The Situation is Bleak. As Economy Still Bleeds
Jobs, Experts Predict Another Jobless Recovery

First, the bad news:

WASHINGTON (AP) ? Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy's road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on a solid ground.

June's payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn't as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.

As the downturn bites into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive. Those include holding down workers' hours and freezing or cutting pay.

The average work week in June fell to 33 hours, the lowest on records dating to 1964.

The worse news: as some economists predicted, the stimulus package was too small to affect the "real" economy - you know, the one you and I live in? - in any significant way. Sounds like those who urged Obama to think large and visionary (a la FDR's Public Works Administration) really did have the right idea:

Reporting from Washington -- Even as the nation's economy begins clawing its way out of the worst recession in 60 years, there are growing signs that this recovery could come with an unsettling twist: The wheels of commerce may begin to turn again without any substantial boost in jobs.

Not only is the national unemployment rate, now 9.4%, likely to climb into double digits later this year, but it is also expected to remain there well into 2010, economists say. That would prolong the misery of the unemployed, squeeze retailers and other businesses, and add millions of dollars in government costs and lost productivity. It could even threaten the recovery itself.

Though it's common for the jobless rate to keep climbing for a time after economic output turns positive, the aftermath of the last two downturns, in 1990-91 and 2001, introduced the idea of a "jobless recovery." Even though the economy improved, many unemployed workers discovered that jobs as good as the ones they'd lost were almost impossible to find.

This time, many economists say, there are new factors that could make the problem worse. Many more layoffs in this recession have been permanent, not temporary.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Washington Post, Caught Brokering Access, Digs
Deeper

Katharine Weymouth says she is disappointed about the pay-to-play conferences. But she doesn't say why she's disappointed about them.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/02/the-wapo-digs-deeper/

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Joe Lieberman, Still Not a Democrat

Joe likes Medicare Part D. Unlike everyone who has it, and the people looking to close the financially-sapping loophole that causes people to skip taking their necessary meds.

He seems to not understand that Medicare and Medicaid are two different programs, and the talk has not been about Medicaid rates...

video details and more

By the way, click here to see CANDIDATE Joe support universal health care. Back when he actually was mostly a Democrat. I hope he's enjoying his time in DC since he's only got a few years left before Connecticut voters apply term limits to him.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Conservative Gay Lawmakers Reject A Degrading
Life In The Closet

I got to watch the Parliamentary debate over the first Iraq War when a friend of mine, a member of the House of Commons, invited me to sit in for the day and then have lunch in the members dining room. It was an enjoyable and stimulating experience, primarily dominated by Margaret Thatcher. My friend, though, was a gay Conservative. Honestly, I can't remember if he was in the closet or out of the closet-- at least politically. Everyone who knew him certainly knew he was as gay as wrapping paper. Of course the same could have been said of Mark Foley (R-FL), David Dreier (R-CA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) before they were outed. "Everyone" knows they're gay-- except the dullards in the Republican base who haven't a clue.

Today GOProud, the Republican Party's far right-wing version of the mainstream conservative gay Republicans (the Log Cabin Republicans), pointed proudly that the number of openly gay Conservatives in the House of Commons could treble. Nice that they're celebrating, but I wonder if they've ever thought about asking our own conservatives why it's such a taboo to embrace their sexuality on this side of the pond.

Lindsey Graham and David Dreier still think they're fooling someone about being straight. I don't see GOProud mentioning that South Carolina is on the verge of being the first state in the country with a gay Republican Governor and a gay Republican Lt. Governor, albeit two closeted ones. Of course not every gay conservative politician is from South Carolina-- even if they do have the most per square mile. Is GOProud proud of Adam Schock (R-IL)? Patrick McHenry (R-NC)? Adrian Smith (R-NE)? Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)? Mitch McConnell (R-KY)? Or are they spending all their time cheering the Brits-- and violent and vicious Utah homophobe and anti-gay crusader rabbit, Jason Chaffetz?

GOProud members, if there are any, could do worse than reading Sarah Hepola's Gay Men Go To Hell, an interview with God Says No author James Hannaham about "religious repression, life in the closet and sex in the bathroom," at today's Salon. And while they're over at Salon, an even more direct must-read, Behind Washington's Closet Door which traces political closet queenery from American Conservative Union chairman Bob Baumann (R-MD)-- who was arrested for soliciting sex from a 16 year old boy while serving in Congress-- to more recently outed gay Republicans like Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Larry Craig (R-ID), Jim McCrery (R-LA) and Charlie Crist (R-FL) is also available. Let's celebrate all the out conservatives in the British Parliament after David Dreier, Charlie Crist, Lindsey Graham and Patrick McHenry say "So what; there's nothing wrong with it-- and I'm terribly sorry for all the pain I caused gay families with my viciously homophobic votes in the past. I'll make up for it in the future."

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2009/07/conservative-gay-lawmakers-reject.htm
l

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

O'Reilly fill-in Williams provides platform for
global warming misinformation

During a July 1 O'Reilly Factor discussion about whether "the liberal media" are helping President Obama "advance his energy agenda by spreading global warming propaganda," guest host Juan Williams advanced falsehoods about global warming. Williams did not challenge Fox News contributor Bernie Goldberg when he falsely claimed that if journalists "did some real reporting, they would find out that in the past 10 years, the world temperatures haven't gone up." But climate scientists reject the idea that the fact that, in most datasets, annual global average temperatures have not surpassed their 1998 level is any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist. Scientists have identified a long-term warming trend spanning several decades that is independent from the normal climate variability -- which includes relatively short-term changes in climate due to events like El Niño and La Niña -- to which they attribute the recent relatively cooler temperatures. Williams also did not challenge Goldberg's assertion that "this is déjà vu all over again. This is the 1970s, when journalists warned us of another climate, you know, catastrophe that was coming. That time it was global cooling. And they warned us of the coming ice age. They were wrong about that." But it is false to suggest, as Goldberg does, that in the 1970s there was a widespread scientific belief that the Earth was cooling that is tantamount to the current scientific consensus on global warming.

As Media Matters for America has noted, in a February 11 Guardian op-ed, Vicky Pope, the head of climate change advice at the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre, wrote that claims about the pace of global warming based only on developments in the past 10 years or in the 1990s are not valid, "since natural variations always occur on this timescale." She continued, "1998 was a record-breaking warm year as long-term man-made warming combined with a naturally occurring strong El Niño. In contrast, 2008 was slightly cooler than previous years partly because of a La Niña. Despite this, it was still the 10th warmest on record." According to the Met Office, "Over the last ten years, global temperatures have warmed more slowly than the long-term trend. But this does not mean that global warming has slowed down or even stopped. It is entirely consistent with our understanding of natural fluctuations of the climate within a trend of continued long-term warming." This long-term trend can be seen in this graph of annual global average temperatures from the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre:

Moreover, Goldberg's evocation of 1970s media reports about global cooling falsely suggests that the scientific basis for those reports is equivalent to the current scientific consensus on global warming. A September 2008 article in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (a peer-reviewed publication) investigated the "pervasive myth" that "there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent." The article found:

A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth's basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.

The Bulletin also noted several other "examples of modern writers perpetuating the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus."

In addition, Williams criticized CBS correspondent Scott Pelley's reported statement that, in Williams' words, "when he was doing a piece about global warming, he would not, in fact, interview anybody who had any doubts as to the veracity of the global warming charge. He said that would be like doing a piece about the Holocaust and talking to Holocaust deniers." In fact, the 2006 CBS article in which Pelley's comments were reported also reported that Pelley "says he tried hard to find a respected scientist who contradicted the prevailing opinion in the scientific community, but there was no one out there who fit that description." From the March 23, 2006, CBS article:

Pelley's most recent report, like his first, did not pause to acknowledge global warming skeptics, instead treating the existence of global warming as an established fact. I again asked him why. "If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel," he asks, "am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?" He says his team tried hard to find a respected scientist who contradicted the prevailing opinion in the scientific community, but there was no one out there who fit that description. "This isn't about politics or pseudo-science or conspiracy theory blogs," he says. "This is about sound science."

But doesn't the fact that there are a lot of Americans who are skeptical of global warming -- not well respected scientists, perhaps, but ordinary people watching the segment -- warrant at least some recognition of the other side? "There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible," says Pelley.

From the July 1 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

WILLIAMS: In the "Impact" segment tonight: Is the liberal media helping Barack Obama advance his energy agenda by spreading global warming propaganda? Joining us now from North Carolina, my friend Bernie Goldberg, the author of the best-selling book A Slobbering Love Affair. Bernie, thanks so much for coming in.

GOLDBERG: My pleasure, Juan.

WILLIAMS: Now, Bernie, I don't know if you saw this, but Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes recently wrote that when he was doing a piece about global warming, he would not, in fact, interview anybody who had any doubts as to the veracity of the global warming charge. He said that would be like doing a piece about the Holocaust and talking to Holocaust deniers. Can you believe this?

GOLDBERG: Yeah. Yeah, I can, because I read the interview and I saw the piece he did. It was a completely one-sided piece about global warming. And when he was questioned about it, he said precisely what you just reported -- that if I interview somebody who believes in the Holocaust, do I have to find in the name of balance a Holocaust denier?

This amounts to journalistic malpractice. That -- it's as simple as that. Journalists need to do a little reporting and not merely be cheerleaders for Al Gore and Barack Obama's version of manmade global warming. And if they did some reporting, they would learn that the number of skeptics of manmade global warming is rising. It's growing, the number of skeptics. And these include some very prestigious scientists.

But you don't see a lot of that on Page 1 of the newspaper. And if they did some real reporting, they would find out that in the past 10 years, the world temperatures haven't gone up but may have even come down a little bit. But you don't hear that on the evening news.

Juan, we're going -- this is déjà vu all over again. This is the 1970s, when journalists warned us of another climate, you know, catastrophe that was coming. That time it was global cooling. And they warned us of the coming ice age. They were wrong about that. They never looked back. They never apologized. And if and when they're wrong about this, they'll just move on to the next crisis.

WILLIAMS: Now, Bernie -- Bernie, let me just protect you. You're not saying they're wrong. You're just saying there are two sides to the story. Because the U.N. scientists, the G-8 scientists, they've all said that air temperatures are rising, ocean temperatures are rising. You see ice caps melting. You're not saying you know. You're just saying, let's give everybody a fair say.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, thank you for -- thank you for clarifying that. I am, needless to say, I am not a scientist. I am willing to accept that there are two sides to this story, and both sides have legitimate scientists arguing their point. But you wouldn't know that from the mainstream media.

WILLIAMS: All right, so Bernie --

GOLDBERG: Not by and large, anyway.

WILLIAMS: Bernie, let me ask you about the politics of this, because to me, the numbers are very interesting. If I am talking to Republicans -- Republicans, Bernie -- 60 -- I think it's something like 48 percent say yes to global warming. There is global warming.

If I'm talking to independents, 67 percent say, "Yes, there is global warming." But if I'm talking to Democrats, Bernie Goldberg, then I'm up to 87 percent say yes to global warming.

Why do you get 48 percent of Republicans saying, "Yeah, it might be global warming," but 87 percent of Democrats? Why the politics around this?

GOLDBERG: That's a very good question. I think it has something to do with the media again. Republicans are less likely to believe or accept hook, line, and sinker what the media tells them. And liberal Democrats are more likely to believe it because a lot of the media is made up of liberal Democrats.

So, I think -- I think the filter that we get this global warming that it comes through is the media. And a lot of us on the right, we don't trust the media as much as liberal Democrats do.

And again, Juan, the media gets a lot of these things wrong. They got global cooling wrong. Why should we necessarily believe that they got this story right? And what bothers me the most about this is that they have absolutely fallen into line with Al Gore's version of global warming -- that it's manmade, case closed, I don't want to hear about it. Scott Pelley's example is the best one you can come up with.

WILLIAMS: Yeah, so you're an "Earth is flat" kind of person if you disagree with Al Gore. All right, let me move on --

GOLDBERG: Yeah, exactly, exactly.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

CIA Again Delays Release Of Key Torture Report

The release of the long-awaited CIA inspector general report on torture has been postponed once again.

The ACLU, which is suing to have the report released, just announced that the government is asking for yet another postponement on the date of the report's release -- this time, until August 31. The CIA had earlier said it would release the report June 19. That was then pushed back to June 26, and then again to July 1.

A heavily redacted version of the report was released last year, but at issue here is a version that would contain more information.

The ACLU says it has told the court it opposes the new delay. Jameel Jaffer, who directs the group's National Security Project said in the release:

The CIA has already had more than five months to review the inspector general's report, and the report is only about two hundred pages long. We're increasingly troubled that the Obama administration is suppressing documents that would provide more evidence that the CIA's interrogation program was both ineffective and illegal. President Obama should not allow the CIA to determine whether evidence of its own unlawful conduct should be made available to the public. The public has a right to know what took place in the CIA's secret prisons and on whose authority.

It hasn't been a good day for the Obama administration's claims to represent a new era of transparency and openness. Earlier today, a good-government group revealed that the Justice Department is arguing, as it did under President Bush, that it should not be required to release Dick Cheney's interview with federal investigators on the Valerie Plame affair.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

The Day in 100 Seconds: The Only Thing Worse...

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/N_jkwpIRgzY/the_day_in_100_
seconds_the_only_thing_worse.php

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Jenny Sanford invokes Desmond Tutu on Mark's
behalf

If you had any doubts about why Mark Sanford wanted to talk about his sex life, then this statement from his wife Jenny should clear them up:

Columbia, S.C. - July 2, 2009- The last week has been very painful for me, my family and for the people of South Carolina.  However, throughout this terrible ordeal, the incredible outpouring of kindness, support, and prayer I’ve received from countless friends and folks I have never even met has been truly uplifting.  I appreciate that more than I can say.  Please know that my sons and I are doing fine, given the circumstances.  We are surrounded by friends and family, and we will make it through this. I believe it is how we respond to the challenges we face in life, and what we learn from them, that is most telling about who we truly are.

There is no question that Mark’s behavior is inexcusable. Actions have consequences and he will be dealing with those consequences for a long while. Trust has been broken and will need to be rebuilt. Mark will need to earn back that trust, first and foremost with his family, and also with the people of South Carolina.

The real issue now is one of forgiveness. I am willing to forgive Mark for his actions. We have been deeply disappointed in and even angry at Mark. The Bible says, "In your anger do not sin."  (Psalm 4:4) In this situation, this speaks to the essence of forgiveness and the critical need to channel one’s energy into positive steps that uphold the dignity of marriage and the family, and lead to reconciliation over time. My forgiveness is essential for us both to move on with our lives, with peace, in whatever direction that may take us.

Desmond Tutu said "forgiveness is the grace by which you enable the other person to get up, and get up with dignity, to begin anew."  Forgiveness opens the door for Mark to begin to work privately, humbly and respectfully toward reconciliation with me. However, to achieve true reconciliation will take time, involve repentance, and will not be easy.

Mark showed a lack of judgment in his recent actions as governor. However, his far more egregious offenses were committed against God, the institutions of marriage and family, our boys and me.  Mark has stated that his intent and determination is to save our marriage, and to make amends to the people of South Carolina. I hope he can make good on those intentions, and for the sake of our boys I leave the door open to it. In that spirit of forgiveness, it is up to the people and elected officials of South Carolina to decide whether they will give Mark another chance as well.

The Sanfords want the focus on to be on their personal lives, because that sets up a narrative in which Mark Sanford can be redeemed from his sins. Nobody is without sin, and there's nothing better than a redemption story, and every compassionate person wishes them well in their pursuit of happiness and peace with each other.

But the thing is, none of that has anything to do with his fitness to serve as governor of South Carolina.

Lindsey Graham says if Sanford can reconcile with his wife, then he can stay on as governor. Excuse me, but Lindsey Graham of all people should know that you don't need to be married, happily or otherwise, to hold high office.

As a public official, your public responsibilities have nothing to do with your private ones, and the only reason why Mark and Jenny Sanford continue to expose their private life to the world is to confuse the two -- and they want to confuse the two because Mark Sanford completely and utterly failed in his public responsibilities.

Not only was he completely AWOL for five days, but he had originally planned a 10-day trip. Think about that -- ten days outside the country, incommunicado. And he thought that was just fine?

Moreover, Sanford's office lied about his whereabouts while he was AWOL, and falsely claimed to have been in contact with him -- and Sanford lied to his own staff about where he was.

Then we have the issue of Sanford's trade mission to Argentina. Were it not for his mistress, he never would have gone to Argentina, where he discussed agribusiness issues in contravention of U.S. policy.

Today, the law enforcement chief appointed by Sanford said Sanford did not misuse public funds to visit his mistress. That may be legally true, but if Sanford believes what he did was ethical, then why is he pledging to repay the state for the costs of the trip? And why won't he release his records on the issue?

So it should be no surprise that in the face of Mark Sanford's inexcusable public malfeasance, the Sanfords want to talk about his private foibles. As much as we wish them well in their private endeavors, it's important to remember the only issue that matters is Mark Sanford's public behavior -- and it is that public behavior which should lead to his resignation.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

Why are Palin, Perry and Jindal refusing to talk
to Biden about the stimulus

In a new article, Time’s Michael Scherer describes how Vice President Biden has been aggressively reaching out to mayors on the their use of stimulus money. “My rear end is on the line just like yours,” said Biden on a recent conference call with five mayors and county executives. “I’m the guy in charge of this deal. So if this doesn’t work, it’s me.” In a follow-up blog post, Scherer reveals that Biden has talked to “dozens of mayors and 47 of the 50 state governors about the Recovery Act?:

One interesting fact that didn’t make it into the story. Since March, Biden has talked, usually in conference calls, to dozens of mayors and 47 of the 50 state governors about the Recovery Act. The three governors who have not yet been on the line, though they have been invited: Alaska’s Sarah Palin, Texas’ Rick Perry and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal. You can draw your own conclusions.

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!

NYC Mayoral Forum Liveblog

By Josh Bolotsky & Justin KrebsAs promised earlier today, we're liveblogging from the Working[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/alGMBqa4DMI/nyc-mayoral-foru
m-liveblog

Add to del.icio.us

Digg this

Post to Furl

Add to reddit

Add to myYahoo!