Friday, September 06, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: WALTERS MAKES A MOCKERY OF 9/11
Jim Walters is a hack for the Iowa City Press-Citizens’s “Writer Groups.” Most of his arrogant ramblings are so foolish that they barely merit a comment. But his column from this Wednesday is so blatantly ignorant that it can’t be passed over.
He gets his screed off to a smashing start:
The events of Sept. 11, 2001 have "changed" this country ...
a) noticeably
b) dramatically
c) radically
d) fundamentally
How about ... e) not at all?
Since most U.S. citizens don't travel by air, the inconveniences of increased security have not affected many of us. The perfunctory, and mostly meaningless, screenings at public buildings, ball games and other events have been less than a minute annoyance. What "color" is that security alert today, Mr. Ridge?
I guess Mr. Walters has never heard of psychological effects. I guess he also forgot about the subsequent anthrax attacks. That’s significant because “most U.S. citizens” receive mail.
Here he reveals how important he thinks September 11 was:
So what exactly will we be observing about the year since Sept. 11, besides selling a lot of newspapers, air time and patriotic gimmicks?
Got that? September 11 is just a chance to sell advertising and engage in silly patriotism. Never mind the fact that many cable news stations have decided to forego showing ads on the one-year anniversary. Never mind that many of those folks who will be displaying American flags will be doing so to honor the victims of that awful day. No, no: In Walters’ World the only motivations for remembering September 11 are cynical ones.
Then Walters gets his facts wrong:
A few days ago, a letter writer to the Des Moines Register lauded our president's "heroic actions" in the wake of the terrorist attacks. That's strange, because my remembrance is that he immediately got on a plane that flew him to a bunker in Louisiana, and thence to a bunker in Nebraska. I actually had the privilege of watching his heroic(?) return to Washington days later, when his plane (the lone one in the sky) bisected Iowa heading east.
Sorry, but Bush returned to Washington the same day, only 10 hours after the attacks. Also, Bush stopped at Air Force bases, not bunkers. In fact, Bush was the one demanding to go back. According to an article in the September 24, 2001 issue of U.S. News and World Report:
After stopping at two Air Force bases, Bush’s patience finally wore thin. “I want to go back to Washington as soon as possible—now,” he snapped to aides. “I don’t want any tinhorn dictator terrorist holding me outside Washington.”
(Here’s an online link to the article. The article has to be purchased online. Sorry.)
By saying that it was “days later” Walters can portray Bush as a little coward who hunkered down like a scared little boy. Given that Walters is a groundskeeper at the University of Iowa, it surely would not have been too difficult to fact check this by going to the University Library. Of course, it is always easier to distort when one doesn’t check the facts. (I’m also curious as to why no one at the Press-Citizen fact checked it. I’ve called to find out. If they return my call, I’ll let you know.)
After screwing the pooch on that one, Walters gives an encore:
What the president did next was to launch a crusade. . . er, make that war. . . on terrorism. He would pursue those responsible to the ends of the earth, and bring them back, dead or alive. Since those most responsible were vaporized in the dust of the twin towers, he settled on Osama bin Ladin, Mullah Omar, and a few others as equally culpable.
A year later? We've installed new warlords in Kabul, the opium trade is back in full swing, and the ends of the earth apparently don't include parts of Pakistan. Osama bin Whatshisname? Who's he?
Does this man watch the news? The connection between Osama bin Laden and 9/11 is well established. It is also well established that the Mullah Omar was harboring al Qaeda. Furhtermore, the media speculates as to whether bin Laden is dead or alive all the time. “Osama bin Whatshisname?” That’s so patently absurd it defies all common sense.
Let me end this with a personal appeal: Mr. Walters, as a groundskeeper you probably must make use of manure on the university grounds. That’s fine. Just don’t put it into the newspaper.
P.S. Here's the Press-Citizen's email if you want to drop them a little note: opinion@press-citizen.com
. . .
HE’LL ACCUSE HIM OF WANTING TO STARVE CHILDREN NEXT
Well, it was only a matter of time. Tom Vilsack has now attacked Doug Gross for wanting to cut health-care. According to the Des Moines Register,
Vilsack, a Democrat, charged Wednesday that Gross' plan to reform the state-federal health care program for the poor and disabled includes cutting off eligibility at 100 percent of the federal poverty level, which is an income of $8,868 for an individual and $18,108 for a family of four.
"We're going to fight to make sure it doesn't happen," said Vilsack, who is seeking a second four-year term.
Gross was in eastern Iowa and could not be reached for comment. His spokesman, Eric Woolson, said Vilsack was distorting Gross' position. Woolson said Gross would evaluate Medicaid programs that have expanded state eligibility guidelines "on a case-by-case basis to make sure that they are appropriate from a health standpoint and can be supported financially."
Vilsack? Distorting? No!!! The real laugher comes in this passage:
Gross has charged that Vilsack has driven Iowa's Medicaid program into debt by promising more than it can deliver. He has said that Iowa has 40,000 more people on Medicaid than when Vilsack took office in January 1999 because some programs and eligibility standards have been expanded.
Vilsack has said that demands on Medicaid have increased because of the recession and rising unemployment. Medicaid accounts for about 20 percent of states' spending nationwide, but it represents about 10 percent of Iowa's budget, he said. "I don't think we are extending these things to people that don't need them."
Careful Governor Vilsack; your press entourage may soon need a shovel. The fact of the matter is that Vilsack wanted to expand Medicaid from day one. The number of Iowans using it began growing in 1999, well before the recession kicked in. And Vilsack knows it. Blaming it on current economic troubles is deceptive, even for the standards of a political campaign.
. . .
HAVE A LITTLE FAITH
The Des Moines Register continues its distrust of the market. Today’s editorial deals with a Bush Administrations proposal for a drug-discount card program for seniors. This is the key sentence:
There are concerns the plan could encourage mail-order programs that steer seniors from local pharmacists who answer questions and watch for dangerous drug interactions.
First, shouldn’t it be the choice of seniors as to how they pay for their drugs? That is, if they want to use mail-order programs and forego the local pharmacist, isn’t that their decision? The government shouldn’t be in the business of acting like a nanny and saying "No, no, no. You don’t know what’s best for you. You need to consult your local pharmacist, and we’re going to make sure you do so." I think it is safe to assume that seniors are old enough to make this decision for themselves.
Second, mail-order programs will likely provide information on interaction effects, if the market demands it. If enough seniors shy away from mail-order programs because of the lack of information on drug interactions, mail-order programs will find a way to provide such information—perhaps through use of an 800 number.
Isn’t it amazing what a little faith in the market will do?
. . .
SPEAKING OF CUBA….
Myles Kantor has this interesting piece at NRO about Cuban dissidents who are rappers.
. . .
Thursday, September 05, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: MORE ON CRAWFORD AND CASTRO
Dean Bartkiw of Mud on My Shoes recently posted a comment about my post on Marc Hansen's column about Castro that appeared in the Des Moines Register. I liked it so much that I decided to make it the subject for today's Diatribe. Here's Dean's comment:
Hey Dave,
I have to disagree with you on this one pal. After reading, and re-reading the column, I just can't make the same conclusions you did. You're a little hard on Crawford. Your love of liberty, and hatred of despotism, has skewed your objectivity, my friend.
Jerry Crawford doesn't speak without thinking - his words are carefully chosen, which is what makes him a masterful diplomat.
The fact that he notes that both Clinton and Castro are "brilliant" and "charismatic" does not speak to their respective ideologies or character flaws. Even the most extreme Clinton hater must acknowledge his raw charisma and scholastic aptitude (which many consider brilliant). The same is probably true of Castro - certainly in terms of charisma.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that it would be wise for Crawford to travel all the way to Cuba, ostensibly to promote a business deal (that would probably benefit Iowa, his client, and himself), only to attack Castro's despicable regime and ruthless totalitarian policies. The effort would be fruitless anyway, and suicidal from a business perspective.
While Crawford's associations may be offensive to some, for ideological reasons, his capitalist spirit and diplomatic nature justify his soft rhetoric on Castro. Certainly, the exposure he regularly receives only furthers his business endeavors. Besides, it is not in his client's best interest to engage Castro on the level of truth you suggest. In fact, as an attorney, Crawford is obligated to set his beliefs aside and advocate to the best of his ability for his client.
Crawford's actual views on issues remain a mystery. As a hired gun, it makes sense that he remains somewhat silent on these specifics - so as not to offend. But, maybe we'll see him venture into politics (as a candidate) sometime in the future. At that point, we can discuss the issues rather than "implications."
As always, looking forward to the next Diatribe. Congrats on your great site!
Excellent comment, Dean. First off, you are right that it would be a very bad idea for Crawford to engage Castro in a discussion about his regime from a business perspective. You could forget about Crawford getting any business for his clients in Cuba. So I guess I'll have to concede that my attack on that matter was tantamount to asking Crawford to commit "business suicide."
What I did not make clear in my post was the disgust I felt reading all the gushing Crawford did over Castro: his brilliance and charisma, his intricate knowledge of Iowa agriculture, his guerilla war stories, his meeting with the pope, etc. Granted, Crawford criticizing Castro in his interview with columnist Marc Hansen probably would have been as bad criticizing Castro to his face. But Crawford could have declined to give the interview. Or he could have given an interview, stressed the trade aspects of the visit, and avoided all the Castro flattery and cute little stories. He certainly did not have to paint a nice little face on a dictator who puts his political opponents in prison and has managed to turn Cuba into an economic cesspool.
Finally, I think it is important to consider the effect that Crawford's words have on the political dissidents in Cuba. By most reports, political dissidents in Cuba hear about American celebrities like Jack Nicholson who visit Cuba and declare it a "paradise." This has a very demoralizing effect on such dissidents. Assuming that the propaganda machine in Cuba broadcast a report of Crawford's interview, Crawford's words probably had a similar effect. All people who visit Cuba should choose their words carefully when speaking to the American press because of the effect that such words can have on people struggling for democracy on that island nation. This includes the likes of Crawford; it also applies to the reporting of a columnist like Marc Hansen.
. . .
IOWA MAKES THE NY TIMES
Thanks to reader John Ferguson who pointed out this article in the New York Times. It focuses on candidates' ads and how they emphasize 9/11 concerns without actually mentioning 9/11. In particular, it discusses the race here in Iowa between Congressman Jim Leach and his Democrat opponent Julie Thomas. There is actually a picture in the article of Dr. Thomas. I must say, she looks like the loveable grandmother type. This makes me think that Leach is going to have his hands full the next eight weeks.
. . .
AND ON A POSITIVE NOTE....
There is something good at the Register, believe it or not. It's this column by David Yepsen. Well done. Go read it.
. . .
REGISTER REALLY DREAMIN’
The Register would like the Gross Campaign to stop focusing on Governor Vilsack’s record:
So far, this campaign has focused mostly on assessing Vilsack's first term. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's history. It is time to move on.
That seems a bit disingenuous. I suspect the real reasons that the Register would like the Gross Campaign to stop focusing on Vilsack’s record is that (1) in the immortal words of Beavis and Butthead, "IT SUCKS!" and (2) Gross has used it to build a lead in the polls.
That second reason is very important, because the Register editorialists very much want Vilsack to be reelected. Thus, they are hoping Gross will focus his attention on something that will reflect better on Vilsack. In the immortal words of Aerosmith, "DREAM ON!"
. . .
REGISTER DREAMIN’
There are numerous faults with this editorial in the Des Moines Register claiming that alternative energy is the wave of the future. At present I’m going to limit myself to the Register’s disregard of the "market." Here’s the first two paragrpahs:
Alternative energy used to be the hobbyhorse of tree-huggers, global-warming worriers and other impractical dreamers.
No more. Some of the biggest corporations in the world are preparing for a future powered by alternative energy, and this week the assembled leaders of the world agreed that speeding up the transition to alternative energy is an "urgent" need.
While political and industrial leaders may be jumping up and down over alternative energy, the Register ignores the market demand for such energy. So far, the demand for hybrid cars isn’t exactly exploding. Before we get too excited about alternative energy, shouldn’t we actually consider how much demand there is for it?
The World Summit on Sustainable Development was convened to come up with a common strategy for lifting the standard of living in impoverished nations. A global switch to alternative energy will have a lot to do with whether any strategy can succeed.
That's because the developing nations will not be able to follow in the path of today's industrial nations. The high standard of living in the United States and other developed countries depends on the consumption of oil. There simply isn't enough oil left to permit the rest of the world to do the same.
It's been estimated that if oil consumption per capita in China were the same as in the United States, world oil production would have to more than double. If China and India raised their oil consumption just to the level of South Korea's, world production would have to be boosted by more than 50 percent. That's all but impossible. If poor nations are to raise their standard of living, it will have to be with some energy source other than petroleum.
There isn’t enough oil left? That’s news to me. I wonder where the Register got that piece of information; probably from a Greenpeace fact sheet. The Register editorialists should bone up on their reading of the late economist Julian Simon and his understanding of how the supply of natural resources expands to meet demand. My guess is that the Register’s information is based on current world oil supplies. The reason those supplies aren’t bigger is that there is not yet enough demand for oil to make exploration for new sources feasible. In short, supply meets demand.
Fortunately, alternatives are just over the horizon. Major automobile and energy companies are persuaded that the days of internal-combustion engines are numbered. They will be replaced by electric motors powered by fuel cells.
Fuel-cell cars are expected to be on the market by the end of the decade.
Yes, but will there be the demand for them? The Edsel was also on the market at one time. The reason it didn’t stay too long is that no one wanted any! As I suggested above, there doesn’t seem to be a mad rush to the local Honda dealers to buy the new hybrid cars. That should perhaps give the Register some clue that there may not be enough demand for such cars.
But, the Register isn’t really interested in letting the market decide our energy future:
An era of clean, unlimited energy is within reach.
Governments of the world should be doing everything in their power to hasten its arrival.
God help us.
. . .
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
DAILY DIATRIBE: BASU'S HYSTERIA
(Note: Sorry for the lateness of the DD today. Problems with the website.)
You might think you have freedom in America, but you would be wrong. Thankfully, you have Rekha Basu of the Des Moines Register to set you straight. According to Basu:
America is at a turning point. In the background loom the haunting images of collapsing buildings and thousands of dead; in the foreground, fear and uncertainty about the future. Further back is the specter of Japanese-American internment camps, McCarthy-era loyalty oaths, and FBI surveillance of civil-rights activists.
Yep, democracy in the U.S. is teetering on the edge of the porcelain; one wrong step and it’s going right down the crapper. Loyalty oaths? Internment camps? To see what leads Basu to this hysterical conclusion, let’s go through her argument. First, of course, is the obligatory shot at John Ashcroft:
More than 1,200 noncitizens, mostly Muslims from South Asia and the Middle East, were rounded up. By calling them "detainees," the administration gave itself permission to arrest and interrogate them in secret. Many were deported, but at least 147 remain in custody. Only last week, four were charged with terrorism-related crimes.
By designating certain foreign and American detainees as "enemy combatants," Attorney General John Ashcroft justifies holding them indefinitely without formal charges, lawyers or due-process rights. The government plans to try suspected foreign terrorists in military tribunals.
Let’s see here. 1,200 persons, about .0004% of the population, was detained post-9/11. All of them were noncitizens, and if the 147 figure is about accurate, most of them have been released or deported. Gee, one might say that the U.S. response was actually quite restrained. Hardly putting us on the road to internment camps.
Increased incidents of discrimination against Muslims also leads Basu to her conclusions:
It wasn't just government that turned suspicious. In the week after Sept. 11, news organizations reported 645 acts of hatred - up to and including killings - against anyone perceived as Arab or Muslim. Incidents ran the gamut, from a Kinko's store clerk in Boca Raton, Fla., calling the FBI after seeing the pentagram on an Indian teenage girl's note cards, to the Des Moines Marriott Hotel canceling the convention reservations of an Arab-American group. (It recently settled a lawsuit by paying the group $115,000.)
While such incidents should be condemned and prosecuted, have they continued since the first week after 9/11 or declined? It would be helpful to know that before we declare that America is in the midst of a wave of anti-Mulsim bigotry. Also, what about the government’s response to these actions, namely commercials by the Ad Council? These are the ones that have a multi-ethnic cast with everyone saying “I am an American.” It seems that the government quickly recognized the potential for anti-Muslim bigotry and has been campaigning against it. Funny how that didn't make it into Basu's column.
Her hysteria also leads her to make broad generalizations that are flat out wrong:
From Columbine to Oklahoma City, this country has known different kinds of terrorism but didn't respond by casting suspicion on entire demographic groups.
Has Basu never heard of right-wing militia groups? They were singled out to no end after the Oklahoma City bombing.
It seems that an academic is also feeding Basu’s hysteria:
"We have only begun to realize what a difference 9/11 made to our culture," says Dean Wright, a Drake University sociology professor. "It caused us to become much more isolated, much less trusting of one another."
You mean twenty hijackers who got into the this country through regular channels and then killed 3,000 people have caused us to become more distrustful? Who would have thunk!?!
The Professor Wright then does his best Noam Chomsky impersonation:
Recalling the World War I arrests in Iowa of people speaking another language, and the requirement that German immigrants buy war bonds or see their doors painted yellow, Wright says that broad sweeps are typical of how America has responded to crises. "It's almost like we always need an enemy, and the enemy has to be someone who's different."
Yes, Professor Wright, we need an enemy in the U.S. Americans were just so miserable going about their lives before September 11, 2001. Most of them were running around thinking, “Man, we need a new bogeyman so we can focus our hostilities.” Thank goodness for that fateful day last fall. Our “need” for an “enemy” is now being fulfilled, and we all feel much better.
Basu concludes:
As we remember and mourn the Sept. 11 dead, those of us who call America home should also remember what makes America unique - which freedoms are non-negotiable and which lessons we can't allow ourselves to unlearn.
Yes, there are lessons to be learned. One important one is that some people just don't get it. The U.S. needs to take some new precautions to prevent future terrorist attacks. If we don't, it will be easier for terrorists to succeed. And if the U.S. is the victim of more terrorist attacks, just watch what will happen then to all those freedoms that Basu thinks are under assault now.
A final lesson to be learned is that there are way too many people who cannot debate the pros and cons of certain precautions without resorting to hysteria. Certainly, we need a debate over the merits of such precautions like secret detentions and the TIPS program. But claiming that such precautions put us on the road to "internment camps" does nothing to add to that debate.
. . .
THE DEFICIT SHAM
Bruce Bartlett has gotten out the paddle board and gone after Democrats on their deficit charade.
. . .
CARUSO, HANNITY, AND DRUDGE
Jay Caruso has this interesting post about how some lefties are having to eat crow, including MWO.
. . .
BULLY FOR BLAIR!
Despite the enormous pressure he is feeling from his own Labor Party, Tony Blair stood up for a war with Iraq, and even defended President Bush. Even though I’m a pretty staunch conservative, if I lived in Britain I’d have to seriously consider voting for the man. (Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.)
. . .
LESS GOVERNMENT, MORE GOVERNMENT
Sometimes when I read the Des Moines Register op-ed page, I’d swear that the editorialists pen one piece, and then their alter-egos pen another. Today is one of those times.
This first editorial questions the Department of Homeland Security. It actually raises some good points such as:
What is the point of creating this huge new department? What are the advantages? What are the risks?
….governmental reorganizations don't have a history of solving a lot of problems. The United States possesses the largest criminal and military intelligence apparatus in the world, yet it was taken by surprise on Sept. 11. Our foreign and domestic intelligence operations could be improved, but it's hard to see how creation of a new federal bureaucracy will do the job.
Then you turn around and read this editorial bemoaning Medicare fraud. What’s the Register’s solution to this problem?
Recent scandals have contributed to a growing distrust of large corporations. Congress should be scrambling to create and expand legislation that encourages companies to act responsibly.
In looking at the Blues" history of misconduct, it appears they could use some extra congressional oversight.
In other words, more governmental involvement. If government can create a mess when it comes to domestic security, why does the Register seem to think that it doesn’t when it comes to health-care? One would think that the fact that Medicare continues to be ripe for fraud and abuse should give the Register editorialists some pause before it advocates even more government. After all, they have no trouble unleashing a healthy dose of skepticism on homeland security.
. . .
Tuesday, September 03, 2002
AND WHILE I’M ON THE SUBJECT OF ANDREW SULLIVAN…
Sullivan has two interesting posts (starting here) about the likely war with Iraq. Not sure I agree, but intriguing nonetheless.
. . .
GEITNER SIMMONS, STUD-BLOGGER
Geitner, you stud!!!! This is what was written about G’s blog today: "Geitner Simmons is also a graceful writer and fair thinker who rarely strikes a wrong note." Who wrote it? Andrew Sullivan, right here. (Scroll Down to "Blogs Worth Reading.") Congrats Geitner! That’s hefty praise from one of the best writers of our generation. (And, yes, I’m turning a deep shade of green right about now.)
While were on the subject of Geitner, he has this excellent post on the NEA (Thanks to Croooow Blog.)
. . .
THE PERILS OF TAXING THE RICH
Dennis Clayson has this very good column in the Waterloo-Cedar Fall Courier outlining the problems with the “tax the rich” philosophy heralded by so many on the left.
. . .
TEACHING TO THE TEST
Thomas Sowell has an outstanding three-parter (1, 2, 3) from last week (sorry, I’m a bit behind on my reading.) Anyway, it is an outstanding takedown of the complaint that standardized tests result in “teaching to the test.”
. . .
NO GUNS IN THE COCKPIT
The Daily Nonpareil still does not like the idea of arming pilots, despite all the good arguments in favor of them.
UPDATE: Thanks to "Joebwan" for providing a link to this testimony by Stephen Luckey. Well worth a read.
. . .
DAILY DIATRIBE: MARGIN OF ERROR
One of my readers calling himself "Jack the Lad,"—cool name, I like that—posted the following comment in response to my post on the recent WHO-TV poll of the Iowa gubernatorial race showing Gross at 49%, Vilsack 46%:
I'd seen this somewhere, too. However, given the usual margin for error of +/- 3%, the cautious interpretation is that the race at this point is dead even. Nevertheless, not good news for the Vilsack campaign, and probably encouraging at this early time for the Gross campaign.
If by "cautious interpretation" he means that the Gross campaign should not become complacent, that is stellar advice. However, if he means that the accurate interpretation is that the race is dead even, he is incorrect.
Part of this stems from media misinterpretation of margin of error. For years, the media would report that the margin of error in the WHO-TV poll, in this case 4.1%, meant that the race was a statistical dead heat. That is a misunderstanding of the concept of "margin of error." Fortunately, the media has begun to report that such results mean that the race is a "potential" statistical dead heat, which is more accurate.
What "margin of error" actually means is that the pollsters are 95% confident that the actual results of the poll fall somewhere within whatever the value of the margin of error is. Let’s use the example of the WHO-TV poll to make this clear. The results of that poll, as noted above, are Gross 49%, Vilsack 46%, with a margin of error of +/- 4.1%. (I’m going to round off the margin of error to 4% to keep the math "clean.") What a margin of error of 4% means is that the actual numbers could vary within a range of +/- 4%. Thus, the numbers could be 47%-47%, which would be a dead heat. They could even show Vilsack with a lead of 50%-46%. But they could also be Gross 53%, Vilsack 42%, which is definitely not a dead heat.
Thus, any one poll does not give the entire picture. To get a better understanding of what is going on, one needs to look at both previous polls and historical factors regarding elections. In late June, the Des Moines Register released a poll showing Vilsack at 43%, Gross at 41%. To the extent that the WHO-TV poll shows a trend, it appears that Gross has gained the upper hand. That is no guarantee that Gross will win, but it does mean that the Iowa electorate is moving in his direction.
Historically, undecided voters, on average, break 2 to 1 in favor of the challenger. The Register poll found about 12% of the voters were undecided (the other 4% were going to the Green Candidate.) Break that down on a 2 to 1 basis, and you get Gross 49%, Vilsack 47%, pretty close to what the WHO-TV poll found.
So, does this mean that anyone should be confident that Gross will win? Hell no! What it does mean is that at this point it is probably not a dead heat. Rather, Gross has the advantage.
UPDATE: In the 5th paragraph, I stated "They could even show Vilsack with a lead of 50%-46%. It should be "50%-45%."
. . .
IOWANS REMEMBER 9/11
A good column by Rob Borsellino in the Des Moines Register. It recounts the experience of two Iowans, Dick and Jody Hornberger, who were actually in New York on that fateful day. Powerful stuff.
. . .
DES MOINES REGISTER: PLEASE VOTE FOR VILSACK!
Well, it didn’t take long. A recent poll shows Governor Vilsack trailing GOP challenger Doug Gross, so it’s time to trot out the articles making Gross look bad. This new one calls into question Gross’s claim that Iowa faces a $1 billion deficit.
One might reasonably object that this isn’t bias on the part of the Register; it is just reporting on what some experts, including Dennis Prouty, head of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, are saying about Gross’s $1 billion figure. Except that the Register already quoted Prouty on the same matter over five weeks ago. Other experts have been questioning the numbers for some time, and Gross has been using this number for nearly two months. In media-speak, I believe that is usually referred to as "old news."
But with Vilsack in so much political trouble, any negative story on Gross will do for the Register.
. . .
|
. . .
|
