In her column in today's Slate about the presidential candidates' legal advisers, Emily Bazelon writes:
"[Victoria Toensing] a supporter of Scooter Libby ...argued that the law couldn't have been broken when Valerie Plame's cover as a CIA agent was blown because her status wasn't really covert. The jury who convicted Libby disagreed."
The jury did no such thing! Libby was convicted of process crimes. I believe that very little evidence on Plame's covert status was even allowed in. Flippancy should not trump accuracy.
I posted the above quote and comment to Slates's The Fray. Why should sloppiness by columnists surprise me? Well, she is a lawyer, after all.
I have several earlier posts about Libby's sentence
Monday, November 26, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Krugman and Herbert vs. Brooks
Today, I sent the following letter to the New York Times:
You seem to have a war raging between three of your columnists (Brooks, Herbert and Krugman) over the significance of Ronald Reagan's kicking off his 1980 campaign for president at the Neshoba County Fair, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, and the fact that he uttered the term "states' rights" during his speech.
To me this is somewhat a "tempest in a teapot". Since the early 1950's. Reagan was a reactionary, an apologist for big business and an enthusiast for small government. (I am old enough to have lived through all this.) Didn't he meet his second wife Nancy when he vetted her to see if she was THE Nancy Davis on some Hollywood blacklist? (She wasn't.)
To me, his appearance at the Neshoba County Fair was of a piece with all his other actions. His administration's domestic policies did a lot of damage to this country. His administration also nurtured a generation of young reactionaries who have since risen to high places such as the US Supreme Court. So let's not lose our perspective on all this. Like him or not, Reagan was for sure "Reagan." And anyhow, the last time I looked, Mississippi was still part of the United States. *******
(end of letter)
The Wall Street Journal has their take on this, which, while skewed as usual, is quite informative. The latest salvo was today's column by Bob Herbert.
I would like to expand a bit on what I said in my letter. Reagan was able to reach out to moderates, as he did while Governor of California (while also gutting the state's mental health system), when selecting George H. W. Bush to be his running mate (the latter had accurately characterized supply side economics as "voodoo economics"), and in selecting Sandra Day O'Connor to be the first woman on the US Supreme Court.
He did eventually sign on to the extension of the Voting Rights Act and the Martin Luther King, Jr., birthday holiday. He was also quite capable of raising taxes, and he ran up huge deficits, which, Dick Cheney to the contrary notwithstanding, did matter. He may have been a great president, in that he knew what he stood for and how to communicate it, but, domestically at least, he was not a great president, but rather a great reactionary.
You seem to have a war raging between three of your columnists (Brooks, Herbert and Krugman) over the significance of Ronald Reagan's kicking off his 1980 campaign for president at the Neshoba County Fair, near Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964, and the fact that he uttered the term "states' rights" during his speech.
To me this is somewhat a "tempest in a teapot". Since the early 1950's. Reagan was a reactionary, an apologist for big business and an enthusiast for small government. (I am old enough to have lived through all this.) Didn't he meet his second wife Nancy when he vetted her to see if she was THE Nancy Davis on some Hollywood blacklist? (She wasn't.)
To me, his appearance at the Neshoba County Fair was of a piece with all his other actions. His administration's domestic policies did a lot of damage to this country. His administration also nurtured a generation of young reactionaries who have since risen to high places such as the US Supreme Court. So let's not lose our perspective on all this. Like him or not, Reagan was for sure "Reagan." And anyhow, the last time I looked, Mississippi was still part of the United States. *******
(end of letter)
The Wall Street Journal has their take on this, which, while skewed as usual, is quite informative. The latest salvo was today's column by Bob Herbert.
I would like to expand a bit on what I said in my letter. Reagan was able to reach out to moderates, as he did while Governor of California (while also gutting the state's mental health system), when selecting George H. W. Bush to be his running mate (the latter had accurately characterized supply side economics as "voodoo economics"), and in selecting Sandra Day O'Connor to be the first woman on the US Supreme Court.
He did eventually sign on to the extension of the Voting Rights Act and the Martin Luther King, Jr., birthday holiday. He was also quite capable of raising taxes, and he ran up huge deficits, which, Dick Cheney to the contrary notwithstanding, did matter. He may have been a great president, in that he knew what he stood for and how to communicate it, but, domestically at least, he was not a great president, but rather a great reactionary.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Novak, Carter and Israel
Bob Novak, in his column in today's Washington Post, "Carter's Clarity, Bush's Befuddlement", discusses the new documentary, "Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains", about Carter's book tour promoting his latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid." Here are some of the last few paragraphs:
"In the movie, Carter repeatedly declares that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine for peace to have a chance. The hecklers at his appearances and confused interviewers only provoke a stubborn Carter, who says chopping up the West Bank is actually worse than apartheid, just as Palestinian peace-seekers told me this year in Jerusalem.
A broader, more detailed analysis can be found in the newly updated American version of 'Lords of the Land' by Professor Idith Zertal and leading Israeli columnist Akiva Eldar. This scathing account of the occupation, first published in Israel in 2005, declares that former prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan for a security wall was intended to 'take hold of as much West Bank territory as possible and block the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.'
As Israelis, Eldar and Zertal employ language that not even Carter dares use: ......
In 'Man From Plains,' Carter goes further in this direction than any other prominent American has to date, and people who wander into a movie theater to see the film may be shocked. It raises questions that must at least be asked for the contemplated [Middle East] conference at Annapolis to have any chance."
*******************
I agree with Novak's sentiments, although I was appalled by Carter's use of the "loaded" term "Apartheid" in his book's title. This couldn't do anything but inflame the debate, which is already hot enough as it is. I have always thought Carter had a "screw loose" somewhere, like the time he invited the President of Haiti to teach in his Sunday School class. But I digress.
I am (for the most part) a non-observant Jew, and I am also not a Zionist. (These two properties are logically independent of one another!) I have always been amazed that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies, except an Israeli, is almost automatically branded an anti-Semite, and that many American Jews are reflexive rather than reflective in their attitude towards Israel. Last summer, during the Israeli-Lebanese war, I had a post, "On Just Wars", which touched on the above issues. I also quit the Anti-Defamation League, which I had belonged to for years, because it had become such a Zionist cheerleader.
The group I support that is involved with Israeli-Palestinian issues, Americans for Peace Now, is about as even handed as one can get. They are very concerned about the proliferation of settlements, and illegal settlements, on the West Bank. Their Israeli counterpart, Shalom Achshav, supported the war last summer, up to a point anyway, as did virtually every other group in Israel.
"In the movie, Carter repeatedly declares that Israel must end its occupation of Palestine for peace to have a chance. The hecklers at his appearances and confused interviewers only provoke a stubborn Carter, who says chopping up the West Bank is actually worse than apartheid, just as Palestinian peace-seekers told me this year in Jerusalem.
A broader, more detailed analysis can be found in the newly updated American version of 'Lords of the Land' by Professor Idith Zertal and leading Israeli columnist Akiva Eldar. This scathing account of the occupation, first published in Israel in 2005, declares that former prime minister Ariel Sharon's plan for a security wall was intended to 'take hold of as much West Bank territory as possible and block the establishment of a viable Palestinian state.'
As Israelis, Eldar and Zertal employ language that not even Carter dares use: ......
In 'Man From Plains,' Carter goes further in this direction than any other prominent American has to date, and people who wander into a movie theater to see the film may be shocked. It raises questions that must at least be asked for the contemplated [Middle East] conference at Annapolis to have any chance."
*******************
I agree with Novak's sentiments, although I was appalled by Carter's use of the "loaded" term "Apartheid" in his book's title. This couldn't do anything but inflame the debate, which is already hot enough as it is. I have always thought Carter had a "screw loose" somewhere, like the time he invited the President of Haiti to teach in his Sunday School class. But I digress.
I am (for the most part) a non-observant Jew, and I am also not a Zionist. (These two properties are logically independent of one another!) I have always been amazed that anyone who criticizes Israeli policies, except an Israeli, is almost automatically branded an anti-Semite, and that many American Jews are reflexive rather than reflective in their attitude towards Israel. Last summer, during the Israeli-Lebanese war, I had a post, "On Just Wars", which touched on the above issues. I also quit the Anti-Defamation League, which I had belonged to for years, because it had become such a Zionist cheerleader.
The group I support that is involved with Israeli-Palestinian issues, Americans for Peace Now, is about as even handed as one can get. They are very concerned about the proliferation of settlements, and illegal settlements, on the West Bank. Their Israeli counterpart, Shalom Achshav, supported the war last summer, up to a point anyway, as did virtually every other group in Israel.
Friday, November 2, 2007
How do you spell PERON ?
Well, Charles Krauthammer repeatedly spells it P-e-r-e-n in his column in today's Washington Post, "The Real Hill-Bill Problem." And we're not talking transliteration here, or leaving out a tilde or an accent. For a columnist and commentator as trenchant and "in your face" as Krauthammer is, he for sure should know how to spell Juan Peron's name, as Peron is no doubt in his pantheon of heroes.
Krauthammer is a good writer to be sure. He is logical (sometimes "faux logical") , clever, and can even be funny. And he is never plagued with self-doubt. He also cherry-picks facts and is at times devious. My favorite example of his deviousness is the time he quoted Senator Carl Levin (whom he respects) about changing our role in the Iraq War. He then added his own embellishments to what Levin had said, putting "words in his mouth", so to speak. Krauthammer then proceeded to criticize Levin's position, based on the embellishments he had added! Enough said.
PS. I sent him an email pointing out his error. I wonder if he'll read it?
update (1:PM) The spelling error has been corrected.
Krauthammer is a good writer to be sure. He is logical (sometimes "faux logical") , clever, and can even be funny. And he is never plagued with self-doubt. He also cherry-picks facts and is at times devious. My favorite example of his deviousness is the time he quoted Senator Carl Levin (whom he respects) about changing our role in the Iraq War. He then added his own embellishments to what Levin had said, putting "words in his mouth", so to speak. Krauthammer then proceeded to criticize Levin's position, based on the embellishments he had added! Enough said.
PS. I sent him an email pointing out his error. I wonder if he'll read it?
update (1:PM) The spelling error has been corrected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
