Del.icio.us Links

links for 2009-04-03

  • The Russian president contrasted Obama as "totally different" to his predecessor George W. Bush, whom he blamed for the "mistake" of US missile shield plans fiercely opposed by Moscow.

    Obama agreed to visit Moscow in July after his talks with Medvedev on Wednesday on the sidelines of a G20 summit in London aimed at fixing the battered world economy.

    "I believe that we managed to establish contact. But Moscow lies ahead. I cannot say that we made much progress on the most serious issues," he told reporters, adding: "Let's wait and see."

  • Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu has angered the governing African National Congress by saying its leader, Jacob Zuma, is unfit to become president. “In the year of Obama, can you imagine what it is like when you are walking in New York and they ask you who will be the next president?” Mr. Tutu, left, said Thursday in Durban. On Friday, prosecutors are expected to disclose their decision about whether to continue fraud and corruption charges against Mr. Zuma. The archbishop said he hoped that criminal case would be pursued. If Mr. Zuma is innocent, “Let it be a court of law that says so,” Mr. Tutu said. For its part, the A.N.C. issued a statement rebuking the archbishop and suggesting that he stroll the townships of his own country rather than the streets of New York.
  • Former House speaker Newt Gingrich is warning of a third party mutiny in 2012 if Republicans don’t figure out a way to shape up.

    “If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012,” Gingrich said Tuesday. The speech, to a group of students at the College of the Ozarks in Missouri, was recorded by Springfield TV station KY3.

    But Gingrich, bemoaning President Barack Obama’s “monstrosity of a budget,” acknowledged that Republicans are partially to blame for the escalation in federal spending.

    "Remember, everything Obama’s doing, Bush started last year,” he said. “If you’re going to talk about big spending, the mistakes of the Bush administration last year are fully as bad as the mistakes of Obama’s first two, three months.”

  • As North Korea fueled a multistage rocket Thursday for its threatened satellite launch, President Barack Obama promised a "stern" response and Japan vowed to press for an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council.

    Senior U.S. defense officials said that trailers and vehicles carrying rocket propellant were in place at North Korea's coastal launch site and that fueling had begun.

    A U.S. counter-proliferation official said the fueling process could take "up to a few days." But a senior U.S. intelligence official told The Associated Press that Pyongyang was on track for a projected Saturday launch

    (tags: NorthKorea)
  • Economy in Turnaround? Or Hitting a False Bottom?

    The good news is that the change in mark-to-market rules has the markets thrilled. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is at 8,032 right now; on Inauguration Day 2009, the DJIA closed at 7,949.09.

    That's the good news. The bad news:

    The number of people filing initial claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, while those filing continuing claims hit an all-time high for the 10th straight week, according to a government report released Thursday.

    This is separate from tomorrow's jobs report.

  • While 90 percent of the guns traced to the U.S. actually originated in the United States, the percent traced to the U.S. is only about 17 percent of the total number of guns reaching Mexico.
    (tags: Guns Mexico)
  • Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Wednesday that his party needs to take a fresh approach to government regulations in the wake of the economic crisis that has rattled the U.S. and world economies.

    In an interview with The Hill, Romney said, “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.”

    Romney’s comments come as he mulls another run at the White House and the Republican Party grapples with how to come up with producing solutions to the housing and financial crises that were triggered by a variety of factors, including a lack of government regulation and enforcement.

    (tags: mittromney)
  • President Obama's European visit this week has strained Air Force heavy-airlift capabilities and obliged the military to hire more foreign contractors to help resupply U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, according to military sources.

    The large delegation traveling with the president in Europe required moving several transports, including jumbo C-5s and C-17s, from sorties ferrying supplies to Afghanistan to European bases for the presidential visit, said two military officials familiar with the issue. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid any misunderstanding with White House officials.

  • Candlewick Press sends over a release with the news that the president's sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, a teacher in Hawaii, has a book contract:

    Ladder to the Moon, Maya Soetoro-Ng’s first book, is inspired by Maya and Barack’s mother as well as by Maya’s four-year-old daughter. What lessons, the author wonders, might her daughter have learned from her grandmother had the two ever met? In Ladder to the Moon, Maya Soetoro-Ng pays homage to her mother’s tradition of storytelling – and celebrates her mother’s enduring legacy of service – with an unforgettable story of love and compassion being passed along generations. Brimming with the beauty and magic of the night, Ladder to the Moon is a modern-day fable that will charm readers of any generation with its lush prose and timeless message about discovering ones own strength. Illustrator and publication date are to be determined.

    (tags: barack_obama)
  • Bill O'Reilly, currently on his "100 months at #1" media tour, told Cindy Adams that he has another book in the works.

    "My next book, out the latter part of 2010, is on Obama," O'Reilly said. "He's becoming a historical figure not because he's black, but because his liberal agenda is taking the country in a direction we've never been before."

  • Journalists seeking to talk a little foreign policy with high-profile Obama administration officials live from the G20 meetings in London this week were solicited for phone sex instead after ringing up the toll-free number given by the White House.

    In a press release, the White House accidentally listed a sex line number for journalists seeking an "on-the-record briefing call with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Jim Jones to discuss the NATO summit."

    But after dialing, a soft-voiced female recording that was clearly not Clinton asked for a credit card number if you "feel like getting nasty."

    (tags: barack_obama)
  • The rules are set in stone, and so the eagerly watching British media sputtered when the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, briefly put her hand on the back of Queen Elizabeth II as the two chatted at a reception. Etiquette is quite stern about this ("Whatever you do, don't touch the Queen!"). In 2007 John Howard, then Prime Minister of Australia, got plenty of criticism for apparently putting his arm around the Queen to direct her through a crowd. He denied actually touching her, but photographs suggest that he came quite close. (Another former Australian Prime Minister did put his hand on the Queen in a similar circumstance and was later branded "the Lizard of Oz.")
  • When one travels to a foreign nation, a head of state should receive some basic instruction on the correct name of his host. Unfortunately for Barack Obama, his “smart diplomacy” has begun to look like ignorant blundering. In the following clip from his joint appearance in the UK with Prime Minister Gordon Brown — in the kind of joint press conference Obama denied Brown in the US — Obama uses Britain and England interchangeably:

10 Comments

  • Ling

    Gingrich’s much more authentic and a better politician than most others. Great ideas and all, but I think he needs to maybe tone it down a bit. He can talk like this from the sidelines or TV, but no way he’s going to be given any real power if he keeps talking like this.

  • Alex

    Greg. As you had asked, I’ll bring my comments here even though I know it’s partly an effort to promote your blog *grin*

    The Fox article is shoddy reporting because it makes assumptions based on incorrect facts. There are 3 facts provided in the article that are important.

    1. 29,000 guns at crime scenes.
    2. Only 11,000 guns are submitted for tracing.
    3. Only 5,114 have been traced to the US.

    The article then makes the assumption (which you echoed in your posts) that an untraceable weapon CANNOT come from the US. That is incorrect. By virtue of the fact that it is untraceable, the weapon can come from anywhere. That does not mean that it DID come from the US, but it is not a fact that can be proven either way.

    Guns can have serial numbers filed off or burnt off, which can make them difficult or impossible to trace. As well, the 18,000 guns NOT submitted cannot be determined as “non-US” in origin without further info. Heck, without further info, we could even theorize that they come from Iceland.

    Is the 90% figure right? It can’t be proven without more information. HOWEVER, in the same way, the 90% fact cannot be proven wrong without more information either. Both the 17% figure and the 90% figure are incomplete truths.

    Basically, the article opens by criticizing the Obama Administration for using an incomplete truth in pursuit of a political agenda, then it in turn goes on to do the same thing. Shoddy reporting and rather hypocritical. Good reporting is based on solid reporting of the facts as they exist, not manipulating information.

  • Flap

    It is better to give comments here than in Twitter since:

    1. Your argument is more than 140 characters

    2. The discussion is open to more people and is available to the search engines unlike Twitter.

    Now, the 90 per cent figure is wrong but WAS corrected after Obama Administration officials, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- California), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CBS news while interviewing the President used it as GOSPEL TRUTH.

    The piece makes it clear that the fact is wrong and an exaggeration.

    Now, as far as your other argument whether the 17 per cent figure is correct or not can be debated. The controlling paragraph is

    But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

    “Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.

    Unless Mexico either documents those weapons to have originated from the US or bothers to send them to the United States for tracing, it will be ASSUMED or there will be a PRESUMPTION that Mexico has decided that they are NOT from the United States.

    On the other hand, you will argue there cannot be the presumption. But, with the documented smuggling operation in Mexico, why not?

    How can you presume that the weapons that are NOT traceable ARE from the United States?

  • Alex

    I’m not actually assuming that the untraceable weapons are not from the United States. You’re assuming I have a political agenda in this. I’m just offended by the shoddy news reporting at Fox.

    This piece does point out some facts the undermine the 90% number, but then it goes to make an exaggeration in the other direction. So, if you’re criticizing one exaggeration and then promoting another, how does that make any sense?

    Let’s take a look at the pieces you’ve mentioned.

    “But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.”

    What is the large percentage? How many? You’ve told me that only 17% of the guns come from the US, but we’ve not accounted for two-thirds of the remaining guns. Is 20% of the remaining 18,000 guns not a large percentage? What about 10%? Basically, the article presents one fact and then it adds an implication. You could say “As few as 17% of the guns come from the US.” We know that’s a minimum. Or, if you want to spin it differently, you could say “At least 17% of the guns come from the US.” Which appears to be more factual considering that the statement you quoted implies that at least some of the guns recovered in Mexico ARE American, but are not sent back. Saying that ONLY 17% of the guns come from the US is not a fact that can be proven either.

    The second part of the article you quoted was:

    ““Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,” Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.”

    Now this is interesting. This quote actually consists of two very important and different pieces of information. Let’s look at the second one first. “…the U.S. effort to trace weapons only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market.” That seems fair enough as a statement, and one can certainly not blame the ICE for that focus, but that implies that any exported weapons that are not sold in the U.S. market are not subject to identification.

    Now the first part of the quote is “Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable.” This means that if the serial number is removed from a weapon, then it would likely fall in the “untraceable” category that is so large. As serial number removal is not uncommon in countries with sales records such as the United States, it would be highly presumptuous to eliminate 100% of all unidentified weapons as being non-American.

    Replacing one unprovable number with another doesn’t solve any issues Greg, it just ends up causing new ones. This article started with a point, and then committed the very crime of which it accused someone else. Pursuing a political agenda with unproven facts. Hence my accusations of shoddy reporting in the article.

  • Flap

    The Fox News piece did not have the responsibility to prove the government wrong AND support their own thesis, although they provided one (which you dispute).

    They reported the fact the government was using either a misleading or an exaggerated statistic – the 90 per cent myth. This was their premise and reported evidence to prove it – and they did. You agree.

    The 90 per cent statistic used by government officials and CBS News was incorrect and NOW is reported as incorrect. Some would say the 90 per cent figure was misleading, certainly it was an incorrect and an exaggerated statistical fact.

    So, how is this shoddy journalism?

    I think that you are ASSUMING an OVERT political agenda for Fox News whereas the writers in this instance have been balanced – certainly more balanced than the Obama Administration.

  • Alex

    Greg, it’s all in media literacy.

    Take your title for the link: The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S. – 17 Per Cent to Be Exact

    You are saying that the administration is wrong by exactly 73 percent. That too is incorrect. The fox article specifically says that the 90% number is wrong. That’s not correct. The 90% number is not proven based on the given information. Neither is the 17% number proved to be conclusive. It is simply a proven component of a larger unknown. You’re making an exaggeration to attack an exaggeration. Does that make sense?

    In good reporting and good logic, you need a chain of connection. Let’s look at three connected statements from the article:

    There’s just one problem with the 90 percent “statistic” and it’s a big one:

    It’s just not true.

    In fact, it’s not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

    If A is the first statement, which is that the 90% statistic has a problem.

    And B is the second statement, which is that the statement is not true.

    Then C should be a statement offering 100% conclusive proof that it is incorrect. It suggests it is wrong, but the facts do not offer a conclusive statement. Hence, failure to prove in the article.

    You need to realize, I’m not arguing what the administration did or retracted. Read what I’m writing. I’m arguing that the article is consists of poorly constructed logical arguments masquerading as 100% conclusive fact. If they prove the government wrong, that’s one thing. If that was the sole purpose of the article, it could be well written as such. But they tried to do that while advancing their own set of numbers, which are ALSO inconclusive and/or incorrect. Unless you’re writing a pure editorial, you have the responsibility as a journalist to defend and support the theories you advance.

    Journalists are as important to a functioning democracy as politicians, as they help to inform the people. When they fail in their journalistic responsibilities, it can be a problem for everyone.

    As to my assumptions, the article ends with the conclusion that this numerical exaggeration is an attack on 2nd amendment rights by the current administration (quite a leap, especially if they’ve retracted the statement as you say). Taking that as anything other than a political agenda promoting a specific viewpoint would display a shocking lack of media literacy.

  • Flap

    Ok, you have discussed a number of issues. So, let’s break them down.

    What is media literacy and how do you define it? Please discuss.

  • Alex

    Good question, it’s a surprisingly overlooked concept.

    (quoted from http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/teachers/media_literacy/what_is_media_literacy.cfm)

    What is Media Literacy?

    Media literacy is the ability to sift through and analyze the messages that inform, entertain and sell to us every day. It’s the ability to bring critical thinking skills to bear on all media— from music videos and Web environments to product placement in films and virtual displays on NHL hockey boards. It’s about asking pertinent questions about what’s there, and noticing what’s not there. And it’s the instinct to question what lies behind media productions— the motives, the money, the values and the ownership— and to be aware of how these factors influence content.</strong

    There are several key parts of that, but as it explains itself fairly well, I’m hoping I don’t need to take the time to analyze each portion.

    Now, a lot of people in EVERY political party are guilty of having poor media literacy. A well educated citizen in any democracy should occasionally read/listen/whatever to media that directly contradicts their political views, as it challenges them and exposes them to other approaches to solving problems. This is necessary because politics evolve over time. The modern conservatives would seem scandalously liberal 300 years ago, and similar evolution has occurred all across the political spectrum. As our problems evolve, so must our political systems.

    Failure to develop media literacy helps lead to the kind of people who believe that all conservatives are evil and all liberals want to destroy freedom. Each party has their different approaches to problems, and each approach works in certain situations. That basically is one of the best reasons that elections exist in a democracy.

    An open mind and strong media literacy are incredibly powerful tools for navigating the information we’re given in our day-to-day lives.

  • Flap

    Isn’t this exactly what the Fox News piece does – asking pertinent questions about what the Obama Administration is quoting as fact?