The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes today (8/31/10) about the possible steps Obama might take to bolster the economy:

With voters angry about government spending, and economists divided about just what approach is the correct one, such aggressive steps are by now out of the question. "There?s a deep frustration among economists that they simply don?t know what to do under these circumstances, at least in terms of fiscal policy," said Bruce Bartlett, an economist who advised Republican presidents.

"I think there are a lot of economists who, in principle, would support some new fiscal stimulus, perhaps a jobs program where people were directly employed by the government or something of that sort," Mr. Bartlett said. "But politically it's simply not possible to do anything remotely like that under the current circumstances."

How many voters are truly angry about government spending? Take a look at this recent Newsweek poll:

"Which one of the following do you think should have the higher priority for policy-makers in Washington right now:

37 percent: Reducing the federal budget deficit
57 percent: Federal spending to create jobs
6 percent:  Don't know

Other recent surveys show that voters think unemployment is a much more urgent problem than the deficit (FAIR Action Alert, 6/24/10).
[...] Read more»

In the coverage of Hurricane Katrina's fifth anniversary, you'll find several obligatory mentions in the corporate media of the still-decimated Lower Ninth Ward, but you'd be hard pressed to find anything as direct or damning as what you find in independent media coverage--for example, this piece on Women's eNews (8/29/10) by Kimberly Seals Allers, who recently attended a conference in New Orleans on health disparities in communities of color:

When a few of the local community leaders came to address us, what they had to say about the Lower Ninth Ward was appalling but not surprising. They said that of the $90 million that the Federal Emergency Management Agency allocated to rebuilding the city, the Lower Ninth Ward has not received any money. Nobody has been told a definitive answer as to why.
[...] Read more»

It really is offensive for commentators to use the word "violence" to mean "violence against one side in a conflict."  As in Martin Indyk's op-ed in the New York Times yesterday (8/27/10), which argues that there is "For Once, Hope in the Middle East," because, "First, violence is down considerably in the region."  Here's his complete explication of this point:

Throughout the 1990s, Israel was plagued by terrorist attacks, which undermined its leaders? ability to justify tangible concessions. Israelis came to believe that the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat was playing a double game, professing peace in the negotiations while allowing terrorists to operate in territory he was supposed to control.

Today, the Palestinian Authority is policing its West Bank territory to prevent violent attacks on Israelis and to prove its reliability as a negotiating partner. Hamas--mainly out of fear of an Israeli intervention that might remove it from power--is doing the same in Gaza.

These efforts, combined with more effective Israeli security measures, have meant that the number of Israeli civilians killed in terrorist attacks has dropped from an intifada high of 452 in 2002 to six last year and only two so far this year.

Missing, of course, is any mention of violence against Palestinians.  According to the Israeli human rights group, there have been 100 Palestinians killed by Israelis in the time period following Israel's December 2008 assault on Gaza; the assault itself killed 1,397 Palestinians, a large majority of whom were either minors or non-combatants. [...] Read more»

"Seven Years of War Provides Many Answers" is USA Today's front-page headline (8/27/10) over a story by Jim Michaels and Mimi Hall that attempts to take stock of the Iraq War. But one issue that the paper can't seem to get right seven years later is how the war started.

USA Today provides this stunningly deceptive summary:

In October 2002, the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to authorize force against Iraq. In November, the United Nations Security Council adopted a unanimous resolution offering Saddam "a final opportunity" to comply with disarmament. Three months later, Secretary of State Colin Powell said U.S. and European intelligence agencies believed Iraq was hiding its weaponry and seeking more.

The final U.N. inspection report stated that Iraq failed to account for chemical and biological stockpiles. U.N. inspector Hans Blix said he had "no confidence" that the weaponry had been destroyed.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush said: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

At 5:34 a.m., March 20, 2003, a U.S. force backed by 34 nations crossed into Iraq. The war was on.

A more accurate chronology of the weapons inspection--like this one from the Arms Control Association--reveals that while inspectors expressed frustration with some Iraqi behavior, they were encouraged by the progress they were making. They determined rather early in the process, for instance, that there was no Iraqi nuclear program to speak of. That was one of the Bush administration's most damning claims against Iraq; its falsehood should figure into any account of the pre-war period.
[...] Read more»