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.

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.

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.

Thomas Friedman

A friend sent me a link to a column by Norman Solomon, bashing Thomas Friedman, which was published on September 6 by CommonDreams.org . I read the column, part of which I agreed with and part of which I thought was silly, and then I started reading the comments. Oh my God! And this was on CommonDreams no less. They should rename the site "Common Nightmares". Here is the comment I posted. (Seven weeks after the article appeared, so probably no one will see it.)

What really disturbs me about many comments, here and elsewhere, are their profanity, vulgarity, and "in your face" nastiness. What is this supposed to accomplish? Whatever happened to civil discourse? Who are people that make such comments hoping to convince? Answer: no one. They just want to get things off their chest. I think such rancor and shrillness debases the seriousness of the issues being discussed. It reduces the debate to locker room level.

As for Thomas Friedman, I have always thought of him as an intellectual lightweight with a "gee whiz" adolescent view of things. Sometimes he gets things right, but often not. He has undue influence, which is sad, since for sure he is no Walter Lippmann!
************(end of my comment)

Why do people want to blame Friedman for everything? He is just one voice. For sure he was "rolled" on the Iraq War, but so were a lot of other people. There are a number of columnists at the New York Times who aren't so easily "rolled", such as Rich, Krugman, Kristof and Dowd. The trouble with Friedman, as with many other journalists, as that he assumes he is entitled to a certain amount of gravitas, when in fact he is not. The most famous example is when Walter Cronkite decided that winning the war in Vietnam was hopeless after the "Tet Offensive" in early 1968, when in fact that offensive was a big military defeat for the Viet Cong (or whatever their proper name was.)

Don't get me wrong, I was a rabid opponent of that war, but I think journalists should know their limitations and clearly separate fact from opinion. Recently, we have the example of Lou Dobbs, who has morphed into an anti-immigration demagogue.

My favorite example of a distinguished journalist was Walter Lippmann. He opposed the Vietnam War, and after Idaho Senator Frank Church became an opponent early on, LBJ was supposed to have told Church that the next time he wanted a bridge built in Idaho, he should go see Walter Lippmann.

You are wrong, Mr. Robinson

In his column in today's Washington Post, " Republican Hot Flashes", Eugene Robinson states the following:

"The latest [example of Republican 'male menopause'] was the Senate vote Wednesday in which Republicans, supported by a handful of red-state Democrats, narrowly scuttled the Dream Act, a bill that would have provided a path to citizenship for some young undocumented immigrants -- but only those who did everything this country once found worthy and admirable in pursuit of the American dream.

Under the proposal, men and women who fulfilled several conditions -- they had to be under 30, had to have been brought into the country illegally before they were 16, had to have been in the United States for at least five years and had to be graduates of U.S. high schools -- would have been given conditional legal status. If they went on to complete two years of college or two years of military service, they would have been eligible for permanent residency.

Let's see. Here was a way to encourage a bunch of kids to go to college rather than melt into the shadows as off-the-books day laborers -- or maybe even gang members. And here was a way to boost enlistment in our overtaxed armed forces. Aren't education and global competitiveness supposed to be vital issues? Aren't we fighting open-ended wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The vote against the Dream Act was so irrational, so counterproductive, that it seemed the product of some sort of hormonal imbalance."

*****************

Here is the comment I posted:

"I believe a legitimate argument against the Dream Act is that it would encourage illegal immigration for people wanting to ensure a better future for their children. Most legal immigrants have that desire as well. I don't think we should validate illegal immigration in such a way."

*******************

Part of living the American Dream is that people aren't supposed to get the chance to realize it by cutting in front of the line of those waiting to get into the country. I don't believe that there should be laws validating illegal immigration. One could argue for exceptions in cases that are in the national interest: critical skills or willingness to serve in the armed forces, for example. I believe the former is already the case for legal immigration. As for the latter, to be fair we would have to set up military recruiting centers in all US embassies and consulates. We would also have to amend the Statue of Liberty's famous call:


"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free or to serve in the Armed Forces of the United States ..."


I had an earlier post on this topic at the time the Senate was debating the Immigration bill.

Does the New York Times know a Caucasian when it sees one?

In an article in today's New York Times, "A Son of Immigrants Rises in a Southern State", the author states the following: "[Bobby Jindal] is a highly unusual politician, having become the nation’s first Indian-American governor in a Southern state where race is inseparable from politics. "

Not to make too fine a point of it, but if we're talking about race, then he isn't so unusual, since Indian-Americans, as opposed to American Indians, are, after all, Caucasian. As in "Indo-European". A more accurate term for the author to have used is "color"

George Will loses it!

In his column in today's Washington Post, "The Unforgotten Man", George Will states:

"Politics often operates on the Humpty Dumpty Rule (in 'Through the Looking Glass,' he says, 'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'). But the people currently preening about their compassion should have some for the English language.

Clinton's idea for helping Americans save for retirement is this: .... . She proposes to pay for this by taxing people who will be stoical about this -- dead people -- by freezing the estate tax exemption at its 2009 level. "

I posted the following comment to his column:

"Come on George. You know better! The Estate Tax is not a tax on dead people. It is a tax on their estate. A very different entity. It was instituted 100 years ago to prevent the concentration of wealth in a few people's hands. A legitimate use of the tax code. You should include yourself in the list of people using the 'Humpty Dumpty Rule.' Shame on you."

It has always been one purpose of the tax code to redistribute wealth. One major complaint about the Estate Tax was that, in order to pay it, the heirs often had to give up the "family farm". This problem can be handled by increasing exemptions, or whatever. In today's day and age, a bigger problem seems to be that no one wants to inherit the "family farm". George W. Bush doesn't mind using the tax code to redistribute wealth, except in the wrong direction.