Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Chron's Numerical Illiteracy
Here's an article on the falling house market. It opens with:
Like a brick falling from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid, national and local home prices are rapidly accelerating on their way down, crushing hopes of an imminent turnaround.
I could mention the journalist's physics illiteracy as well, since a brick falling from the transamerica will stop accelerating and fall at constant speed. We don't live in vacuum, after all.
But that's not my gripe. Here it is: the journalist provides number to support the claim that the prices are falling down faster and faster this month than the last. What are the numbers?
The cost of a typical Bay Area home plunged 17.2 percent year-over-year in February, compared with 13.2 percent in January and 10.8 in December.
I am not debating that the prices are going down, by no means. But when you make a case to your reader, you have to bring hard data to substantiate that claim. And the data above does not!
Consider the following toy example. Assume an index 100 for prices in December 06. Consider the prices 103 for January 07, 107 for February 08, and 90 for the prices for December 07, January 08 and February 08. Well, this example is steady over the last 3 months, it stays at 90. And the year-on-year decline are roughly 10% for December 06-December 07, 13% for Jan 07-Jan 08 and 17% for Feb 07-Feb 08. See: the numbers match those of the article, but prices in my example are flat, not falling like a brick!
Now, I went to the Case-Shiller report, and there is the month-to-month data (-2% from Dec 07 to Jan 08, -5% for Jan 08 to Feb 08) to support the claim that prices in the larger SF Bay area are falling faster. It just does not find its way into the article!
The journalist seems to think the provided number are conclusive, but they are not! Oh, the mathematical illiteracy at the Chron!
Like a brick falling from the top of the Transamerica Pyramid, national and local home prices are rapidly accelerating on their way down, crushing hopes of an imminent turnaround.
I could mention the journalist's physics illiteracy as well, since a brick falling from the transamerica will stop accelerating and fall at constant speed. We don't live in vacuum, after all.
But that's not my gripe. Here it is: the journalist provides number to support the claim that the prices are falling down faster and faster this month than the last. What are the numbers?
The cost of a typical Bay Area home plunged 17.2 percent year-over-year in February, compared with 13.2 percent in January and 10.8 in December.
I am not debating that the prices are going down, by no means. But when you make a case to your reader, you have to bring hard data to substantiate that claim. And the data above does not!
Consider the following toy example. Assume an index 100 for prices in December 06. Consider the prices 103 for January 07, 107 for February 08, and 90 for the prices for December 07, January 08 and February 08. Well, this example is steady over the last 3 months, it stays at 90. And the year-on-year decline are roughly 10% for December 06-December 07, 13% for Jan 07-Jan 08 and 17% for Feb 07-Feb 08. See: the numbers match those of the article, but prices in my example are flat, not falling like a brick!
Now, I went to the Case-Shiller report, and there is the month-to-month data (-2% from Dec 07 to Jan 08, -5% for Jan 08 to Feb 08) to support the claim that prices in the larger SF Bay area are falling faster. It just does not find its way into the article!
The journalist seems to think the provided number are conclusive, but they are not! Oh, the mathematical illiteracy at the Chron!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Mercredi, c'est Ravioli.
Expensive touristy restaurant? You bet Meredith Brody will be there in a heartbeat. Actually, honest to the Virgen Sagrada de La Langosta, we haven't read beyond the first few sentences, just enough to see she's going to Waterbar, but we're ready to bet she's taking her parents there. Wish us luck.
Talking about restaurants with view, she says: Few places leap to mind where your meal rises to the level of the spectacle of the bay panorama — the Slanted Door in the Ferry Building is perhaps the exception. Oh my! Even on Meredith's own turf, -and she just does not dominate the Tourist Restaurant Reviewing gig, she owns it,- she's wrong. She's been dedicating years of her life, aiming for a PhD in Reviewing for Out-of-Towners, and she's flunking it! All this effort, all this (not so) hard work, gone to waste! Of course, the list of good restaurants with spectacular views is actually quite a bit longer, and would include, say, Greens or Boulevard. Even the tourists can't trust her!
This Boulevard view? Chopped liver.
Says Meredith: The restaurant has, in fact, dropped some of its prices since opening: The $50 one-and-a-half-pound lobster was once $75, and a $250 six-pounder no longer appears, ceding place to a grilled or wood-oven-roasted $160 four-pounder. ...There's plenty of stuff available at lower price points ($9-$18 for starters, $29-$34 for mains), which is where we concentrate our attention. Meredith has her eye on the lobster, and we're placing our second bet: she'll order that lobster, despite "concentrating her attention" on the more reasonable stuff. After all, it's $25 cheaper, so she's actually saving money!
And we lose on both counts! We finished reading through, and the parents don't get mentioned, and the lobster doesn't get ordered! La Virgen de la Langosta does not order la langosta? WTF!?!
It's a humbling experience, we have to admit. It's rare that Meredith surprises us, she's typically very predictable. We got to give it to her, she head faked us and we bit. Nice cross-over move! She totally layed the ground for a lobster splurge fest with her mom, aka. the lobster queen of the bay area, filled with family anecdotes and the like, and she went straight to the hoop. Blew by us. Wwwwfffff. Gone.
We're taking the blame for this one, as we should have remembered that the Weekly won't expense lobster for a while, what with losing $16 million to the Guardian lawsuit. We actually feel for Meredith, salivating over the lobster, a pool of drool forming on the menu. We totally see her ordering the rock cod, but "with the lobster bib, the nutcracker and the lemon water, please?" and the waiter rolling his eyes, but hey, a tip is a tip.
Talking about restaurants with view, she says: Few places leap to mind where your meal rises to the level of the spectacle of the bay panorama — the Slanted Door in the Ferry Building is perhaps the exception. Oh my! Even on Meredith's own turf, -and she just does not dominate the Tourist Restaurant Reviewing gig, she owns it,- she's wrong. She's been dedicating years of her life, aiming for a PhD in Reviewing for Out-of-Towners, and she's flunking it! All this effort, all this (not so) hard work, gone to waste! Of course, the list of good restaurants with spectacular views is actually quite a bit longer, and would include, say, Greens or Boulevard. Even the tourists can't trust her!
This Boulevard view? Chopped liver.
Says Meredith: The restaurant has, in fact, dropped some of its prices since opening: The $50 one-and-a-half-pound lobster was once $75, and a $250 six-pounder no longer appears, ceding place to a grilled or wood-oven-roasted $160 four-pounder. ...There's plenty of stuff available at lower price points ($9-$18 for starters, $29-$34 for mains), which is where we concentrate our attention. Meredith has her eye on the lobster, and we're placing our second bet: she'll order that lobster, despite "concentrating her attention" on the more reasonable stuff. After all, it's $25 cheaper, so she's actually saving money!
And we lose on both counts! We finished reading through, and the parents don't get mentioned, and the lobster doesn't get ordered! La Virgen de la Langosta does not order la langosta? WTF!?!
It's a humbling experience, we have to admit. It's rare that Meredith surprises us, she's typically very predictable. We got to give it to her, she head faked us and we bit. Nice cross-over move! She totally layed the ground for a lobster splurge fest with her mom, aka. the lobster queen of the bay area, filled with family anecdotes and the like, and she went straight to the hoop. Blew by us. Wwwwfffff. Gone.
We're taking the blame for this one, as we should have remembered that the Weekly won't expense lobster for a while, what with losing $16 million to the Guardian lawsuit. We actually feel for Meredith, salivating over the lobster, a pool of drool forming on the menu. We totally see her ordering the rock cod, but "with the lobster bib, the nutcracker and the lemon water, please?" and the waiter rolling his eyes, but hey, a tip is a tip.
Beyond Parody.
In the post below, in Carla Marinucci's short portrait, we describe her as the one who "[e]nds every sentence with: how will it benefit the GOP?"
Today her piece on Obama (the Wright "controversy," which really makes me wonder why there is no McCain-Hagee controversy, until I remember: McCain is a Republican, that's why!) concludes with:
Either way, "it takes Obama out of his uplifting change message ... and into the politics as usual corner," said Gardner. "But for the GOP, it's the gift that keeps on giving."
Carla Marinucci is the give that keeps on giving. She's beyond caricature.
Today her piece on Obama (the Wright "controversy," which really makes me wonder why there is no McCain-Hagee controversy, until I remember: McCain is a Republican, that's why!) concludes with:
Either way, "it takes Obama out of his uplifting change message ... and into the politics as usual corner," said Gardner. "But for the GOP, it's the gift that keeps on giving."
Carla Marinucci is the give that keeps on giving. She's beyond caricature.
Friday, April 25, 2008
To Laugh or To Cry
Here's the latest rumor we heard, and the healthiest attitude is to laugh about, it's so ridiculous. There's so much outrage we can handle.
The Democratic convention will happen in Chicago at the end of August, and guess who the Chron will send there to cover it?
Here's there A-team:
Carla Marinucci. She's the one writing in the paper, and going on Fox TV saying that Democrats are hypocrites for making money while defending the little guys. She's the (conservative bullshit peddler Matt) Drudge worshiper. Ends every sentence with: how will it benefit the GOP? She also says that Hillary Clinton stuck with Bill throughout the years only so she could get elected, proving that at the Chron, you can say anything you want about the Clinton without consequences. Au contraire, you'll get sent to Chicago!
Carolyn Lochhead. She's the one advocating for the demise of Social Security and for the continuation of the surge in Iraq, which she finds successful. Also says Hillary Clinton is anti-feminist because her husband is famous. Equated Bill Clinton with a prostitute, proving again that, at the Chron, you can say anything about the Clinton, blablabla, see above.
And now, for the coup de grace, for the Dream Team of Worst Journalists to Ever Cover a Democratic Convention, for the prize of Worst Ever Assembled Platoon of Biased and Dishonest Correspondents, aside from 2 photogs, who will complete the trio?
Who will be the 3rd Bushie's Angel?
Who will be the 3rd Musketeer of Democratic Bashing and McCain fluffing?
I. Just. Can't. Believe. It.
Debra J. Saunders.
The Chron editors most likely believe she brings balance to the "liberal" Carla Marinucci and Carolyn Lochhead.
Debra J. Saunders
I. Just. Can't. Believe. It.
And you know the worst part: it's an improvement. It means the Chron is open about being a right wing rag. Does not pretend anymore about being some kind of respectful newspaper. They believe by carrying water for the GOP, they'll make more money (well, lose less). In a Democratic stronghold market. In a year where Democrats are as popular as ever and primed to strengthen their majorities in both house and take the white house.
Somebody should fill in that new editor that he ain't in Phoenix anymore.
The Democratic convention will happen in Chicago at the end of August, and guess who the Chron will send there to cover it?
Here's there A-team:
And now, for the coup de grace, for the Dream Team of Worst Journalists to Ever Cover a Democratic Convention, for the prize of Worst Ever Assembled Platoon of Biased and Dishonest Correspondents, aside from 2 photogs, who will complete the trio?
Who will be the 3rd Bushie's Angel?
Who will be the 3rd Musketeer of Democratic Bashing and McCain fluffing?
I. Just. Can't. Believe. It.
Debra J. Saunders.
The Chron editors most likely believe she brings balance to the "liberal" Carla Marinucci and Carolyn Lochhead.
Debra J. Saunders
I. Just. Can't. Believe. It.
And you know the worst part: it's an improvement. It means the Chron is open about being a right wing rag. Does not pretend anymore about being some kind of respectful newspaper. They believe by carrying water for the GOP, they'll make more money (well, lose less). In a Democratic stronghold market. In a year where Democrats are as popular as ever and primed to strengthen their majorities in both house and take the white house.
Somebody should fill in that new editor that he ain't in Phoenix anymore.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Mercredi, c'est ravioli.
April is usually catch-up month for Meredith (link not up yet at the weekly). She's the fable's cricket who sang the virtues of Cal-Italian restaurants in NorthBeachina* all year long and is now desperate to gather material for the yearly Best of SF issue (scheduled for end of May). So we are fooled every year by the "improvement" in her writing: she gets interested in out-of-the-way places, in different ethnic foods, in being adventurous and in writing about it. And dummy us, we fall for it every time, because we want it so bad.
Today, it's an interesting review of a few Vietnamese places. Without the context of the above paragraph, it would even be a good review. But we've been fooled to many years. We know it's not a new, sustainable enthusiasm for more exotic fares which drives Meredith, just the need to write something, anything comes May 28th. And we're not sure if it's procrastination or voluntary avoidance of Vietnamese places (not named the slanted door) all year round or that typical disdain for non-Euro places which makes these 4 restaurants unworthy of a stand-alone piece and crammed together in the review. But it still bothers us.
*We're tired of writing North Beach-and-the-Marina.
Today, it's an interesting review of a few Vietnamese places. Without the context of the above paragraph, it would even be a good review. But we've been fooled to many years. We know it's not a new, sustainable enthusiasm for more exotic fares which drives Meredith, just the need to write something, anything comes May 28th. And we're not sure if it's procrastination or voluntary avoidance of Vietnamese places (not named the slanted door) all year round or that typical disdain for non-Euro places which makes these 4 restaurants unworthy of a stand-alone piece and crammed together in the review. But it still bothers us.
*We're tired of writing North Beach-and-the-Marina.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Can the Chron Go Lower?
There are things that I respect at the Chron, a lot. Everything that is not in the A section is actually of good quality. The ideal Chron would not need to do much to be better: just removing the A section would improve the paper and adding some balance to the opinion page would help too (and I mean a real liberal point of view, not Jon Carroll's cats and granddaughter, they're not particularly progressive, no matter what Phil Bronstein says). Take away the misleading, blatantly biased, disingenuous political coverage and you have actually a decent paper.
So I was dismayed to see Sam catching Michael Bauer red handed in a non-disclosed breach of his reviewing guidelines. If Michael Bauer knows Kuleto personally, he must recuse himself from reviewing the place.
Eating off his plate? Gross!
So I was dismayed to see Sam catching Michael Bauer red handed in a non-disclosed breach of his reviewing guidelines. If Michael Bauer knows Kuleto personally, he must recuse himself from reviewing the place.
Eating off his plate? Gross!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Carolyn Lochhead: Dumb as a Stick.
Carolyn Lochhead hints at Democrats incarnating, somehow, a contradiction:
Two multi-millionaires will be hammering each other at 5 p.m. Pacific time over who is the greater friend of the working class.
Carolyn Lochhead is essentially saying: fuck you, working class people! Because she knows that you have to be a millionaire to be elected a senator or president. You need that to prime the fund raising pump or to loan money to your campaign.
Anyone generous enough to be a millionaire and care about the fate of the less well-off: it's a subject of scorn for Carolyn Lochhead.
John McCain is order of magnitudes richer than either Obama or Clinton. His wife is worth over $100 million. But McCain says: screw you, poor people, I have nothing for you, I only give away tax cuts to the rich. If you have no money, you can enroll in the army, we're hiring in Iraq for the next 100 years.
And that's a respectable position in Lochhead's eyes. Because self-serving policies which will enrich his household even more, and are packaged as stimulus of the economy, that's not greedy, that's not hypocritical, that's noble in Mrs. Lochhead's warped mind.
By the way, John McCain has not released his tax returns. Lochhead is getting all the information about the Dems from their tax returns. Does she call for McCain to release his? Does she even mention it? Of course NOT.
Two multi-millionaires will be hammering each other at 5 p.m. Pacific time over who is the greater friend of the working class.
Carolyn Lochhead is essentially saying: fuck you, working class people! Because she knows that you have to be a millionaire to be elected a senator or president. You need that to prime the fund raising pump or to loan money to your campaign.
Anyone generous enough to be a millionaire and care about the fate of the less well-off: it's a subject of scorn for Carolyn Lochhead.
John McCain is order of magnitudes richer than either Obama or Clinton. His wife is worth over $100 million. But McCain says: screw you, poor people, I have nothing for you, I only give away tax cuts to the rich. If you have no money, you can enroll in the army, we're hiring in Iraq for the next 100 years.
And that's a respectable position in Lochhead's eyes. Because self-serving policies which will enrich his household even more, and are packaged as stimulus of the economy, that's not greedy, that's not hypocritical, that's noble in Mrs. Lochhead's warped mind.
By the way, John McCain has not released his tax returns. Lochhead is getting all the information about the Dems from their tax returns. Does she call for McCain to release his? Does she even mention it? Of course NOT.
Mercredi, c'est Ravioli.
In an otherwise decent review, dully titled Chow in Dogpatch, Meredith writes:
The prosaically named fish stew, freighted with cod, clams in the shell, and diced potato
and
A massive portion of baked pasta...seduces with its rich freight of braised Berkshire pork shoulder, mustard greens, roasted butternut squash, and a contrasted heap of tartly dressed lettuces.
Freighted! It's like they needed a FedEx 747 to bring the dish to you. Still, we get what she's trying to do, she does not want to write "topped with." She likes convoluted and heavy writing. So we are happy to help! We suggest: industrially loaded; container cargoed; forklift upgraded; Union Pacific'ed; blanketed by the truckful; snowed under an avalanche; dual overhead cam turbocharged; smothered to death; powerfully overwhelmed. Thinking twice about it, we're sure she's used all these at least once already.
The prosaically named fish stew, freighted with cod, clams in the shell, and diced potato
and
A massive portion of baked pasta...seduces with its rich freight of braised Berkshire pork shoulder, mustard greens, roasted butternut squash, and a contrasted heap of tartly dressed lettuces.
Freighted! It's like they needed a FedEx 747 to bring the dish to you. Still, we get what she's trying to do, she does not want to write "topped with." She likes convoluted and heavy writing. So we are happy to help! We suggest: industrially loaded; container cargoed; forklift upgraded; Union Pacific'ed; blanketed by the truckful; snowed under an avalanche; dual overhead cam turbocharged; smothered to death; powerfully overwhelmed. Thinking twice about it, we're sure she's used all these at least once already.
Carolyn Lochhead: Two Weights, Two Measures.
Carolyn Lochhead called Bill Clinton a ho for giving speeches for money.
I just wanted to add one more bit of perspective. She writes:
Seven years of Bill's speeches produced more than $51 million.
That's a lot of money. But we also know one other thing: Rudy Giuliani earned $11 million in one year from speaking fees. Clinton got on average $7 million/year, and you know, unlike Giuliani, he succeeded twice at being the most important person in the world.
So did Carolyn Lochhead called Giuliani a prostitute for his speaking fees? No! Did she or Carla Marinucci call Giuliani a hypocrite for advocating huge tax cuts for the rich while raking in $16 million/year of income? No!
Why? It's easy: they hate Clinton, and love the Republicans.
I just wanted to add one more bit of perspective. She writes:
Seven years of Bill's speeches produced more than $51 million.
That's a lot of money. But we also know one other thing: Rudy Giuliani earned $11 million in one year from speaking fees. Clinton got on average $7 million/year, and you know, unlike Giuliani, he succeeded twice at being the most important person in the world.
So did Carolyn Lochhead called Giuliani a prostitute for his speaking fees? No! Did she or Carla Marinucci call Giuliani a hypocrite for advocating huge tax cuts for the rich while raking in $16 million/year of income? No!
Why? It's easy: they hate Clinton, and love the Republicans.
Why Does Carla Bother to Write?
Well, I keep repeating myself, so she must as well!
I have stated the Chron rules of political coverage many times. They are:
1-Democrats are divided. 2-Republicans are strong. 3-Any news is good news for Rebublicans.
Carla Marinucci today>
With the Democratic presidential hopefuls locked in open warfare as the last primaries wind down and the battle for delegates heats up, the questions now are: How much intra-party bashing will voters tolerate, and how much will the Republicans benefit?
That's the mindframe with which Carla looks at politics: how much will the Republicans benefit? One could argue that a strong primary will yield a strong candidate, which is not good news for the GOP. But that's not how it goes at the Chron. Looking at it this way is against the rules.
I have stated the Chron rules of political coverage many times. They are:
1-Democrats are divided. 2-Republicans are strong. 3-Any news is good news for Rebublicans.
Carla Marinucci today>
With the Democratic presidential hopefuls locked in open warfare as the last primaries wind down and the battle for delegates heats up, the questions now are: How much intra-party bashing will voters tolerate, and how much will the Republicans benefit?
That's the mindframe with which Carla looks at politics: how much will the Republicans benefit? One could argue that a strong primary will yield a strong candidate, which is not good news for the GOP. But that's not how it goes at the Chron. Looking at it this way is against the rules.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Chron Hates the Clinton.
Carolyn Lochhead:
Just when we were wondering whether Eliot Spitzer paid too much for a prostitute, it turns out that many people think nothing of paying $237,000 to hear Bill Clinton speak.
Just when we were wondering whether Eliot Spitzer paid too much for a prostitute, it turns out that many people think nothing of paying $237,000 to hear Bill Clinton speak.
The Chron Came Through On Its Threats.
The Chron had hinted it would attack Obama on its supposed arrogance. Now they did it!
Oh, the article is carefully wrapped in a discussion not of Obama's supposed arrogance, but about San Francisco values. It's really a pretext to present attacks on Obama from Pat Buchanan or the Clinton campaign. The telltale sign: Carla did not even bother to contact the Obama campaign.
Carla is so out of touch with reality, she does not even chafe at the basic premise of her article: Obama talks to people at a $1,000/person fund raiser, and it reflects on all San Francisco. Of course these people are not San Francisco, they are a slice of the tiny fraction of the very rich who live here, who else can afford that much?
The issue here is not whether or not the audience was a elitist (it was) but whether Obama's comments had some truth in it; or whether McCain's campaign is saying things as debatable when talking to his donors behind close doors (of course he does).
The bigger issue of course is in picturing Democrats as elitist. The Chron does it all the time, because that's how the Republicans like to define them. If you advocate a policy of extreme elitism, of tax cuts for the rich and on a platform of privatization of the education and social safety nets, you have to disguise it. So the GOP attacks the Democrats for them being "elitist" (oh the chutzpah!) and they are the regular joes, and the Chron buys it (!) and regurgitates it on page A1.
(The rules of American politics: fact 1, you have to be a millionaire to run, campaigns are so expensive. All senators are millionaires. All are part of a narrow elite. But Democrats defend the little guys. Thus: rule 2. They are millionaires who care about poor people. They are at worst hypocrites (according to a skewed definition of the word that applies only to Democrats), at best condescending, elitist, etc. And the media in general, and the Chron in particular, accept this slanted premise. And makes it one better: if the candidate is Republican, a Yale-Harvard educated Republican president from Connecticut becomes this regular guy from Texas.)
With silly coverage like this, and a free ride for McCain, I fear there's a chance McCain will be elected.
Oh, the article is carefully wrapped in a discussion not of Obama's supposed arrogance, but about San Francisco values. It's really a pretext to present attacks on Obama from Pat Buchanan or the Clinton campaign. The telltale sign: Carla did not even bother to contact the Obama campaign.
Carla is so out of touch with reality, she does not even chafe at the basic premise of her article: Obama talks to people at a $1,000/person fund raiser, and it reflects on all San Francisco. Of course these people are not San Francisco, they are a slice of the tiny fraction of the very rich who live here, who else can afford that much?
The issue here is not whether or not the audience was a elitist (it was) but whether Obama's comments had some truth in it; or whether McCain's campaign is saying things as debatable when talking to his donors behind close doors (of course he does).
The bigger issue of course is in picturing Democrats as elitist. The Chron does it all the time, because that's how the Republicans like to define them. If you advocate a policy of extreme elitism, of tax cuts for the rich and on a platform of privatization of the education and social safety nets, you have to disguise it. So the GOP attacks the Democrats for them being "elitist" (oh the chutzpah!) and they are the regular joes, and the Chron buys it (!) and regurgitates it on page A1.
(The rules of American politics: fact 1, you have to be a millionaire to run, campaigns are so expensive. All senators are millionaires. All are part of a narrow elite. But Democrats defend the little guys. Thus: rule 2. They are millionaires who care about poor people. They are at worst hypocrites (according to a skewed definition of the word that applies only to Democrats), at best condescending, elitist, etc. And the media in general, and the Chron in particular, accept this slanted premise. And makes it one better: if the candidate is Republican, a Yale-Harvard educated Republican president from Connecticut becomes this regular guy from Texas.)
With silly coverage like this, and a free ride for McCain, I fear there's a chance McCain will be elected.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
The Chron's Responsibility to Inform.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon notices that the US media has strange priorities:
Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:
"Yoo and torture" - 102
"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73
"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16
"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043
"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)
"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607
"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079
The failure of the media to cover Yoo's memo authorizing torture and making a joke of the constitution is, to say the least, surprising. But Yoo is a UC Berkeley law professor. So of course, the local newspaper, the Chron, will not show the same indifference to the issue: it's a local story, they can dispatch a journalist from 5th and howard to Berkeley in 15mn, the Chron will be all over the story, interviewing Yoo, or his colleagues, or Berkeley College Republicans or whatnot.
So I clicked on the search box at sfgate. Here's the result:
"Sorry, your search for torture+yoo returned no articles from the past 30 days. Search Tips"
On the other hand, Obama was bowling in PA, all the way on the other coast. Definitely little local connection. As for the general implications of Obama's bowling talent on his ability to be president, I'd say none. Obviously, I'm not a professional journalist:
"Your search for obama+bowling returned 6 articles from the past 30 days."
But what really matters, you ask? What's the most important topic. Deep inside, what are we really fighting for?
"Your search for clinton+lewinsky returned 10 articles from the past 30 days."
Does the Chron even remember that they endorsed Obama over Clinton so that they would move away from the politics of 90s? What a joke, ha ha, what a joke.
(all search results obtained on April, 8th).
Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:
"Yoo and torture" - 102
"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73
"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16
"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043
"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)
"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607
"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079
The failure of the media to cover Yoo's memo authorizing torture and making a joke of the constitution is, to say the least, surprising. But Yoo is a UC Berkeley law professor. So of course, the local newspaper, the Chron, will not show the same indifference to the issue: it's a local story, they can dispatch a journalist from 5th and howard to Berkeley in 15mn, the Chron will be all over the story, interviewing Yoo, or his colleagues, or Berkeley College Republicans or whatnot.
So I clicked on the search box at sfgate. Here's the result:
"Sorry, your search for torture+yoo returned no articles from the past 30 days. Search Tips"
On the other hand, Obama was bowling in PA, all the way on the other coast. Definitely little local connection. As for the general implications of Obama's bowling talent on his ability to be president, I'd say none. Obviously, I'm not a professional journalist:
"Your search for obama+bowling returned 6 articles from the past 30 days."
But what really matters, you ask? What's the most important topic. Deep inside, what are we really fighting for?
"Your search for clinton+lewinsky returned 10 articles from the past 30 days."
Does the Chron even remember that they endorsed Obama over Clinton so that they would move away from the politics of 90s? What a joke, ha ha, what a joke.
(all search results obtained on April, 8th).
The Chron Argues Against Iraq Withdrawal.
Make no mistake: this article detailing why a withdrawal would have horrible effects (and ignoring the horrible effects of the current policy) is not the opinion of Mrs. Carolyn Lochhead. Oh, Carolyn Lochhead loves the Iraq war, and has been a proponent of the surge for a long time. She's after all Carolyn The Surge Is Working Lochhead.
But the piece was published on page A-1, on the cover. A piece saying that "Next president faces limited options in Iraq" (code for: withdrawal is not an option). It's the editorial board's opinion that it's better to "stay the course."
Of course, the Chron really does not give a rat's ass about Iraq and casualties. What matters is:
the next president's options are more limited than implied by the debate between Republican Sen. John McCain, who wants to continue the current course to victory, and Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who promise to withdraw at least a combat brigade a month.
The Chron is only making a (ridiculous) pro-McCain argument that his Iraq policy won't be much different from that of Obama or Clinton (only a hack like Carolyn Lochhead can make this claim with a straight face), thus he can be safely elected without any moral qualms about killing kids. They'd be killed anyway, the Chron says, even if Barak I opposed the war in 2002 Obama is elected. You can vote McCain.
Sometimes, the Chron makes me want to puke.
But the piece was published on page A-1, on the cover. A piece saying that "Next president faces limited options in Iraq" (code for: withdrawal is not an option). It's the editorial board's opinion that it's better to "stay the course."
Of course, the Chron really does not give a rat's ass about Iraq and casualties. What matters is:
the next president's options are more limited than implied by the debate between Republican Sen. John McCain, who wants to continue the current course to victory, and Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who promise to withdraw at least a combat brigade a month.
The Chron is only making a (ridiculous) pro-McCain argument that his Iraq policy won't be much different from that of Obama or Clinton (only a hack like Carolyn Lochhead can make this claim with a straight face), thus he can be safely elected without any moral qualms about killing kids. They'd be killed anyway, the Chron says, even if Barak I opposed the war in 2002 Obama is elected. You can vote McCain.
Sometimes, the Chron makes me want to puke.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Chron's Constituency.
One big mystery to me is why is the Chron so hell-bent on promoting Republican ideology, when it's the local newspaper for a city which is 85% Democrat. They are losing more money than the other newspaper (they claim to be hurt more by new technologies since the area is not only leaning liberal, it's also high tech).
Part of the answer can be found here. This is an article about: "Suburban seniors move on to city life." It's a trend piece, on how seniors sell their family home in the burbs to move into a downtown condominiums.
It's pretty revealing about the Chron's mindset and its cluelessness. Because, honestly, that trend about seniors moving into the SOMA Grand, it concerns people who can buy a condo for plus a parking space for a total of $2.658 million.
For those who can, we say good for them. Most seniors, however, can't afford to pay close to $3 mil to enjoy the city life. That's before you had the monthy dues: Monthly dues and fees for all of this come to about 50 cents per square foot at SOMA Grand, Nina Gruen said, which means over $1,200/month for their 2,430 sq ft appartment.
Yet, the Chron believes these people highlighted in the article are somehow representative of a trend. Yet the Chron obviously think this very elite slice of the demographics, people who can shell out $3mil, and who can afford $1,200/month for a concierge service, are important enough to be featured. They are a movement, they are a landslide!
And that would explain the Republican ideology of the Chron: they just think that the very rich is a constituency important enough, wide enough to cater to, and they build their business model around this. Then they wonder: why do they hemorrhage money?
Part of the answer can be found here. This is an article about: "Suburban seniors move on to city life." It's a trend piece, on how seniors sell their family home in the burbs to move into a downtown condominiums.
It's pretty revealing about the Chron's mindset and its cluelessness. Because, honestly, that trend about seniors moving into the SOMA Grand, it concerns people who can buy a condo for plus a parking space for a total of $2.658 million.
For those who can, we say good for them. Most seniors, however, can't afford to pay close to $3 mil to enjoy the city life. That's before you had the monthy dues: Monthly dues and fees for all of this come to about 50 cents per square foot at SOMA Grand, Nina Gruen said, which means over $1,200/month for their 2,430 sq ft appartment.
Yet, the Chron believes these people highlighted in the article are somehow representative of a trend. Yet the Chron obviously think this very elite slice of the demographics, people who can shell out $3mil, and who can afford $1,200/month for a concierge service, are important enough to be featured. They are a movement, they are a landslide!
And that would explain the Republican ideology of the Chron: they just think that the very rich is a constituency important enough, wide enough to cater to, and they build their business model around this. Then they wonder: why do they hemorrhage money?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Politics, Classical Music and the Media
Usually, I keep my coverage of the media to the local ones. But I ran into this piece by Edwin Outwater, who used to be conductor at the SF Symphony, in the position now occupied by Benjamin Shwartz. Edwin says:
Hillary Clinton may want to compare herself to Rocky Balboa, but in today’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd compares her to the Marschallin from Der Rosenkavalier. Nice! It always warms my heart to see a classical music reference, especially to a Strauss opera.
Well, it's nice to see a Strauss opera referred in a political column. But who is Obama then? Octavian?
That's pretty clear from Dowd's piece: The Marschallin is a princess ...she instructs the young man on the ways of love and then gracefully sets him free... Hillary has already given noble service as a sophisticated political tutor for Obama, providing her younger colleague with much-needed seasoning.
And that's where you want to punch Dowd in the face. She has taken to call Obama Obambi, and she typically describes him as a young inexperienced effeminate lightweight. The fact that Octavian is a mezzo-soprano role sung by a female singer: that's where Dowd is aiming at. The comparison with der Rosenkavalier kills two birds with one rock: Hillary as a over-the-hump has-been AND Obama as a girly inexperienced naive youngster.
Keep in mind that Dowd is the quote-unquote "liberal" columnist at the NY Times.
Hillary Clinton may want to compare herself to Rocky Balboa, but in today’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd compares her to the Marschallin from Der Rosenkavalier. Nice! It always warms my heart to see a classical music reference, especially to a Strauss opera.
Well, it's nice to see a Strauss opera referred in a political column. But who is Obama then? Octavian?
That's pretty clear from Dowd's piece: The Marschallin is a princess ...she instructs the young man on the ways of love and then gracefully sets him free... Hillary has already given noble service as a sophisticated political tutor for Obama, providing her younger colleague with much-needed seasoning.
And that's where you want to punch Dowd in the face. She has taken to call Obama Obambi, and she typically describes him as a young inexperienced effeminate lightweight. The fact that Octavian is a mezzo-soprano role sung by a female singer: that's where Dowd is aiming at. The comparison with der Rosenkavalier kills two birds with one rock: Hillary as a over-the-hump has-been AND Obama as a girly inexperienced naive youngster.
Keep in mind that Dowd is the quote-unquote "liberal" columnist at the NY Times.
Mercredi, c'est Ravioli.
Meredith says:
Renaming Lower Fillmore the Fillmore Jazz Preservation District is a classic example of shutting the barn doors long after the cows have fled and the farmer has torn down the barn.
Once more, Meredith's synapses are not connecting logically: if the farmer has torn down the barn, there aren't any doors to shut anymore. No barn, no doors! Furthermore, the person shutting the doors would be.... the farmer, and he tore down the barn, so why would he even think of shutting the doors he knows he destroyed. The usual saying does not mention tearing down the barn, it's Meredith's own addition, and well, it's a rather interesting twist.
Still, we'll blame this one on the editor. Someone has to tell her it does not make sense before it goes into print. We're not surprised the editors don't read her (we can't hardly blame them) but they're getting paid for it nonetheless.
Renaming Lower Fillmore the Fillmore Jazz Preservation District is a classic example of shutting the barn doors long after the cows have fled and the farmer has torn down the barn.
Once more, Meredith's synapses are not connecting logically: if the farmer has torn down the barn, there aren't any doors to shut anymore. No barn, no doors! Furthermore, the person shutting the doors would be.... the farmer, and he tore down the barn, so why would he even think of shutting the doors he knows he destroyed. The usual saying does not mention tearing down the barn, it's Meredith's own addition, and well, it's a rather interesting twist.
Still, we'll blame this one on the editor. Someone has to tell her it does not make sense before it goes into print. We're not surprised the editors don't read her (we can't hardly blame them) but they're getting paid for it nonetheless.
