October 18, 2005
10/18: The Usual Suspicions
Questions of the Day: What did VP Cheney know and when did he know it? What did Cheney CoS Scooter Libby not know about Valerie Plame and why didn't he know it? What did SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers say about Griswold v. Connecticut and how did she say it? What do we make of Pres. Bush's latest poll numbers, and which way are they going next? What did the Wall Street Journal accomplish with its OU bombing story, and why did they do it? What's up with the Iraq vote totals, and what's going to come of it? Why did prosecutor Ronnie Earle try to cut a deal with Tom DeLay, and will that hurt the case? Which ex-blogger is coming under fire in KY gov't, and what did the Herald-Leader write about him? Plus, who's the subject of our latest Blogger Spotlight, and does he seriously read that many blogs?
CHENEY: Spiro Cheney?
Washington Post's Jim VandeHei and Walter Pincus report this a.m., special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has zeroed in on the role of ... Cheney's office" in the CIA leak investigation, specifically on "what Cheney may have known about the effort to push back against" ex-Amb./Iraq war critic Joe Wilson. New York Daily News has a similar report.
The lefty blogs are all over it: DC think tanker Steve Clemons: "Who cares at this point where Libby got the information. He was discussing a CIA agent with members of the press. Karl Rove did the same -- exactly the same. ... It is inconceivable that their respective bosses were not aware all along. Or did they construct some byzantine system of plausible deniability? If so, then that is worse because it implies Presidential awareness of their misbehavior and recklessly illegal acts." Ex-Washington Monthly journalist Josh Marshall notes, the piece contains "a lot of information about" ex-Cheney spokesperson Jennifer Millerwise, who spoke to investigators in '03, but not the grand jury. She now works at the CIA. He adds: "What it means I do not know. But, in articles like these, threads like those are usually meant to be pulled." Then again, Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum writes, the Post report "turns out to have no actual new information about Cheney being a target ... In fact, it quotes a former Cheney aide saying that "it is 'implausible' that Cheney himself was involved in the leaking of Plame's name because he rarely, if ever, involved himself in press strategy." Daily News reports -- as Raw Story reported they would report -- that a source who has been questioned by Fitzgerald says there is a "senior cooperating witness -- - someone who is giving them" inside info. Blogenlust makes a guess: "I predict it's Ari Fleischer. He's facing serious charges, is no longer in the administration, and by some accounts, wasn't and isn't apart of the inner circle of Bush loyalists." Whiskey Bar's Billmon compares the report to the "swarm of microquakes jostled the Cascade foothills" of Mt. St. Helens in the spring of '80. Header at Firedoglake, above a picture of Cheney: "Going Doooooooowwwwnnnnn......"
Meanwhile, the report has so far received scant attention from conservatives -- JustOneMinute mentions it, but at the bottom of a related post, without much commentary. Instead he focuses on the likelihood of indictments for Rove and Libby, and mocks the Post's Howard Kurtz who, "apparently seriously, tells us that passion in the Judy Miller debacle leak case is fueled by the war in Iraq. Do tell."
ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Was Judy Miller A Secret Agent, Too?
Ex-GOPer Marshall Wittmann, on what happens if Rove is indicted: "If he indicts, nothing else will matter to the GOP smear team than sullying the reputation of the special counsel. Hopefully, he has no unpaid parking tickets, has never jaywalked or removed a label from a mattress. If he has committed these misdeeds, we will see them advertised as a screaming headline on Drudge. They will do a 'South Carolina' number on Fitzgerald."
In a 10/16 letter to the Poynter Institute's Romenesko forum, ex-CBS corr. Bill Lynch writes: "There is one enormous journalism scandal hidden" in Miller's 10/16 piece on the first person article about the (perhaps lesser) CIA leak scandal. And that is Ms. Miller's revelation that she was granted a DoD security clearance while embedded with the WMD search team in Iraq in 2003. This is as close as one can get to government licensing of journalists and the New York Times (if it knew) should never have allowed her to become so compromised. In a report late 10/17, NBC's Jim Miklaszewski reports, CIA, DIA and Pentagon officials "say they have no idea what" Miller was talking about. Conservative Sisyphean Musings doesn't see where the scandal is: "Does Lynch equate Miller's "terms of her accreditation to report" to "a DoD security clearance"? Is there a difference in the deals journalists make to gain access to information, or be embedded with a military unit, and a DoD security clearance? Why does Lynch assume Miller was given a DoD security clearance?"
AP reports, though Libby told Miller that Plame worked for WINPAC -- but it turns out that Libby was mistaken. Center-right Bloggledygook considers the implications: "The thinking, I guess, is that if there was this misinformation that Plame wasn't covert, then Libby would be off the hook." On the other hand: "I'm still inclined toward the more obvious conclusion. Miller is a hack that hasn't gotten anything right in years." Poli sci prof Steven Taylor: "What struck me most about the entire story was this line: 'It is unclear how the discrepancy might affect the investigation. 'That should be the slogan for this entire affair..."
Needlenose writes, an "unfortunate side effect" of the "two-year echo chamber of minutiae being debated and pieced together in endless combinations -- is that some guesswork has been prematurely (or wrongly, IMO) elevated to the status of accepted universal wisdom." One, per an '03 Daily Kos diary, held that the "six journalists" reportedly tipped by the WH to the "identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." On account of Fitzgerald's investigation, those 6 were assumed to be Miller, Pincus, Bob Novak, Tim Russert, Matt Cooper, Glenn Kessler. But maybe not: "In fact, Libby and Rove appear to have only originated leaks to one reporter apiece," Miller and Cooper. "Not coincidentally, these were the two whose testimony was subjected to the most protracted legal wrangling, as Rove and Libby declined to provide the same personal waivers of confidentiality that Libby had given to Kessler, Pincus, and Russert."
Conservative Matt Murphy at Brothers Judd, on the AP story titled "Karl Rove's Garage Proves to Be Typical": "Betcha didn't know that the AP and The Onion have merged operations."
THE MIERS NOMINATION: No Word On Her Stance In The Landmark Case Of Griswold V. Wally World
The quickly retracted 10/17 revelation from Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) that Miers had said she agreed with the SCOTUS's Griswold v. Connecticut decision -- a precedent upon which Roe v. Wade is based -- caused plenty of heartburn on the right while it was out there. Counting this report along with the fact that TX judges brought by the WH to DC to support Miers couldn't vouch for her conservative credentials, Captain's Quarters summarized the relaunch of her nod in this header: "Miers 2.0: Same Bugs, Less Features." Confirm Them's Andrew Hyman writes that he had been able to "keep an open mind" up to this point, but "no longer": "The issue, of course, is not whether contraceptives should be legal or not. Of course they should be. The issue is who has the power under our Constitution to make that decision." In the '6 Griswold decision, the SCOTUS "announced that the decision was theirs to make, and ever since then the Court has been using that decision as a wedge, to pry its way into making all kinds of decisions for the American people, even decisions that have accorded rights to groups of citizens at the expense of others." But then, Washington Post's Campaign for the Court relates, Specter's office later "rescinded" this characterization. Libertarian Bill Quick, considering Specter's later statement that he'd misunderstood her, and a new CNN-Gallup poll showing 36% of Americans want her to withdraw: "Yeah. He misunderstood that he owes his re-election and position as Chair of the Judiciary committee to GWB. I wonder what Bush will do when more than half of Americans want Miers to hang it up?"
Liberal Casey Morris at Democracy Cell Project: "Yesterday, was the unveiling, and yesterday their efforts to manipulate the media fell as flat as their efforts to manipulate the media did last week. Meet the new Harriet Miers. The same as the old Harriet Miers."
Libertarian-leaning Univ. of TN prof/Instapundit Glenn Reynolds writes in an op-ed for the sub. req. Wall Street Journal: "The tendency in recent years to nominate judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court has led to a certain amount of politicking and positioning by appellate judges who think they have a shot. That's bad, but surely it would be far worse if future White House counsels started letting hopes of a court nomination distort advice they offer the president."
Contra recent assertions that Miers has made it known she would overturn Roe v. Wade, AP reports, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said "Miers told him she had not shared her views" on the decision with anyone. Daily Kos: "Okay, what kind of person, especially one working in politics, goes her entire life without sharing her opinion on Roe or abortion? ... That's just simply bizarre."
Law prof Ann Althouse on speculation that participants from James Dobson's 10/3 conf. call could be subpoenaed: "It's one thing to grill Miers about the Roe v. Wade. ... It's quite another thing to make the [conf. call] the object of an intense investigation, with the participants subpoenaed and expected to hold up to grilling -- under oath -- about what was said. It seems to me that the decision to do that would be tantamount to an open demand that the nomination be withdrawn."
Last week, ex-Bush speechwriter David Frum posted an online petition for conservatives opposing the Miers nod (see 10/13 Blogometer). As of late this a.m., 4,466 have signed up.
BUSH: Gotta Get Himself Connected, The Writing's On The Wall ...
Conservative PoliPundit writes, although "anyone could have predicted the opposition to Miers" from the right, Bush and "his team underestimated the level of conservative opposition they would face." It's not a matter of ideology -- Bush's "heart is in the right place. Only a true conservative would quixotically try to reform Social Security, as the president did earlier this year. But he needs a better liaison with the conservative base. He needs to get back in touch with us and understand our concerns. Right now, he seems to be living in a cocoon where the First Lady's choice of Supreme Court nominee counts more than that of the entire conservative movement. That must change."
Liberal Chris Bowers posts the latest Bush fav/unfav polls, most of which show him hovering around 38% approval; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics has him at 40%. Bowers comments: "I believe all six of these are record lows. You know Bush is really in trouble when Fox and Gallup aren't propping him up anymore. And forget the 40% floor--the new goal is 60% disapproval." Matthew Gross: "It just isn't fair. How are we lefty bloggers supposed to keep finding clever new ways to say that Bush has tanked, or gone through the floor, when he is tanking and plummeting and going into the basement with such alacrity?" Conservative Don Surber spins it around back the other way, asking, "how happy can Bush be with the nation? What a bunch of whiners. Some of you liberals still haven't gotten over the 2000 election. Here's your ball, you crybaby losers. Take it and go home. ... And what about some of you conservatives flying off the handle on Harriet Miers? Suddenly you cannot trust the president? Suddenly, you favor ideological litmus tests?"
DELAY: Backfiring Results In Firing Back?
Conservative Coldheardedtruth comments on the report that Travis Co. DA Earle offered a deal to ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. DeLay so he could avoid indictment: "The only deal offered was for DeLay to accept a misdemeanor, not conspiracy ... and the deal was turned down, not accepted. This also would 'suggest' that the DeLay hand is a bit stronger than perhaps we even thought, and that the indictment may have been forced by the supposed threat associated with the original deal. Once a deal was offered that suggested charges if DeLay didn't agree, Earle was more/less obligated to come up with something or look like a fool." Righty Matthew Hoy, on Earle's revelation that he "doesn't have the smoking gun list of candidates and money amounts that are at the heart of his indictment": "Earle makes the Keystone Kops look like CSI: Texas."
Austin-based liberal Amanda Marcotte: "I'm not holding out a lot of hope that this will end in justice. ... [T]hey've apparently been blanketing our airwaves with anti-Earle commercials in an attempt to get a jury that tosses out the case because they think it's a partisan witch hunt and people don't like those, even if the target is an odious a person as Tom DeLay."
Power Line's John Hinderaker posts reproductions DeLay atty Dick DeGuerin's latest filings, which seek to have the indictments quashed/dismissed. A sample, as highlighted by Media Lies: "You were wrong about the law and the facts. The first indictment charged a conspiracy to violate the Election Code, yet no such crime existed in 2002. The Election Code covers all election-related offenses, yet you have wrongly charged a Penal Code violation. The Election Code would place venue in Tom DeLay's home county, Fort Bend, yet you contrived to bring the indictment in Travis County." Hinderaker observes: "The judge who will hear DeLay's motions is a MoveOn.org supporter. But Ronnie Earle will have to come up with some answers if he wants to keep his prosecution of Tom DeLay alive."
IRAQ: Consider The Vote Rocked
As the New York Times reports, questions are being raised about the legitimacy of the Iraqi vote in some provinces, where the yes-votes are as high as 99%. Radical centrist Andrew Sullivan is somewhat concerned: "These voting numbers are eerily close to the days of Saddam. You might expect overwhelming majorities in favor of the new charter in Shiite and Kurdish provinces, but this still looks fishy. Again: we need to wait to see the full vote count before we can say anything more." Liberal News Hog is as well, but adds: "Somehow though, I am singularly unsurprised by this. ... The Iraqi power-players have proven adept students of the Bush/DeLay method of government after all - right the way down to their ability to steal their own country blind whilst in positions of power." At NRO's The Corner, John Podhoretz writes, although concerned by the "lurid quality of the Times's pessimism on Iraq," he is encouraged "that Iraqis themselves are taking seriously the possibility of vote fraud. The Times is not responsible for the discovery of the suspiciously high vote totals..." Right-leaning Balloon Juice: "Looks like the Daley family has been responsible for the voter education process in Iraq."
Ron K at The Next Hurrah reports, at a 10/11 fundraiser for Rep. Jim McDermott's (D-WA) Legal Expense Trust in Seattle, ex-House Min. Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) said of his support for the Iraq war: "It was a mistake ... I was wrong." And: "We never comprehended the complexity of the undertaking. I didn't. None of us did." Asked about troop withdrawal, he said: "Until very recently, I thought we would pull out in time for the 2006 elections. Now it doesn't look like we will." Gephardt praised Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), but said of otherwise: "I've lost all faith in the integrity of Moderate Republicans. ... Why are they so pathetically weak that they can't stand up to him [DeLay]? Does he have them hypnotized? ... Is he holding their children hostage? ... I don't get it! Democrats in power would not -- and could not -- exercise that kind of discipline."
BLOGS VS. THE MSM: Just Say No
Conservative bloggers aren't done yet with the Wall Street Journal's take (see 10/17 Blogometer) on the bombing suicide of OU student Joel Hinrichs, which they suspect may have been an act of terrorism gone wrong, but which the WSJ reported as a case of blogger speculation gone astray. Last p.m., Michelle Malkin recounts her interaction with reporter Joe Hagan: "Several times, Hagan asked leading questions about the blogosphere's 'conspiracy theories' regarding Joel Hinrichs. Several times, I stated clearly that I did not subscribe to any conspiracy theories--and that most of the blogs covering the story didn't either." More: "There are a few folks out there who are absolutely convinced that Hinrichs was part of an organized terrorist plot. I made crystal-clear to Hagan I was not one of them. I don't know what the truth is. ... What I stressed to Hagan was that several freelance Islamists have committed acts of violence in the U.S. -- the LAX El Al Muslim gunman Hesham Hadayet, for example, and the Beltway snipers--and the MSM has done a lousy job of exploring their Islamist influences." She adds a lot more, with links to other bloggers covering the OU case and the WSJ's report. While the original story never gained traction in the liberal blogosphere, lefty blogger/non-News Corp exec Roger Ailes has been ridiculing the conservative bloggers for pursuing the story, as he does here and again most recently here.
In a diary for RedState, Nick Danger, on AP stories and ex-Pres. Carter son/NV SEN candidate Jack Carter (D): "Whether any particular story makes it into your local newspaper is a local decision made by local editors. Watch this, courtesy of Google News" -- a 10/16 AP story headlined "Carter's Son Aims Barbs at Bush" was picked up by 43 papers, whereas 10/14's "Carter admits past drug use led to Navy discharge" was picked up by just 2, including the Las Vegas Sun.
In a direct challenge to the Blogometer, New York Times has compiled a list of quotes from blogs about the Miller case (we're kidding about that first clause). Media blogger Jeff Jarvis comments: "This is a good step. The Times is now linking out to those linking in; the Washington Post has been doing likewise with Technorati help. That finally starts to get papers into the conversation, including conversations critical of them." He adds, "the next step in this trend in linking should be to link to the stories a paper is not covering. That is the real value of the connected world."
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: What's This, Political Payback In Jersey? Well, Now We've Seen Everything!
PoliticsNJ editors write at the Inside Edge: "Insiders are wondering whether" Bergen Co. Dem chair Joseph Ferriero will take "revenge" on NJ GOV candidate/Sen. Jon Corzine (D) "by keeping his army of field workers on the sidelines between now and Election Day." (Corzine had backed a successful candidate Ferriero opposed in a state Senate race.) Writes Edge, "A Bergen source now report"s that Bergen Dem volunteers "are being instructed to make phone calls only on behalf" of 2 local Dem incumbents -- "Corzine's name has apparently been cut from the script."
THE MARCH OF BLOGS: Hmmm... The Circumstances Of The 1st Graf Don't Bode Well For The Subject Of The 2nd ...
Lexington Herald-Leader reports, the admin. of Gov. Ernie Fletcher (R-KY) "has scrapped plans for a new office that would have looked for political bias in merit job recommendations, to be led by a partisan Republican who attacked Democrats on his personal Web site." The Herald-Leader describes the site as mixing "lengthy essays about his favorite fantasy novels and science-fiction movies ('If I were a character in The Lord of the Rings, I would be Legolas, Elf, a son of the King of Mirkwood.') with caustic attacks on Democrats, feminists, environmentalists, anti-war protesters and others he referred to as 'lefties' or 'chicoms,' which is short for Chinese Communists." That GOPer turns out to be C. Dodd Harris IV -- better known in the blogosphere as Ipse Dixit. As noted in the Blogometer on 7/6, Harris shut down the blog and removed his archives, writing: "it's time for me to retire. I don't particularly want to, but it seems I pretty much have to. I'd very much like to explain why here but, unfortunately, I cannot. My friends are welcome to email and I will explain in private. Perhaps some of you can even help. Suffice it to say that there have been some ... not-so-nice ... articles about blogs in the papers lately and I do not wish to be used in anyone's campaign of personal destruction. Given the current climate, I am seriously starting to believe that anonymity may be the only way to blog about politics." The Herald-Leader 1st reported pn Harris' former site on 10/15: "Personnel Secretary Erwin Roberts knew that Harris had published a Web log, or blog, Aragon said last night. But she said Roberts never read the blog and was unaware that Harris regularly praised Republicans, jeered Democrats and published his opinions on the evils of gun control, taxes and government."
On 10/15, Pandagon founder Jesse Taylor announced his immediate departure from the blog, on account of becoming online comm. dir. for the OH GOV campaign of Ted Strickland (D). In doing so, he turns over the blog to co-blogger Marcotte and new guest-blogger Jedmunds. Taylor had previously shared blogging duties with Ezra Klein, who left to establish the wonkier Ezra Klein -- and more recently, began contributing to The American Prospect's TAPPED. During the '04 Dem convo, Taylor and Klein were included in the New York Times Magazine's report [sub. req.] on political blogging; one of the relevant paragraphs is available at the blog of Daniel Drezner. Signing off, Taylor writes: "I've enjoyed the past three-plus years here, but it's time for a new challenge, and it's also time for me to take on a more serious challenge than daily ranting."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: Drum Line
Today the Blogometer talks to liberal Kevin Drum, who currently blogs for the Washington Monthly's Political Animal, and first drew a following at Calpundit.
What is your full name?
Kevin Dale Drum. The middle name comes from my father, who was named Dale because he was born shortly after his parents saw the Douglas Fairbanks production of Robin Hood.
What is your age?
46
Where did you grow up?
Garden Grove, California
Where do you live now?
Irvine, California
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
Currently, I'm a full-time blogger for the Washington Monthly. Before that, I was VP of Marketing for a software company in Irvine. I've never worked on a political campaign and I've never worked for the mainstream media -- though, ironically, I did major in journalism in college.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started blogging in August 2002. I discovered blogs via links from Kausfiles and started a blog almost immediately. It was like it was the medium I'd been waiting for all my life.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
My favorite story has been the Bush National Guard story. It was a lot of fun, and I did some original reporting that moved the story forward, even if, in the end, nothing ever panned out. (And probably never will, thanks to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes.)
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
Since I'm on the West Coast, I start blogging immediately in the morning and usually keep going until about noon. I blog intermittently during the afternoon, and then again for a couple of hours between 9-11 p.m. I generally write half a dozen posts a day.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
At the risk of swelling his young head, I guess my favorite political blogger is Matt Yglesias. He provides both quantity and quality, a winning combination.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Jon Chait
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
I don't watch much TV news, though I've long had a sort of a guilty fascination with Capitol Gang. Aside from that, the only political show I watch is the Daily Show.
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
Lots of 'em. I think most bloggers take way too little advantage of the fact that they can now read accounts of the same event on half a dozen sites in only a few minutes. My regular reads include the LA Times, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Telegraph, CNN, Wall Street Journal, Knight Ridder, BBC, National Review, The New Republic, Weekly Standard, Mother Jones, Slate, The Nation, and probably a few others I'm forgetting.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
I have over a hundred blogs that I read regularly. My daily reads include: Instapundit, Eschaton, Talking Points Memo, TPM Cafe, TalkLeft, Tapped, Mark Kleiman, Dan Drezner, Chris Mooney, Shakespeare's Sister, Outside the Beltway, OxBlog, MaxSpeak, Informed Comment, Brad DeLong, Crooked Timber, Matt Yglesias, Daily Howler, Asymmetrical Information, New Donkey, Body and Soul, Brad Plumer, Joanne Jacobs, Crooks and Liars, Daily Kos, Ezra Klein, Hullabaloo, AmericaBlog, Kausfiles, Marc Cooper, Matt Welch, MoJo Blog, Majikthise, Professor Bainbridge, Volokh Conspiracy, Chris Nolan, Obsidian Wings, Abu Aardvark, Andrew Sullivan, Suburban Guerrilla, Andrew Tobias, Brendan Nyhan, Bull Moose, Carpetbagger Report, Pacific Views, CJR Daily, Democracy Arsenal, Liberals Against Terrorism, Marginal Revolution, Pandagon, The Corner, Laura Rozen, The Sideshow, Belgravia Dispatch, Angry Bear, Begging to Differ, Fafblog, Just One Minute, The Oil Drum, Legal Fiction, Uncertain Principles, Unfogged, Unqualified Offerings, Ann Althouse, Julie Saltman.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
I read the LA Times every morning before I begin blogging, just like I have for the past three decades. I love the internet, but you can still get a lot from reading a real newspaper cover to cover.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
Amateur blogs will always be around. It's too much fun and the barriers to entry are too low. However, just as large corporations dominate the web, I suspect that major news/entertainment organizations will dominate the blogosphere five years from now. The fact is, the world of mainstream journalism is full to bursting with writers who are way better than almost anyone currently working in the blogosphere, and the only reason they aren't blogging today is because there's not enough money in it. Once there is, and mainstream organizations loosen up enough to allow them to write without editors, they'll take over.
Of course, it might turn out that there's never any money in blogging. If that's the case, then the blogosphere will remain an amateur affair.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Is Credit Due?
In an interview with Evan Thomas, as reported by Wonkette, John McCain said: "Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan would fight all day and then he'd come down and it'd be two Irishmen telling corny jokes over drinks... We need more of that today." Liberal blogger Terry McMahon compares this to a line in David Gergen's "Eyewitness to Power": "Reagan and Tip O'Neill scrapped like tigers during the day, but after 5:00 P.M., they were two Irishmen topping each other with jokes." He asks: "Fighting during the day? 'Two Irishmen'? Telling 'jokes'? Did McCain (or Wonkette) plagiarize? Am I crazy ... or is this a Neil Kinnock moment?"
Meanwhile, lefty activist Michael Petrelis notes similarities between a '99 book about the Sulzberger family, "The Trust," and a 6/04 Franklin Foer New York story. Petrelis compares passages, summarizing: "I don't see an exact match here, but it certainly seems Foer got some of his information from "The Trust," cribbed the gist of the Miller-related page in the book, slightly reworked sentences written by Tifft and Jones on drinking at Duke Zeibert's and Pinch and Judy sharing a summer house in Maryland. At minimum, Foer should have given due credit to the reporting in "The Trust" and I'm curious why editors and fact-checkers at New York magazine didn't insist Foer acknowledge" it.
LEST WE FORGET: What's This About Owls?
Taxprof Blog's Paul Caron calls attention to a paper on the NBER website (PDF) which illustrates -- what he calls -- "The Hooters Effect." From the abstract: "This study develops theory and uses a door-to-door fundraising field experiment to explore the economics of charity. ... Interestingly, we find that a one standard deviation increase in female solicitor physical attractiveness is similar to that of the lottery incentive." Ace from Ace of Spades HQ is shocked, shocked: "Another million-dollar study finds that cute chicks get less speeding tickets than smelly dudes wearing Queensryche t-shirts and Spock ears. (Believe me, I know whereof I speak.)"
Posted by at October 18, 2005 12:35 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
