Press Release

For Immediate Release
January 12, 2011
Contact: Jason Edelstein, +972-52-861-2129

HRW in 2010: Less Credibility, More BDS

Organization Again Devotes More Resources
to Israel than Other MidEast Countries

JERUSALEM – As part of its annual analysis of Human Rights Watch (HRW), NGO Monitor today released the 2010 report on the activities of HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. In 2010, HRW demonstrated a lack of credibility in allegations involving Israel, extended its support of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS), ignored the criticism of its founder Robert Bernstein, saw a significant drop in donor funding, and replaced the chairman of its board.

“Our analysis proves that in 2010 HRW continued to be driven by anti-Israel bias and a lack of focus on real human rights issues in the Middle East,” says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution that tracks NGOs in the region. “In examining the number of reports issued, the types of documents published for each country, the weak statements on totalitarian regimes, and a lack of credible sources in their reports, the conclusion is clear – the MENA division has an obsessive focus on Israel.”

NGO Monitor’s analysis shows that MENA issued 51 total documents related to “Israel and the Occupied Territories” in 2010, the highest for any country in the region. The December 166-page report on Israel, Separate and Unequal, was the longest one issued by the division in the past two years. In 2010, HRW’s three reports Israel total 344 pages – far more than any other country in the region.

In addition, using NGO Monitor’s weighted methodology for different types of activities, Israel accounted for 14 percent of HRW’s regional involvement. Iran was only 12 percent, despite the daily assault on human rights, followed by closed societies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, at around 9 percent, which is one-third less than Israel. [See Tables 1 and 2]

“Of all the countries in the region, Israel, a democratic society, received the most attention,” Steinberg adds. “This is indicative of what HRW founder Robert Bernstein repeatedly condemned – HRW has abandoned its mission to pry open closed societies, to help individuals in those societies who lack the infrastructure to fight for their rights. Instead, HRW is a central player in exploiting human rights to isolate Israel.”

MENA’s bias against Israel was also reflected in publications on the Middle East that continue to be based on sources without credibility.

“The publication headlined Separate and Unequal demonstrates HRW’s severe lack of credibility and proper methodology,” says Steinberg. “The allegations were based on secondary sources that HRW did not independently verify. Instead of conducting its own research, HRW relied on politicized advocacy groups such as Who Profits (Coalition of Women for Peace), Al Haq, Badil, B’Tselem, Yesh Din, and Ir Amin. These organizations pursue their own agendas; they do not provide reliable information.”

In preparing the report, HRW also relied on anecdotal interviews with 66 Palestinians and eight Israelis.

“This is not just counting pages,” says Steinberg. “These methodology problems reflect major biases at HRW that impact their reporting.”

As these failures are recognized, HRW continues to lose impact and support – funding from traditional donors decreased by $ 6 million (15%) from 2009, after a similar decline the previous year. (This was offset by the 10-year, $ 100 million donation from George Soros.)

Along with its questionable credibility, HRW promotes the BDS campaign based on the 2001 Durban conference, in which the organization was a major participant. In May, MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson renewed calls for a boycott of Caterpillar because of the use of its bulldozers in Israel. Separate and Unequal repeated calls on the US to withhold security cooperation, and called on corporations to sever ties with projects or companies in Israeli settlements. HRW MENA researcher Bill Van Esveld acknowledged HRW’s role in the campaign to delegitimize Israel: “It would be disingenuous for us to say it [“Separate and Unequal” report] has no similarities to BDS. This is kind of an S report” (referring to the S in BDS).

“The BDS movement – which calls for the end of Israel as a Jewish state, and is led by individuals that compare the IDF to Nazis – represents the antithesis of human rights,” Steinberg notes.

HRW’s continuing decline was highlighted by Bernstein during his November Goldstein Lecture on Human Rights at the University of Nebraska, which expanded on themes included in his October 2009 New York Times op-ed. Bernstein decried the trend of HRW and others, such as the UN Human Rights Council, in focusing on democracies, and falsely painting Israel as one of the “principal offenders” of human rights.

In the media, Ben Birnbaum in The New Republic (April 27, 2010) published a detailed report on HRW that highlighted the deeply-rooted bias among senior officials, in contradistinction to human rights principles. Similarly, Jonathan Foreman’s “Nazi Scandal engulfs Human Rights Watch” in the Sunday Times [UK], (March 28, 2010) illustrated how the revelation of HRW “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco’s Nazi memorabilia obsession was indicative of far deeper problems at the organization.

Steinberg adds: “Hopefully the public scrutiny and pressure from Mr. Bernstein and others will lead to changes among the HRW officials that lead the exploitation of human rights. The new chairman, James Hoge, Jr., has the opportunity to implement the much delayed revamping of the MENA division in order to end the inherent bias and lack of credibility.”

Read NGO Monitor’s full report on HRW: http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/hrw_in_more_bias_even_less_credibility

Technorati Tag: HRW and Human Rights Watch.

Daled Amos

Press Release

For Immediate Release

January 4, 2011

Contact: Jason Edelstein, +972-52-861-2129

NGOs Lack Credibility on the Jawaher Abu-Rahmeh Incident 

Repeating Palestinian Allegations without Evidence

JERUSALEM – New facts regarding the January 1 death of Jawaher Abu-Rahmeh at Israel’s security fence cast doubt over initial claims of the event, says NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based think tank that tracks non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the region. 

Contradictory statements and very little evidence exists about the cause of death, whether Abu-Rahmeh was even involved in the protest and tear-gas used at Bil’in, whether she suffered from previous medical conditions, and whether the amount of tear gas used led to her death. 

“NGO officials and media outlets made serious allegations about Jawaher Abu-Rahmeh’s death, without verifying claims or checking the many inconsistencies in the reports,” says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor.  “We again see that NGOs issue statements and condemnations consistent with their own political agendas, but lack the ability to verify any of the details.” 

Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat already labeled the recent death a “war crime,” and others claimed that Israeli soldiers were using “tear gas chemicals mixed with phosphorus.” NGO Monitor notes the similarities between this incident and the September 2000 Al Dura case based on unverifiable claims that the IDF “targeted” and “murdered” a Palestinian child.  Other examples include the Gaza beach accusations in 2006. 

“NGOs that claim to promote human rights rarely have access to credible information, yet their allegations are accepted at face-value by the media, foreign officials, and others,” Steinberg adds.  “These allegations contribute to de-legitimization campaigns against Israel and support NGO calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS). Already, the International Solidarity Movement is calling on Combined Systems Inc. to stop providing equipment to the Israeli government.” 

NGO allegations of Abu-Rahmeh’s Death:

• Jessica Montell, B’Tselem, Twitter, January 1, 2011: “Sad start to the year. Jawaher Abu Rahmeh died this morning after inhaling tear gas yesterday in Bil’in demonstration.” 

• Yesh Din: “Human rights group Yesh Din calls on the Israeli authorities to investigate the killing of Jawaher Abu Rahmeh, who died on Saturday, January 1st, 2011, after sustaining injuries in a protest in the West Bank village of Bil’in… When the authorities in Israel do nothing to investigate the killings of protesters – more protesters are doomed to the same fate.” (“A protester died in Bil’in: Yesh Din: lack of investigation assures more deaths,” Yesh Din, Press Release, January 1, 2011) 

• Gush Shalom: “Jawaher [‘Gem’ in Arabic] died in the first hours of 2011, after inhaling on the day before a large quantity of tear gas, whose precise nature remains unclear. It happened during the weekly demonstration against the ‘Separation Fence’ in Bil’in, which was this time larger than usual. It seems that military commanders decided to respond with huge quantities of gas. Jawaher collapsed in a cloud of gas and inhaled it for several minutes, before the Red Crescent medics managed to reach her.” (“A demonstrator killed in Bil’in – the first victim of 2011,” Gush Shalom, date unknown) 

• Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR-I): “The killing of Jawaher Abu-Rahmeh is yet another harsh injustice of the Israeli occupation web… The use of Gas against civilians must be ceased, clear and simple. The death of Jawaher Abu-Rahmeh must be the last one.” (“PHR-I in response to the killing of Jawaher Abu-Rahmeh, which participated in a non-violent popular demonstration against the fence in Bil’in,” Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, January 2, 2011) 

• Michael Sfard (Israeli activist lawyer linked to Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence, Al Haq): “According to people I spoke with, [Abu Rahmah] was at the demonstration on Friday but not at the forefront of the protesters. After she was injured by the tear gas, she was taken to the village and then transferred to an ambulance. An operational investigation cannot produce reliable findings; therefore we demand a criminal investigation by the military police.” (“IDF: No proof Palestinian women died from tear gas at protest,” Haaretz, January 3, 2011) 

• Sfard: “Once again the (Israeli occupation) army is covering up the actions of its men, instead of apologizing and conducting a serious inquiry.” (“Lawyer slams army cover-up of tear gas death,” AFP, January 2, 2011) 

• Yonathan Pollak, Anarchists Against the Wall: “I saw that Jahawer take an active role in the protest…I saw how they put her in the ambulance that took her to the hospital. I know with certainty that she arrived there and stayed there, and later died at the hospital.” (“Did Palestinians lie about protestor’s death?” Hanan Greenberg, YNET, January 4, 2011) 

• International Solidarity Movement calls on companies to stop providing equipment that “Israel misuses to kill and maim unarmed protesters.”

Read NGO Monitor’s full analysis of the event.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Daled Amos

by Javier Manjarres

The Shark Tank continues to keep tabs on the questionable actions taken the former Treasurer and now Chairman of the Broward Republican Executive Committee (BREC), Richard DeNapoli.  The BREC elections were held on December 6, 2010, and it was discovered on that same day the BREC failed to disclose a $ 4000 donation it made to the campaign account of now Broward County Commissioner Charles ‘Chip’ LaMarca on October 28, 2008. In his 2010 G-4 campaign finance report, LaMarca posted the $ 4000 donation from the BREC, whereas DeNapoli, the Committee’s Treasurer at the time, did not.


BREC 2010 G-4 -see Report (Scroll down to Oct 28-missing $ 4000 donation)
BREC 2010 G-4 (Amended) -see Report

Donation made to Campaign account of Charles LaMarca- see Report

LaMarca’s finance reports -Click here below for reports

On December 27, 2010, an amendment to the original 2010 G-4 finance report was posted to the Supervisor of Elections showing the $ 4000 donation to LaMarca’s campaign account.

The question that now arises is who amended the report- former Treasurer DeNapoli, or current Treasurer, Mike McCarthy?  And why would there be a need to amend the report in the first place if all reports were properly and promptly filed, as DeNapoli and former Chairwoman Cindy Guerra asserted.  At the last BREC meeting, Guerra publicly stated that ‘all’  BREC Treasurer reports had been filed correctly and on time.  Guerra’s statement was prompted by a document that was circulated throughout the BREC meeting questioning why this same $ 4000 donation was missing from the initial BREC finance report.

This amendment to the finance report completely debunks the email circulated by DeNapoli that was posted on another blog sympathetic to DeNapoli informing us of ‘BREAKING NEWS: SOE-ALL BREC REPORTS TIMELY FILED & RECEIVED’

Was this a simple  mistake by Richard DeNapoli, or blatant a mal-intent cover up ?

So much for that.  Stay tuned as this saga continues to develop…

The Shark Tank

by Javier Manjarres

The Shark Tank continues to keep tabs on the questionable actions by taken the former Treasurer and now Chairman of the Broward Republican Executive Committee (BREC), Richard DeNapoli.  The BREC elections were held on November 9, 2010, and it was discovered on that same day the BREC failed to disclose a $ 4000 donation it made to the campaign account of now Broward County Commissioner Charles ‘Chip’ LaMarca on October 28, 2008. In his 2010 G-4 campaign finance report, LaMarca posted the $ 4000 donation from the BREC, whereas DeNapoli, the Committee’s Treasurer at the time, did not.

BREC 2010 G-4 -see Report (Scroll down to Oct 28-missing $ 4000 donation)
BREC 2010 G-4 (Amended) -see Report

Donation made to Campaign account of Charles LaMarca- see Report

LaMarca’s finance reports -Click here below for reports

On December 27, 2010, an amendment to the original 2010 G-4 finance report was posted to the Supervisor of Elections showing the $ 4000 donation to LaMarca’s campaign account.

The question that now arises is who amended the report- former Treasurer DeNapoli, or current Treasurer, Mike McCarthy?  And why would there be a need to amend the report in the first place if all reports were properly and promptly filed, as DeNapoli and former Chairwoman Cindy Guerra asserted.  At the last BREC meeting, Guerra publicly stated that ‘all’  BREC Treasurer reports had been filed correctly and on time.  Guerra’s statement was prompted by a document that was circulated throughout the BREC meeting questioning why this same $ 4000 donation was missing from the initial BREC finance report.

This amendment to the finance report completely debunks the email circulated by DeNapoli that was posted on another blog sympathetic to DeNapoli informing us of ‘BREAKING NEWS: SOE-ALL BREC REPORTS TIMELY FILED & RECEIVED’

So much for that.  Stay tuned as this saga continues to develop…

The Shark Tank

• When it comes to reporting on crime, presentation is important.

Daily Commentary - Wednesday, December 1st, 2010 - Credibility in the Media [2:28m]: | Download

Share This

Scared Monkeys

Photoshop credit: Another Black Conservative

Readers know I’ve been one of DHS Secretary Janet Clownitano’s most vocal critics — dating back to 2006, when she supported a disgraceful 9/11 memorial in Arizona poisoned by left-wing radicalism, through 2008, when the shamnesty wolf in enforcement clothing was tapped by Obama to head DHS, and, of course, over the past two years as she demonized conservative activists, botched 9/11 history, and turned homeland security into a bigger joke that it already has been.

J-Nap is now the focus of a massive national backlash over the new, invasive TSA screening procedures. She takes to the pages of USA Today to defend herself:

Nearly a year after a thwarted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner last Christmas Day, the recent attempt by terrorists to conceal and ship explosive devices aboard aircraft bound for the United States reminds us that al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideology are determined to strike our global aviation system and are constantly adapting their tactics for doing so.

Our best defense against such threats remains a risk-based, layered security approach that utilizes a range of measures, both seen and unseen, including law enforcement, advanced technology, intelligence, watch-list checks and international collaboration.

This layered approach to aviation security is only as strong as the partnerships upon which it is built. In addition to the more than 50,000 trained transportation security officers, transportation security inspectors, behavior detection officers and canine teams who are on the front lines guarding against threats to the system, we rely on law enforcement and intelligence agencies across the federal government. We require airlines and cargo carriers to carry out specific tasks such as the screening of cargo and passengers overseas. We work closely with local law enforcement officers in airports throughout the country.

And we ask the American people to play an important part of our layered defense. We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy.

When Obama homeland security officials won’t even name that “determined enemy”, who can blame Americans for refusing to cooperate?

DHS Secretary Clownitano has cuddled with the Muslim Brotherhood, and exhibited extreme delusional behavior and dhimmitude in the face of jihadi threats. Now, she’s telling us to show a “commitment to vigilance?”

The only thing I can possibly say in her defense is that TSA’s credibility problems long predate her tenure.

Two words: Norm Mineta.

Flashback:

[60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft]: Are you saying, at security screening desks, that a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach, Florida, would receive the same level of scrutiny as a-a-a Muslim young man from Jersey City?

Mineta: Basically, I would hope so.

Another flashback reminder: The photo now featured on the Drudge Report of a Muslim TSA agent frisking a nun is from 2007:

The caption at Flickr (hat tip - reader KH):

From the photograher, Dean Shaddock:

This was captured as I collected my things from airport security (Detroit Metro Concourse A). I think of it as something like a Rorschach test. Is an elderly Catholic nun being frisked by a Muslim security agent the celebration of blind justice? Or is it simply an admission of absurdity?

From Thousands Standing Around to Taking Scissors Away to Touching Sensitive Areas, TSA has stood for an incompetent, political correctness-addled, homeland security bureaucracy from day one.

As the historian Arnold Toynbee put it so well: “Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.”

Michelle Malkin

Maddow:

“Keith is a liberal, so am I. There are other people on this network whose political views are shared openly with our viewers. We are not a political operation. FOX is. We are a news operation. The rules around here are part how you know. Keith Olbermann attracted the ire of the right-wing and raged against what he saw as the errors and sins of the previous administration. Keith was also the one who brought to light FOX News’ water-carrying role for the Bush administration,” Rachel Maddow said in defense of her MSNBC colleague on her show Friday night.

Rachel Maddow’s defense would mean something if, for one moment, anyone in America regarded her or Keith Olberman as actual serious newspeople and not editorialist ringmasters. They can throw up Fox personalities’ contributions all they like; Fox doesn’t have a rule against it, so what does that have to do with a policy inherent to MSNBC? It wasn’t the right wing who snuck into MSNBC offices under the cover of nightfall and secretly created the policy that Olbermann broke; and lo, it wasn’t Fox or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy who whispered into Olbermann’s ear and told him to not seek exception - which he may have been granted - from his superiors.

I had actually sort of taken Olbermann’s side in this but I’ll stop if they think it good strategy to actually blame conservatives for MSNBC management decisions. Is Maddow lecturing her bosses? Because I personally could give a rat’s ass who any of the Great White Wonders over at MSNBC donate to, on air or off of it. I support journalists’ freedom to privately donate as they wish, which would seem that Maddow does too and thus, looks at it as an expression of speech (which then makes their support of Citizen’s United somewhat comically ironic). I like the absence of this policy because it removes from them any plausibility concerning bias.

Those attacking Olbermann do so for two reasons:

1.  He’s a hypocrite. Maddow notes this but then tries to come out with a long list of people she claims have done the same thing - but no, they haven’t, because they haven’t been critical of the practice like Olbermann who once famously stated:

“I don’t vote,” Olbermann said, saying it is the only thing he can do to suggest journalistic objectivity. “It’s a symbolic gesture.”

There is no analogy to make to lessen the criticism of Olbermann’s insubordination because he hung himself with a failed Alinsky tactic (Doing Alinsky Wrong 101), that is, the standard he presumed others held and thus used as a weapon against opponents. The problem is that weapon becomes a weapon against self when the target doesn’t assign to it equal value.

2. He tarnished his (theirs) credibility. This criticism only works on the left because these are the only people who truly believe that Olbermann actually had credibility with which to begin. They honestly think that his donations were worse than his televised bias on any given night of the week - or the election coverage they giggled through like freshman swigging Zima at a frat party. That Maddow thought her announcement “Yes Keith’s a liberal and so am I” was news shows that she apparently has no idea how she is perceived.

If Maddow wants hypocrisy, perhaps she should do a little broadcast missive on how her parent company benefited from an Obama bailout - or, she could discuss how her superiors have actually violated their own policy:

In a statement, FAIR pointed to Center for Responsive Politics data, showing that GE made over $ 2 million in political contributions during the 2010 election cycle alone.  In addition, GE spent over $ 30 million on lobbyists during the same election cycle and gave over $ 400,000 to Democratic and Republican governors since last year.

If Maddow doesn’t have a conservative bogeyman for her show how will she ever be able to attract ratings on one of the most ridiculed networks ever? Perhaps this is why she refuses to place blame where it belongs: squarely on the shoulders of one Keith Olbermann for not following workplace rules.

As she herself said:

‘There is an explicit employee rule  that prohibits … if you don’t ask for an exemption you are bound by the rule …”

Big Journalism

A defense source tells ABC News that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates no longer feels that Tom Donilon would be a “disaster” as National Security Adviser, as Gates is quoted telling National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones (ret.) in Bob…













Political Punch

Having endured months of seeing nearly every expression of disagreement with progressive policy priorities deemed “racism” by various self-appointed arbiters of political correctness, today we are presented with the self-contradictory logic of this trend: Steven Thrasher’s foaming allegation that any and all disagreement with the enlightened progressive point of view is proof-positive that “something has gone haywire in the white brain”.

Frankly, the column is proof-positive that something has gone haywire in Mr. Thrasher’s brain, and whatever race he might be is just irrelevant.

Also interesting is the hypocritical reactions from much of the progressive commentariat.  Imagine what they would say if Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin came down with a condemnation of something “gone haywire in the black brain”.  I think they would (ironically) have aneurysms.  But the applause for Thrasher’s grotesque and completely gratuitous racial loaded tirade has been loud and sustained.  Indeed, Thrasher was doing little more than echoing themes many of them have been pushing for many months now — all (or at least most) conservatives are racists if and when they dare say anything critical of President Obama’s policies.

But the only fair judgment is that anyone who applauds Thrasher’s racism forfeits all credibility in criticizing other forms of racism.  It’s either right or it’s wrong to make sweeping judgments about people using racial categories and caricatures.

And I think it’s always wrong.

The Moderate Voice

(David Bernstein)

JStreet, the liberal lobby group that proclaims itself to be the “pro-peace, pro-Israel” alternative to AIPAC, has denied that it receives funding from George Soros. Here is what the organization’s “myths and facts” page said, and still says:

Myth:
Liberal financier George Soros founded and is the primary funder of J Street.

Fact:
George Soros did not found J Street. In fact, George Soros very publicly stated his decision not to be engaged in J Street when it was launched — precisely out of fear that his involvement would be used against the organization.

J Street’s Executive Director has stated many times that he would in fact be very pleased to have funding from Mr. Soros and the offer remains open to him to be a funder should he wish to support the effort. 

I don’t know how any reasonable person could read this and conclude anything but that J Street had not received funding from Soros since it was launched. 

But it turns out that Soros and his children gave 245K to J street from July 2008 to June 2009, a gift that JStreet now acknowledges was one installment in a three year gift of 750K. 

JStreet’s response to the revelations? Obfuscation: “J Street has always said that George Soros did not found J Street and did not provide its initial funding – a decision about which he was very public before the organization’s launching in 2008.” Okay, but you also suggested about as strongly as possible that you did not receive funding from him after launch, and that was a lie.

Also of interest: “Nearly half of J Street’s revenue during the timeframe — a total of $ 811,697 —, came from a single donor in Happy Valley, Hong Kong, named Consolacion Esdicul.” So, while JStreet has portrayed itself, and has been portrayed by many in the media, as a reaction of liberal American Jews against AIPAC, half it’s funding in its launch year came from someone in Hong Kong, and another 15% from the Soros family.

Why is Soros especially controversial? Because many have questioned JStreet’s pro-Israel credentials, seeing it as simply a stalking horse for a left-wing, or simply pro-Democrat, agenda. As Ben Smith of Politico notes, Soros doesn’t exactly come across as a supporter of Israel, or even the idea of Israel: “I don’t deny the Jews their right to a national existence–but I don’t want to be part of it.” A funny statement for a major funder of a “pro-Israel” organization.

It’s a shame, because as I’ve noted before, an organization like JStreet could fill an important niche: provide liberal Jews with an outlet to be pro-Israel but critical of some Israeli policies, while also defending Israel from hostile opinion on the far left.

UPDATE: By the way, I had read JStreet’s Myths and Facts page in the past, and understood its comments about Soros to mean that Soros had not financially supported JStreet since it launched. So I feel personally lied to.

The Volokh Conspiracy

Ezra Klein says that whatever the failings of the “Pledge to America,” at least it’s an ethos and Democrats need to do better at the vision thing.

I’d say the problem is that by failing to get serious about procedural issues, Democrats have created a gigantic credibility problem for themselves. Under modern conditions, it’s not realistic for a political party to obtain 75 Senate seats or whatever and then deliver policy accomplishments. Holding 59 or 60 requires a minor miracle. What you can realistically do is win a majority in congress, then expand that majority and also capture the White House and then maybe hold on to those majorities. That’d be an impressive electoral achievement. But the events of 2009-2010 have made it painfully clear to everyone that under any realistic scenario for the 2010 elections the progressive vision is dead in the US Senate. There are all these policy ideas out there, from Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal to cap-and-trade to immigration reform to labor law reform. They could be stitched together into a bold vision for economic and social renewal. Except everyone knows you’re not going to get 60 votes for that stuff.

And so by failing to become vocal about procedural reform and demonstrate some seriousness about getting things done, the party leaders have created a situation where they can’t make any promises to anyone besides “if we do well we’ll negotiate with the Senators from New England but if we do badly we’ll have to negotiate with Lindsey Graham.” The economy and the burdens of incumbency were naturally going to make this a tough midterm, but as long as key senators are stuck in the mental fog of proceduralism, they just can’t articulate a compelling vision.

Matthew Yglesias

At this point, there’s wide agreement that a bit of inflation would do the economy good. Ken Rogoff thinks so. Paul Krugman thinks so. Tyler Cowen is on board, and so is James Surowiecki.

But the Federal Reserve isn’t. “Raising the inflation objective would likely entail much greater costs than benefits,” Ben Bernanke said in August. “Inflation would be higher and probably more volatile under such a policy, undermining confidence and the ability of firms and households to make longer-term plans, while squandering the Fed’s hard-won inflation credibility.”

Here’s the thing about credibility: It goes both ways. The Federal Reserve can lose credibility by doing something that hurts the economy. But it can also lose credibility by being unable to help the economy. As Ryan Avent says, the Fed “needs to demonstrate that it can generate inflation if it has to.” Or, barring inflation, something else that will get us moving.

The Fed has an increasing credibility problem. The economy is in terrible shape, and the central bank knows it. Its Tuesday release twice admitted that inflation is below what the Federal Reserve needs to fulfill its mandate. It’s being criticized by a variety of economists for timidity, including by former members of its own staff.

There is a difference between a Federal Reserve that doesn’t act because it’s afraid that its actions won’t work or will have negative consequences and a Federal Reserve that cannot act because there’s nothing it can do. But not that much of one. And it’s getting increasingly hard to tell the two apart. More worryingly, if the Federal Reserve keeps letting things get worse, it will eventually need to intervene, and it will need to intervene when the economy is even harder to help, and the chances for failure will be even higher.

Economic - Central bank - Federal Reserve - Federal Reserve System - Government
Ezra Klein

Long-time Los Angeles Times political cartoonist Paul Conrad has died, but the most interesting paragraph of his obituary in The Washington Post is the little hint by Post writer Matt Schudel that great newspapers only gain that reputation once they become liberal:

He won his first Pulitzer in 1964, then left Denver for Los Angeles. Mr. Conrad’s incisive cartoons, which he drew six days a week, helped raise the reputation of the once-moribund Times, which had parroted the Republican Party line for decades.

A similar version of this trope appeared in the Los Angeles Times itself in a story by James Rainey, but at least it suggested that there might be a difference between mediocre reporting and a Republican viewpoint. Conrad viciously attacked Nixon and Reagan with his pen, which was and is apparently the secret of media prestige:

In the early 1960s, The Times was just beginning to rouse itself from decades of mediocrity. The newspaper had been politically and economically dominant in Southern California but a laughingstock in most of the country because of its mediocre journalism and blatant Republican boosterism.

Otis Chandler took control as publisher in 1960 and, with Editor Nick Williams, decided to hire top talent to lift the paper to a higher level.

The duo, determined to bring Conrad to Los Angeles, impressed him with their resolve. "The one thing I said," Conrad recalled, "was, ‘Nobody tells me what to draw.’"

The arrival of Conrad jarred many Times readers, not least the ultra-conservative members of the extended Chandler family, who already were displeased that their more liberal cousin, Otis, had taken control of the family business.

"Nick [Williams] saw that Paul was this strident and very dedicated liberal and Nick thought that I would take a real beating, which I did," Chandler said in a 2006 PBS documentary about the cartoonist. "But it was worth it, because he’s a real genius. He brought enormous credibility and prestige to The Times."

NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Barack Obama … “Lost in Smallness” … how about some brie with that “whine” Mr. President?

Barack Hussein Obama just has no credibility to comment on any topic. Whether it be discussing the economy, Hurricane Katrina, BP oil spill, Iraq, etc … this president has no street credibility on any issue. He is not about leadership, it is about “Lost in Smallness”.

No sooner has President Barack Hussein Obama finished his 6th vacation of the year and he is already doing a “whine-fest“ interview infomercial with NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams. Why are these interviews always about having President Obama trying to explainhimself, when he has had two years to do so? Obama complained that there was misinformation out there about his religion and his birth certificate. Barack Obama is just a misunderstood man. Praisedas one of the greatest orators by the MSM, even with the MSM carrying his water, Obama still cannot get his message out or even describe himself to the American public.

President Barack Obama dismissed a recent poll showing that a third of Americans don’t know he’s a Christian – and blamed an online campaign of misinformation by his conservative enemies for perpetuating the myth that he’s a Muslim.

Obama, speaking with NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams on Sunday afternoon, was equally dismissive of conservative talk show host Glenn Beck – saying he didn’t watch the Fox host’s Saturday rally in Washington but wasn’t surprised that Beck was able to “stir up” people during uncertain economic times.

Williams, sitting under a tent in a rain-soaked New Orleans, where the First Family commemorated the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, asked Obama why so manypeople were uncertain about something so fundamental as his faith.

“I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead,” quipped Obama, who took a deep breath to gather his thoughts when asked if the poll reflected his inability to communicate with voters.

“The facts are the facts. We went through some of this during the campaign — there is a mechanism, a network of misinformation that in a new media era can get churned out there constantly,” said a visibly annoyed Obama, referring to “birthers,” who have waged a guerrilla campaign questioning either the existence or the validity of his Hawaiian birth certificate.

What we call “Lost in Smallness,” No Quarter refers to as rank amateur hour. Although, isn’t it telling that every time that Obama wants to deflect attention from his disastrousPresidency, he brings up the birth certificate issue to muddy the water?

A political pro would not have blurted out, “I can’t spend all of my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead.” WTF!!! This guy does not realize that bringing this subject up will simply feed the story. This is not the smooth move of a political pro. NOPE. It is an amateur drowning.

Maybe it is Obama who is the reason why there is misinformation and disinformation regarding his religion. It was out of the mouthof President Barack Hussein Obama with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week, when The One said …  ”my Muslim faith.”  Obama had to be bailed out of his gaffe by the MSM. Is it any wonder why according to a PEW research poll  that nearly one-in-five Americans think Obama is a Muslim. Isn’t this guy supposed to be Abe Lincoln and Ronald Reagan all wrapped up in one?

My Muslim Faith … Hmm

As for your anger at how the Hurricane Katrina aftermath was handled by the federal government, you might want to take a look President Obama as to how the people of the Gulf Coast compare how GWB handled Katrina and how you handed the BP Oil spill. Obama called the governments reaction to Katrina shameless, but he thinks his own reaction to the BP oil spill was tremendous. What world does this man live on? The people view George W. Bush as providing more leadership; however, you are so quick to criticize W for his efforts. People view your handling of the BP oil spill as a colossal failure of leadership. Are you really going to compare the complete destruction of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to an oil spill that had one central location of problem, the actual spot of the oil spill. All the rest of the damage was caused ny your ineffective leadership to act.

“It’s just not accurate,” he told Williams. “The only thing in common with the Katrina response was [oil spill incident commander] Thad Allen… We had immediately [deployed] thousands of vessels, tens of thousands of people.” 

Polls show that GWB handled Katrina better than Obama handled BO oil spill.  Obama claims that his Administrations handling of the BP oil spill was not slow to respond. If that poll does not suffice, maybe we can look at the ABC poll that stated a month and a half after the spill began, 69 percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll rate the federal response negatively.

Former President George W. Bush showed more leadership in dealing with the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina than President Obama has shown in handling the oil calamity in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a poll of Louisianans released Friday.

But a poll of Louisianans by Public Policy Polling shows those reassurances may have a hard time. Just 32% give Obama good marks for his actions in the aftermath of the spill, while 61% disapprove.

By contrast, those polled said that Bush’s leadership on Katrina was better than Obama’s on the spill. A majority,  54%, said that Bush did the better job of helping Louisiana through the hurricane crisis compared to the 33% who chose Obama, PPP said on Friday.

In the interview Obama claimed that he did not watch the “Restoring Honor” rally, maybe he should have, he might have learned something. One thing is for certain, he was told how many attended.

Share This

Scared Monkeys

Yesterday, right-wing “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck preached to reported 87,000 supporters at his “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall. Pitching the event as a “non-political” reclamation of the civil rights movement, Beck cultivated an air of revival and sold the crowd on “a religious brand of patriotism.” “America today turn’s back to God,” he proclaimed.

Today on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace waded into Beck’s psyche to try to clarify Beck’s true beliefs. Noting Beck’s claim that “divine providence” allowed him to reclaim the civil rights movement from “racial politics,” Wallace asked Beck about his previous declaration that President Obama was racist and wondered if he has any credibility “reclaiming the civil rights movement” because of that statement:

WALLACE: After that, do you have any credibility talking about reclaiming the civil rights movement?

BECK: …Now I’ve addressed this comment a million times and in fact I think I amended it this week that what I didn’t understand at the time was the influences on President Obama. And you know, the white culture, read his own books, he writes about the white culture and how he struggled with it, etc., etc.

Beck later said he regretted calling Obama a racist and that the real problem with the President is his alleged believe in “liberation theology.” When Wallace then noted that Beck called President Obama’s faith “a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ,” and wondered who made him “the God Squad,” Beck called the President “demonic”:

WALLACE: You said recently that the reason that a growing number of Americans don’t think President Obama is a Christian is because they don’t recognize the faith that he is practicing and in fact you even called it a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And you know I respect you and I say this affectionately but who made you the God Squad?

BECK: Oh, nobody made me the God Squad. The pope even said, this is Pope Benedict, that it is demonic not divine when theology crosses into the line of doing that which only the divine can do. He was speaking specifically about liberation theology.

Watch it:

Though Beck has indulged in tying President Obama to the Lucifer before, he insists he’s not a member of the “God Squad.” Noting that Beck is also not a “newsman,” “preacher,” or “politician,” Wallace finally asks Beck, “What are you?” In response, Beck offered a rambling response, calling himself a “concerned citizen” who “didn’t know his butt from his elbow” 15 years ago, and now “wants to figure out what the real truth is and inconsistencies bother me.”

Think Progress