It's not a smoking-gun situation or very close to that. But the Garden State has a curious pattern of overstating private sector job growth, and then modifying those figures down -- way down -- a few months later.

I'm imagining the initial bogus reports are trumpeted and the "Whoopsie!" corrections aren't getting so much play.

Even absent deliberate connivance here, it seems that New Jerseyans have been getting a consistent dose of relatively good jobs creation numbers recently, and I doubt every much they have been adequately informed that the last four readings have been revised downwards -- most recently from 13,000 down to 5600, and in a previous month by 4300. Significant revisions, especially given that Corzine is basing his re-election campaign on his purported ability to mint new jobs. From the Star Ledger:

In the midst of a tough re-election campaign focusing on his stewardship of the economy, Gov. Jon Corzine's office recently instructed his cabinet officers to orchestrate events showcasing job creation.

Posted by: Ace at 07:05 AM | Comments (44)
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

A Honduran website (newspaper? not sure) is making the claim that's what the UN's Department of Political Affairs has concluded.

Assuming this is accurate -- a big assumption, really, given that the papers in Honduras must be highly partisan, as they have a near civil war going on -- what will President Nobel Laureate do now?

Since he has the notion in his head that he is infallible as a pope (or as infallible as The Messiah, actually), it seems a bit too much to hope for that this could possibly change his mind.

Hondudiario quoted official UN sources as saying that a study of the Department of Political Affairs of the UN concluded that the destitution of ex-president Manuel Zelaya was constitutional and in accordance with the laws of the country. [Google translation] The report was finalized after visiting Honduras last week.

Posted by: Ace at 06:59 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

That country? Cuba.

As the Cuban government struggles through a deep recession, its leaders have begun picking away at socialism in order to save it. But experts say the latest buzz by the Cuban government is simply another desperate fix to stem the slide of a failed economy that buckled long ago.

Even one of Havana's leading economists recently said Cuba's economy needed to be turned upside down -- "feet up." So taxi drivers got private licenses, farmers now have their own plots of land and government workers have to pack their own lunches.

"I think what they are trying to do is prepare the people for a hard landing," said Cuba expert Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado of the University of Nebraska. "The government is really saying in so many words: We've got limited resources and can only do so much. I think they are stuck."

But it should probably work this time in America, because, well, just because.

Posted by: Ace at 06:31 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Lots of celebrating by the President, especially after getting Snowe's vote but the passage of the health care bill by the Senate Finance Committee also shows the danger of putting something down on paper.

Today several unions (including the federal government's business partner, the UAW) came out against the bill in its present form.

Twenty-seven U.S. labor unions defied White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and announced their opposition to the $829 billion health-care measure passed yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee.

The unions say in a full-page newspaper advertisement today that lawmakers need to make “substantial” changes to the bill or they will urge their members to seek its defeat on the Senate floor. Emanuel asked organized labor not to go public in opposition, said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

“He told us that we really don’t want to be looked upon as the group that stopped meaningful health-care reform,” McEntee said in an interview yesterday. “We would love to be on the exact same page as the White House, but we see ourselves as fighting for our members.”

That's the thing about health care legislation, a lot of people are for 'it' until you start to define 'it' and then the people and groups start pulling in opposite directions so no one bill or approach can actually get enough votes.

Just to further that idea, this is a line opponents of health care reform from the right want to start taking up...this bill is a tax bill. And a big one at that.

Most astounding of all is what this Congress is willing to do to struggling middle-class families. The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. Nearly 90% of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.

It might not appear that way at first, because the dollars are collected via a 40% tax on sales by insurers of "Cadillac" policies, fees on health insurers, drug companies and device manufacturers, and an assortment of odds and ends.

But the economics are clear. These costs will be passed on to consumers by either directly raising insurance premiums, or by fueling higher health-care costs that inevitably lead to higher premiums. Consumers will pay the excise tax on high-cost plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation indicates that 87% of the burden would fall on Americans making less than $200,000, and more than half on those earning under $100,000.

Industry fees are even worse because Democrats chose to make these fees nondeductible. This means that insurance companies will have to raise premiums significantly just to break even. American families will bear a burden even greater than the $130 billion in fees that the bill intends to collect. According to my analysis, premiums will rise by as much as $200 billion over the next 10 years—and 90% will again fall on the middle class.

Senate Democrats are also erecting new barriers to middle-class ascent. A family of four making $54,000 would pay $4,800 for health insurance, with the remainder coming from subsidies. If they work harder and raise their income to $66,000, their cost of insurance rises by $2,800. In other words, earning another $12,000 raises their bill by $2,800—a marginal tax rate of 23%. Double-digit increases in effective tax rates will have detrimental effects on the incentives of millions of Americans.

Now no one thinks the bill that moved out of committee yesterday is going to have anything but the slightest resemblance to the bill that is finally presented to the Senate. No, that bill will be much more invasive and expensive, so it only gets worse from here.

While I'm still optimistic that these hurdles are too big to clear and this effort will fail, another nominal GOP Senator is making noises Susan Collins (Party Unclear, ME), Olympia Snowe's Mini-Me, answered the phone and found history on the other end of the line.

We really have to get these two unlisted numbers.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:22 AM | Comments (55)
Post contains 684 words, total size 5 kb.

"When history calls, history calls"...Senator Olympia Snowe.

Important update to the headline post [DiT], "History" tries to clear up this little misunderstanding with the Senator from Maine

Posted by: DrewM at 05:02 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

All. Including, I guess, human respiration, and the respiration of farm animals too.

Europe, of course, gets to wait until 2025-2030. China gets to 2035.

The IPCC says that rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent by 2020 (from 1990 levels) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020—i.e., quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany, Italy and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon-free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by "buying" emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries' deadlines by a decade or so.

Posted by: Ace at 06:22 PM | Comments (205)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

She's a San Antonio-class amphibious dock vessel, constructed with seven and a half tons of steel from the World Trade Center. Left the shipyard today, bound for New York for her formal commissioning ceremony.

You can see more pics and get info here.

Appropriate day, being the 234th birthday of the United States Navy.

"Strength forged through sacrifice. Never forget."

Good motto.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:54 PM | Comments (42)
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

Welcome all M&Ms to the slowest night of the week. But not to worry - tonight we've got bacon, whisky, and vajayjay-art-related news to keep you entertained.

How Religions, Race, and Zodiac Signs Match Up in Online Dating
More statistics than you ever wanted to know about who makes a good match with whom. Turns out signs make no difference, Jews and agnostics make the best match, and Native American women love Middle Easterners. Go figure.

Is Your Hooch Bad?
Well the Rotgutonix will tell you if your whisky is the real thing or just some ethanol-laced hobo bath water.

Posted by: Open Blog at 07:59 PM | Comments (517)
Post contains 215 words, total size 3 kb.

Charles Johnson was against fake but accurate before he was for it.

No link for the idiot. I'll just quote him. From a thread:

Top 10 Rush Limbaugh Racist Quotes.

All out of context, and sarcasm. Right?

That link I've left in provides a flurry of extremely dubious Limbaugh "quotes" -- and not a single link or citation. Including the ones created wholesale by noted scholar "zedladdy" and spread by no lesser authority than "cobra."

Given that "zedladdy" and "cobra" previously invented own quotes, spread them around, and then uploaded them to WikiQuote, I'd say pretty much every unsourced quote in this list is suspect. (Edit: I mean except the Donovan McNabb quote, which I know is real, since I heard it 'n stuff.)

But surely our crusading Mensa Chapter President wouldn't be taken in by an obvious false "quote" like:

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

And yet here's Johnson quoting it as "classic:"

A classic:

You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

Charles Johnson read it on the internet, so it's true.

Well. I've read a lot of stuff on the internet about his unhealthy relationship with his bike's seat-post. Presumably this is all true as well.

Here he expounds upon Limbaugh's motive in saying things he did not in fact say.

Because it plays well with his audience, obviously. That's why he does everything.

It's pointed out the "quote" is bunk. Charles Johnson doesn't like the back-talk, of course.

There will be no retraction. The quote is disputed, but it has not been proven false. And there are plenty of other racist quotes that you seem to be just gliding right past that are NOT disputed.

Um, from that list? That list of very unlikely quotes all provided without a single link?

You know where this is heading, don't you? There is a penalty for embarrassing the global village idiot Charles Johnson, and he's not afraid to apply it... liberally.

If you want to disagree with my take, that's fine. But if you can't do it without being insulting, your account will be history.

You're wrong because I said so and if you continue disagreeing with me I'll kick you out of my idiot internet clubhouse.

Now that, truly, is "classic."

Thanks to N. I'll keep the rest of his name secret in case he still posts over at the Little Gulag Funhouse and doesn't want to be banned.

Charles Johnson

So scary-smart he splits atoms... with his mind.

Posted by: Ace at 03:05 PM | Comments (627)
Post contains 455 words, total size 3 kb.

They've attached new hate crime categories and penalties to a military budget bill, trusting that Republicans won't vote against it, and if they do, they'll have ads taken out against them for doing so.

To make sure that Republicans were damned if they do, damned if they don't, our civil libertarians and First Amendment fans in the Democratic Party made sure they drafted the provisions as odiously and as unconstitutionally as humanly possible.

First, the committee -- controlled by majority Democrats, of course -- inserted the hate crimes measure into the House bill, where it had not been before. Then lawmakers made some crucial changes to Brownback's amendment. Where Brownback had insisted, and the full Senate had agreed, that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights, the conference changed the wording to read that the bill could not burden the exercise of First Amendment rights "unless the government demonstrates ... a compelling governmental interest" to do otherwise.

That means your First Amendment rights are protected -- unless they're not.

Posted by: Ace at 02:37 PM | Comments (238)
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.