Since some of y’all seem to like this “open thread” thing, I thought I’d post one bright and early this morning, just to get things rolling until I have time to post something else.
Actually, to tell the truth, I’m not up before 6 a.m. doing this. I’m actually writing it at 2:33 on the previous afternoon, and setting it to post Friday morning.
Talk about whatever you like. All the usual favorite topics are out there. We still don’t have comprehensive immigration reform, Nikki Haley continues to be our governor (so state employees still have to say, “It’s a great day in South Carolina!”), there’s still no two-state solution in the Mideast, Snowden is still in Russia (unless something startling happened overnight), and the E.U., Syria and the Columbia police department are all messed up.
Related Posts
I liked this story from the self described unbiased media. How do you know a journalist or media person is lying? When they are talking about how unbiased they happen to be.
The New Haven Register has apologized to Fox News for suggesting that its views on race in America draw their inspiration from the heritage of the Ku Klux Klan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/08/01/new-haven-register-apologizes-to-fox-news-for-kkk-comparison/
and of course the editors and owners of the paper refused invites to go on Fox and discuss (answer) for their labeling – typical.
Only a fool would go into the “fair and balanced” lion’s den that is Fox News…
CPD is NOT “all messed up.” There are a few allegations out there, but on the whole, the department functions excellently!
What about the rise in gang activity, reported in both the Free Times and The State? Why is it happening now?
Maybe because the Interim Chief said he doesn’t like to talk about gangs because it scares people.
From the Free Time article :
But Santiago says he’s being careful about stirring the pot too much. “I haven’t shied away from talking about gang violence or saying someone’s a documented gang member,” Santiago says. “I think it’s an area we do need to focus on. … At the same time, that creates a measured amount of fear and concern in the community. When you put it in the media, it creates a certain amount of fear.” –
See more at: http://www.free-times.com/news/gang-problem-resurging-says-sheriff#sthash.HRu4KAMf.dpuf
We need the truth, not coddling.
There’s no real “rise in gang activity”, I don’t think. I think the reporting of it has changed, and we’ve had some high profile incidents lately. One of my issues with the CPD is that they tend to “paper police” – they deliberately avoid making official reports of incidents, or write the incidents down to the least possible offense to make the crimestats look better. Several of our neighbors had their doors kicked in, and their possessions rifled through. To me that’s breaking and entering, but CPD called it “malicious vandalism”. Getting a responding officer to write an official incident report for something less than a major crime is like pulling teeth. Most people don’t even know that they need to get one, and the officers are more than happy not to do the paperwork.
Generally I get a good response from them though, now that I know their tricks.
It’s an old saying: People manage to the metrics. And if you can control the calculation of the metrics, you can make anything happen.
Saw the same thing with the Department of Education and PACT testing. They always cherry picked results to show improvement in some area… up until they couldn’t do it any more so they did what they had to do: they completely changed the test. Now that provides another 5-10 years of coverage to claim improvement.
Managing to the metrics. That’s a great expression. I guess it’s better than not managing at all which is what the US Congress does. But that would be asking too much I suppose.
1. Congress is still exempting itself and it’s staffers from Obamacare. I guess laws are for the little people.
2. Massive closure of US Embassies across the middle east this weekendt due to security concerns.
3. Leftists don’t understand how incentives work .
That’s all I got.
Bryan – re:3 the goal of the leftists isn’t to get us into Obamacare or public health exchanges that help purchase private insurance. It’s intended to break the existing private insurance system so badly that there’s no choice but for the government to put almost everyone (except for congress and their staff, apparently) into a single payer system.
If only you’re right! Because, as I say below, that’s the only way. Single-payer is not only the only way for everyone to be covered, it’s the only way you pay for it.
Well, I am right, the plan is to further break the healthcare finance system.
All I want is one national system that I pay into the same way I’ve always paid for my health insurance in the past. Only that way, I can’t lose it, no matter where I work or if I start a business or whatever.
Any other approach just seems crazy…
@Bryan
Re: incentives
As someone who works with companies on HR analytics systems, it’s common knowledge that large corporations are doing the research now to determine what the right mix of part time/full time workers will be to minimize healthcare costs. They are also analyzing whether it will be cheaper to pay the fines rather than provide insurance at all. They are working within the rules specifically created by Obamacare.
As Bryan indicates, the incentive is for employers to cut back on hours to avoid paying benefits.
And that’s the problem with Obamacare — the supposed “leftists” who crafted it were too timid, too moderate. They left employers in the equation, and gave them a choice. They should have gone whole hog, with single-payer. Everybody’s in, period. That’s the only way it really works.
There are many conservative ideas I’m all for, and this is one of the liberal ones. But it doesn’t work if you go halfway…
But you supported Obamacare, Brad, because “at least it does something”. But the implementation will be a disaster. Obama was trumpeting the expected decrease in rates in New York two weeks ago but that was because their rates were already exorbitant. This week Georgia announced they expect rates to increase by as much as 185% for young people (from $85 to $190 a month for a bare bones single policy).
When you try to control prices, there will be consequences.
We needed simple regulations and more open markets, not a massive bill. Obamacare should have been a one page document:
1) You can’t be denied insurance
2) There are no lifetime maximums
3) You can switch to another provider every year with no penalties
4) Cut defense spending by 10-20% and use that to provide vouchers to poor people to buy insurance and
cover basic costs
5) Every adult must purchase a bare bones policy and no government assistance will be provided for medical bills if you don’t
Done and done.
Two comments. (long-winded naturally)
First, the “Obamacare” bill was cobbled together too quickly without any real thought or evaluation of the consequences, accurate cost projections, and about any other fatal error that could be committed was included in the bill. It is an amalgamation of past wish lists of the supporters of a national health bill to be run by the government and the fact that rank amateurs from Obama down were the ones who were responsible for the 2,000 page plus behemoth is becoming more and more obvious as each day passes and we read or hear where another company or corporation is cutting back on hours so they don’t have to pay for “Obamacare” or whatever you wish to call it. One of the unintended consequences of the bill is that our national employment landscape is becoming one of part-timers, reduced hours, contract employees, temporary employment agencies, and a proliferation of low paying, unskilled jobs. More and more people are working at home for less pay which in turn reduces costs and overhead for companies and adds to the bottom line which is needed in order to offset the costs of implementing “Obamacare” and satisfy the stockholders.
The best description of the bill was made by Nancy Pelosi when made her infamous comment, “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” Actually, those were profoundly prophetic words when you consider the number of exemptions handed out to date, the legal battles by states to fight it, and the constant issuing of projections of increased costs by the CBO as the layers of onion are peeled away, exposing another cost to implement and run the program.
Once again, I will defer to Doug’s experience and background and mine when it comes to doing the due diligence when developing and implementing a new program. First, understand the end game or goal of a new program, gather the legitimate facts that will be necessary to made an honest evaluation, and then put it all together with all aspects in plain sight for all to see, and then bring together the best possible scenario in the form of a comprehensive bill. “Obamacare” will have a major impact on the lives of 99% of the population, the 1%, including Obama will never have to worry about health care costs and issues. Instead of using common sense, emotion ruled the day and when emotion rules the day, disaster is not far behind.
Using Doug’s simplified list as an example, if the administration had followed this principle, the bill would have passed without any real resistance, would have been more cost effective, and easier to implement. By failing to do the obvious, the amateur standing behind the teleprompter is once again exposed for his lack of leadership ability. Giving soaring, emotional speeches to the faithful is not being a leader, it is more indicative of a traveling tent revival evangelist who fires up the crowd, passes the offering plate, and leaves behind empty wallets and trash for others to clean up.
The second comment ties into the first one because in many ways, the ripple effect from the first one does negatively impact the second one. The new employment figures were released today and a total of 162,000 jobs were added and the unemployment rate dropped to 7.4%.
From the NYT article, August 2, 2013.
“America’s employers added 162,000 jobs in July, fewer than expected, with the previous two months revised downward slightly as well.
The unemployment rate, which comes from a different survey, ticked down to 7.4 percent as people got jobs or dropped out of the labor force.
The job gains reported by the Labor Department on Friday were concentrated in retail, food services, financial activities and wholesale trade. The manufacturing sector gained 6,000 jobs; government employment stayed basically flat.
July represented the 34th-straight month of job creation, but the latest pace of employment gains is still not on track to absorb the backlog of unemployed workers anytime soon. At the average rate of job growth seen so far this year, it would take more than seven years to close the so-called jobs gap left by the recession, according to the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution.
Other indicators disappointed, too, with both average hourly wages and the length of the private-sector workweek shrinking modestly in July.”
After reading the first few paragraphs of the article, something didn’t seem right about the word selection by the writer. A…“so-called jobs gap” left by the recession”… ? Please, someone explain that one away with reason and facts to support it. Tell me where the jobs that were once plentiful that provided the base for middle income families are located. If you research the writer’s background and the contributors to the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, the staff is riddled with Obama supporters, former Goldman Sachs officers, and former administration members, i.e., Peter Orzag.
No wonder pig lipstick stock is going through the roof.
Thanks, Bart. You always provide the necessary insight to my ramblings.
As for the closing of embassies Bryan cites — well, the only thing to say is to cite the cliche: The terrorists win…
Seems to me the better approach would be to evacuate dependents, and send in more Marines…
But then, I don’t know the nature of the expected attacks. If they’ve dug tunnels under the embassies and filled them with explosives, maybe shutting down is the right approach. But if they’re planning a frontal assault, why not just be ready for them?
Maybe we just don’t know WHAT form the attacks would take. That’s highly probable…
Let them “win”. Stop sending our resources to places that don’t want us. And if they ever actually threaten us on our soil, respond with full force.
Or maybe we are a bit jumpy, after the Bengazi Massacre.
Digging tunnels and filling them with explosives? Sounds like the “Guy Fawkes” method.
Remember, remember the fourth of August, gunpowder treason and plot.
Nope, doesn’t have a nice ring to it.
I guess I think along those lines, being Catholic.
If you’ll recall, Lt. Col. Henry Pleasants had a similar idea, outside of Petersburg, in 1864…
I wonder if Obama is ever going to let imprisoned filmmaker “Sam Bacile” A.K.A. Nakoula Nakoula out of jail?
Why should he? After all, his film that had audiences lined up around blocks in major cities across America is to blame for the unrest in Egypt and Libya. Need to keep a dangerous criminal like Nakoula behind bars where he can do no more harm.
The Republicans in congress continue to push for repeal of Obamacare without offering any alternative. Why don’t they support the good things in the law that will help insure more Americans while working to improve on the problem aspects of the law. Wouldn’t that be far more constructive than grandstanding with 40 doomed votes to repeal? It seems obvious that going back to the failed system that gave us 7.5% annual increases in the cost of healthcare (compared to 3.5% now) while giving us among the lowest life expectancies in the developed world is a non-starter. I would say to my conservative and libertarian friends offer something better rather than blather on with all the naysaying.
Brad, I don’t comment often but I am a faithful reader of your site. More often than not I agree with you. One thing I would like to suggest, however…… I wish you would give a heavier emphasis to local issues. Often I will come to your website expecting to see something about a local issue or event and there is nothing.
Leon, I accept service on that. I think it’s sound and relevant criticism.
A couple of things have happened to my blog over time that have pulled me — too far — away from local:
— When I founded the blog, it was partly because I had SO much material on local issues (defined as South Carolina broadly, and metro Columbia specifically) that I wanted a place to share more of that material. I had newsmakers coming in to meet with me constantly, and most of what came up in those meetings didn’t make it into editorials and columns in the paper. I wanted a place to share that stuff, both for the greater edification of readers and also to show them that our understanding of issues was based on a LOT more than the actual facts and arguments stated in the paper. It was a way of showing people the rest of the iceberg — or at least, a greater portion of the iceberg (it would have been impossible in a 24-hour day to write about all of it). But now, my day job is working with a marketing firm, and I don’t have that wealth of new, original material — material you can’t get elsewhere — running through my fingers. That has cut back on local posts.
— Secondly, I took a cue from my readers, over time. I would lay out all these pearls (to my mind) before my readers, and I very seldom got much engagement from them — especially on the metro stuff. I’d set out something on a metro issue, and it would just sit there, which would make me question the time I’d spent putting it out there. So gradually, y’all trained me to give you what it seemed you wanted — South Carolina, national and international.
BUT, on that second point — I’ve noticed an encouraging trend the other way in recent months, and maybe for longer than that. There seems to be more interest in local, even hyperlocal. And I need to respond better to that.
No, I don’t have the same stream of stuff crossing my desk that I did at the paper, but I do have access to a lot more than I’m blogging about. So there’s plenty of room to do more with local. I will make the effort to do so.
I for one like both the local and the national stuff, but I have a preference for the local! If the NYT’s sale of the Boston Globe is any indication, we should be able to recover enough change from my couch cushions to purchase The State from McClatchy, and reinstall Brad as editor… if he’d even take the job.
NY Times turned down $300 million for The Boston Globe a couple years ago and now sold it for $70 million but still owe $100 million in pension liabilities. So essentially they sold it for negative $30 million dollars.
The whole concept of delivering a hardcopy newspaper to people should be abandoned as an unsustainable business model.
I’m paying $20 a year now for Andrew Sullivan’s website. I’d pay about $50 (no more) for The State if the content included all the Gamecock news and there was more investigative reporting, better local sports, more diverse opinion pieces presented more frequently. So I guess I’m saying I wouldn’t pay for The State. As someone who travels around the country and reads local papers, The State doesn’t measure up very well in terms of content.
I read The State, on paper, because I can only get the level of local news coverage they have, there. I want to support the reporters and others who struggle to provide it, under ever worsening conditions. The Free Times does amazing reporting, but they only publish once a week, and only a few articles then. The Star, meh…and not available anywhere I go regularly any more.
If we who can afford to support the paper don’t do so, it will fail…..and it provides a valuable resource. Cindi Scoppe, for one, deserves the Order of the Palmetto!
I cancelled my subscription when they continually advocated for things I was in opposition to. While I agree that having a local news daily is a valuable community asset, I did not feel obliged to support their activities, since their advocacy ran directly counter to my wallet. That’s the way the cookie crumbles though, if you drive away your subscriber base, you won’t make money.
Exactly, Silence. I should pay for a paper that continually supported more taxes and candidates who don’t match my beliefs?
I think a good question that Brad may know the answer to is what percentage of the operating expenses for The State go toward the creation and distribution of hardcopy newspapers? Also consider the energy savings that would come from eliminating that process that is going to happen anyway within a decade.
My opinion on the opinion page is that they don’t write enough nor often enough. It’s hard to fathom in this day that several hundred words a couple times a week is sufficient output. The quantity of the output and the format (video, blog, twitter, columns) should have been multiplied several times over the past decade.
And precisely because of the things that Cindi has done to earn the Order of the Palmetto, she won’t get it.
THAT is the way the cookie crumbles — as opposed to the way Silence thinks it does. He’s confused about the source of newspapers’ financial troubles…
To answer Doug’s question, “what percentage of the operating expenses for The State go toward the creation and distribution of hardcopy newspapers?”…
A huge portion. I can’t put a number on it, but basically newspapers historically have had two huge expense categories that dwarf everything else — personnel and production (paper, ink, the costs of maintaining and running the presses, etc.). Say around 40 percent of total costs for each of those categories…
Newspapers have cut way, way back on both categories, but they’ve cut everything else they could, too, so those things are probably still by far the biggest expenses.
Here’s the thing that’s counterintuitive for most laypeople… They wonder why newspapers don’t just quit producing the paper product. Here’s why…
Newspapers (whether they’re delivered on paper or not) can’t make enough money from the online product to support a newsroom and the other expenses involved in providing a product worth buying. Print ads remain (or remained when I got booted out of the position in which I got regular briefings on the subject) far more profitable than online ads. Even though there are fewer of them, print still provides a huge portion of the revenue — a portion the organizations can’t survive without.
A newspaper like The State could quit printing a paper product tomorrow and immediately experience a huge savings in production cost — basically, eliminate virtually ALL production AND delivery costs. But here’s what would happen — first, the revenue loss would be proportionally just as great, if not greater. Second, some low-cost entity out there would start a daily print product just to grab that money suddenly left on the table.
A lot of people think that the Web is some sort of terrible tragedy for newspapers because the technology drives newsPAPERs out of business, makes them obsolete. Actually, the Web should be the greatest thing that ever happened to newspapers from an editorial and costs standpoint — finally, editors can hit SEND on a story and have it go straight to readers, rather than going through a 19th-century manufacturing and delivery process first; and you eliminate close to half your costs.
But that reckons without the business model. It’s the business model — a journalistic enterprise supported by a separate and unrelated set of highly profitable transactions called print advertising — that has collapsed. And no one, but no one, has figured out how to pay for keeping the newsgathering and reporting mechanism going at the previous level.
Readers dropping their subscriptions because they don’t like an editorial stance? That’s chump change, and has always been a minor factor in newspaper publishing. The collapse of the business model is what has eviscerated metropolitan daily newspapers.
But aren’t the ad rates based on number of subscribers? I can get an ad in the print copy of the Blythewood Chronicle for far less than the same ad in The State, right?
“Second, some low-cost entity out there would start a daily print product just to grab that money suddenly left on the table.”
I doubt it. The cost of starting the business and setting up the distribution would be significant compared to the ever shrinking base of subscribers. It is not a business model with any hope for growth. The State survives only because it would cost too much for someone else to do it right now. But three years from now, there will be fewer subscribers. Ten years from now, it will not be enough to sustain hardcopy.
Here’s a great graph showing the decline in ad revenues by major categories over the past decade. “Other” advertising appears to be the last refuge for newspapers as real estate, autos, and job ads have dropped off (and they aren’t coming back).
http://stateofthemedia.org/files/2012/03/9-Newspaper-Other-Classified-Ads-More-Stable-Than-Auto-Real-Estate-and-Recruitment.png
Jeff Bezo’s letter to Washington Post employees strikes the perfect tone, I think.
“There will of course be change at The Post over the coming years. That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment. Our touchstone will be readers, understanding what they care about – government, local leaders, restaurant openings, scout troops, businesses, charities, governors, sports – and working backwards from there. I’m excited and optimistic about the opportunity for invention.”
http://news.yahoo.com/washington-post-sold-to-amazon-com-founder-jeff-bezos-for–250-million-205835682.html
Back to Leon’s original point…
I defend myself somewhat by pointing to the fodder available to me for local news discussions.
Since I’m no longer employed in journalism, I’m dependent on other media for headlines and coverage about which to comment. But most times that I go to local media in search of good topics — as I did today after Leon’s complaint, determined to remedy the situation quickly — I’m faced with headlines such as these:
— “Two accused of sex trafficking children denied bond”
— “Duo accused of stealing $3,800 in cell phones”
— “Was Irmo bookie’s wife fifth member of ring?”
— “Filming underway for season two of ‘Myrtle Manor’”
These stories simply do not suggest serious policy discussions. I mean, I think we’re all against sex trafficking children, so where’s the debate?
I’m not sure what “Myrtle Manor” is, but I’m almost positive I don’t want to know.
And if I never hear another word about the bookie/murder case, I can die happy. Or at least, less unhappy than if The State keeps writing about it…
The Irmo bookie case is interesting to the lawyers among us, since they need five co-conspirators to make a federal case, and he killed two of the possibilities. Capnerhurst was clearly a part of the enterprise, but was Tammy? Can the prosecution submit the murdered wife’s budgeting notes as evidence she was in on it, or is it hearsay?
I submit that the fact of the notes, not the amounts they contain, are relevant. Hearsay is only a problem when the statement is submitted to prove the truth of the matter contained in it.
To further underline my point, here are the top four stories at this moment at thestate.com:
The Dog Days are certainly upon us.
It’s a shame that there’s nothing good going on in the local news.
How about:
Japan launches aircraft carrier http://bit.ly/172ewZO
And python kills two in Canada: http://bit.ly/16sgC5d
Just as long as they don’t sail it near Midway…
And if they go near Pearl, our man Burl just might have to launch his warplanes in retaliation…
And….Sydney Leathers fulfills everyone’s expectations and shoots a porn film (safe for work because not enough eye bleach in the world)
http://tinyurl.com/phmzqhb
i mean the link is safe for work
blech.
Brad, I read the paper today, too, and I agree that there is not much in it worth discussing. However, there usually is not a lot in Monday’s paper anyway. I think the idea of an open thread such as this is a good one. Different topics will be discussed and maybe a couple of them will generate some interest. You will also be able to gauge what folks here are interested in discussing.