war numbers and found that, voila!, there's a difference. And then it looks like they cherry-picked the best anecdotes out of that research (including the ones where they could get interviews and photos) to craft a narrative which fit the data.

The article makes no attempt to produce a statistically valid comparison of homicide rates among vets to rates among the general population. Nor does it rely at all on Pentagon data about post-deployment incidents of violence among veterans. It basically just generalizes from this small sample (121 out of 1.7 million Iraq and Afghanistan vets, not including civilians and contractors) to conclude that today's generation of veterans are coming home full of rage and ready to kill.

I've got a one-word verdict on this article and its research: bullshit.

The nut of the Times piece is this:

The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.

Yeah. We're all just itching for a chance to grease someone dead. Well, besides reporters, I mean.

To compile and analyze its list, The Times conducted a search of local news reports, examined police, court and military records and interviewed the defendants, their lawyers and families, the victims’ families and military and law enforcement officials.

Compiled, yes. "Analyze?" No.

For analysis, don't trust the New York Times twits. You have to go to bloggers like Armed Liberal:

From the October 1, 2001 start of the Afghanistan war, that's about 26,000 troops/month. To date (Jan 2008) that would give about 1.99 million.

That means that the NY Times 121 murders represent about a 7.08/100,000 rate.

Now the numbers on deployed troops are probably high - fewer troops from 2001 - 2003; I'd love a better number if someone has it.

But for initial purposes, let's call the rate 10/100,000, about 40% higher than the calculated one.

Now, how does that compare with the population as a whole?

Turning to the DoJ statistics, we see that the US offender rate for homicide in the 18 - 24 yo range is 26.5/100,000.For 25 - 34, it's 13.5/100,000.

See the problem?

Damn, is it that hard for reporters and their editors to provide a little bit of context so we can make sense of the anecdotes? It's not in Part 1 of the article. And I'll bet it won't be in the future articles, either.

Because it's not part of the narrative of how our soldiers are either depraved or damaged.

More useful analysis in the contents section at the link.

Zero useful analysis at the New York Times. Just a long piece slandering veterans.

As a mental exercise, I wonder how comfortable the New York Times would be using similar methodology to research crimes by blacks, Latin-Americans, or gays. Would their methods have passed editorial scrutiny?

Heck no.

But slime Iraq and Aghanistan veterans and all is fair.

Splash, out

Jason

UPDATE: Here's Powerline's analysis:

Now put yourself in the place of a newspaper editor. Suppose you are asked to evaluate whether your paper should run a long article on a nationwide epidemic of murders committed by veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan--a crime wave that, your reporter suggests, constitutes a "cross-country trail of death and heartbreak." Suppose that the reporter who proposes to write the article says it will be a searing indictment of the U.S. military's inadequate attention to post-traumatic stress disorder. Suppose further that you are not a complete idiot.

Given that last assumption, I'm pretty sure your first question will be: "How does the murder rate among veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan compare to the murder rate for young American men generally?" Remarkably, this is a question the New York Times did not think to ask. Or, if the Times asked the question and figured out the answer, the paper preferred not to report it.

As of 2005, the homicide rate for Americans aged 18-24, the cohort into which most soldiers fall, was around 27 per 100,000. (The rate for men in that age range would be much higher, of course, since men commit around 88% of homicides. But since most soldiers are also men, I gave civilians the benefit of the doubt and considered gender a wash.)

Next we need to know how many servicemen have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. A definitive number is no doubt available, but the only hard figure I've seen is that as of last October, moe than 500,000 U.S. Army personnel had served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Other sources peg the total number of personnel from all branches of the military who have served in the two theaters much higher, e.g. 750,000, 650,000 as of February 2007, or 1,280,000. For the sake of argument, let's say that 700,000 soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors have returned to the U.S. from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Do the math: the 121 alleged instances of homicide identified by the Times, out of a population of 700,000, works out to a rate of 17 per 100,000--quite a bit lower than the overall national rate of around 27.

But wait! The national rate of 27 homicides per 100,000 is an annual rate, whereas the Times' 121 alleged crimes were committed over a period of six years. Which means that, as far as the Times' research shows, the rate of homicides committed by military personnel who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan is only a fraction of the homicide rate for other Americans aged 18 to 24. Somehow, the Times managed to publish nine pages of anecdotes about the violence wreaked by returning servicemen without ever mentioning this salient fact.

Labels: Crime, New York Times, Psychology, soldiers' issues, The media