bustardblog

We're Going to Do It.

According to Juan Cole and even Glen Greenwald, my prediction posted back on January 30 that we would be bombing Iran by the end of the year is looking horrifyingly accurate.

It's a particularly ironic day at memeorandum, where you can connect to stories accusing Iran of supplying arms to Iraqi insurgents, and read about the PKK, the Turkish insurgents, who are fighting with U.S. armaments. And of course, the U.S. is now openly arming Iraqi Sunni insurgents.

The neo-con candidate for President, Rudi Giuliani, suggested a slightly different tack in his recent article in Foreign Affairs - Expect him to revise and side with Cheney/Bush in the next days.

Shame on Captain Ed.

Ironically echoing the speculations about the death of God, Captain's Quarters asks "When Exactly did Art Die?"

He's unable to answer that question, but he is confident that he knows the cause of death:

Art has lost all vigor, as it celebrates works that become increasingly puerile and bounded by bigotry. Its obsession with Christianity as an evil presence has cost it its relevance to the modern world, and it has become nothing but a masturbatory exercise only for its own circle of mechanics.

Let's not count the mangled metaphors, but instead look to the basis of his sweeping generalizations. He refers to four or five specific pieces of art, and his criticism of at least two of them are way off base.

The latest examples are [two] entrants in the Blake Prize competition in Australia, [one of] which features a statue of the Virgin Mary in a burqa..

(I was unaware of Australia's importance in the world of art, but you can always learn something reading the Captain.)

And what does the good Captain think Mary's outfits looked like? He imagines them to be more colorful? But at that time dyes were not readily available and terribly expensive. To get any sort of a blue color Indigo was required, and had to be imported from India. Needles were actually thin bones, so complicated sewing was out of the question. As a good Jewess, her head would have been covered at all times. Sounds kind of like a Burqa to me.

Captain Ed continues with his faux outrage, describing a picture by the Roman Catholic painter, Chris Ofil

Flinging elephant dung at a picture of the Virgin Mary and surrounding the image with pictures of genitalia got NEA funding here in the US.

But Mr. Ofil is an English painter of African descent. He received no money from the NEA. None. The good Captain heard of the work when the British owned collection of paintings of which it is a part, was brought across the pond and briefly loaned to the Brooklyn Museum of Art. At that time Rudi Giuliani used the picture as a political prop to gain headlines. To actually look at the picture, to understand the role of elephant dung in much African culture,  is to realize that no sacrilege is involved.

This is classic right wing propaganda- stirring up outrage with gross generalizations based on false  examples and the Captain, who can on occasion be reasonable, cannot be proud of himself today.
(memeorandum)

Another Cop Dies for Bush

The A.P. reported today that

A police officer died Monday after crashing his motorcycle while riding in a motorcade as President Bush prepared to leave the city following a fund raiser for Sen. Pete Domenici.

He was officer Germaine Casey, 40, and left behind a wife and two kids.

The Albuqueque Police Dept noted that "any time there is a motorcade...they drive at a high rate of speed."

The motorcades that carried the president "from place to place often move at breakdown speeds - and sometimes there are casualties."

But this was a fatality. The second one in a year for Pres. Bush. He was racing in between fund raisers. The motorcycle was "nearly destroyed." He was on the grounds of the airport, entering a parking lot, en route to a fund raiser for Republican Dave Reichert and the Washington State Republican Party in Bellevue, WA. It's not like there was any sort of threat. (He likes to go fast.  If people can't keep up with him: Heh-heh.)

The fatality in November was in Honolulu where Officer Steve Favela, 30, died while escorting the President from a photo-op back to Air Force 1. He left behind a wife, a daughter, and three sons. This happened while the motorcade was traveling across Hickam Air Force Base, where once again the President was in no danger. The plane was unlikely to leave without him.

Another cop was injured in 2006, but only slightly. Then there was the accident with Bush's ambulance.

Of course, right wing bloggers at places like Newsbusters tries to compare it to accidents involving the Clinton's - but there really is no comparison between two dead men and a guy who bruised his shoulder trying to get the attention of Mrs. Clinton's drivers.

Of course, accidents do happen.

But does anyone actually believe that after the first casualty, or even after the first fatality, that Bush asked his driver to slow it down a bit?

Craig, in Fact,is a Republican

When the great minds at protein wisdom and Hot Air discover a trend, you can be pretty sure there's a lot of distortion and flat-out lying going on. When Senator Craig is arrested, it's time for them to whine about the press' quickness to identify him as a Republican.

Not being possessed of much judgment themselves, they cannot imagine that this is judgment call that the media makes when it reports a story. Nor are they able to understand that different media outlets make those judgment calls differently.

Here's what happened. Senator Craig did what he confessed to doing. Hot Air was outraged at the emphasis given to his affiliation with a certain political party. John Cole criticized this post. The bombast at protein wisdom was incensed, as always, and pointed to examples of the press' dastardly deeds that were appearing at its offspring,the  pub as proof. Most of the examples only confirm the myopic deceptions of the perpetually wounded victims who make up the Protein family.

Roll Call's story on Craig was the one that memeorandum had hot air and protein linked to. Sure enough the piece immediately indicated that the Senator is a Republican. But Roll Call almost invariably mentions party affiliation immediately after the name of an elected official. None of the other examples that protein listed were from Roll Call.

Other media outlets are not so consistent on identification - but their behavior is generally   based on judgments about relevance and how informed their reader probably already is. For example, on a front page story in today's New York Times about a New York issue, the paper did not mention Mayor Bloomberg's party. Another: Memeorandum linked me to the report of the death of yet another cop in President Bush's motorcade.  The A.P. report never mentioned that Bush is a Republican. It did identify Sen Dominichi as one, in the 12th paragraph. (Bush is not racing to an emergency when these things happen - he is risking other lives en route to things like Republican fund raisers.)

Local media are often unlikely to identify the party of local officials.  Protein's "Pub" cited as an example of media bias the failure of the Bergen County Record to note the party of Newark's former Mayor, Sharpe James. Newark is by far the largest city in Northern New Jersey, and Sharpe James had been its mayor for over twenty years. The Pub offers other examples to prove the trend spotted by the "mothership." The San Francisco Chronicle failed to note the party of the mayor of San Francisco.  A local A.M. station in North Carolina didn't mention what party the local state rep belonged to. SweetnessLight seems to love posting on this junk.  So does Don Surber, who is shocked that the Miami Herald does not always list the affiliation of Miami's U.S. Representative, Congressman Meek.

And then some of the examples posted at Protein's Pub are just silly. "On April 11, 2002, Traficant was convicted on all counts, and ABC, CBS, CNN, and FNC noted the party label -but not NBC..or MSNBC." If you go back five years it's gets hard to call it a trend, especially when most of the media you're citing are doing the opposite of said trend. Hot Air has a post about Rep Filner, and gives it the title of  "the congressman of unknown party affiliation charged with assault." It condemns an ABC story that does not mention his party until the third paragraph. The other report he links to mentions it in the third word. Remember: this is the same Hot Air that is outraged when Yahoo mentions Senator Craig's affiliation in the third paragraph.

Party affiliation is almost never the most important aspect of the story, and often news media are inconsistent in mentioning it. Ironically, with the Senate so evenly divided, it is important in the Craig case - and the Republican's opposition to what it calls the "gay agenda" makes it even more relevant.

Once again Jeff Goldstein is full of Hot Air.

(Or as Balloon Juice so aptly said :

I think, Jeff, what we all need to really get the lesson is a 22,000 word essay from you on the issue. Something fascinating. With lots of cockslapping and your normally dense and unreadable prose. And hopefully, if we are really lucky, you will get a comment from someone who disagrees with you, which you can add to the post in a 10,000 word update of additional impenetrable gibberish. Maybe you can throw in some thoughts on masculinity, too. Riveting stuff.)

h/t Memeorandum

Alberto Goes

Gonzalez resigns, and the faintness of praise from the right condemns him to the lowest level of Hell.

Memeorandum has a whole lot of links to blogs announcing the news. Not even stalwart right wingers are pouring on the praise. For example, Dr Taylor of Poliblog is "pleased." QandO says "it's about time." Powerline comes to his defense, weakly, saying he's not the first "mediocre" A.G. - and claims that Abu wasn't to blame for the worst scandal, since it originated in the White House.

Hot Air does an admirable job of controlling his emotions:"It’s too much of a coincidence that the biggest lightning rods in the administration — Rove, Gonzo — are all overboard right before the Iraq debate heats up again."  Hugh Hewitt expresses no regret either. Another guy who really doesn't seem to mind is Macsmind.

"Bring me the Head of Alberto Gonzalez" is the title of Reason's post - clearly indicating their relief.

The great Think Progress has the video of the Press "Conference" - Abu didn't resign from office, he RAN from office   - and with friends like these, who can blame him?

Israel, in Trouble

The London Review of Books remains the place to go for rational assessments of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The issue dated 16 August carries a realistic, frightening piece by Henry Siegman entitled The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam in which he writes that Israel's future security depends on the creation of a strong and successful Palestinian state. The intensity of the Israeli  government's desire to preserve the status quo is explained.  But you don't have to be as perceptive or as well informed as Siegman to know that it's a recipe for disaster.  A simple look at population trends and the numbers in the region  will tell you how dangerously shortsighted Israel's Likud party has been. Even the bustard has condemned its folly.

The article is a must read. Here are some quotes from the piece that may give you a bare bones outline:

"The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history..."
"Peace initiatives have gone nowhere..." [because] "Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank."

He quotes Geoffrey Aronson, who wrote that:

"'Living without a solution, then as now, was understood by Israel as the key to maximising the benefits of conquest while minimising the burdens and dangers of retreat or formal annexation.'"

Making Jimmy Carter's accusatory comments seem mild by comparison, he goes on to quote former adviser in the Ministry of Defense, Haggai Alon

"'the IDF is 'carrying out an apartheid policy, that his emptying Hebron of Arabs and Judaising (his term) the Jordan Valley, while it co-operates openly with the settlers in an attempt to make a two state solution impossible."

Siegman clarifies just what are the "facts on the ground" that Israel is creating during this occupation;

"Israeli civilian and military infrastructure has rendered 40 per cent of the territory off limits to Palestinians. The rest of the territory, including major populations centres such as Nablus and Jericho, is split into enclaves; movement between them is restricted by 450 roadblocks and 70 manned checkpoints."

He also addresses the argument that Israel wants peace, but lacks a partner with whom to negotiate, and thus it is not its fault that it is still an occupying force:

"Had there been a sincere intention on Israel's part to withdraw from the territories, surely forty years should have been more than enough time in which to reach an agreement."

The reality he points out is that Israel does not really consider them as "occupied"

"Israelis see the Palestinian areas as 'contested' territory to which they have claims no less compelling than the Palestinians, international law and UN resolutions not withstanding."

Towards the end, Siegman outlines the sort of measures that those who care for Israel must make sure she takes - basically that Israel is not above laws and resolutions.

Please read the article, which is frightening in its realistic appraisal of the problems Israel faces, and how it is making them worse every single day.

Boats in Indian Mud

I've got Nothing today.
Photo taken on March 8/07, on Elephanta Island, just off Mumbai/Bombay.
Please Double Click to Enlarge.

Strom Thurmond and Matt Yglesias.

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias gets it completely wrong in his critique of Paul Krugman's op-ed in today's New York Times.

Yglesias says that the columnist is "pretty wrong" when he wrote:

    "And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P. since it was taken over by movement conservatives, they had very little to do with public opposition to taxes, moral values, perceived strength on national security, or any of the other explanations usually offered. To an almost embarrassing extent, they all come down to just five words: southern whites starting voting Republican.

And Krugman goes on to argue, successfully, that they starting voting Republican because of race.

Instead, Yglesias argues that Conservatives and Republicans have gotten the votes of

white southerners precisely because white southerners like conservative positions on taxes, moral values, and national security.

Yglesias's commenters do a great job of pointing out how wrong he is on both taxes (think of George Wallace's Populism) and national security (remember Richard Perle's former boss, Sen "Scoop" Jackson.")  Amazingly, he writes that racism was an important, overwhelming factor when southerners voted for Democrats, while it was insignificant when they voted for a Republican.  Sorry, Matt, race is either a big issue or not. But I was even more surprised that he relied so heavily on "moral values" issue.

Yglesias simply swallowed the Republican claim to superior moral values lock, stock and barrel, as well as the myth that they are somehow more important in the South. Never mind the facts. A child born to an unwed teenager is far more likely to come from Mississippi than from Massachusetts. Divorce is far more common south of the Mason Dixon line than to its north. etc etc

Rudi Giuliani, the leader of the Republican pack, is a man devoid of values. Some may call it a messy personal life - but when your wife has to go to court to bar you from bringing your newest mistress into the family home, it's beyond messy. He does however have a long record of racial divisiveness. If Yglesias has forgotten, he should google names like Abner Louima, Patrick Dorismund, Amadou Diallo.

The only way one can agree with Yglesias is if you too agree that racism and segregation constitute a moral value. For this is the "value" that attracted white southerners to the Republican party.

(h/t memeorandum)

As Rudi Lies, Journalism Dies.

Wonder why Giuliani still leads the Republican Pack?  Because of  journalists like Jill Lawrence of USA Today. Memeorandum led me to her article on Rudi, and it is a god awful piece of work.

She quotes the two term mayor as saying "Nobody held office as long as I did..." without comment. In fact, Rudi served from 1994 -2002. Eight Years. Ed Koch served from 1978 to 1990. Twelve Years. Robert Wagner:Twelve Years. Rudi's favorite mayor, his personal "hero"; Fiorello LaGuardia: Twelve Years. The guy talks crap and the "journalist" takes notes. She fails to question many false assertions of Rudi's in the article - this is merely the most glaring.

To be fair to Rudi, when he was Mayor there was a term limit law in New York, which prevented him from running for a third term. But when he says "Nobody held office as long as I did" he's far from the truth. (Unless of course he meant to imply that he served too long, cause then he's completely correct.)

To be fair to Jill Lawrence, she does throw a couple of subtle zingers. She mentions that he posed for a photo with a questioner's daughter just after he refused to answer the parent's query about his own family. Lawrence writes that he was "a combative mayor who...forced out the police commissioner who held clash the city's crime rate", but fails to mention that he eventually replaced the commissioner with his former driver, a mobbed up guy named Bernard Kerik.

As I strive for fairness, I have to say that Ms. Lawrence is not the only writer who seems intimidated by Rudi. He is an expert at punishing reporters who write less than favorable reviews of his performances.  He prefers to appear on FOX, where he generally received only softballs.  But at some point the press has got to stop  playing  by Rovian  rules, where they  lose access if they criticize. It is now, in the early primary season, that the media has a modicum of power. Let Rudi refuse to talk to reporters from what passes for our mainstream media, and see if it helps him get elected. After the election, the press needs the candidate as much as  he needs them, but at this point, they can afford to do a decent job.

P.S. A contributing factor to the problem might be what seems to be the media's tendency to virtually "embed" a particular reporter in a particular campaign.  Whether or not that reporter has good access is a determinative factor in his or her career trajectory. Possibly, rotating assignments more often would help. But with today's shrinking pools of reporters, maybe this just isn't possible.

Protecting our Kids

This post is a variation on an old TV show called What's My Line. On it a panel of celebrities tried to figure our what the contestant did for a living.

I need you to go ahead and be Kitty Carlisle Hart, or Steve Allen, or even Jayne Meadows for a moment, and figure out my identity, based on some hints. (if you have no idea who any of those people are, I can just go shoot myself.)

• I've imported millions of dollars worth of a product specifically designed for kids that contained a substance proven to harm the development of their brain.
• The stuff is totally illegal to import.
• Another product I import has perforated the intestines of many kids.
• No Colombian cartel is involved and no smuggling.
• I take no personal risks and only slight financial ones. Occasionally there is a little expense, like when I get caught, but I just factor this in as one of my costs of doing business.
• When I do get caught, the government blames my suppliers - not me. In fact, they thank me for my confessions.

And the answer, spelled backwards  of course, is LETTAM.

I'll be posting more on this story tomorrow, but if there was ever evidence that we need a real, grown up government that enforces regulations - this is it. John Edwards, especially, as well as all the other Democratic candidates should be talking about the need to regulate, and to see that regulations are followed.

(memeorandum referred me to a story on the trade in used chopsticks)

(A Previous post of mine on this topic is here)