Sunday, October 26, 2003

The News & Record's Denise Becker has a devastating article today about the ripple effect of lost manufacturing jobs. Textiles, furniture, and other regional staples are reeling, and so is the surrounding service economy. "That the local manufacturing sector has taken a beating is old news. What's coming into focus in 2003 is what economists call a "reverse multiplier effect," one that suggests that 1 to 1.5 additional non-manufacturing jobs are lost for each manufacturing job lost." The N&R has really been on its investigative game lately, including strong coverage of the Michael King saga and the secret hockey deal. I know almost nothing about what goes on inside the big building on East Market St., but clearly something good is happening there. 4:31:19 PM    comment []

Josh Marshall is tyring to fund a trip to New Hampshire to provide weblog coverage of the run-up to the primary. I'm going to send a few bucks his way, because I know he'll be sending back some worthwhile coverage. 4:09:50 PM    comment []

Halley: "There are some good things to be said for divorce, but I don't think it's easy to remember them when you are going through it." 3:51:50 PM    comment []

New York Times: "And just like that, four demonstrators were dead, a fifth was dying and 10 were wounded...Hostages were taken in Iran the next day, and the Greensboro shooting fell off the front page." 12:30:13 PM    comment []

So we finally got around to watching Bowling for Columbine last night. Yeah, it's a Michael Moore movie alright. He's tendentious and sometimes annoying. But to all the people who try to deny the film's importance by pointing to gaffes like the phony funding-the-Taliban stat Moore uses, I want to say: answer the freaking question Moore asks in the movie. Why do Americans kill each other so damn often with guns? (Full disclosure: I like guns and just signed up to go on the shooting trip with Elijah's Boy Scout troop.) The reaction to the movie reminds me of many of the critiques I read of Paul Krugman, focusing on this thing he got wrong or that rhetorical overkill in which he indulged -- those would-be Fiskings leave me wondering, yeah, OK, you don't like Krugman, you just scored a point  on him...but answer the freaking question he asks over and over again: is the US in serious trouble if we continue with our current economic policies? (Search here for "Columbine" and "Krugman.") Killing the messenger is what people do when they can't handle the message. Sometimes the messenger is obnoxious. But now you've put him in his place, what about the message? 12:21:22 PM    comment []

This conversation tells us something about a political campaign at work, and the role of weblogs in it. Elizabeth Edwards commented here that comments on her husband's campaign blog serve to inform him about people's real concerns. I ask for an example. She replies with a specific example about the Earned Income Tax Credit that led to Edwards refocusing on the issue: "Scott was on top of it and let us know through the blog, and the criticism that John had expressed earlier but that had been dropped from more recent speeches has been reinserted... "John and I actually read the blog. When there is something there he finds useful or intriguing, he picks it up. If more research is needed, it goes to Robert Gordon's policy operation. If not, it can got straight into his speech or his answers to questions." 11:57:09 AM    comment []