1115.org

The title of the post is in the style of academic research studies. It’s not a generally accepted practice for such a long title to be followed by a subtitle. But if I were inclined to disregard such niceties, the subtitle would be “Robbing The Buggers Blind”.

(1)
Regular readers know what a numbers nerd I can be. ThinkProgress has brought together some numbers generated by The Institute for Policy Studies:

According to IPS, American CEOs make 263 times the average compensation for American workers, up from the 30 to 1 ratio in the 1970s. For comparison, the average compensation of a Japanese CEO is less than one-sixth that of their American counterpart and 16 times more than the average Japanese worker.

That disparity between the U.S. ratio of 263-to-1 and the Japanese ratio of 16-to-1 is obscene enough. Especially to American workers who “are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s.”

But slice-and-dice the numbers and there’s another disquieting fact. For every dollar that American workers make, American CEOs take home $263. Japanese CEOs take home less than one-sixth of that. One-sixth of $263 is $43.83; let’s round that down to $43. The average Japanese worker makes one-sixteenth of that, which is $2.69.

In other words, the average Japanese worker makes more than two-and-a-half times what the average American worker makes.

And it’s not only American workers who are getting screwed by runaway CEO compensation:

In fact, a study released late last year by researchers Raghavendra Rau and Huseyin Gulen of Purdue University and Michael J. Cooper of the University of Utah that surveyed the performance of 1,500 companies between 1994 and 2006 found that “lavish CEO compensation may in fact undermine shareholder wealth.” The researchers concluded that “the 10 percent of companies with the most highly paid CEOs earned unusually low returns in both the near- and long-term.”

Fancy that! If your board members approve a compensation contract for you which amounts to letting you rob your company blind, your stockholders also end up getting screwed. (Of course, you, in turn, get to sit on their boards, and/or other boards, and help to keep on spreading what could and should have been stockholder wealth to top executives. And nobody ever has to waste a single dollar out of the tens of millions they receive each year buying a back-scratcher.)

(2)
The results of that research study probably deserve some annotation. The findings are not saying that when the market learns company X will pay its CEO an exorbitant salary, its stock price takes a hit. Those “unusually low returns in both the near- and long-term” represent what happens to the stock price after the market has digested the initial news. In other words, if you pick a company with a very highly paid CEO and look at its performance after the compensation contract is already in place, then, on average its stock under-performs each year for several years. Clearly, the one thing the exorbitant salaries are not doing is motivating CEOs to do a better job for stockholders.

The interesting thing is that there are essentially two competing explanations for supersized CEO compensation. The standard rationale advanced by supporters is that it creates stockholder wealth by motivating CEOs. The argument made by opponents is the expropriation-by-mutual-backscratching argument that can be labeled the “21st Century Robber Baron Hypothesis”.

One of these explanations doesn’t appear to be true.

This part of President Obama’s Oval Office address was clearly aimed at Bush:

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits.

But there’s no getting away from the fact that these statements apply equally to the first two years of the Obama administration.

If it hurts the economy to finance these huge war expenditures by borrowing, then why has Obama made exactly zero efforts to do anything about it? I don’t see how it’s a defense to say “But Bush started it!” Maybe, but Obama cheerfully continued it. As if there was no choice but to do so. And, of course, the whole point of that quote from his speech is that there was always a choice. There was a choice for Bush. And there was a choice for Obama. And Obama made the same choice as Bush. Even though he’s been criticizing Bush’s choice for the last three years.

I really think that Obama should have proposed a “Bush’s Wars” tax increase early in 2009. Perhaps a temporary increase, to be phased out as the wars wound down.

Clearly, the wars needed to be paid for. And there was no reason for Obama to take the political heat for this necessity. But it really shouldn’t have been too difficult — even for the hapless Democrats — to hang this fairly and squarely around Bush’s neck.

I’m not saying the Republicans — together with the elements of the Democratic Party who have proven time and again that they are easily intimidated by Republican rhetoric — would have actually allowed the tax increase to go through. But doesn’t Obama’s consistent rhetoric on the irresponsibility of funding these two wars by borrowing require that he should at least have tried?

And wouldn’t he have won politically even by losing?

How’s this for most succinct summation of last night’s Oval Office address?

President Obama’s Oval Office address was impressive and perplexing. Politically, I liked the clever pivot to the domestic economy, but he left me utterly confused about the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we to continue to spend trillions supposedly building “democracy” in those nations or not? He still has not defined what success means. If we’re just getting the hell out of those countries, then say say so and do so. But as always, Obama seems to be trying to split the difference between the irreconcilable. That is perhaps his greatest strength — or weakness.

It might be a strength if he had actually managed to get anywhere trying to do this. (Not just a strength, actually, but a miracle.) But, of course, he hasn’t. Because that’s what the word “irreconcilable” means, after all.

If you think you might have some money left over in your Christmas gift budget this year, would you please consider making an early Christmas gift to the Associated Press? They are badly in need of some dictionaries.

It is currently the consensus of their headline writers and editors that the word attuned means “holding strong opinions”. (Perhaps some dictionaries will attune them to the real meaning of words, which would be a step up from just having strong opinions about them.)

This was the headline: “AP-GfK Poll: Most attuned voters tilt toward GOP“.

And this is what it’s attached to:

Americans with the strongest opinions about the country’s most divisive issues are largely unhappy with how President Barack Obama is handling them, an ominous sign for Democrats hoping to retain control of Congress in the fall elections.
[...]
In another danger sign for Democrats, most Americans extremely concerned about 10 of the issues say they will vote for the Republican candidate in their local House race. Only those highly interested in the environment lean toward the Democrats.

What is hilarious is that the people whom the headline describes as “most attuned” are described in the story as “highly opinionated”.

CNN had this headline Saturday morning, before Glenn Beck’s thoroughly misguided rally at the Lincoln Memorial: “Glenn Beck rally plans cause a stir“.

Nobody was saying afterward that the rally itself had caused much of a stir.

This, incidentally, was the modest prediction made by the rally’s low-key (and entirely sane) architect-in-chief:

What’s going to happen there will raise the hair on your arms. What’s going to happen there you will never, ever forget and I promise you, then next day when you read about it – if the press covers it – you will say “oh my gosh, I wish I would have been there.” This will go into the history book.

This is Divine Providence. This is the Lord’s hand at work. This is a miracle.

(It is obviously a miracle that so many people take such an obvious lunatic so seriously, but let’s return to the main theme.)

Attendance was certainly much less than the organizers and promoters had claimed to expect.

When they applied to the National Park Service for a permit, the organizers said 300,000 people were expected to attend.

Many people are going around saying that Beck had predicted an attendance of 100,000 at his rally, but this is what he said in the previously quoted radio interview:

You can feel the presence of the Lord. I mean, the Spirit is so strong. When you two hundred, three hundred, five hundred thousand people on the Mall in that space right there between Washington and Lincoln with the Reflecting Poll – a spiritual space in our nation – the Spirit of the Lord is going to be unleashed like I think you’ve never felt it before

The CEO of FreedomWorks, a key supporter, also said on ABC News that he expected up to half a million people to attend:

During an appearance on ABC News’s “Top Line,” Freedomworks (sic) CEO Matt Kibbe weighed in on the Glenn Beck “Restoring Honor” rally slated for Saturday.

“As far as I can tell, there’s going to be hundreds of thousands of people tomorrow,” Kibbe said. … Kibbe went on to predict that there would be 400,000 to 500,000 people in attendance — as many as, if not more than, the number of people estimated to have attended Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have A Dream Speech.”

Tea Party activists were also enthusiastic in their probable-attendance hype:

Some “tea party” activists say the event, at which former Alaska governor Sarah Palin is also scheduled to speak, will have a greater impact than last September’s “9/12″ march along Pennsylvania Avenue.
[...]
Conservative activists, meanwhile, promise that the rally will show their unity and voice, as last year’s 9/12 event did. Jamie Radtke, founder of the Federation of Virginia Tea Party Patriots, predicted an event as much as twice as large as last year’s, based on the number of buses that local tea party organizers have chartered (note: The Fire Department estimate of attendance at last year’s rally was 60,000 to 70,000. Unhinged conservative bloggers claimed attendance of 2,000,000. It’s probably a safe bet that Jamie Radtke doesn’t believe the Fire Department estimate and was trying to predict attendance much greater than 140,000.). The Richmond Tea Party alone is sending 15 buses – up from seven last year, she said.

Marcus Kindley, an organizer for Americans for Prosperity in Greensboro, N.C., predicted a similar showing from his region. “There’s a buildup of energy out here of people frustrated because they don’t think Washington’s listening,” Kindley said. “At 9/12, it was a wonderful coming together of people who felt like their voices weren’t being heard. And I think the reason so many more are coming this year is because our voices still aren’t being heard.”

Beck, the third-highest-rated radio personality, has promoted the event relentlessly to his enormous audience. FreedomWorks, the tea party group that staged 9/12, is lending its organizational muscle and grass-roots network.

The only objective estimate of the attendance at Saturday’s rally puts the actual attendance at 78,000 to 96,000:

An estimated 87,000 people attended a rally organized by talk-radio host and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck Saturday in Washington, according to a crowd estimate commissioned by CBS News.

The company AirPhotosLive.com based the attendance on aerial pictures it took over the rally, which stretched from in front of the Lincoln Memorial along the Reflecting Pool to the Washington Monument. Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin spoke at the rally.
[...]
AirPhotosLive.com gave its estimate a margin of error of 9,000, meaning between 78,000 and 96,000 people attended the rally. The photos used to make the estimate were taken at noon Saturday, which is when the company estimated was the rally’s high point.

There doesn’t seem to have been any noticeable increase in America’s honor. I have yet to meet anyone who has said: “Oh my gosh, I wish I would have been there.” And if the Spirit of the Lord was unleashed, nobody seems to have felt it yet.

But perhaps we need to give it a few more days?

(1)
The Washington Post has a report alleging that:

…some senior Democrats are having second thoughts about raising taxes on the nation’s wealthiest families and are pressing party leaders to consider extending the full array of Bush administration tax cuts, at least through next year.

Here’s the rationale put forward (by the WP, I should point out, not by any Democrats the WP is able to cite):

But a growing cadre of Democrats – alarmed by evidence that the recovery is losing steam and fearful of wounding conservative Democrats in a tough election year – are advocating a plan that would permanently extend tax cuts benefiting the middle class while renewing breaks for the wealthy through 2011, senior Democratic aides said.

That idea has long appealed to some conservative Democrats in both chambers, who argue that Congress should not raise anyone’s taxes until the economy is more stable. But Democrats said it has gained momentum since economist Mark Zandi, a key adviser to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), adopted that view during a presentation at a Democratic issues conference in California in mid-August.

Zandi, an adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), later played an important role in designing Obama’s economic stimulus package, enacted by Congress last year.

In an interview, Zandi said he supports a one-year extension of tax cuts for the wealthy – with the cuts phased out starting in 2012 – in part because election-year anxiety about budget deficits is preventing Congress from approving additional stimulus in any other form. He acknowledged that tax cuts for the rich tend not to be an effective way to pump money into the economy because they tend to save it rather than spend it.

“Normally, I would firmly agree that raising taxes on people who make over $250,000 a year would not make a meaningful difference in the way they spend money. But I worry that these aren’t normal times and that even this income group may be sensitive,” Zandi said, noting that the top 3 percent of households account for a quarter of all personal spending.

“With 9.5 percent unemployment – which is clearly going to move higher – raising taxes is a gamble that is unnecessary,” he said.

Of course, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of the population will add an extra $680 billion to the deficit. It will do diddly-squat to stimulate the economy.

More than half of the $680 billion will go to “the richest 120,000 people in the country.” That’s the richest 0.1% of Americans; “the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year”. And they would pick up a cool $300,000 each year. These rich folk aren’t exactly going to go out and rush to spend their extra tax savings. And to have them sitting there in their counting-houses, counting out their money, doesn’t exactly stimulate the economy.

So it doesn’t matter how poor a shape the economy is in (and there’s no doubt that it’s in very poor shape; modest economic growth may once again give way to small contractions). Extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy serves absolutely no useful economic purpose. In other words, Mark Zandi is talking absolute ox-crap.

The only possible reason for extending the tax cuts for the wealthy is that, if you don’t, then Republicans are going to go around fulminating about how Democrats are jeopardizing the fragile recovery by raising taxes. It’s not an economic argument, it’s a political one. Zandi is being disingenuous and dishonest pretending it’s an economic argument. The WP is being disingenuous and dishonest by peddling Zandi’s argument as if it makes sense (the story was written by Lori Montgomery).

I take heart, though, from two things. The fact that the wealthy-tax-cuts are proposed to be extended for just one year seems to underline that even the proponents understand perfectly well that it’s a perfectly bad idea. And not one single Democrat of note was willing to go on record to the WP as supporting this totally stupid plan.

As Paul Krugman said the other day:

Or we’re told that it’s about helping the economy recover. But it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall.

No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy. Instead, as I said, it’s about a dysfunctional and corrupt political culture …

So far, the Obama administration is standing firm against this outrage. Let’s hope that it prevails in its fight. Otherwise, it will be hard not to lose all faith in America’s future.

(2)
Here’s just one little example of Zandi’s (and the WP’s) dishonesty on the subject:

In an interview, Zandi said he supports a one-year extension of tax cuts for the wealthy – with the cuts phased out starting in 2012 …

Zandi’s proposing just a one-year extension. Even though, by design, it lasts much longer than one year. Because at the end of one year, what you do is you start phasing it out. And somehow the WP never gets around to telling us how many years this one-year extension will actually last.

(It is, of course, not clear whether the unknown, unnamed “growing cadre of Democrats” that is “advocating a plan that would … (renew) breaks for the wealthy through 2011″ is supporting a true one-year extension or Zandi’s false one-year extension. It’s not clear because Lori Montgomery doesn’t make it clear. And maybe she doesn’t make it clear because there’s no way to do so without calling attention to Zandi’s dishonest little word game.)

(1)
There’s stupid, and then there’s stupid.

Mike Crapo, Republican senator from Idaho, has now left no doubt whatsoever how crushingly stupid he is. He wrote to the Congressional Budget Office with a question that must have perplexed him no end. Passing certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act was estimated to reduce the deficit by $455 billion over 10 years; what effect would repealing these provisions have on the deficit?

The CBO, with a straight face, spelled it out for him:

Finally, you asked what the net deficit impact would be if certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act that were estimated to generate net savings were eliminated—specifically, those which were originally estimated to generate a net reduction in mandatory outlays of $455 billion over the 2010–2019 period. The estimate of $455 billion mentioned in your letter represents the net effects of many provisions. Some of those provisions generated savings for Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and some generated costs. If those provisions were repealed, CBO estimates that there would be an increase in deficits similar to its original estimate of $455 billion in net savings over that period.

The CBO response makes it clear that Crapo knew the CBO had estimated the savings from passing the provisions to be $455 billion. And he was still having trouble figuring out the impact of repealing the provisions.

The Republican Party, of course, specializes in putting the craziest inmates in charge of the asylum. Crapo is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Healthcare.

(2)
In related news, Igor Volsky over at ThinkProgress’ Wonk Room displays an equally strong case of Crapo’s Syndrome, aggravated by an attack of reading incomprehension.

The CBO’s letter to Crapo said: “On balance, the two laws’ health care and revenue provisions are estimated to reduce the projected deficit in 2020 by $28 billion, and the education provisions of the Reconciliation Act are estimated to reduce the projected deficit in 2020 by $2 billion.”

Volsky somehow read that as saying that the deficit would be reduced by $30 billion over the next 10 years, instead of just in 2020.

And so he cheerfully banged out the following paragraph:

The Congressional Budget Office is out with a new letter saying that while the health care law could “reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” repealing it would increase the deficit by an estimated $455 billion…

It obviously never occurred to him that the reduction in the deficit from passing a given piece of legislation simply has to equal the increase in the deficit from repealing it.

 
*** Update, 12:55 p.m. ***

Interestingly, there is now an update to Volsky’s post. And no, it isn’t what you think. He still hasn’t realized his mistake. He’s just clearing up possible confusion on a different front:

To clarify, the $445 billion figure refers to the deficit increase if only the Medicare portions were repealed. Repealing the entire law would increase the deficit by some $140 billion.

I look forward with keen interest to seeing if Volsky corrects the foot-in-mouth. (And, if so, what kind of acknowledgment is made in the post of the correction.)

 
*** Update #2, 1:03 p.m. ***

Not one of Volsky’s finest days. The correction in his Update is, in fact, incorrect.

The $445 billion figure does not refer to “the deficit increase if only the Medicare portions were repealed.”

As the first quote in the post makes clear, the $445 billion figure refers to “certain provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act” that affect Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program”.

Maybe he’ll correct his correction?

 
*** Update #3, 1:09 p.m. ***

Volsky’s Update has now been revised to:

To clarify, the $445 billion figure refers to the deficit increase if only the Medicare portions were repealed. Repealing the entire law would increase the deficit by some $140 billion. Republicans however, are strong opponents of the Medicare cuts and sponsored a series of amendments that would have repealed them.

He still hasn’t caught either of his errors.

(And we already know, don’t we, that they don’t seem to have editors over at ThinkProgress.)

 
*** Update #4, 2:21 p.m. ***

It only just struck me that Volsky’s post starts with:

The Congressional Budget Office is out with a new letter saying that while the health care law could “reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years,” repealing it would increase the deficit by an estimated $455 billion…

He puts the incorrect statement — reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion over the next 10 years — in quotes. But that statement is nowhere in the letter.

Now that’s not exactly in the best practices handbook, is it?

 
*** Last and Final Update (I hope), 2:36 p.m. ***

It strikes me that Volsky’s Update (See my Update #3) is probably in need of some annotation. Here’s my sense of that it means. Volsky is saying that $30 billion and $445 billion are apples and oranges. He’s saying $30 billion is the savings from “the entire law” over 10 years, but $445 billion is the cost of repealing just the Medicare provision. So, according to him, the apples to apples comparison is that passing “the entire law” was projected to save $30 billion over 10 years, but repealing the “the entire law” is projected to cost $140 billion over 10 years.

 
*** Update #6, 3:22 p.m. ***

I finally decided to send the following email to Faiz Shakir, Vice President at the Center for American Progress and Editor-in-Chief of ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report:

Shouldn’t someone at ThinkProgress be deeply embarrassed by this: http://www.1115.org/2010/08/26/who-says-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-stupid-question/

Stay tuned.

 
*** Update #7, 4:22 p.m. ***

The following update has now been appended to the post:

The first sentence of this post, which relied on a Modern Health article, incorrectly said that the law would reduce the deficit by $30 billion over 10 years. It will reduce it by this amount in 2020. The CBO estimates that the law will produce “$143 billion in net budgetary savings over the 2010-2019 period.”

So Volsky relied on an article that he did not mention, cite or link to. That’s not in the best practices handbook either. (That incorrect statement in quotes that I referred to earlier is presumably from this article. They require a free subscription to access content, and I didn’t bother to sign up.)

Relying on an article that he did not mention, cite or link to, he made statements that are clearly seen to be untrue if you read the CBO letter. A letter Volsky did link to, but apparently didn’t read. (Insert “best practices handbook” comment of your own choice here.)

The first sentence of the post now reads:

The Congressional Budget Office is out with a new letter saying that while the health care law could reduce the projected budget deficit by $30 billion in 2020, repealing it would increase the deficit by an estimated $455 billion…

Which really doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense. It doesn’t clarify that the $455 billion is a 10-year figure (although that is eventually clear from the following quote). More importantly, the reader has no clue why a one-year saving from passing the law is being compared to the 10-year cost of repealing it.

(1)
Ken Mehlman, President Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and former chairman of the Republican National Committee, came out of the closet yesterday, and announced that he is gay.

He gave the scoop to Marc Ambinder, who duly wrote up a very sympathetic post. I don’t have any problem with that. I do have a problem, though, with the blatant dishonesty Ambinder displays in the second sentence of his post:

Ken Mehlman, President Bush’s campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.

Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview.

When a 44-year-old man announces he’s gay, one may well wonder what “fairly recently” means. Is Ambinder really saying Mehlman just discovered he’s gay? Did Mehlman really say that?

I guess that depends on your definition of “fairly recently”. Ambinder must be a poet, because he seems to have used a super-size dose of poetic license. Before you read further, you would do well to make sure you have nothing in your mouth.

What Mehlman said was:

It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life. Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I’ve told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they’ve been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that’s made me a happier and better person. It’s something I wish I had done years ago.

And:

I wish I was where I am today 20 years ago. The process of not being able to say who I am in public life was very difficult. No one else knew this except me. My family didn’t know. My friends didn’t know. Anyone who watched me knew I was a guy who was clearly uncomfortable with the topic.

Fairly recently, indeed!

(2)
I found this comment by Ed Gillespie, another former RNC chairman and “long-time friend of Mehlman”, to be utterly hilarious:

Gillespie acknowledged that the party had been inhospitable to gays in the past, and said that he hopes Mehlman’s decision to come out leads the party to be “more respectful and civil in our discourse” when it comes to gays.

So it was okay to be mean to gays when you were talking about Cheney’s daughter, but now that you’re also going to be talking about Ken Mehlman, suddenly everyone is going to be extra sensitive?

(3)
Amanda Terkel, who is “Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Managing Editor for ThinkProgress.org and The Progress Report at the Center for American Progress”, is now also writing for The Hufffington Post.

It’s a perfect mystery why. I challenge anyone to read her post about the Ambinder-Mehlman revelation, and explain to me why this deserves to be in The Hufffington Post. (Or anywhere at all, for that matter.)

She barely scraped up the energy to append one sentence at the front-end and two at the back-end of a short quote from Ambinder’s post. Her post says “First Posted: 08-25-10 06:08 PM … Updated: 08-25-10 06:12 PM”.

Really? One of those three sentences was updated within four minutes?

I can’t imagine it was “Ken Mehlman, who headed the Republican National Committee between 2005 and 2007, has come out in an interview with the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder:”. But then that leaves us with “Mehlman headed the RNC when the Republican Party was pushing anti-gay initiatives and increasingly speaking out against marriage equality.” or “Former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie and Mehlman’s longtime friend called Mehlman’s coming-out “significant,” but added that he remains opposed to gay marriage.”

See what I mean?

Maybe she originally had only two sentences? And some qualms of conscience kicked in to make her add a third?

This little sign of the times is from an email that the Harris Teeter grocery chain sent out to members of the Fresh Catch Club yesterday morning:

This week’s Fresh Catch feature item is fresh wild caught 13-17ct Head-On Gulf White Shrimp, harvested from the crystal clear waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf white shrimp are just starting their summer season. These shrimp are plump and juicy, waiting to be grilled on the Bar-B-Que. They also make an excellent shrimp cocktail or just about any Shrimp dish you can think of. Harris Teeter strives to deliver the highest quality and safest seafood available. The Gulf oil spill has severely affected the shrimp and the seafood industry in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Although Texas has not been impacted by the oil spill, the best way we can support this industry is by buying Gulf seafood. And you will only find it at Harris Teeter Fishermans (sic) Market. Satisfaction guaranteed or we’ll double your money back with your VIC card.

Note that they don’t actually say where the shrimp are actually from. They are clearly implying they’re from unaffected Texas. But they don’t actually say so, do they?

Also, the shrimp are on sale at the exact same price these 13-17 head-on shrimp used to come on sale at, back when nobody had heard of Deepwater Horizon. If you think that Harris Teeter is paying the same price now for Gulf shrimp that they used to pay last season, I’ve got some plump and juicy Gulf shrimp I’d like to sell you. Smell-tested by trained scientists, and everything.

TPMDC jumped the gun yesterday. The post was headlined “Why Sarah Palin Is About To Lose Big Time In Alaska’s Primary“.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has had plenty of successes this year, but might be about to rack up a big fail tonight as voters in her home state decide whether to oust Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

There are few public polls for this race but operatives for both Republicans and Democrats tell TPM they expect Murkowski to prevail tonight by a wide margin.

I guess that illustrates the pitfalls of making predictions when there are few public polls. Because Murkowski of course, is trailing her little-known opponent Joe Miller by a non-trivial margin of 48.6% to 51.5%:

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is battling for her political life this morning against Republican primary challenger Joe Miller, the Tea Party-backed candidate who had a slim lead as ballots continued to be counted overnight. Miller, a Fairbanks attorney, led from when the first returns came in Tuesday night, and was on the verge of pulling off one of the biggest election upsets ever in Alaska. With 84 percent of Alaska’s precincts reporting around 2 a.m., Miller had 45,188 votes to 42,633 for Murkowski.
[...]
The final results of the race won’t be known for over a week. The Alaska Division of Elections said over 16,000 absentee ballots were requested and as of Monday night 7,600 had been returned. The first count of absentees will be next Tuesday and there will be two subsequent counts as the absentee votes trickle in on Sept. 3 and on Sept. 8.