Illinois Senator Barack Obama offered an homage to Republican attacks on John F. Kerry's wishy-washiness during the 2004 campaign: "I can't tell whether she was for it or against it."Don't blame Obama.
Seven Democratic presidential candidates debated last night. The white gloves are just starting to come off. Boston Globe reporter Susan Milligan writes: Hillary Clinton came under relentless fire last night from fellow Democrats, who slammed her on issues ranging from Iran to Social Security, and all but called their rival a liar…
All but.
This reminds me of an old Bert and I story:
“Whadayah think uh that new man out your way?”
“Oh, I dunno.”
“Whadayah mean you don’t know? Would you call him an honest man or would you call him a liar?”
“Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as to call him a liar. But I’ve heard tell by them as knows, that when he wants his cows to come home, he has to get someone else to call ‘em.”
It also recalls what Hollywood mogul (and honorary member of the vast right wing conspiracy) David Geffen said earlier this year:
“I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” Mr. Geffen says, adding that if Republicans are digging up dirt, they’ll wait until Hillary’s the nominee to use it. “I think they believe she’s the easiest to defeat.”
She is overproduced and overscripted. “It’s not a very big thing to say, ‘I made a mistake’ on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can’t,” Mr. Geffen says. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”…
Did Mr. Spielberg get in trouble with the Clintons for helping Senator Obama? “Yes,” Mr. Geffen replies, slyly. Can Obambi stand up to Clinton Inc.? “I hope so,” he says, “because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective.”
Once, David Geffen and Bill Clinton were tight as ticks. Mr. Geffen helped raise some $18 million for Bill and slept in the Lincoln Bedroom twice. Bill chilled at Chateau Geffen. Now, the DreamWorks co-chairman calls the former president “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”
They fell out in 2001, when Mr. Clinton gave a pardon to Marc Rich after rebuffing Mr. Geffen’s request for one for Leonard Peltier. “Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?” Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
UPDATE: The New York Times today printed the entire AP story.
On an earlier post regarding the Boston Globe story about an anti-Clinton video, reader flymorgue2 charged that “The Globe effectively edits the full story to create a Clinton-o-philic version”.
It turns out that he is quite correct.
The original AP story can be found here. Since I doubt the AP link will last for long, below is the text of the original story. The Globe story moved up the text about Paul’s use of technical producers who had worked on the Swift Boat Veteran site. The Globe also cut the end of the story which included all the specifics of Paul’s charges.
Here is the full AP story, with the content omitted by the Globe marked in yellow.
Anti-Clinton Video Draws Web Audience
By JIM KUHNHENN – 18 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — First came the Orwellian mash up YouTube video that portrayed Hillary Rodham Clinton as Big Brother. Then came a clip of her off-key rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Now, a stinging 13-minute video by a bitter Clinton foe is finding its own Internet audience.
The clip, a preview of a longer film by one-time Clinton donor Peter Paul, has scored more than 1.4 million hits on Google Video and about 350,000 on YouTube during the past week. Its popularity has driven it to the top spot on Google Video over the past two weeks.
Paul is a Hollywood entrepreneur, former partner of Spider-Man creator Stan Lee and convicted felon who has sued the Clintons in connection with a celebrity-packed fundraiser he helped organize for her 2000 Senate race. A California appeals court earlier this month ruled that Sen. Clinton should be dismissed from the suit.
But Paul has devoted a Web site to the case and has been on tour in recent days showing his film, "Hillary Uncensored," at New England College campuses. On Tuesday, he is scheduled to screen it at the Metropolitan Club in New York City.
The Clintons have long argued that Paul's criminal record discredits him and in court pleadings have denied Paul's claims against them.
"Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Senate Ethics Committee," the Clinton campaign said in a statement.
Paul's anti-Clinton effort is getting help from two technical producers who set up the Web site for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 2004 campaign that went after Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry by raising questions about his decorated military service in Vietnam.
Robert Hahn and Scott Swett operate http://www.HillCAP.org, the Web site that Paul set up in 2005 to showcase court documents, videos and news articles related to his lawsuit. The video trailer "Hillary Uncensored," and the schedule for the movie are prominently displayed on the site.
Among those featured in the video speaking in support of Paul is David Schippers, who served as chief investigative counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during President Clinton's 1998 impeachment hearings.
In his lawsuit and in the film, Paul says he spent $1.9 million for the August 2000 Hollywood fundraiser that featured such stars as Brad Pitt, Diana Ross and Cher. Paul maintains he organized the event because President Clinton falsely agreed to assist him in a new venture with Stan Lee after leaving the presidency in January 2001.
Campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission estimated the cost of the event at about $500,000. An ensuing criminal trial of Clinton's former national finance director, David Rosen, on charges that he lied to the FEC about the fundraiser resulted in an acquittal. At the time, Rosen's lawyer said Paul concealed the actual cost of the event from Rosen, a claim Paul denies.
The complexities of the case are all fodder for the video clip and the movie, spiced with clips of Hollywood performers.
"Her abuse of her power as reflected in my case should make everybody pause about entrusting her with the reins of government," Paul said in an interview.
Paul is awaiting sentencing on his 2005 guilty plea to charges of stock fraud involving Stan Lee Media, the company Paul had wanted Clinton to join. In the 1970s, he was convicted of cocaine possession and of attempting to defraud the Cuban government of Fidel Castro.
Swett, who is running Paul's HillCAP Web site, said the video has helped drive more traffic to the Web site, but that the activity is far less frequent than it was on the site he operated for Swift Boat Veterans in 2004.
"Then it was in the final months before the election and we're a year out at this point," he said. "There's a lot of complexity to the Peter Paul lawsuit. You have to read through some of the documents to get a handle on it. That was less the case with the charges that the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs were making against John Kerry."
In recent decades, the confirmation process for federal judges has become intensely political, as is evidenced last week by the fury unleashed by liberals over Feinstein's supposed disloyalty and the praise showered on her by conservatives.Yet Canellos' analysis omits any mention of the mudslinging during the confirmation struggles of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Weren't these the two most flagrant cases of the politicization he speaks of? Has he forgotten?
From an AP story in today’s Boston Globe on Thompson’s remarks in New Hampshire concerning same-sex marriage:
Massachusetts' highest court ruled in 2003 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. But high courts in several other states have refused to follow suit, including Maryland last month. Cases are pending in Connecticut and California.
Follow suit?
Each of the 50 state supreme courts are charged with interpreting their own state constitution. In what sense should they “follow suit” based on a different court's interpretation of a different state’s constitution?
And why is so obvious a question completely lost to an AP reporter and his editors?
The Boston Globe’s Michael Kranish notes the effectiveness of John McCain’s attack on Hillary’s Woodstock museum earmark: Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican seeking the presidency, made it into a laugh line at a debate last week, mocking Clinton for trying to memorialize a "cultural and pharmaceutical event."...He turned the attack into a commercial airing in the first-primary state of New Hampshire, complete with images of swaying concertgoers.
"No one can be president of the United States that supports projects such as these," McCain said in the debate. In one sweep, McCain performed a triple hit on Clinton, suggesting that she supports wasteful spending by earmarking funds for special projects, that Clinton is connected to Woodstock-style values while he was a POW, and that she is unqualified to be president.
Meanwhile Argentina has just elected its First Lady as president, and the Globe headline reads “President's wife is poised to take helm…”, a headline that would be criticized as patronizing if it referred to the junior senator from New York. But why?
From today’s Boston Globe editorial “What Hillary said”
IN AN interview with The Boston Globe editorial board on Oct. 10, Senator Hillary Clinton made a remark that has been so badly twisted by her opponents that we feel it necessary to reprint the interview transcript that contains the remark.
This twisting by Clinton's opponents consists of repeating a quote the Globe reported of an interview with Clinton. If the Globe really wanted to clear the air, they could release the entire interview transcript or provide a recording of the interview. Republican opponents are simply making hay with material that the Globe printed. Here is how the quote was reported in the original Globe news story on October 11:
She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."
Here is how the same quote was reported in today’s Globe editorial:
Here is Clinton's full answer: "Well, I have a lot of good, new, bold ideas, and I have to make some choices among them." She explained that baby bonds didn't have the level of political support of other proposals she had to help people pay for college. "I have a million ideas. I can't do all of them. I happen to think in running a disciplined campaign - especially when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is what I'm trying to do - everything I propose I have to pay for. You know, you go to my website, you'll see what I would use to pay for what I've proposed. So I've got a lot of ideas, I just obviously can't propose them all. I can't afford them all. The country can't afford them all."
Which Globe story is the one to believe? Since the news side of the Globe provided one quote and the editorial side a different one, it seems that to settle the matter a full transcript or a recording would be needed.
This untidy episode puts the Globe’s credibility in a bad light, as well as showing the Clinton campaign’s influence on the Globe editorial board.
Saturday’s Boston Globe carries an Op Ed piece masquerading as reporting by Globe reporter Joanna Weiss. The headline “Taco Bell promotion is off base to some” is apt. “Some” is the Globe's witness of last resort who coincidentally shares the same opinion as its reporters and editors. In this case “some” consists of a single CNBC reporter. Here is the beginning of the article: We're accustomed, by now, to unsubtle product placement on TV. We accept the intrusion of Nissans into every other frame of NBC's "Heroes." We don't flinch when Fox's "American Idol" set shares its color scheme with a Coke bottle. We accept that every statistic uttered during a sports broadcast is sponsored by some company or other. So it says a lot about the unexpected reach of Taco Bell's "Steal a Base, Steal a Taco" promotion - and the fervor with which Fox Sports has embraced it - that so many people would find this one so dirty. So Orwellian. Whether it is or not.
So dirty? Orwellian? So many people? Here is the single complaint actually reported in the article:
"A World Series game broke out in the middle of a Taco Bell commercial," grumbled CNBC sports business reporter Darren Rovell, who calculated the free advertising for Taco Bell: $8 million over two games.
The article concludes with this Op Ed piece [emphasis mine]:
It's Clayton who seems the big loser here - shilling for Taco Bell without getting a dime. Fox Sports, though, is bearing the brunt of the frustration, a signal that viewers might be reaching their limits when it comes to accepting the devil's deal that sponsorship entails - or drawing lines when the players get involved.
Using the players to shill for your sponsors - however innocently - seems that much more unseemly. And when announcers do it, too, it's no wonder that the skeptics have the day.
We've been trained to accept product placement when we know there's a quid pro quo. We understand that the networks have to pay the bills. But given the festival of endorsements that every sports game has become, it might have been nice for McCarver and Buck to show more restraint. Talk about Taco Bell once, if you must. Because you must. But give away publicity like so many free tacos, and the viewers will start questioning your motives.
Exactly who is so frustrated here besides Darren Rovell?
Plenty of folks may be fed up with the gushing announcing of Tim McCarver, but the Taco Bell ads are the least of McCarver’s issues. Meanwhile the Rockies are getting thumped, Ellsbury is a budding star, and Taco Bell has pulled off a publicity coup by linking themselves to his performance and fame.
Could it be the folks in the Globe newsroom who are feeling frustrated? Has the subject of advertising been a source of frustration at the Globe recently?
Give the Boston Globe credit for their front page today. They got the story of both games on page 1 (albeit a just a pointer to the BC miracle story). The front page picture captured the sweetest moment of the night at Fenway -- the instant when Curt Schilling's lip trembled as he walked of the field.
MORTGAGE ORIGINATORS who specialize in subprime loans are the buffalo hunters of the financial services industry. They aren't queasy about tactics, and they rarely seem concerned about the havoc they leave in their wake…US Representative Barney Frank, who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, is scheduled to meet this morning with mortgage brokers and lenders at the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston, including those who market loans to borrowers with weak or subprime credit. Among the invited guests are the Countrywide, GMAC, Washington Mutual,
Since you mentioned mortgage bankers who leave havoc in their wake…
Wasn’t there one other mortgage company that Mayor Tom Menino mentioned by name at Barney Frank’s hearing 2 weeks ago? Wasn't it the #1 subprime mortgage company in the US? And Menino named it while he was sitting next to a former board member of the very same company? And didn’t that guy next to the mayor once say that he joined the board not for the hundreds of thousands of dollars they paid him each year (NO!) but rather so that he could “deal with the allegations of predatory lending and to put in place policies that will protect low-income consumers.”?
What was that company’s name? It was some funny sounding bank-like name. It’s SO hard to remember now! Amerisomething?
And who was that guy next to the mayor? The former Ameriwhatever board fellow. Don’t you recall him from somewhere?
Give us some help here, Boston Globe. Surely Together We Can remember the name of that former “buffalo hunter who left havoc in his wake” and report it to readers. There might even be a story here!
Continued subsidies won't make the situation any easier to manage a year from now. What will is for risky drivers to begin receiving market signals (higher prices) that cause them to modify their behavior (driving more carefully or taking the T).[Insurance Commissioner] Burnes has issued two bulletins that effectively cap how much an individual's auto insurance premium can go up next year...The first bulletin says any insurer that files rates that would result in more than a 10 percent premium increase for an individual driver or a 10 percent increase in any driver's individual coverages would be subject to a mandatory hearing before the Division of Insurance. While the bulletin doesn't rule out increases beyond 10 percent, Burnes said any rate increase in excess of 10 percent is "presumptively not credible."
The second bulletin effectively says the state's highest risk drivers cannot see their rates rise more than 10 percent. Under the current regulations for auto insurance competition, drivers that have no insurer that is willing to cover them voluntarily will be assigned to a carrier and charged either the lower of that carrier's rate or a rate generated by Commonwealth Automobile Reinsurers, the agency that oversees the distribution of the state's high-risk drivers.
CAR yesterday released its rate request for next year, which is based on losses generated by the 168,000 drivers in the high-risk pool. CAR said the average premium of those drivers is $1,380 and should rise, based on loss data, to $2,092, a 51 percent increase. To comply with the commissioner's 10 percent cap, CAR proposed an average premium of $1,508, an increase of 9.3 percent.
Burnes said the cap will mean the state's relatively few high-risk drivers will continue to be subsidized by the remaining 3.8 million drivers, who will pay slightly more. "We're trying to have a managed transition," she said.
A little puff piece in the Boston Globe reports: Hillary Rodham Clinton says husband Bill often brings her romantic gifts: a giant wooden giraffe from an African trip, for example, and a Chanel watch that reminded him of teeth.
You read that right. Teeth.
Given the former president’s proclivities, that association might not be one to boast about.
One MIT student just experienced the extreme downside of dating a Wellesley girl:
At about 6:30 a.m., Tang sneaked into his dorm room at MIT, climbed on top of him as he slept, and plunged a knife into his back, Assistant District Attorney Suzanne Kontz said in Cambridge District Court yesterday, where Tang was arraigned. The man woke, turned around, and tried to fight her off, but Tang kept stabbing him. At one point, she lost her grip on the knife and reached for another she had brought with her, Kontz said. Tang was armed with three knives, the prosecutor said.
He will survive. She is in the slammer. Meanwhile back at Wellesley:
Mary Ann Hill, a Wellesley spokeswoman, confirmed that Tang is a student at the college but declined to provide personal information about her. Hill said the college had not made a decision yet on any disciplinary action against Tang. "I think today our focus was on how to support and to help anyone who might be affected by the situation," she said.
That is exactly the right thing to say and do.
Would that students accused of a felony at Duke were treated with the same respect by their university.
Clinton certainly continues to inspire a lot of strong feelings. For example, a dental assistant from Wisconsin says people draw devil horns on Clinton whenever she is on a magazine cover.Impressive data. This may be a trend!
A headline found today on the Globe’s web page today reads: “Turkeys, once unseen in Massachusetts,
are showing up in big numbers in cities and towns”
We’ve had them in the city for decades. Hasn’t the Globe ever looked on Beacon Hill?
Here is the Globe article. Universal Hub carried this story with video a week ago.
Peter Canellos writes concerning Niki Tsongas’s narrow election victory:
But there are very few people outside the Democratic leadership who believe that Congress is on the right track.
Few people indeed. Just the Globe’s editorial board.
Canellos concludes:
Conventional wisdom says perpetuating an unpopular war creates political peril for the GOP. But perpetuating the Democrats' pattern of failure either to stop the war or advance their social agenda can't help their party, either.
The probability that such a pattern will continue into next year ought to strike as much fear into Democratic hearts as Tsongas's narrow margin.
Boston’s status as a tourist destination may be in jeopardy, but Hizonnah doesn’t think so: Mayor Thomas M. Menino said the city doesn't deserve the bum rap. "This city is happening," he said. "Things are happening."
One longs to actually hear the Mayor say “This city is happening”. Just the thought of it makes me smile.
The Boston Globe story continues:
City Hall may tout that "It's all right here," but the 60,000 travelers who filled out an "America's Favorite Cities" poll released this month by CNN and Travel + Leisure apparently felt differently. Of 25 cities, Boston was ranked 24th for weather, a mediocre 12th for nightlife, and a lukewarm 16th in a catch-all "characteristics" category.
Though Boston ranked near the top in antiques shopping, classical music, and as a destination for sports fans, it was near the bottom for affordability. The people surveyed thought Bostonians were intelligent (No. 3) but not particularly friendly (No. 21), attractive (No. 16), and stylish (No. 9).
Only 21 out of 25 for friendliness? Which 4 cities are less visitor-friendly than Boston? Here is the bottom of the list.
21. Boston
22. Miami
23. Washington D.C.
24. New York
25. Los Angeles
If Bostonians improve their standoffish behavior toward tourists, we might someday surpass the warmth of Philadelphia (#20) or even Las Vegas (#19). The full list is here.
Chicago saves Boston from the blameless disgrace of having the worst weather.
From today’s Boston Globe editorial “Two Bostons, revealed”
Off to the side, [City Council president Maureen] Feeney assured some residents that her office was taking a tough approach to a Lower Mills family suspected by police of a series of assaults and intimidating acts.
In this Boston, people left the meeting feeling assured that their political leaders would find a way to deal effectively with their public safety. And by and large, they are right. Under pressure from politicians, the landlord has initiated eviction proceedings against the problem family. And today, the Boston Housing Authority revoked the family's Section 8 rental certificate, addressing fears that the tenants would use the voucher to simply relocate nearby.
Two Bostons? This action sounds much like Puritan Boston that once banished disruptive Quakers to Rhode Island. Cotton Mather, meet Maureen Feeney.
And who knew the Globe editorial board was so tough on crime? I doubt the Globe would approve of this treatment were it being applied to undocumented immigrants.
“There's something really sinful about letting religion get in the way of real campaign issues, in 1960 or today.”
Would that Joan's colleagues in the Globe newsroom agreed.
Ambitious legislation, [UMass Boston Dean] Crosby added, takes time to go through any Legislature, particularly when the same party is controlling all three top spots at the State House for the first time in years.The most charitable reading of this confusing sentence is that it was meant to emphasize difficulties caused by the Democrats long absence from the Massachusetts Governor's office.
Governor Patrick testifies on the subprime mortgage crisisThe whole truth would read this way:
The Patrick administration in recent weeks has tried to pressure subprime lenders, whose mortgages are fueling the foreclosure crisis, to agree to provide financial assistance for financially distressed homeowners unable to pay sharply rising monthly payments. Subprime mortgages, which peaked in 2005 and 2006 (which overlapped the 2 years when Governor Patrick received $30,000 a month for serving on the board of Ameriquest, the nation’s largest subprime lender) were given to buyers with poor credit who could not qualify for a traditional mortgage.
But somehow in a week's worth of news stories there has not yet been room to mention the relationship between Deval Patrick and Ameriquest in the Boston Globe. So the text in red is not part of today’s subprime story .
Though doubtless the Globe would treat a Republican governor just the same way.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.
P.S. If the picture above is from the recent hearing on subprimes held by Congressman Barney Frank, then Patrick was sitting right next to Menino when the mayor named Ameriquest as one of 5 firms that dominated foreclosures in Boston. But no mainstream media organ reported the coincidence that Menino was sitting next to a former Ameriquest board member.
Where has all the Boston Globe’s healthy skepticism gone? From a story today about proposed new regulations on mortgage brokers: Regulations finalized yesterday by Attorney General Martha Coakley require lenders and brokers to treat all borrowers fairly, with the aim of eliminating excessive fees and sales of loans that borrowers cannot afford.
Treat all borrowers fairly? How informative.
Quoting Coakley:
"There's been mortgage after mortgage where there's clearly been no ability to pay," she said, citing one example where a borrower had a monthly income of $1,800 and received a loan with a monthly payment of $7,000. "It cries out for some reasonableness here," she said.
And...how many rental units were in that property? How much of the $7000 payment was to come from expected rental income? The Boston Globe doesn’t ask and doesn’t tell.
And…once again there is no mention of “former Ameriquest director Deval Patrick”, though we do hear about “Governor Deval L. Patrick's proposals for increased regulation”.
And…ironically the Globe’s lead editorial today accurately criticizes the Chinese Communist Party for Orwellian speech, while in the same paper our local official's verbal horse manure is reported verbatim and without question.
Physician, heal thyself!
New York Times "A" (NYSE:NYT) 5 year trend vs. S&P 500 Oct. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Morgan Stanley, the second-biggest shareholder in New York Times Co., sold its entire 7.3 percent stake today, according to a person briefed on the transaction, sending the stock to its lowest in more than 10 years. The person declined to be identified because Morgan Stanley hasn't made the sale public yet. Traders with knowledge of the transaction said Merrill Lynch & Co. brokered a $183 million block trade of 10 million New York Times shares this morning. Hassan Elmasry, managing director of Morgan Stanley Investment Management, unsuccessfully challenged the Sulzberger family's control of New York Times Co. through super-voting stock that gives them a board majority. Shareholders owning 42 percent of the company, parent of the namesake newspaper and Boston Globe, withheld support for directors at the publisher's April annual meeting. ``This guy has been speaking for a lot of people who are too discreet to speak up and challenge management,'' said Porter Bibb, a managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners LLC in New York and a former New York Times Co. executive. New York Times shares slid 43 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $18.48 at 4:04 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, the lowest since January 1997. The stock has declined 24 percent this year.
The report, which was released yesterday, recommends broad solutions, such as state taxpayers picking up more MBTA debt or the creation of new unspecified revenues.As those Guinness TV commercials say, "Brilliant!"
Even if the bill is corrected to funnel the full $100 million to the mitigation and public health funds, a debate is simmering as to whether that would be enough to cover all the promises the governor made, especially his pledge to ensure that cities and towns do not lose money when their share of state lottery revenue is diminished because of casino competition.If that question causes a simmering debate, our Bacon Hill hacks would have to be dumber than even I thought.
It’s a pleasant surprise to read a Boston Globe editorial supporting the value of fathers in families instead of the usual pap proclaiming “all kinds of families are equally wonderful”. Much like children, however, the Globe Editors wait until there is a crisis to call for daddy:
On Monday, Menino spoke by phone with Dr. Alvin Poussaint, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard who has been traveling the country with entertainer Bill Cosby trying to get black communities to focus on self-destructive behaviors. The pair are the co-authors of a new book, "Come on People: On the Path from Victims to Victors," that traces many problems to the fatherlessness in black families. Menino wants to rally city departments to help strengthen black families. But he is still casting about for effective strategies. If only the authors' credibility and the mayor's pragmatism could be linked in such a way as to bring profound cultural change to Boston's minority neighborhoods.
That passage comes from today’s Boston Globe Editorial on urban violence “Boston’s lamentations”:
Someday the Globe Editors may discover that People of Pallor can benefit from fathers, too.
From today’s Boston Globe Editorial “Subprime scourge”:
Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston testified that the Ameriquest, Fremont, Countrywide, New Century and Option One mortgage companies dominate the field of foreclosures in the city. Each belongs at the table when Frank convenes his meeting at the Boston Fed.
Do you suppose our politicians could find someone who was well connected with Ameriquest who could deliver this message?
Do you suppose the Boston Globe might report the fact if a former director of Ameriquest was sitting in the same room and testifying at the same hearing with Menino?
No. That fact was not reported.
The Globe is suddenly quite squeamish to mention that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick received $360,000 in 2005 for serving as a director of Ameriquest in his own words to “deal with the allegations of predatory lending and to put in place policies that will protect low-income consumers.”
This recent gubernatorial history has apparently become a new unmentionable in the Globe. News stories covering Massachusetts subprime lending in yesterday’s and today’s Globe did not mention it. Nor does the above editorial.
Why not?
Local Democrats told mortgage lenders at a hearing yesterday to improve their “customer service”…or else. Today’s Boston Globe subprime story by reporter Ross Kerber is completely one-sided. The story repeats the rhetoric of very one-sided hearing called by Congressman Barney Frank, but his story provides nothing in the way of perspective.
A fisking:
US Representative Barney Frank yesterday suggested that subprime mortgage lenders will face tougher federal regulatory scrutiny unless they do more to work with their delinquent borrowers and help them avoid foreclosure.
“Do more work with their delinquent borrowers” is the Congressman’s euphemism for “absorb whatever loan losses are necessary to reduce foreclosures”.
Speaking words that could have come from the mouth of Don Corleone, Frank says:
"I want to serve notice. If these companies can't do a better job with service, their argument against regulation will be weaker," said Frank, the Newton Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, at a hearing in Roxbury yesterday.
That threat was a recurring point at this hearing
Frank arranged yesterday's hearing as part of his committee's fieldwork to gather input for federal legislation congressional Democrats are drawing up to deal with problems in the lending industry, such as the high incidence of expensive subprime mortgages in minority neighborhoods. The hearing included testimony from local leaders Governor Deval L. Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, each of whom outlined steps they have taken to reduce the rate of foreclosures that have hit minority borrowers hardest.
However, there were no representatives for subprime lenders present at yesterday's hearing, so there was little disagreement about the extent of the foreclosure problem or the remedies for it. Several speakers endorsed the idea that community reinvestment rules that govern traditional banks should be extended to include subprime lenders as well, which would subject more of these companies to federal oversight.
Such a “hearing” sound more like and open meeting of a Democratic party caucus.
…Those two are among companies that made the largest number of loans with high interest rates in Massachusetts, according to new data presented yesterday by Jim Campen, a longtime mortgage industry analyst and now executive director of Americans for Fairness in Lending, a Boston group that was among several criticizing subprime lenders for preying on borrowers who don't qualify for traditional loans.
This “preying on borrowers” is the same exactly the same lender behavior that in earlier times of rising housing prices was called “helping poor people get aboard the housing escalator”.
Race played a part, many said. Among borrowers making more than $152,000 per year, for instance, 71 percent of African-Americans and 56 percent of Latinos received high-interest loans, versus just 9 percent of white borrowers, Campen's research found.
Next, the race card. The Globe dutifully reports that foreclosure may impact more minorities, as though foreclosure is a genetic-bourne disease like sickle-cell anemia.
Many of these were adjustable-rate mortgages, which accounted for just 10 percent of all loans last year but represented about half of those that went into foreclosure, said Lynn Browne, a Federal Reserve senior economist in Boston. Notably, many borrowers of such loans didn't get such attractive interest rates to start out, around 7 to 8 percent in recent years, a percentage point or more higher than conventional loans. Those subprime rates are often rising to 11 percent starting this year, Browne said, as the adjustable portion of the loans kick in. "I think it probably will get worse before it gets better," she said.
No mention that perhaps lower credit scores might have caused banks to charge more because of a higher risk of default? Oh, I forgot, this story is about foreclosure, not about default!
One way to reduce foreclosures would be for borrowers to work out better terms with their lenders, she said, underscoring the importance of improved customer service at many companies. Some borrowers who met their payments in recent years by now should be able to refinance their way out of the worst lending agreements, she said.
They “should” be able to refinance, but now the credit markets have recognized the increased risk of foreclosure and raised the risk premium. How evil of them.
Patrick described various steps his administration has taken to reduce foreclosures including a pending proposal to have lenders accept losses on foreclosed homes that sold below their market values.
Patrick didn’t describe his service on the Board of Directors at subprime lender Ameriquest, where he was paid over $1M to, in his own words “help Ameriquest deal with the allegations of predatory lending and to put in place policies that will protect low-income consumers”.
I doubt anyone in charge at such a one-sided hearing would ask Patrick to talk about this. It’s too bad there were no reporters around to ask.
To the Editor:How can the Globe write a lead story on a new Deval Patrick plan for dealing with troubled sub-prime loans without ever mentioning the fact that Deval served on the board of directors of the largest sub-prime lender in the US? The Globe reported in 2005:
In a statement to the Globe, Patrick said he joined the company's board to help Ameriquest deal with the allegations of predatory lending and to put in place policies that will protect low-income consumers.
But today everyone in the Globe newsroom apparently suffers from amnesia about this.
Readers expect you to report how many of the troubled loans that are the subject of today’s story were written by Ameriquest while Deval was serving on their board “in order to protect low income consumers”. Since your coverage does not even mention his prior involvement, small-minded people might suspect that you are showing bias.
From the lead story in today’s Boston Globe on sub-prime mortgages:
"We're identifying where the maximum need is," said an administration official briefed on the plan, who did not want to be identified prior to the governor's official announcement. "We want to stabilize these neighborhoods, and we need the lenders to be part of the solution."
“Being part of the solution” is Patrick’s euphemistic way of saying “pony up”.
And note that the Globe can write a lead story on Deval Patrick and sub-primes without ever mentioning the fact that Deval served on the board of directors of the largest sub-prime lender in the USA. The Globe reported in 2005:
In a statement to the Globe, Patrick said he joined the company's board to help Ameriquest deal with the allegations of predatory lending and to put in place policies that will protect low-income consumers.
But today everyone in the Globe newsroom suffers from amnesia about this.
Of course there is no bias at the Globe! Mitt Romney would receive the same deferential treatment from the Globe if he had pocketed millions from Ameriquest while they were underwriting the very same loans that this new plan will try to unwind.
From Miss Kelly, who read the Sunday Globe:
Anyway, the writer, Jake Halpern, manages not to be bothered by this admission. It's surprising he even included it, I suppose. But what does bother Halpern is those pesky, pop-culture co-opting Christian fundamentalists!
Al-Mutawa's hope is that the comic book - introduced in the Arab world in the summer of 2006 - will showcase a positive, tolerant, and heroic side of Islam that rarely gets much attention. Many of the characters have Arab-sounding names, and the series' premise derives from the 99 positive attributes of Allah, but there are no prayers, nor passages from the Koran, nor dialogues filled with religious jargon. Unlike the efforts by some evangelical Christians to co-opt pop culture (like rock music) and use it as a tool for proselytizing, al-Mutawa's agenda is subtler, and his emphasis remains on telling a good story.
To see all the interesting stories in today’s Boston Globe click here.
Sorry, I find the Globe a bore today.
Massachusetts news in the Boston Globe now reads like a gambling gaming industry trade magazine. Today’s stories from The Gaming Channel:
Deval Patrick’s casino plan is released today.
Governor Deval Patrick will file a casino gambling bill today that gives him control of a seven-member gaming authority that would auction off licenses and regulate the casinos..."I don't think it's a good business model to have elected officials as part of the oversight process," [State Treasurer Tim] Cahill said. "This is the most lucrative license anyone will ever bestow on anyone in Massachusetts."
Together We Can, Tim.
Meanwhile the Lottery is becoming less particular about location and is deploying new video Keno games to draw $160M more revenue:
Lottery officials said the revamped Daily Race Game would be introduced as soon as possible at the existing 220 locations where the car racing game is being played and then be rolled out to a total of 1,500 locations by April. The game is expected to generate $160 million in annual revenue once fully operational…Originally, the car racing game was targeted at just bars and restaurants, but the more aggressive rollout plan means it will probably end up in additional locations. There are currently 1,750 Keno locations in the state.
And the Globe editors believe Deval’s casino-funded property tax rebate is irrational:
Still, the rebate plan doesn't address the need for the state to find a rational way to share revenues with cities and towns at a time when property taxes are rising and services are declining. Patrick promised in his campaign that he would "cut the property tax by reinvesting in cities and towns." That elusive goal hasn't been brought any closer as a result of his casino bill.
Silly Globe. Deval Patrick is merely passing the onus of raising taxes to the cities and towns.
Governor Deval Patrick’s casino plan will pay tax credits directly to homeowners whose local property taxes are more that 2 ½% of their income. Low- and middle-income homeowners living in cities or suburbs would receive the biggest percentage tax break. Residents of Fall River, for example, would receive an average tax credit equal to 7.6 percent of their property taxes, or $177.
Homeowners in wealthier communities would receive a higher dollar amount, but because their taxes are much higher, the percentage tax break is lower.
In Weston, for example, the average tax credit is projected to be $261, a number that represents only 1.5 percent of the average property tax bill.
Dover homeowners would receive $241 on average, which equals 1.9 percent of the average tax bill in town.
The Bush administration and the Republican Congress did the same thing for federal income taxes. Since then the Democratic party line has consistently been to label this a “tax cut for the rich”.
I expect the Democratic Party to be consistent and call Deval’s plan the same thing.
The Boston Globe story is here.
Usually this blog posts on only one Boston Globe article per day, but Tuesday’s Globe had a second article that is a real beauty and deserves mention. Appearing on page 1 and headlined “Many warming unexpectedly to Clinton”, this little attempt at a puff piece by Globe reporter Sasha Issenberg is hysterical because the headline, text, and quotes are saturated with awkwardly faint praise for Hillary from people who are obviously stalwart Democrats and many who are outright supporters. Here is the beginning:
Don Schwartz, who describes himself as "a super-Deaniac progressive type," decided to back Hillary Clinton - whose centrist views, he concedes, do not necessarily match his own - for a simple reason. He wanted, finally, to be with a winner.
Great plan! That’s why John Kerry is president instead of Howard Dean.
"I was actually surprised how many people said they were for Hillary," Schwartz said. "Now, they're getting to know her, and they're starting to like her. She is a nice person!"
Really?
"I actually like her more than I thought I would," Martha LaFlanne, 49, the vice president of student affairs at New Hampshire Community Technical College in Berlin
Thank you. Next, please.
"Barack is a remarkable speaker, Hillary is a good speaker," said Paul Begala
Hillary will surely punish you for saying that, Begala. No truthing to the media!
"She seems more human," Anna Chen, a 20-year-old Harvard junior from San Diego, said after a debate last week in Hanover. "Her laugh has gotten a lot better. Did you notice that tonight?"
Right! She does seem more human. More than any time in the past 15 years!
"I don't think people will say they don't have mixed feelings," said Billy Shaheen, cochairman of Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire.
Say that again, please, Billy. I need to start my parser.
In trying to decide what they think of Clinton today, voters find themselves wrestling with what they thought of her yesterday, and whether it was they or she who changed in the interim, specialists said.
Thank God for specialists!
…the new impressions voters receive of Clinton are more likely to fit into the old frameworks they have for considering her, according to [Emory professor Westen], including the idea that even her charm may be calculated.
Calculated? In my mental calculus the words “charm” and “Hillary Clinton” make an awkward pairing, almost like “honesty” and “Bill Clinton”.
Voters are often left assessing less what they think of Clinton than judging the gap between those feelings and what they believe is expected of them.
Sasha, please check your editor for signs of life. He must have died before giving a pass to that line.
"I don't think I feel I have to like her personally, said Diane McGonagle, 56, who walked from her home in Concord last week to see Obama address a rally in a public park. "I don't see why warmth is an issue."
There you have it folks. These Democrats are just mad about Hillary. Even the Globe says so. And if they are only slightly charmed, or very slightly charmed, or finding her at least more human than before, then maybe warmth just isn’t an issue.
As my children say, “LOL”.
Then the Globe keeps digging and asks its readers to respond online to the question “Have you warmed to Hillary?”
The first 4 to answer said:
Posted by bceagle90 on 8:05 AM
I've warmed to Hillary like a Red Sox fan warms to Bucky Dent....
Message #20306.3 in response to #20306.1
Posted by stampman on 8:08 AM
I really want to vote democratic this time but, not if it means voting for her!
Message #20306.4 in response to #20306.1
Posted by 1bostonian on 8:08 AM
I have never seen any one as cold and calculating as Hillary Clinton (or is it Hillary Rodham Clinton). She is just a product of one focus group after another telling her what she shouldn't or shouldn't say. I am not against having a women President, but if she gets the Democratic nomination, you may as well give the Presidency to the Republicans for the next 8 years.
Message #20306.5 in response to #20306.4
Posted by CorkyMuldoon on 8:14 AM
If this woman told me it was raining, I'd have to call the dog in to see if it's wet.
You know she's lying when her lips are moving.
I fear for our great republic if this woman gets elected...
Blue State Globe readers, tell us how you really feel! All the responses begin here.
Another candidate for “bogus trend story of the week” appears on today’s Boston Globe front page. Just 1 month ago the Globe received the same award from Slate for a front page story about physical attacks by cliques of vicious teenage girls. Today the story is of male suitors asking their sweetheart’s dad for her hand in marriage. The caveat: While there are no numbers to track the trend, call a bridal store or wedding venue or otherwise inquire among the betrothed and the newlywed and their parents and it is easy to find examples.
In other words, “We gotta sell more papers!”
If any editors were still awake on Morrissey Boulevard, they might have asked how if there are no numbers it can accurately be called a trend, and why the story merits space on page one. See the same answer above.
Besides the Globe’s extensive primary research on this topic, the story gives reporters a chance to interview some friendly gender researching college professors.No less than 3 are quoted in this story. Says one:
‘‘What we’re seeing right now is an odd combination of young people with progressive sentiments and a real desire for conventional gender roles and arrangements’’
How odd. Progressives who desire conventional gender roles! They must need some re-education. Another professor answers the call:
Barbara Gottfried, of Boston University’s women’s studies department, declares herself ‘‘shocked’’ by the trend. ‘‘The fact that the parents are asked prior to the proposal seems to me to be more than politeness,’’ she says. ‘‘Underneath it all is an anxiety about the threat that independent women pose.’’
That’s telling ‘em, Barbie! We are glad you could so quickly discern exactly what is underneath it all. What a fine example of penetrating feminist analysis of yet another trend that lacks any data supporting its existence. No doubt a few of your women’s studies courses would straighten these young guys out (ideologically, I mean).
Jules Crittenden lambastes the Boston Globe’s increasingly Bush-deranged columnist James Carroll (he of the Labor Day column that observed “Marxism has never really been tried”) for his Columbus Day column (“A troubling turn in American history”). Carroll, who sees in American History nothing but a succession of injustices, writes:
An unexpected thaw (warming Gorbachev and Reagan) ended the Cold War bloodlessly, and America had a chance to redefine national redemption, removing violence from its center.
Remove violence from our national center, huh? We could have learned a few things about violence at the center from the country that Gorby represented at that table, Jim! Sixty million is a large number of corpses for 1 regime to create in a single century, but they managed.
Beyond the warmth that Gorby and Reagan shared (for example when the 1986 Iceland summit collapsed) I recall a few incidents of regime change during those days. James, have you tried to find East Germany lately, or Czechosolvakia (!) or the bloodied Yugoslavia? James? Are we on the same planet James?
Jules writes:
Anyway Carroll, if you believe the European occupation of North America was such a bad thing, I respect your views, but you really need to act on your convictions: Find a hole in the Auld Sod to crawl into and divorce yourself from oppressive institutions of the European occupation of North America such as the Boston Globe. It’s the only moral choice.
You are showing Christian charity to Carroll, Jules. Sad that a newspaper in the self-proclaimed Athens of America features a columnist this badly Bush-deranged on a regular basis.
Al Sharpton in the NY Times: “We cannot have double standards for sexism and racism.”
Says Sharpton, who is living proof that we can have double standards for honesty and integrity.
Today’s New York Times reports on state lotteries. Forty-two states have them now, North Carolina being the most recent addition. The Times story describes the NC sales pitch: If some voters in this Bible Belt state frowned on [Governor] Easley’s push to bring gambling here, others were persuaded by his argument that North Carolina’s students were missing out on as much as $500 million in aid annually as residents crossed the border to buy lottery tickets elsewhere. “Our people are playing the lottery,” the governor said in an address two years ago that was a prelude to the creation of the North Carolina Education Lottery. “We just need to decide which schools we should fund, other states’ or ours.”
That rhetoric is familiar. Yet as lotteries expand to more states and compete with each other for “the gaming dollar”, these high returns become difficult to maintain. From the same Times story:
...the portion of lottery money going to state programs is shrinking…The Times review of documents from all 42 states with lotteries and the District of Columbia found that nearly all have increased payouts and lowered the percentage going to programs. And those that have not changed their payout formulas are considering it…
But unlike lotteries, our new Massachusetts gambling will tax the rich. We are targeting upscale! The expansion of gaming will be limited to 3 new “destination resorts” (to go along with the 2 already in Connecticut and the new one in Rhode Island and the one to be built just over the state line in New Hampshire, and the 2 in Maine…).
States are also trying to bolster the number of “core” players, according to interviews with lottery officials in several states. Such players typically represent only 10 percent to 15 percent of all players but account for 80 percent of sales, according to Independent Lottery Research, which does research and marketing for state lotteries.
Not in Massachusetts! No sir! Instead of trying to “bolster the number of core players”, Massachusetts’ new casinos destination resorts will work to identify problem gamblers and then shower them with social programs. The Globe reported that Patrick’s plan will:
…post signs warning patrons about the addictive propensity of wagering and train employees to spot troubled gamblers and direct them to addiction treatment.
I can envision our future casino barkers, directing the blue-haired as their buses arrive at the destination resort:
“Straight ahead for dollar slots, folks. Go to your left for quarter slots and to your right for nickels. For addiction treatment, just walk in the opposite direction. And remember folks, we are here to serve you. Our motto at Lucky Acres is Together We Can”
Today’s lead editorial in the Boston Globe ("Slots in my backyard") demands democracy by plebiscite:
Ironclad assurances that voters can decide whether to host a casino in their community should alleviate many fears about traffic and social costs. Putting the decision in the hands of a town's governing body raises too many questions about the influence of casino lobbyists. A binding referendum is the best way to ensure an honest process and outcome. All indications now point to legislation that requires this sensible option.
Chill, please! We are only deciding where to locate 3 casinos.
It’s not as if we were deciding to re-define marriage and the family.
Today’s Boston Globe reports that Nonnie Burnes, the Massachusetts Insurance Commissioner, has decided that auto insurers will not be allowed to use credit scores in their structure for calculating insurance rates. The story by Globe reporter Bruce Mohl reports:"There are those who assert that the use of this information is unfair and discriminatory," she said in a letter accompanying the regulations. "On the other hand, there are those who view the use of credit information as a valid factor in predicting risk in this market and that the use of this information benefits careful, responsible people wherever they live."
It is both discriminatory and a valid predictor of risk. Discriminatory in the sense that insurers need to discriminate (that is, select for lower priced policies) drivers whose lower risk matches the lower prices they will charge. By forbidding the use of credit data in the process, Burnes is simply forcing insurers to use different measures to predict risk – measures that might be more difficult to obtain and less accurate predictors of the cost of future claims.
Burnes said she decided to tell insurers what factors they cannot use so they would be free "to be innovative in the products and services that they offer."
Any innovation devised by insurers will inevitably undo in part the subsidies that are built in to the present system, subsidies that have been imposed through political pressure on the “regulatory” function of setting the price of insurance. For example:
The regulations maintain for at least one year existing subsidies paid by suburban and rural drivers in order to keep the rates of urban drivers reasonable.
Reasonable? "Lower" is the accurate word.
Is it intuitively reasonable to subsidize the cost of urban auto ownership while also subsidizing urban mass transit, in part because it lacks riders? One can argue that either or both of these subsidies are good public policy, but to label the current outcome as “reasonable” is a policy judgment, not factual reporting.
An excerpt from an article in the September Atlantic Monthly (subscription required) by Jonathan Rauch about the Clinton foundation: Clinton says he has been concerned about climate change for years, but that a hostile Congress and cheap oil prevented him from doing much about it when he was in office. Out of office, one day he decided to replace every lightbulb in his house with a compact fluorescent. But when he went to his local hardware store in Chappaqua, New York, he couldn’t find bulbs in a lot of the shapes and sizes he needed. “So I literally picked up the phone and called Jeff Immelt”—the CEO of General Electric—“and I said, ‘I’m trying to be a good customer. I’m trying to buy American, support GE. I like your eco-initiatives. But I can’t fill half these sockets. What am I going to do?’ And he said, ‘Well, make me a bigger market, and I’ll make whatever bulbs you want.’”
It’s a charming story, if somewhat tarnished by the fact that, through a spokesman, Immelt said he had no recollection of the conversation.
That sure sounds like Clinton being Clinton.
