They Call This A Correction?
The NY Times "corrects" their story about how firms with Bush connections are being awarded Katrina contracts:
A front-page article yesterday reported on the awarding of billions of dollars in federal contracts to help rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. The article said many contracts had been awarded without bidding or with limited competition, and it cited two major contractors whose political connections have already raised questions among government officials about the potential for favoritism or abuse.
In naming these contractors - the Shaw Group and Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton - the article noted that they have been represented by the lobbyist Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former leader of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
The article should have carried a response from Mr. Allbaugh, or restated a position he expressed in an earlier article in The Times: that he does not help any of his clients secure federal contracts, and has not done so in this case for Shaw or Kellogg. (Go to Article)
Let's just see what they wrote:
Already, questions have been raised about the political connections of two major contractors - the Shaw Group and Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton - that have been represented by the lobbyist Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's former campaign manager and a former leader of FEMA.
Ahh, the heroic "questions have been raised"! Well, these questions were raised a few weeks ago by CNN, and Michelle Malkin had a question of her own - how do these big-time journalists manage to uncover the Allbaugh connection but fail to notice that the head of The Shaw Group is also the chairman of the Democratic Party in Louisiana? If one were prying for political connections, that one might trigger a bell, yes? At the Times, no.
I will offer a quick tutorial for Times reporters.
(a) ask your manager for expense approval to sign up for a subscription to Google
(b) "(a)" was meant in jest - Google is free.
(c) Google on "The Shaw Group", using the quotations. Your search result will look like this; near the top are a few pages hinting at company info, which should include the name of the CEO (which is Jim Bernhard).
(d) Now, just like you would if you had met him at a coctail party (or were auto-Googling) - put "Jim Bernhard" in quotes in a Google search and see what you get.
Here is where your highly trained nose for news will come in handy - the first hit is this article, but that may be due to recent news developments (Ms. Malkin linked to it, and who can underestimate her power?)
However, if you cast your eye all the way down to the fourth hit, you may see:
By gum! And the text excerpt provided by Google even says:
Jim Bernhard. Type, Individual. Position, CEO Shaw Group/ Head of La Democratic Party. Political Party, Democrat ... Jim Bernhard's Friends ...
Head of La Democratic Party. Wow. Who would ever have guessed?
That is not so difficult.
Byron Calame, the Public Editor of the NY Times can be reached at public@nytimes.com
MORE: OK, if you subscribe to the premium Google News service, you will learn that Jim Bernhard stepped down as head of the LA Dem Party on Sept 17 - questions had been raised!
Bernhard is chief executive officer of The Shaw Group Inc., a company
that already has received a lucrative federal contract in the aftermath
of Katrina and likely will be seeking more of that work as billions of
dollars in federal reconstruction money pour into Louisiana.
"Mr. Bernhard believes he can best serve Louisiana by focusing all his attentions on running Shaw Group," company spokesman Chris Sammons said.
Shreveport analyst and pollster Elliott Stonecipher said Bernhard, who took the party leadership post less than a year ago, had to resign from the position to avoid allegations of favoritism when Shaw receives rebuilding and recovery contracts that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
"Given how much criticism there is about corruption in Louisiana, I just think there was no way that he could stay in his position as chairman. He ultimately had to make the obvious choice."

Bernard is actually now the former head of the LA Dems. He has bigger fish to fry.
Posted by: BigMediaBlog | September 27, 2005 at 03:34 PM
Has anyone ever noticed that the difference between the Democrats & Republicans is about as thick as a sheet of 20 pound bond paper. They are both liars and cheats. The Republicans are a bit more successful at it at this point but the tide will turn just as my stomache does every time I hear silly justifications for political chicanery.
Posted by: kal palnicki | September 27, 2005 at 04:52 PM
Google's free? Or almost free?
I know you rich Republicans may be able to afford pricey search engines but the poor folk may be paying as much or even more than 15% of their net income for such luxuries. I know one family that had to cancel HBO to afford Google.
Posted by: Sweetie | September 27, 2005 at 05:09 PM
My Daddy taught me there is no such thing as a free lunch.
==============================================
Posted by: kim | September 27, 2005 at 05:57 PM
Sweetie, what part of free don't you understand?
That you need internet service?
That you need a computer?
You're posting a comment on this site, so you must be one of those rich republicans with a computer and internet access. Or did you have to cancel your HBO service to afford what...
Pathetic.
Posted by: Forbes | September 27, 2005 at 06:56 PM
Sorry, Forbes, but that was sarcasm. The only 'tell' though was the HBO comment, so I probably should have called it out.
Posted by: Sweetie | September 27, 2005 at 07:15 PM
She forgot to mention the two families who forewent a PSP for high speed internet.
============================================
Posted by: kim | September 27, 2005 at 08:08 PM
I hope every single penny of the Katrina relief money stays under the direct control of the Bush administration. How can you justify letting Blanco and Nagin have any control over the disbursement of funds after the freak show they just ran?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | September 27, 2005 at 08:17 PM
It won't though, don't you see?
Instead it will go to the Red Cross and the United Way. They'll use it to pay their execs multi-hundred thousand dollar salaries and to hold swanky meetings at cool hotels that you and I couldn't even stay at overnight. They'll have Lear Jets and Limos drive them around and think about what a bunch of schmucks we are if they think of us at all.
Your federal taxpayer money will be wasted by idiots to build highways in Alaska and study fruitflys and in the end about 1/4 of what's budgeted will be spent on NO, and that will be wasted by a factor of around 50%, handed out to political cronies of both parties.
Then they'll hope for another disaster to boost their fund raising and ability to run another similar scam on us.
Posted by: Dwilkers | September 27, 2005 at 10:16 PM
1) I question the timing of your Googling.
2) What we're dealing with here is the larger narrative of the corruption of the Bush Administration. Fake but accurate is the guiding precedent.
3) You're a black-hearted nitpicker. If you say these things again Mr. Broussard will start crying and get another MTP interview.
***********************
Arguing like a liberal is fun and easy. You guys should try it.
Posted by: Birkel | September 27, 2005 at 10:17 PM
Too many times, D, I've seen the Salvation Army come to the aid of women or children in trouble when no one else could or would. They tended to not be very sympathetic to single men. Sure, they're religious, but they are so in their own face about it that they stay out of yours.
But it'll be a cold day in Hell before I contribute to the United Fund again.
===============================================
=================================================
Posted by: kim | September 27, 2005 at 10:37 PM
You can build a society so complex and fragile that you cannot anticipate and plan for all the ways it can break.
Just consider the Tsunami and Katrina.
==============================================
Posted by: kim | September 28, 2005 at 06:52 AM
I agree, let's keep all that reconstruction money in federal hands. They've done such a bangup job in Iraq keeping track of it...except for the odd TEN BILLION or so.
Posted by: JayDee | September 28, 2005 at 07:06 AM
Man, I'm awfully impressed with what our relative pittance has gotten us in Iraq. I no longer have to wake up every morning and wonder if the UN inspectors have left the Green Zone lately.
Talk about value for money.
==============================
Posted by: kim | September 28, 2005 at 08:08 AM
You're a black-hearted nitpicker.
Too true.
Posted by: TM | September 28, 2005 at 10:21 AM
Nitpickers are necessary when the carcass is as infested as the body of liberal ideology is today.
Lifesaving, potentially. So who's gonna look at the heart of a saviour.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | September 28, 2005 at 11:26 AM
Sweetie, it's funny, a day later it's obvious sarcasm. Frequently I read so much hysterical drivel, I'd be better off with a good book, instead. Cheers.
Posted by: Forbes | September 28, 2005 at 12:06 PM
You've been Etiennated.
=========================
Posted by: kim | September 28, 2005 at 12:36 PM
Glory be, speaking of CORRUPTION, looks like big bad Tom Delay just got hisself indicted by a Texas Grand Jury....Are pigs flying yet?
Posted by: JayDee | September 28, 2005 at 12:46 PM
And Wittig's being molleycoddled. Where's the justice?
================================================
Posted by: kim | September 28, 2005 at 01:04 PM
Well, JD, a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich (forget who said that).
Is that close enough?
Or do you prefer to sentence first, then the verdict?
Posted by: Forbes | September 28, 2005 at 02:53 PM
We now have so-called conservatives praising the federal government (over state and local govts) and no longer being so gung-ho about law-and-order.
Why, they're sounding like caricatures of ... liberals!
Well, that's not totally fair to liberals. So-called conservatives are actually just being blindly partisan and embracing whatever posture is most convenient at the moment. It's quite hack-takular. And amusing.
Posted by: Jim E. | September 28, 2005 at 03:25 PM
Well, it's not really inconsistent to praise this federal government, and to criticize those state and local governments.
Your comment about law-and-order is profoundly confused.
======================================================
Posted by: kim | September 28, 2005 at 03:31 PM
audace lesbiche doppio penetrazione
audace lesbiche inculate
audace lesbiche prostituta
audace lesbiche strip
audace mamma
audace media
audace modesto
audace molto
audace nonne fotti
audace operaio figa fotti
audace operaio spogliarello
audace piedi
audace pulcino strip
audace ragazze azione
audace ragazze inculate
audace ragazze prostituta
audace ragazze ubriache
audace sbronze fottilo
audace scopata collettiva
audace segretaria dildo
audace segretaria gruppo
audace segretaria pompino
audace segretaria strip
audace soldato orale fotti
audace superpoppe spogliarello
audace tedesco inculate
audace teen merda
audace teen succhi
audace zoccoleborghesi merda
auguri di compleanno
aumentare
ausone
Posted by: vch | August 27, 2006 at 12:27 PM