Monthly Archives: March 2011

I Just Got Push Polled in the Coral Gables Election

We’re having an unusually contested election in Coral Gables this April 12th, and the glossy fliers for the Mayor’s race have been streaming into the house. I’ve been meaning to post something about how frustratingly vacuous these mailers are, making the candidates almost indistinguishable on policy. At least they don’t have identical biographies.

But that’s for another day perhaps. Just now I got a call from a supposed survey that devolved into a push poll. After some standard questions about who I was supporting in the Mayor’s race (even though I’m somewhat OK with the incumbent Mayor, I’m undecided because I could be more OK and I don’t know enough about the candidates), and who I supported in the District 4 City Council race, the fun began.

The candidates are Rene Alvarez, Jackson Rip Holmes, Richard Martin, Frank Quesada, Brad Rosenblatt and Gonzalo Sanabria.  I have no idea who I will vote for, although I know two candidates I will vote against: Gonzalo Sanabria, who seems to represent almost everything rotten about local politics (and thus must be presumed to be the favorite to win?) and Jackson Rip Holmes, whom the Miami Herald described as follows:

On Jan. 15, 1988, Holmes was convicted of threatening Jeb Bush, who was under the protection of the U.S. Secret Service when his father, George H.W. Bush, was vice president. He served three years in federal prison and was released on Sept. 16, 1991, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Holmes said his civil rights were restored in Connecticut in 1994.

But back to the slimy “poll”.  After the basic question about whether I support any of the candidates, I got another standard-seeming question about what I think the top issue facing the city is (I’m paraphrasing the choices below because I don’t type as fast as the guy talked):

My choices were:

  • City infrastructure
  • Controlling growth
  • Crime
  • Cutting city services to save money
  • Ethics in government
  • Improving the economy and jobs
  • Reviving parks and green spaces
  • Solving traffic congestion
  • Reducing taxes
  • Cutting wasteful spending
  • Cutting excessive payments to unionized workers
  • Improving education

By now I’m not happy with the list. But I picked the last one.

There were then a few questions about the Biltmore Hotel (which owes the city massive back payments). (Again, a paraphrase follows.)

  • How strongly do I feel that the Biltmore should pay back the money it owes?
  • Do I agree that because the Biltmore is so important to the local economy, and because the ‘managers’ of the Biltmore have done such a great job restoring and improving it, and because they’ve only fallen behind on payments because the economy is so bad, that the City should do everything it can to cut them a break.

[Although I agree that forcing the Biltmore to close would be bad for Coral Gables, I don’t agree that the City should enter into negotiations with them in a supine position.  So I tell the guy that I don’t agree with the second question.]

Then it gets better: If I learned any of the following things about a candidate, would it make me more or less likely to vote for the candidate:

  • Candidate is openly gay and living with gay partner [I said this was a plus]
  • [I think I missed one – maybe something about not voting in local elections?]
  • Candidate was endorsed by former Vice Mayor Dorothy Thompson

But wait! Now it gets even pushier:

If I learned that any of the following statements about Gonzalo Sanabria were true, would it make me more or less likely to vote for him (again, these are paraphrased):

  • As member of the Coral Gables Historical Preservation Board, he missed more than 25% of the meetings
  • He spent over 100K of his own money running unsuccessfully in what observers called “the nastiest local election ever”
  • In 12 years as a resident he only voted once in a city election
  • As member of the Miami-Dade Planning Advisory Board he voted at least five times to move the UDB farther west into the Everglades

[I actually suspect these are all true, by the way.  Certainly the last one alone is not only likely true, but plenty of reason to vote against Gonzalo Sanabria.]

Then, on to the grand finale — If I learned that any of these statements about Brad Rosenblatt were true, would it make me more or less likely to vote for him:

  • He has a history of financial problems including an IRS lien for payroll taxes and filed for bankruptcy
  • He was arrested for embezzlement and grand larceny and pleaded no contest

After that I got asked again who I would vote for, but I was still undecided.

Here’s what I’d like to know

  1. Who paid for this survey (the worker drone reading the questions professed to have no idea)?
  2. Am I right in suspecting that the questions about Brad Rosenblatt are just fictions designed to smear him?  If so, should he get my vote out of sympathy for this smear job?
  3. Is this going to be the dirtiest campaign in Coral Gables history?

Meanwhile, I have to decide how to vote in the County recall election, which is in less than two weeks, and in which I have to vote early because I’ll be out of town on election day.  I was all set to vote not to recall Mayor Carlos Alvarez (alas, I don’t get to recall the very recallable Natacha Seijas).  But then I saw the story about the Mayor using county bus drivers to campaign for him — while on the county payroll.    (The Herald followup story has the Mayor running from the issue as fast as possible.)  So now I’m on the fence about that too.

UPDATE (3/8/11): See my coffee/interview with Gonzalo Sanabria.

Posted in Coral Gables | 31 Comments

Budget Cuts Will Have a Heavy Cost on Employment and Jobs

Econbrowser: Crowding Out Watch, Updated:

Another implication of having interest rates at zero (at least the five year real) is that if fiscal policy is made more contractionary (as in some recent plans), then the contractionary impact should be large (this is just the mirror image of fiscal policy effectiveness in a liquidity trap).

In English that means because interest rates are so law (zero fed funds rate), and because expected inflation is so low (despite scare stories here and there), and because there is no evidence of “crowding out” (preference for federal debt making private debt/spending less attractive, thus harming the economy), when government fiscal policy contracts (spends less), the economy takes it on the chin.

But Keynes was a foreign pinko, so never mind the data.

Posted in Econ & Money | Comments Off on Budget Cuts Will Have a Heavy Cost on Employment and Jobs

The Washington Post Says It has an Ombudsman

How, I wondered, could I get it so wrong, sending an email to an ombudsman who had left the Post? Indeed, if I had just read his last column Can The Post regain its legacy of excellence? I’d have seen him saying it was his swan song.

But in fact, the reason I got it wrong is … I relied on the Washington Post. On the Opinions page, the sidebar reads as follows:

Ombudsman

Andrew Alexander serves as The Post’s internal critic and reader representative. Read his blog and his latest column. Or e-mail him.

There’s a moral there somewhere, and I’m sure Brad DeLong knows what it is.

Update: Hey, guess what — according to a Feb. 23 item on WashPost PR: a tumblelog,

The Washington Post today announced that Patrick Pexton will become the news organization’s ombudsman. Formerly deputy editor for National Journal, Pexton’s two-year term with The Post begins March 1.

Maybe someone should tell the Washington Post?

Posted in The Media | 2 Comments

We Write Letters (to the WashPo Ombudsman)

Just sent this to the Washington Post’s Ombudsman:

Today’s lead editorial on the Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft case blindly repeats a piece of government propaganda that has been decisively falsified in the court proceedings of that very case.

High Court Should Overturn Kidd v. Ashcroft” begins like this:

ABDULLAH AL-KIDD was arrested at Dulles International Airport in 2003 after purchasing a one-way, first-class ticket to Saudi Arabia.

In fact, testimony and subpoenaed airline records establish that Al-Kidd had a round-trip coach ticket. The government’s false statement — originally made to the court to justify arresting him — misled the court and it is this very pattern of government misrepresentations that played a significant role in the judicial turn against immunity which the Post (in my opinion wrongly) critiques. The Post’s error is no mere detail but serves as means of obfuscating — avoiding — the central facts that undermine the argument the Post wishes to make.

I guess if you use fake facts it’s easier to write editorials in favor of unlimited and un-accountable state power to detain US citizens (AP: “Over the next 16 days he would be strip-searched repeatedly, left naked in a jail cell and shower for more than 90 minutes in view of other men and women, routinely transported in handcuffs and leg irons, and kept with people who had been convicted of violent crimes. On a long trip between jails, a federal marshal refused to unlock al-Kidd’s chains so he could use the bathroom.”).

No mere factual correction can fix this problem since that would fail to make clear that the factual change undercuts the entire logic of the editorial, but I have never yet seen a correction which makes such an admission, and don’t have much hope here.

The question for you, though, is this: how could the Post allow someone to write an editorial on such an important matter who isn’t even aware of one of the better-known facts of the case? And who doesn’t then check the facts. Or read the AP feed on the subject (2/27/11) which in addition to summarizing the vile conditions of confinement in which the government held Al-Kidd states,

But the sworn statement the FBI submitted to justify the warrant had important errors and omissions. The $5,000 one-way, first-class seat that the agents said al-Kidd purchased was, in reality, a coach-class, round-trip ticket. The statement neglected to mention that al-Kidd had been cooperative or that he was a U.S. citizen with a wife and children who also were American.

In other words, the accurate facts were and are no secret: it almost takes work to avoid them.

And one more question for you: even as the Post preaches a doctrine of no-accountability for government officials who lie about and mistreat US citizens, does it practice a similar doctrine of non-accountability for editorialists who get basic, key, facts this badly wrong? Or will there be some internal sanction?

Update:

I got this auto-reply a little while later:

I will be out of the office starting 01/31/2011 and will not return until 12/31/2011.

Thanks for writing. My two year term as ombudsman has ended and a replacement will be named soon. In the meantime, if you have questions or concerns about news coverage, I’d suggest you e-mail or call the appropriate department in the newsroom. Among them:

Local: 202-334-7300 metro@washpost.com
National: 202-334-7410 national@washpost.com
Business: 202-334-7320 business@washpost.com
Sports: 202-334-7350 sports@washpost.com
Foreign: 202-334-7400 foreign@washpost.com
Style: 202-334-7535 style@washpost.com
Obituaries: 202-334-7389 newsobits@washpost.com
Book World: 202-334-7882 bookworld@washpost.com
Food: 202-334-7575 food@washpost.com
Health: 202-334-5031 health-science@washpost.com
Travel: 202-334-7750 travel@washpost.com
Photo/video: 202-334-7380
Graphics: 202-334-7380
Post Main Number: 202-334-6000

A variety of other contact information, including e-mail links to reporters and editors, is provided through this page on The Post’s Web site: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/contactus/index.html

Letters to the Editor should be addressed to: letters@washpost.com

For circulation or delivery issues, call the subscriber services department at 202-334-6100, or homedelivery@washpost.com

-Andy Alexander

So it looks as if the Post has been Ombudsless for a month (suggesting that filling the job is not a priority, or perhaps no one good wants to touch the job with a ten foot pole). And also that the Obmudsman role doesn’t extend to editorials. I don’t know that there’s much point in sending this in as a letter to the Editor. They’ll just chop it to bits even if they run it.

Update 2: More on the Post and Ombudspersons at The Washington Post Says It has an Ombudsman.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law, National Security, The Media | 1 Comment

Guilty as Charged

Seth Finkelstein is cross with people like me:

I’m basically completely unable to get the law/policy types to realize the enormous extent to which Wikipedia is de facto subsidized by Google. Here, not only is Wikipedia getting yet another boost, but some of its arguable commercial competitors are being killed! It’s not because Wikipedia has some magic itself, in "community" or "civility", or whatever huckerism is being hyped. Rather, it has the algorithm support of Google.

I accept this is true. So?

Seth’s complaints seem to be (1) that Google’s ranking algorithms are not neutral; (2) that they tend to favor large corporate aggregator sites over blogs like his or mine; (3) that there is a real chance that this favoritism is driven by a self-dealing agenda, since Google owns sites like YouTube that do well off point 2, and even if that isn’t what drives it, we should worry about it; (4) that it is wrong to excuse Google’s choices on the grounds that true search neutrality is impossible, because neutrality might be possible if we worked harder on the problem.

Of these, I guess I accept that (1) is true. And (2) may be true, but I’m ready to believe that it satisfies consumer demand. So barring new evidence, I am only concerned about (3), that is the possibility of self-dealing and self-favoritism. For which we don’t yet have much evidence, although it pays to be vigilant. As for (4), well, Seth has me dead to rights.

And I still don’t see why Google’s favoring of Wikipedia should bother me.

Posted in Internet, Law: Internet Law | 5 Comments