Mathpol: Columnist Watch

The Brooks Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:02:00 +0000

David Brooks really outsmarts himself in his column today, "The Bush Paradox", in the New York Times. Here is the letter I sent to the Times.

David Brooks praises President Bush for advocating the surge. He concludes his column by stating:
"Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact."
Using this definition, isn't George W. Bush the most dangerous man alive, since he never admits to a mistake.
So now we have "The Brooks Paradox."

Divided They Stand

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Mon, 26 May 2008 12:48:00 +0000

This is the title of a column by last-ditch Hillary supporter Paul Krugman in today's NY Times. He starts out with

It is, in a way, almost appropriate that the final days of the struggle for the Democratic nomination have been marked by yet another fake Clinton scandal — the latest in a long line that goes all the way back to Whitewater.
This one, in case you missed it, involved an interview Hillary Clinton gave the editorial board of South Dakota’s Argus Leader, in which she tried to make a case for her continuing campaign by pointing out that nomination fights have often gone on into the summer. As one of her illustrations, she mentioned that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.

Here is the letter I sent to the Times.

In his column today, Paul Krugman, while discussing the reaction to Hillary Clinton's "Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June" remark, states that "Obama and his supporters ... should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain."
Now, Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY), a Clinton supporter, told Bloomberg News that she said "the dumbest thing you could have possibly said." What advice does Krugman have for him?
With his latest column, Paul Krugman has clearly gone "through the looking glass" to Billaryland. For the sake of the economy, I hope we can get him back.

I should add that a lot of the Kennedys, except RFK Jr., were also upset.

All this reminds me of a dark joke I used to tell my students. One of their favorite refrains was "If x, y, or z happens, do we have to take the exam?" So, whenever I had an exam scheduled to occur after I returned from a trip, I would say "Don't worry, if my plane crashes you don't have to take the test."

As for the nominating process: Don't worry Hillary, if something happens to Obama after you drop out, they will still be able to name you as his replacement.

Frank Rich, the Music Man

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sun, 11 May 2008 13:25:00 +0000

Frank Rich has a column, "Party Like It's 2008," in today's New York Times. Here is the comment I posted.

Why is it that many of your columns resemble a lawyer's closing arguments? Are you trying to inform or entertain? Most nuances get trampled by the "Rich-talk" express. I expect more than cheerleading from you. One specific point. "Mr. Obama’s white support in a matchup against Mr. McCain is still no worse than John Kerry’s against President Bush in 2004." Isn't this a bit of a thin reed?
I really wish you would "get serious". For example, you could focus your attention on whether the dittoheads out there are in fact affecting the primary election results, and whether they may in fact realize Limbaugh's "dream" of a riotous Democratic Convention. I think you underestimate the power of the die-hards on the right. I agree, this is not '68, but I think this presidential election is too serious and fraught with peril for your column to start resembling "76 trombones".
Well, it's really not my place to tell you how to write your column, and I remain one of your many fans, Music Man!
Greg Bachelis
PS. Is it possible that Bill Clinton is suffering from "pump head", a common side effect of heart bypass surgery?

Hitchens the Glib

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:06:00 +0000

Christopher Hitchens, has a column in yesterday's Slate Magazine, titled

WORDS MATTER.

Cliché, not plagiarism, is the problem with today's pallid political discourse.

Here is the last paragraph.

How well I remember Sidney Blumenthal waking me up all those years ago to read me the speech by Sen. Biden, which, by borrowing the biography as well as the words of another candidate's campaign, put an end to Biden's own. The same glee didn't work this time when he (it must have been he) came up with "Change You Can Xerox" as a riposte to Sen. Obama's hand-me-down words from Gov. Deval Patrick. All that Obama had lifted from Patrick was the old-fashioned idea that "words matter," and all that one can say, reviewing the present empty landscape of slogan and cliché, is that one only wishes that this could once again be true.

Here is the comment I posted.

As usual, Hitchens does a great job of putting down nearly every politician in sight. What he chooses to ignore about Obama is that there is substance to him, in his team of advisers, at his website, and, yes, even in some of his speeches - those which are devoted to policy issues. And anyway, what is the matter with political slogans, as long as they are backed up by substance? I would love it if Hitchens chose to run for office (ignoring the fact that he is a Brit). To borrow from Al Franken, an appropriate slogan would be "Vote for me because I'm smarter than you, I'm wittier than you, and (no) God, hardly anybody likes me."

Now Krugman Is Grasping at Straws

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:34:00 +0000

In his column in today's New York Times, "Deliverance or Diversion", Paul Krugman continues his "assault" on Barack Obama. Here is a letter I sent to the Times.

In his column today, Paul Krugman writes:"And some Illinois legislators apparently feel that even [in the Illinois state senate] Mr. Obama got a bit more glory than he deserved. 'No one wants to carry the ball 99 yards all the way to the one-yard line, and then give it to the halfback who gets all the credit,' one state senator complained to a local journalist."
The "some" appears to be "one", and he doesn't even say who that "one" is. Krugman is now truly grasping at straws in his ongoing effort to trivialize Barack Obama. In recent months, he has appeared to be having a "temper tantrum" because things aren't going the way that he deems they should in the Democratic primaries. I say he should "get over it". Either that or stick to economics, his area of expertise.
And speaking of economics, has Krugman ever written about Obama's formidable group of economic advisors, or isn't that relevant?

Don't hold your breath waiting for this to appear (How many times have I written this?) The Times doesn't mind sarcasm from some of its columnists, but apparently not from its readers. Krugman is one of Princeton's professors, so I guess we should add them to the list, which already includes former First Ladies and "cultural columnists", of those who feel "entitled" to have elections go the way they think they should.
As for Obama's advisers, economic and otherwise, here are two excerpts from The Opinionator, a blog at the "Times Online" hosted by Tobin Harshaw and Chris Suellentrop.

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber analyzes Barack Obama’s policy shop. “Sociologically, the Obamanauts have a lot in common with the last gang of Democratic outsiders to make a credible run at the White House,” Scheiber writes. “Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama’s campaign boasts a cadre of credentialed achievers.” He continues:
Intellectually, however, the Obamanauts couldn’t be more different. Clinton delighted in surrounding himself with big-think public intellectuals — like economics commentator Robert Reich and political philosopher Bill Galston. You’d be hard-pressed to find a political philosopher in Obama’s inner wonk-dom. His is dominated by a group of first-rate economists, beginning with [the University of Chicago’s Austan] Goolsbee, one of the profession’s most respected tax experts.
The difference between Bill Clinton’s 1992 team and Obama’s is “the difference between science-fiction writers and engineers,” Scheiber says. “Reich and Galston are the kinds of people who’d sketch out the idea for time travel in a moment of inspiration. Goolsbee et al. could rig up the DeLorean that would actually get you back to 1955.”

and

Greg Mankiw, the Harvard economist who served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush, likes Obama’s team of wonks a lot more than he likes the candidate. “Absolutely true,” Mankiw writes on his blog, responding to the idea that Obama’s policy shop is “surprisingly non-ideological.” But Mankiw adds, “But I doubt any of those excellent economists in the policy shop would be willing to defend the anti-NAFTA, anti-Walmart rhetoric of their candidate.”

I know, I know, Obama may not be able to deliver on his promises, or he may not follow his advisers' recommendations, as implied above. Nevertheless, I feel that he is enough of a heavyweight to make it worth a try. As for Hillary's recent television ad about who would you want answering the phone in the White House at 3:00 AM, the idea that as First Lady she obtained foreign policy experience is laughable. An example of her inexperience was her over-simplified reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, which I dealt with in an earlier post.

Well, enough of this already! Krugman may be "grasping", but I appear to be "harping."

Paul Krugman Loses It!

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:50:00 +0000

In his column in Monday's New York Times, "Hate Springs Eternal", Paul Krugman abandons any pretense of being logical in his attempt to promote Hillary Clinton over the bodies of Barack Obama and his supporters. Here are some excerpts, with my comments in italics and in brackets. {}

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, ...Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein. ... As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. [yada, yada, yada]..,. . Both [Hillary and Obama] have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there? {From whom?}
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here:{He's giving himself away here.} most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.{Who said that?} I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again. {Where was the cult, outside of the west wing of The White House? }
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” {Who said that?}— the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption. {I can tell he hasn't read Sally Bedell Smith's book.}
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King. {Not by Obama.}
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, {again, the media} after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network. {Ah, another vast conspiracy!}...
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact. For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship {A gratuitous insult!}, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable. ...
I’d like to see more moments like [when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim.], perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election. {Is he talking "Loyalty Oaths" here? Sounds pretty "Nixonlandish" to me.}

Here is the letter I sent to the Times about his column.

Paul Krugman's mastery of logic has apparently deserted him. Adlai Stevenson was talking about Nixon the candidate and politician, not about how the media reacted to various candidates.and elected officials. The political operatives and politicians who remind me the most of Nixon these days are Karl Rove, Dick Morris and, in many ways, Dick Cheney.Let's face it. Krugman likes Hillary, he doesn't seem to care much for Obama, nor for his supporters. Obama's campaign is based on hope, not hate. Krugman should reclaim the high ground and avoid the "slippery slope". We don't want to be greeted one day by a cartoon showing him emerging from a sewer, as Herblock once did for Nixon.

The Times published a number of letters today about Krugman's column, not including mine. I guess that the mighty Times didn't deem my letter serious enough. I should like to make a few additional points.
1) Does Krugman include among the "hero worshippers" all the veteran politicians and policy wonks - many of whom were past supporters of Bill Clinton or worked in the Clinton Administration - who have endorsed Obama or are actively working for his campaign?
2) If "hero worship" entails being blinded by your candidate's aura, then Krugman qualifies if he fails to see all the venom being directed toward Obama, maybe not from the mainstream media, but from Clinton campaign officials and their surrogates.
3) Just as "Tricky Dick" earned his nickname, surely "Slick Willie" has earned his.
4) Opposing Hillary does not necessarily make one a mysogynist. Maureen Dowd has an excellent column in today's Times related to this.
5) If Hillary gets the nomination, I intend to vote for her. Better a "two-headed" president than a "wrong-headed" one, which would be the case if McCain were to be elected.

Ask Not What I Can Do for Frank Rich

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 16:45:00 +0000

Readers of today's New York Times are invited to post comments on Frank Rich's column "Ask Not What J.F.K. Can Do for Obama." Here is what I posted.

You put too much gloss on JFK after when he was in office. Obama does not appear to be a philanderer, as JFK was before and during his presidency. J. Edgar Hoover (one of my least favorite people) got him to stop seeing a mistress he was sharing with a Mafia Don. And don't forget "fiddle" and "faddle" and other White House Interns, some of whom, if you believe Nora Ephron, didn't even have desks! True, Kennedy was very smooth about all this and didn't sully the oval office and environs, as Bill Clinton did.

And what about the "fairy tale" that has endured about the Cuban Missle Crisis, where Kennedy "machismo" almost got us into a nuclear war? And then there is the stuff that Dr. "Feelgood" injected to help Kennedy deal with his back problems. This may have affected his judgment and demeanor at crucial moments.

Also, Obama doen't have a daddy who could "buy" him a primary victory, as Papa Joe allegedly did in West Virginia, where Kennedy defeated Hubert Humphrey. For sure JFK was charismatic and inspirational, and witty, and for sure he had great writers. (One of whom, Ted Sorenson, is today part of the Obama campaign.) I'm sure he was sincere in his vision and about "the torch being passed."

To me, Obama is more genuine, and he doesn't seem to be ruthless, as the Kennedy brothers were at times. I hope he can carry through on his hopes and promises if elected. I fear this may be difficult, since he doesn't seem to have much of a "machine" to go with him.

Oh, and not to be a nitpicker, but Eisenhower "the most popular president since FDR"? Only Harry Truman was in between.

Your loyal fan,

Greg Bachelis

I have previously pontificated on the JFK presidency.

As for the above post, based on past experience it will never see the light of day. Rich usually goes through the comments and only posts those that he responds to. I once made the "mistake" of responding to two columns at once, and that got nowhere. At least I am following the rules this time.

In my continuing yet so far unsuccessful efforts to break out of the pack of 30 million bloggers, I have submitted some of my posts to an online publisher, Associated Content . I have modified them to conform to AC's rules. I may submit some original material as well. I also have a new webpage, http://www.mathpol.com/, which serves as a directory to all my blogs on blogspot.

UPDATE: I made it! Comment #225 out of 510. Frank Rich has not responded to any of them, at least not yet.

United We Fall

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:18:00 +0000

Paul Burka, the senior executive editor of Texas Monthly, has an incredible column with that title in today's New York Times. The whole thing has to be seen to be believed. Here is a letter I sent to the Times.

Paul Burka's column is disingenuous, to say the least. To compare George W. Bush with Barack Obama is like comparing oranges with apples, or rather lemons with apples. Bush made a conscious decision after 9/11 to "go it alone". Karl Rove & Co. were striving for a permanent Republican majority. Bush could have had more bipartisanship after 9/11, which is usually a President's goal in times of war. (Remember the saying "Partisanship ends at the water's edge"?) Instead he, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co. decided they could have things their way, that they could enforce their own view of reality on the country and even on the rest of the world. We now have to deal with the results of their arrogance.

Obama may be naive, but he is sincere, and he is anything but arrogant (except about hope). Even granting his naiveté, he doesn't need to be lectured to like a little schoolboy about the rough and tumble political world.. Remember, he comes from the "Chicago School" of politics. He is entitled to spread his message of hope, and it is amazing to me the way the political establishment, from left to right, is -almost frantically and hysterically- trying to marginalize him.

There He Goes Again!

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:27:00 +0000

In an incredible "attack" op-ed on Barack Obama by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post, "A Sneer, A Tear, A Comeback", there is the following paragraph:

"One does not have to be sympathetic to the Clintons to understand their bewilderment at Obama's pre-New Hampshire canonization. The man comes from nowhere with a track record as thin as Chauncey Gardiner's. Yet, as Bill Clinton correctly, if clumsily, complained, Obama gets a free pass from the press."

Here is the comment I posted.

Obama as Chauncy Gardiner? This is a low blow, even for you. Do I detect a whiff of racism here, or is it just your usual snit when things don't go the way you deign from on high that they should?
Obama has been a community organizer, a law professor, a state senator who spoke out on foreign policy issues, and now a U.S. Senator. How do you like them apples? As Chauncy might say.
Obama may be naive and untested, but he is hardly an empty suit. Sometimes I think that as a columnist you make a bad psychiatrist.
(end of comment)

I suppose that should have been "would make" in the last sentence.
Spellcheck: The character Peter Sellers so memorably played in "Being There" was "Chance the Gardener", and he was addressed as "Chance Gardner" after he was thrust into the public eye.

But getting back to Krauthammer, I suppose I should just accept the fact that he is an "evil genius" and move on. Except that he has a big following and needs to be "kept honest."

As for the politician in today's world who most resembles Chance Gardner, I'd say the winner hands down is George W. Bush, not the "uppity" Barack Obama.

Hendrick Hertzberg in The New Yorker

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:06:00 +0000

Below is a letter I sent to The New Yorker, in response to Hertzberg's article in the December 10th issue. "Follow the Leaders".

The premise of Hendrick Hertzberg's article, that the "Bush Administration's Mesopotamian misadventure" brought about "regime change" among our allies as well as in Iraq, is absurd on its face. Over a long enough time period, the leadership of democratic governments does change, for example in France, which Hertzberg conveniently overlooks, where the new president, Sarkozy, is a much stronger ally of Bush (for better or worse) than Chirac ever was. I am anything but a fan of the Bush Administration, but we shouldn't let that affect our ability to reason properly.
(end of letter)

Don't hold your breath waiting for this letter to appear. After sending it, I realized that "absurd on its face" is too"in your face" for The New Yorker, although it would fit in quite nicely on the Wall Street Journal editorial page!

William Kristol, Now a New York Times Columnist

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 15:03:00 +0000

This is a slightly expanded version of an email I sent to Jack Shafer of Slate in response to his column, "Who's Afraid of Bill Kristol?", and his suggestion that his readers send in nominations for a better choice. I also posted it on The Fray

Subject: William Kristol
I dislike him, not because he is a conservative, but because he is a lightweight, with only his name going for him. Why doesn't the Times go for the real deal and hire his daddy, Irving, or Norman Podhoretz? William Safire has a certain elegance and intelligence about him. A certain gravitas, if you will. I don't care much for columnists who are reflexively or predictably this or that. Hendrik Hertzberg or Anthony Lewis, for example. I like columnists who add something. I don't have to agree with them all of the time, or even most of the time.
I would suggest Krauthammer, but he is sometimes devious and plays loose with the truth. George Will is over-rated, mainly by himself. Despite his grandiose style and logic, he is sometimes inconsistent or makes mistakes, without of course realizing it. And then there are all his factoids!

H. L. Mencken was in a class by himself, as was Walter Lippmann.

Maybe the Times should hire me.

Roger Cohen Watch

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:54:00 +0000

Here is an email I sent to Jack Shafer of Slate. One of his pet peeves is how Roger Cohen continues to be a New York Times columnist.

Subject: Cohen Watch

Today he waxes eloquent. Free association? Gibberish? Who knows?
Here are a few howlers, but really the entire thing has to be read to be (dis-)believed!
The column's title: "Beyond Conspiracy, Progress" (Say what?)
"Yet all this happened. Just as it happened that the Soviets were once our allies and Communists from Central Asia raised the hammer-and-sickle on the Reichstag as Hitler's Germany burned in 1945." (Is he talking Communist Muslims here?)
"And then, the Soviets became our enemies while the Japanese, despite Pearl Harbor, became our friends." (What about Hiroshima?) "And, at last, the Soviets became Russians who were no longer enemies but rivals." (What about all those Central Asians?)
"What we all want is pretty simple. Home about sums it up. The place they have to take you in." (Where, or in what?)
"European peace is a miracle; we forget too many miracles." (about?)

I can't go on. This guy's musings are not even amusing or bemusing. The real "miracle" is that they appear in the New York Times.

Greg Bachelis
(retired mathematician and would-be political blogger)

I've been Time-d out

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 18:12:00 +0000

I sent a letter to Time about Michael Kinsley's column in the December 17th edition, "Kidding Ourselves About Immigration". Several letters about that column appear in the December 31st edition, not including mine. For the record, here it is.

Michael Kinsley fails to distinguish between two kinds of illegal immigrants: Those who entered the country legally but overstayed their visa, hence becoming illegal, and those who entered without papers and hence were illegal from the moment they set foot inside the country. The former group is no doubt heterogeneous and no doubt deserving of some consideration. As for the latter group, why should proximity to the U.S. border be a valid reason, in and of itself, for allowing such people to "jump the line", no matter how much "gumption" they show, to use Kinsley's term.

Flippancy Should Not Trump Accuracy

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:58:00 +0000

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

Krugman and Herbert vs. Brooks

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:50:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:24:00 +0000

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 ?

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:17:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:14:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:10:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:06:00 +0000

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!

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:01:00 +0000

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.

Krugman Plays the Race Card

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:49:00 +0000

In an otherwise excellent column($) in today's New York Times. "Snow Job in the Desert", Paul Krugman says the following:

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing the United Nations Security Council, claimed to have proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He did not, in fact, present any actual evidence, just pictures of buildings with big arrows pointing at them saying things like “Chemical Munitions Bunker.” But many people in the political and media establishments swooned: they admired Mr. Powell, and because he said it, they believed it.
Mr. Powell’s masters got the war they wanted, and it soon became apparent that none of his assertions had been true.
********
I believe that the use of the term "masters" in this context is racist (and, believe me, I don't throw the term "racist" around lightly). The pairing, after all, is master-slave. To me, it is just a polite way of saying what Harry Belafonte said a number of years ago when he called Colin Powell a "house nigger". Belafonte later apologized, and Powell said something to the effect that " I told Harry I hoped we could get past using terms like that." I hope Krugman can get past it too.

By the way, there was some evidence. I believe there was a phone intercept talking about "cleaning things up before the inspectors come." It turned out they were talking about old stuff that might still have traces of whatever. Don't forget, Saddam did at one time have WMD's, some of them supplied by us, in which Donald Rumsfeld played a leading role.

All this vilification of Colin Powell makes me understand all the more why he didn't want to run for President. Barack Obama is feeling the heat now, and I think he should get out of the Presidential race, as I fear for his safety. I also feel there was some racism and sexism, not to mention intellectual snobbery, in the criticisms of Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers, but I will save this for a future post.

Krugman vs the Republicans

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:22:00 +0000

Below is a comment I emailed to Paul Krugman about his column($) in today's New York Times, "Seeking Willie Horton". I have sent several before, but he only posts the ones he responds to, and mine have never seen the light of day.

I enjoy your columns, but today I thought you were shooting from the hip a bit. Is it the Republican base, or the leaders, who you were aiming at? Certainly your comments don't apply to George W. Bush. Dreadful as he is, one has to admit he is genuinely inclusive when it comes to his administration (to a fault when it comes to Gonzales). But then I've thought for a long time that Bush isn't really a Republican, although not for that reason. As for Dukakis, he ran a dreadful campaign, was programmed at all times, and he never fought back, when he was asked what he would do if his wife was raped and murdered, or about the Willie Horton ads. He could have pointed out that most governors-including Reagan-give furloughs to prisoners. As for Reagan, I don't think he we was a racist and certainly not homophobic, at least on a personal level. True, he did pander, but I think one of the big reasons for all the "Reagan Democrats" was because of all the "political correctness" in the Democratic Party. And I'm afraid that this will be coming back full blast if Hillary is elected.
************
To elaborate on my last sentence: One big reason I won't vote for Hillary is that she has an agenda, spoken or not, to take us back to the 1970's, with the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and all the rest. Look what happened when Bill got elected: gays in the military, there has to be a female Attorney General, not to mention the health care fiasco and her channeling of Eleanor Roosevelt. Hillary, I knew Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor Roosevelt was a friend of mine. (well not really) And believe me, you're no Eleanor Roosevelt.

I lived through the Seventies, and I don't want to have to relive them. "Political correctness" still thrives in academe, which is one reason I'm glad to be out of there. The main organization for academic mathematicians, the American Mathematical Society (AMS), is in step with the colleges and universities on this issue. In the 1970's they decided not to hold their annual meeting in a state that had not ratified the ERA -there went Chicago- and in 1995 they moved the annual meeting out of Denver because Colorado had passed some anti-gay rights legislation, not withstanding the fact that Denver had passed some pro-gay rights legislation.

Lest you think I was an old fuddy-duddy back then, I should mention that in the late Sixties and early Seventies I was the parliamentarian for the "Mathematicians Action Group", which did plenty of rabble rousing at AMS annual and summer meetings.

If I were more mischievous, I would send a letter to the AMS Notices pointing out the following: There is a classical theorem in Number Theory called the "Chinese Remainder Theorem." I always thought it was titled that way because they didn't know which Chinese mathematician had proved it. It turns out that the name of the person is known, but hey (and here I jest) he's Chinese, and who could pronounce the name anyway? The height of political incorrectness! I suspect that such a letter would really get the "politically correct" crowd going.

A bit too Rich for my thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:10:00 +0000

In his (understandably) emotional charge to trash everything about the Bush Administration, I believe that Frank Rich has at times taken leave of his thinking senses. He has always been a bit "over the top", so this is to be expected, I guess. Nevertheless, this bears commenting upon, since there are certainly other villains of this piece besides Bush, Cheney & Co. In his column($) in today's New York Times about the commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence, he says
"But if those die-hards [in Bush's base] haven’t deserted him by now, why would Mr. Libby’s incarceration be the final straw? They certainly weren’t whipped into a frenzy by coverage on Fox News, which tended to minimize the leak case as a non-event. " But his last sentence runs counter to his argument. If they viewed the leak as a non-event, then they would be more likely to be whipped into a frenzy by Libby's incarceration.

In last week's column, "When the Vice President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal" , he says that "hiding in plain sight was the little-noted content of the Bush executive order that Mr. Cheney is accused of violating. On close examination, this obscure 2003 document, thrust into the light only because the vice president so blatantly defied it, turns out to be yet another piece of self-incriminating evidence illuminating the White House's guilt in ginning up its false case for war. " But why was this executive order "hiding in plain sight"? It wasn't kept a secret, it's just that few people took note of it or realized its importance.

Later on in his column Rich says "Because of the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation, we would learn three years later about the offensive conducted by Mr. Libby on behalf of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. That revelation prompted the vice president to acknowledge his enhanced powers in an unguarded moment in a February 2006 interview with Brit Hume of Fox News. Asked by Mr. Hume with some incredulity if "a vice president has the authority to declassify information," Mr. Cheney replied, "There is an executive order to that effect." He was referring to the order of March 2003."
Now, how does Rich know that this was an "unguarded moment"? My feeling all along has been that the Bush Administration was not really hiding its ginning up of the war. It's just that few people were paying attention to the signs of this, and those who did were not listened to. I'll never forget Paul Wolfowitz being quoted as saying "We've decided to go with WMD's as the best reason," or something to that effect. This was the subject of the infamous "Downing Street Memo," but it wasn't a surprise to me when that memo surfaced.

The sad truth is that Bush, Cheney & Co. have had plenty of enablers -in Congress, the media, and the mostly apathetic American public when it comes to anything other than entertainment, celebrities and sports. I applaud the efforts of Rich and others to get people better focused on the important issues as we deal with the fallout from the "Mushroom Cloud" of the Bush-Cheney Calamity.

Rush to Limbaugh

noreply@blogger.com (greg bachelis) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:08:00 +0000

Well, the battle in the Senate over the immigration bill is coming down to the wire, but is it a rush to justice or a rush to injustice? According to right-wing talk radio and many cable news programs, it is the latter, and they are marshaling the troops as never before. One interesting question is this. Are dittoheads (aka Limbaugh's loyal listeners) capable of independent thought, or are they just pawns in the hands of El Rushbo? Having listened to Limbaugh's show - less and less in recent years as he has gotten shriller and shriller - my answer to that question is a qualified "the latter." I will give an example. He rails against the "drive-by liberal media", but then he will quote them with approbation when they say something he agrees with. This inconsistency doesn't seem to bother the dittoheads. Well, as Ralph Waldo Emerson said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
In my opinion, at the core of the immigration mess is the fact that illegals do menial jobs that can't be outsourced -in construction, agriculture, home maintenance, etc. - and often for low wages. So employers in these areas resort to "insourcing." For citizens affected by this, it is happening not in some far away third world country, but right in their own backyards!

What do I think about this? I think we should enforce existing immigration laws and secure our southern border, before anything else happens. And let's have price supports for agricultural products. We can afford it, and the workers deserve a living wage. Our grocer won't end up having to sing "Yes, we have no bananas, we have no bananas for sale."