Move on over Uncle Clarence Thomas …

Posted: October 30, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , , | 37 Comments


An exclusive from Politico:  Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

You remember Clarence Thomas right?  No wonder Cain calls him a ‘mentor’ and an influence!!

Virginia Thomas’ now-famous phone call to Anita Hill has had at least one consequence that she can’t have intended.  It’s prompted a former paramour of her husband’s to dish salacious and troubling detailsabout the Supreme Court justice’s past to the Washington Post.  And many of those details are in sync with accusations that emerged around Clarence Thomas’ contentious 1991 confirmation hearings.

“He was obsessed with porn,” Lillian McEwen, tells the paper.  “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

McEwen also said that the conservative Thomas was constantly on the make at work.  “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” said McEwen. “It was a hobby of his.”

She added that he once told her he had asked a woman at work what her bra size was.

Here we go again!  Why are all right wing men pervs?

Toxic Journalism

Posted: October 30, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Social Security, The Media SUCKS, the villagers | Tags: , , , | 13 Comments

I really could write a very long essay on all the things that are wrong with Lori Montgomery’s WAPO “article” on Social Security.  Problem is, I’m trying to get published in a peer-reviewed journal right now and actually have to respond to questions about my methodology and data so I don’t have time to do it. Plus, I don’t really have to peel apart a lot of the economic falsehoods because Dean Baker has done a really great job at his blog over at CEPR. I actually bumped into this bit of yellow journalism earlier today via a Paul Krugman tweet. It seems to promote every right wing meme, canard and lie about Social Security but for some reason it didn’t end up on the Op-Ed page. It was out there on the front page.  Bad WAPO!  Very VERY BAD WAPO!

BB and I had a conversation about it over the phone after both of us spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out exactly what qualified Lori Montgomery for rigorous economic analysis.  Actually, BB even wrote her an email.  I’m going to post her response to BB because it was kind’ve appalling all on its own given all BB asked was for some idea of how many classes the woman had actually had in finance or economics. Evidently, WAPO thinks you don’t need to know a damn thing to write a huge front page article.   Hopefully, no senior citizens leave for the Alaskan ice floes after reading it.  Also, hopefully no miserable millennium yuppie sent their grandparents to the floes either.  Maybe we should call Montgomery’s parents and see if they’ve committed ritual suicide yet.  Here’s her response to BB’s request for her academic background.

I am a journalist, not an economist. If you view dean baker as the voice of
god, then I’m afraid we’re not going to get very far.
My article is as accurate and as objective as I could make it. Perhaps you’d
like to point out some of these blatant falsehoods so I can respond to them
directly.

Alrighty then … let me just quote the first paragraph, then I’ll put a question to you.

Last year, as a debate over the runaway national debt gathered steam in Washington, Social Security passed a treacherous milestone. It went “cash negative.”

So, the question is this:  is “treacherous milestone” perhaps the most concrete example of purple prose you’ve ever seen or is it just me?  Or, do you agree with Lori, that “treacherous” is just one of those words people pull out of their asses when they are trying to be ” as accurate and as objective” as possible?

Now, let me quote economist Dean Baker on that particular paragraph too.  Let me just mention this is about a 2700 word article and we’ve only hit the first few sentences.  It’s so bad I feel like I should do about 10 installments.  That would be eight on the bad economics and two on the bad journalism. Well, maybe tomorrow.

The basic premise of the story, as expressed in the headline (“the debt fallout: how Social Security went ‘cash negative’ earlier than expected”) and the first paragraph (“Last year, as a debate over the runaway national debt gathered steam in Washington, Social Security passed a treacherous milestone. It went ‘cash negative.'”) is that Social Security faces some sort of crisis because it is paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. [The “runaway national debt” is also a Washington Post invention. The deficits have soared in recent years because of the economic downturn following the collapse of the housing bubble. No responsible newspaper would discuss this as problem of the budget as opposed to a problem with a horribly underemployed economy.]

This “treacherous milestone” is entirely the Post’s invention, it has absolutely nothing to do with the law that governs Social Security benefit payments. Under the law, as long as their is money in the trust fund, then Social Security is able to pay full benefits. There is literally no other possible interpretation of the law.

As the article notes the trust fund currently holds $2.6 trillion in government bonds, so it is nowhere close to being unable to pay benefits. The whole point of building up the trust fund was to help cover costs at a future date when taxes would not be sufficient to cover full benefits. Rather than posing any sort of crisis, this is exactly what had been planned when Congress last made major changes to the program in 1983 based on the recommendations of the Greenspan commission.

The article makes great efforts to confuse readers about the status of the trust fund.

Here’s another economist–Richard Eskow–with a similar take.

How can a 2,363 word piece in on Social Securitybe so densely packed with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and downright lies?

It almost takes a cryptographer to unpack the deceptions contain in an article published Saturday with the headline, “The debt fallout: How Social Security went ‘cash negative’ earlier than expected.”

The piece’s author sits us down by the campfire, holds the flashlight up to her chin, and spins a yarn filled with quotes from right-wing ideologues from both parties. Most of her “sources” have a long history of trying to gut Social Security, often under the employ of billionaire former Nixon Cabinet member Pete Peterson (whose own organization, Fiscal Times, provides financial journalism services for thePost. Coincidence? You decide.)

How many quotes are included from the organizations and groups defending Social Security? None.

I’ve actually read most of the feedback on the article from the major economic blogs and I’d say that Ms. Montgomery should definitely rethink her career as a reporter on the economy–which as far as I can tell she’s only done for a few years–and should possibly go back to writing obits in Texas or Michigan or where ever else she did her work.  She wouldn’t even let BB know where she got her degrees and in what, remember?  I’m thinking it must be the Judith Miller School of Journalism of Koch Brothers University, inc.  Just a guess.

So, I’m not going to dissect that horrible article.  I’ll only tell you that it contradicts all the research I’ve ever done on the subject including the series of posts I did about a year or so ago. It basically contradicts all the literature I’ve ever seen on the topic too unless you count junk stuff that’s come out of Koch Brother’s wholly owned subsidiary institutes and junk scientists.  Frankly, I kind’ve agree with Eskow and think we should call it a Halloween prank gone bad and ignore it.

However, go read some of the stuff and if you have any questions, I’ll be glad to actually do some research for you or to check earlier sources I did for my research.  Or, perhaps just answer it since I spent all these years getting a doctorate in financial economics so I could teach people about this stuff and actually do real research.

Meanwhile, I’ll close with Brad DeLong’s long standing tag line:  “Why-oh-why can’t we have a better press?”

I hate to say this, but I’d like to know how she got that job in the first place.  Let’s just say inquiring minds are suspicious.

Happiness is one year of Sky Dancing Blog

Posted: October 30, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Festivities | Tags: | 26 Comments

One year ago, I began the process of turning my file cabinet into a functioning blog where people could come to discuss a variety of issues in a positive environment.  I remember how in 2008 the blogosphere turned toxic for Hillary supporters.  It took some searching to find safe havens where the name calling was kept to a minimum, the implied misogyny was fully understood, and the company of like minds was appreciated.  But, as in the nature of life, things change.  Pretty soon, some of the same goosestepping cult of personality type things that chased me off of other blogs left me feeling out of sorts again in blogs that had once been safe havens.  I don’t know about you, but I blog and visit blogs for a variety of reasons. I can guarantee you that refereeing pie fights is not one of them.  I do not like spectating or fighting them either.  I can attend a family reunion or a department meeting for that sort of thing if I thrived on the stress and chaos.

It’s been surprisingly peaceful here at sky dancing as we’ve picked up both readership and other bloggers who are like minded.  We seek information; not diatribes and lectures. We seek the ability to share that information in a constructive way that values strong voices and opinions that don’t also require belittling other people in the process of being heard.

I was absolutely sure-at first–that I had just sent myself to blog Siberia one year ago.  Instead, the community of people that I have come to admire and care about over the past three or so years keep coming here, throwing logs on the warm fireplace, refilling the kettle on the hearth, and bringing cups of warm, heady stuff to share. For that, I am happy, appreciative, and humbled beyond words.  I can point to our Alexa numbers or our Technorati rating–we continue to stay in the top 100 US political blogs— for verification that we are not alone in this and we are doing something right.  But, I’d rather point out that a bad day is usually when one fetus fetishists shows up in pending to tell us we should be more in awe of a clump of cells  and its importance over our lives or there’s about 20 spambot ads captured in the filter.   We dump them all  into trash immediately.  Usually, only the spambots persist.  A good day is when we have a great wonk post on Hillary and we can all come and share in our awe, or a fascinating BB people piece or a barnburning minx diatribe on how our rights are disappearing even as we type our dissent. I can put down my work, pick up a cup of coffee and read the caring voices of our community and think, wow, I’m not the only one!

There are a number of people that really do keep this blog moving.  The admin team is amazing.  I often wonder what we could do if I had some venture capital and a board of directors with Boston Boomer, Minkoff Minx, and Wonk the Vote sitting there daily.  We have some great frontpagers too in various stages of active and process.  Then, there’s every one down page that continues to add links and comments and shared experience. I learn something new every day here.

So, it takes a village to raise a blog and we have one great village.

So, besides wishing us all a happy one day birthday where we’ve gone from crawling to standing to walking, I have to also ask for some help.  First, please promise me that you’ll visit us daily and add your voice because that’s important.  Second, if you can help with the annual bills, please click on the paypal button on the right.  We tried the ad thing and that didn’t work so well, so in order to keep the buttons and whistles–like the current design and format–we need a few bucks!  The little reminder at the top of the dashboard says the custom formatting will be the first to expire at the end of Novemeber.  I believe the domain name will go at about the same time.  So, if you have some change, we’d appreciate it so we can keep on keeping on.

Then, sit back and relax as we begin year number two together!!!

Boy Scouts covered up sexual abuse of boys for decades, according to “perversion files.”

Posted: October 29, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: child sexual abuse, children | Tags: , , , , , | 10 Comments

Beginning at least in the 1920s, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) kept records of incidents and accusations of child sexual abuse which they referred to as the “perversion files,” according to the LA Times. Every effort was made to cover up these incidents, which were not reported to law enforcement.

Those records have surfaced in recent years in lawsuits by former Scouts, accusing the group of failing to exclude known pedophiles, detect abuses or turn in offenders to the police.

The Oregon Supreme Court is now weighing a request by newspapers, a wire service and broadcasters to open about 1,200 more files in the wake of a nearly $20-million judgment in a Portland sex abuse case last year.

The Scouts’ handling of sex-abuse allegations echoes that of the Catholic Church in the face of accusations against its priests, some attorneys say.

“It’s the same institutional reaction: scandal prevention,” said Seattle attorney Timothy Kosnoff, who has filed seven suits in the last year by former Scouts but was not involved in the Oregon case.

The article focuses in detail on the exploits of one abuser, Rick Turley, who began insinuating himself into scout groups when he was just 18 years old. He learned that scouts provided a ready source of young boys to take advantage of. He actually told the interviewer that “it was easy.” He managed to bounce around to troops in California and British Columbia over nearly two decades.

Turley said one call to police by Scouting officials in 1979 “probably would have put a stop to me years and years and years ago.” Instead, he “went back to the Scouts again and again as a leader and offended against the boys,” said Turley, who said he has learned to control his impulses.

“That person who was Rick Turley was a monster,” he said.

Turley is now 58. Maybe he can control his impulses, maybe not. But I wouldn’t leave him alone with a little boy.

It looks like this could blow up into a huge scandal. I hope the press can get their hands on those files.

The Clash of the Titans: Ideology vs. History

Posted: October 29, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, academia, Banksters, Corporate Crime, Economy, financial institutions, Global Financial Crisis | 19 Comments

Thursday night I caught an amazing piece of political dialogue on the Anderson Cooper show between Peter Schiff and Cornell West. What an odd pairing!

Peter Schiff, as many will recall, ran an unsuccessful Connecticut senatorial primary bid in 2010.  He’s described as an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, from the same branch Ron Paul falls: libertarian, believer in free market fundamentalism–unchain capitalism and all things will fall from Heaven.  Schiff is currently the CEO of Euro-Pacific Capital, Inc. and Euro-Pacific Precious Metals.   

In contrast, Cornell West is an academic, sometimes referred to as a ‘public intellectual,’ a professor at Princeton where he teaches from the Center for African American Studies and the Department of Religion.  He has been a consistent voice for the underclass, the working poor and speaks to the effects of race, gender and class in American society.

Though both men have engaged the Occupy Wall St. [OWS] movement, their approaches could not be more different.  Peter Schiff went to Zuccotti Park with a sign–I am the 1%–presumably to start a conversation with the protesters.  Hummmm.  Mr. Schiff’s definition of ‘conversing’ must be different than mine.  From the clip below?  I’d use the word confrontation.

Cornell West on the other hand has been arrested twice during the Occupy encampment—once in DC before the Supreme Court protesting the Citizens United decision, where corporate political funding was equated with free speech, using the precedent that corporations = personhood.  A decision, I might add that I and many others view as horrifically destructive, only adding to the problem of money swamping our electoral process.  Dr. West was arrested for the terrifying crime of holding a sign [a no-no on the steps of Supreme Court] which read: Poverty is the Greatest Violence of All.  On a second occasion, Dr. West was arrested in Harlem for marching with other Occupy members in front of the 28th Precinct, protesting the NYPD’s practice of ‘stop and frisk,’ which allows police to search citizens at will, a procedure that involves primarily people of color.  Reportedly 600,000 stops were made in 2010, with 7% of those stops resulting in arrests.

So, we have two men, both educated, articulate and successful, both engaging OWS from 180 degree positions. Peter Schiff takes the view that unfettered capitalism will save the world as opposed to West’s humanistic viewpoint that unregulated capitalism has brought the world to its knees and threatens to scrap the very safety nets and programs that allow people to better themselves [education, for instance] and escape the violent confines that poverty and hopelessness exact.  

We can argue these principles till the cows come home but a debater makes a serious mistake when they rewrite history to support their ideology, willfully fabricating, tweaking the facts to make their points more relevant and sound.

Peter Schiff, to his shame, pulled out all the old tricks like a fumbling magician who has no talent for sleight of hand. He like so many others who deify free market fundamentalism come off sounding remarkably reasonable, even simpatico with many of the concerns of average Americans.  But they always slip up, only to expose the trickster; those disappearing cards are simply stuck up their sleeves.

In  Zuccotti Park, Schiff claims he pays ‘almost 50% of his income in taxes’ under the current tax system.  50%.  No one in the top 1% pays anything close to 50% in personal income tax and if they did then their accountant deserves to be marched to the wall and executed, toute suite. The rich have all sorts of tax breaks, exemptions, loopholes and shelters that average working people can only dream of.  The claim is sheer nonsense by those who, in their heart of hearts, don’t wish to pay any tax at all.  The same is true of claiming they want to return to the ‘golden’ 1950s when things were on an upswing and America was the most productive nation in the world [as Schiff remarks, as if it were a 1000 years ago].  And the top marginal tax rate was?   91%.

Yes, records were actually kept in the 1950s and we can look up false statements!  Maybe Schiff really meant the roaring mid-20s to 1931 were the rate was 25%, and then BOOM!  Depression time.

I must say I enjoyed the explanation of Wall St. greed as a by-product of Government manipulation.  This is a turn on that old Flip Wilson skit line, But . . . But . . .The Devil Made Me Do it.

In addition, there is the sweet comment—“The regulation we want is the market.  Markets regulate themselves.”  This makes a great sound byte but is nothing more than the same garbage philosophy that brought us to this moment of economic woe, something that even Alan Greenspan, former Fed chairman finally admitted in hound-dog fashion: Did. Not. Work.

But Schiff’s greatest leap into fantasy is saved for the CNN segment I initially mentioned, where he claims that capitalism, free-market capitalism alone led to changes in the workplace: Child Labor Laws, Worker’s Safety laws, the 40-hour work week [see at the 8 minute mark].

I give Cornell West props for not coming through the screen with that claim. I guess Schiff never heard of the Radium Girls, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the Battle of Blair Mountain or the entire Labor Movement for that matter. The unregulated capitalists of that long ago era were not willing to give an inch, let alone provide workers with anything amounting to change.  Justice was wrenched out through struggle, protest, suffering and deprivation. Justice was long in coming but come it did.

West’s suggestion that he and Schiff need to sit down over coffee and cognac is way too easy and polite.  West would be advised to bring a straight jacket in Peter Schiff’s size for safety purposes. Or march him to church to beg forgiveness for fibbing [also known as spreading disinformation] to the public.

There’s a quote attributed to the late Daniel Moynihan:

“You’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”

In the Clash of the Titans, history always wins.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →