bustardblog

T.F.'s

It was just two TomFriedmans ago that Vice President Dick Cheney announced that the insurgency was in its "last throes." It was May 31, 2005 that CNN reported on his statement. Since then, 805 more U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
Today's NY Times reports that the Pentagon's quarterly report to the Congress yesterday said that the "strength of the insurgents 'will likely remain steady throughout 2006'" but "will begin to wane in early 2007." In other words, it will remain constant for a little more than one TomFriedman.  Assuming that the Pentagon is not being overly optimistic, Cheney will be proven wrong by more than three TomFriedmans, and over 1200 U.S. Dead.
Why can't he just go back to shooting friends in the face?
P.S. When did the U.S. Government decide to run on TomFriedman time.

Oily Tom

'Not to Worry, Mr Friedman." " Please - whatever you are selling I am not buying."

Tom Friedman's Op-Ed in today's NY Times is just ridiculous. He claims that outsourcing is over because a U.S. company no longer just outsources from its domestic headquarters to another country. Now, he is excited to announce, those places to which we outsource, are also now outsourcing! How this adds one job to the U.S. economy is not discussed. There may be an interesting conversation to be had about how middle-class America's loss is a gain for poverty stricken third world nations, but Friedman prefers to dance around it, rather than to engage in it.

Of special note is how thrilled Friedman is by a new program, one of 'outsourcing'  the processing of employee records from large cities in India to villages. Gleefully he writes how "the outsourcee has become the outsourcer." His enthusiasm is boundless when he  quotes the Indian entrepreneur who initiated the experimental program as saying how low the attrition rate is. The experiment began with "two villages a year ago." 

Low employee attrition?  Where themost senior employee has been on the job no more than a year?

Is Friedman simply a snake oil salesman?

The Israel Lobby - Part II

This is the second part of a two part series regarding Op-Ed's in yesterday's N.Y Times. Please click on this link to start with mypost of yesterday.

Who cares? So what if the discourse on the U.S./Israel relationship is stifled and intimidation prevails? 

Therein one sees the brilliance of the sub-editor at the Times. On the right of Mr. Judt’s gentle article is Tom Friedman’s Op-Ed. In it he mourns the non-existence of options we have in Iran. He states that are only two choices: letting Irango nuclear, or another blundering catastrophe by our incompetently run military. But if we were to have an open discussion of the realities of the Middle East, we would have to examine why Iran feels it must have a nuclear weapon. We would talk about Israel’s refusal to sign the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The acquisition by Iran’s near-neighbors,India and Pakistan, of nuclear weapons with U.S.approval would have to be part of the debate. So too, would be the fact that Iran is the only country to be attacked with Weapons of Mass Destruction in the last 50 years.

Despite its frequent promises to never introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, the world knows that Israel has done so, just as the world knows that it has continuously upgraded its ability to deploy them. During the 1990’s, Israel acquired diesel submarines which it armed with cruise missiles that have the capacity to carry nuclear warheads, “giving Israel a triad of land-, sea-, and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time.” The Washington Post went on to mention the opinion of analysts that this development “would complicate U.S. efforts to keep other countries in the Middle East and elsewhere from seeking to acquire nuclear arms. It could also spur a nuclear arms race in the Middle East”. (emphasis added) Friedman got it right (this time) – the U.S. has virtually no options in Iran, as longs as it supports Israel’s illegal nuclear program.

 But it was Maureen Dowd’s piece being placed to the left of Judt’s that guarantees the lay-out designer his promotion. Speaking of Rumsfeld she wrote: “He suggested invading
Iraq the day after 9/11. He didn’t want to invade Iraq because it was connected to 9/11.” The justification for invading Iraq had to be ‘concocted’ by the neo-cons. She quotes retired Marine general Trainor as saying “He just wanted to show them the front end of an M-1 tank. He could have been in Antarctica fighting penguins. He didn’t care, as long as he could send the message that you don’t mess with Hopalong Cassidy.”

 The neo-cons who targeted Iraq thereby saved the lives of a whole lot of Penguins, but killed or wounded tens of thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Inn fact, “regime change” in Iraq had been a goal of the neo-cons Rumsfeld brought into the Pentagon for many years. In fact two of them, in 1996, when they were working for newly elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called for Saddam’s overthrow and voiced “energetic” support for Ahmad Chalabi. Another of the neo-cons argued with President Bush that we should attack Iraq before we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan.The government of Israel itself lobbied for the war in Iraq. On the 16^th of August, 2002, the Washington Post reported that “Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” Ariel Sharon is quoted as saying that strategic cooperation between the US and Israel had reached “unprecedented dimensions.”   

Israel also was a “full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional” weapons. To the extent that Iraq
presented a threat to anyone, it was to Israel, not to the U.S.

It must be noted that while the outcome in Iraq appears to be a disaster for U.S. interests; Israel is not disappointed. They are losing neither blood nor treasure in
Baghdad. A weak, divided Iraq, pre-occupied by its own civil war is fine with Tel Aviv. To suggest that the war planners in the Pentagon were surprised by the violence that swept Iraq after Saddam’s fall is naïve in the extreme. They deliberately chose not to participate with the CIA on war Games designed to examine how an occupation would turn out. They chose to ignore that State Department’s “Future of Iraq Project” which did in fact project a lot of the problems that subsequently occurred.

So when a Richard Perle, formerly of the Pentagon, tells us that we could bomb Iran and be out of there before anyone even knew we did it, we have to be wary. Not only ecause he was so wrong on Iraq but also because the continued intimidation of critics of Israel prevents an honest, forthright analysis of what is in the self-interest of the U.S., and even of Israel itself. In fact, Israel suffers when real peace is postponed.

Having Judt’s piece on “The Israeli Lobby” surrounded by the words of Friedman and Dowd, underlines how very central is the need to openly discuss the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. What are our options in Iran? What went so wrong in Iraq? This is why the next Pulitzer must go to the layout sub-editor!.

 

The Israel Lobby

Please, a round of applause is in order for the sub-editor who did the layout for today’s Op-Ed page in the N.Y. Times. With Maureen Dowd’s piece on the left, Thomas Friedman’s on the right, and Tony Judt’s central argument occupying the center-left stage, today’s paper is enough to make any editor proud: both symbol and content were handled perfectly.

The central piece, “A Lobby, not a Conspiracy” argues for calm in the storm caused by over-reactions to Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer’s essay on “The Israel Lobby.” Judt did not over-react; if anything he is too gentle with those who attacked the essay, which asked for a more honest and open conversation about the State of Israel, and our country’s relationship to it. Judt notes that the lack of a realistic appraisal of the relationship is caused by fear – “America’s fear of anti-Semitism when discussing Israel.”

Part I of this post will discuss the reality of that fear, and Part II will demonstrate the harm done by its result.

That such fears end up benefiting neither country is discussed by Judt. The fact that the fear is a realistic response to recent intimidation of critics of Israel is not mentioned. The co-authors of “The Israel Lobby” are distinguished American scholars, one at Harvard and the other at the University of Chicago, yet their work did not appear in any American journal; it was up to the “London Review of Books” to be sure that the article saw the light of day.
 
Similarly the play, “My Name is Rachel Corrie,” based on the writings of a young American college student who died under an Israeli bulldozer while protesting the treatment of Palestinians, has never been produced in this country. It had two sold out runs in London, followed by a move to a larger stage in The West End. The New York Theater Workshop reneged on its agreement to produce the show – citing concerns about the recent election of Hamas, and of the health of Ariel Sharon.  Quite correctly, the London producers condemned this as “censorship.” (link)
 
Writers and producers who criticize Israel are not the only ones intimidated. Sir Richard Rogers, the British architect who won a billion and a half dollar contract for revamping New York City’s Convention Center, was forced to resign from, and then renounce, a group opposed to the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Jerusalem Post’s reportof March 5 on the successful efforts of the Anti-Defamation director Abraham Foxman, the  N.Y. State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver, and Congressman Anthony Weiner to force Lord Rogers to publicly repudiate the group, or face the cancellation of the contract which had been signed months before.

 On April 17^th, Daniel Pipes bragged about the ability of a group he founded, Campus Watch, to frighten college professors. He describes it as an organization that “reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them.”  The President of Hillel at Georgia Tech wrote an article for Front Page, complaining of the supposed bias of a professor. The student complained that the teacher had used the “word occupation in every statement. It was like a propaganda lesson from the Nazis”, and that “her intellectual capacity” should be questioned. The Professor later wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education, under a pseudonym, of the experiences of some of her “friends over the past few years” who had been “placed on blacklists.”  (Proudly Pipes informs us that it was Campus Watch that produced the dossiers.) She mentions the self-censorship that is prompted by this fear, and the resulting “feelings of anger and frustration.”  Pipes, referring to these feelings, thanks the Professor “for the encouragement and guidance.” Pipes considers her response “the most eloquent, if unintended, testimony to” the “effectiveness” of Campus Watch. Pipes and the neo-con paper, the New York Sun, both call for financial vengeance against the institutions that employ Walt and Mearsheimer, authors of “The Israel Lobby.”

 Fear, then, is a response fully warranted by the actions that some supporters of Israel have taken against academics, producers, writers and architects. It is not an illogical response. But aside from some artists and intellectuals, who is hurt by this aggressive silencing of any debate on our relationship with Israel? Tens of thousands of Israelis and Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have suffered.

Part II will prove this, as well as the genius of that layout sub-editor at The Times.

 

Friedman Go Home!

I have often pointed out fallacies and flaws in op-ed pieces penned by John Tierney. I would be grossly remiss not to mention those times when he gets it right.

In yesterday's NY Times he contributed a piece called "Border of Insanity," in which he provided the transcript of Lou Dobbs' recent depiction of a visit he made to the border-proof North Korea. I didn't think it hilarious, but I do have to give Tierney credit for showing just how absurd are many of the anti-immigrant positions. It was well done.

Tierney is usually far to the right of my position on many issues, and it hurts to have to praise his article, and to condemn the one by Thomas Friedman today. For reasons absolutely beyond me, Friedman is often described as a liberal. But it is the pre-cosmetic-work Joe Klein kind of liberalism, and it doesn't represent me at all.

Pompous as always, Friedman voices his support for the great wonders good immigrants can offer us, and yet, at the same time, he sees the real need for strong borders. An amazing intellect. Oh yes, and the world is getting flatter. But it is still very,very complicated.

I do have two questions for Mr. Friedman:

1. Why does he select CNN to condemn as being a shameful demagogue? Did he not realize that FOX has been at least as bad? Michelle Malkin on O'Reilly knows that "the vast majority of mainstream Hispanic politicians believe that the American Southwest belongs to Mexico." (even O'Reilly was tempted her to question her on those "facts") John Gibson says it's all about "reconquista," while Brit Hume found the demonstrations in L.A. "a repellent spectacle." Dobbs at least was consistent in saying he didn't approve of the Mexican flag at the protest, but nor does he like Irish flags on St Patrick's day. Why is it that a Friedman will strongly condemn CNN, which admittedly has few redeeming features, but ignores FOX, which has none?
2. There are lots of plans out there that involve financial penalties for the immigrant. Friedman prefers the one presented by Sen. Specter, and it does seem less onerous than some of the others. Yet I have read nothing of the fines to be imposed on the illegal employer of that illegal immigrant.  Similarly, a lot of people want the immigrant to pay back taxes, which at their pay level mostly involves FICA taxes.  Who is calling for the illegal employer to pay his portion of FICA?

'Tis a sad, sad day for a good liberal when he has to pick the tyranny of a right-wing Tierney over the illusive freedom of an alledgedly left-leaning liberal like Friedman.

Tom Friedman vs. Reality

It's all well and good that Tom Friedman's planet is flat, but the one I live on is quite round.

In today's Op Ed at the NY Times, he describes his recent trip to Mumbai where he attended the yearly meeting of India's high tech association, Nasscom. He left the Oberoi (average room price US$249.) pretty early yesterday, and hopped into the waiting car, bid good morning to his driver, and quickly dialed home on his cell. The eleven and a half hour time difference made finding a time to talk with his wife and daughters back in the States a little tricky. Catching up on his kids' news, he was oblivious to the incredibly horrendous traffic, as well as the large dhobi ghat near the train station.  There are several of these scattered around town, and at this one there are about 200 families running their individual laundry businesses. Clothes are washed by hand, pounded on stones, rinsed, hung out to dry and then neatly ironed. These businesses are hereditary, and often customer and laundry relationships last for generations. It's an amazing site, and you can see the photo here.

Tom got onto the lush campus where the conference was being held and jumped right in. He learned that the education of too many Indian and Chinese students was tilted too heavily science and math, and speculated that "we're at the start of a global convergence in education: China and India will try to inspire more creativity in their students. America will get more rigorous in math and science.... It's a win-win."

You can see that the world is really getting flat as a pancake (more like a crepe actually). I'm convinced!

But try convincing the Dhobi and his children. Or the 40% of India that is illiterate. If Tom spends 11 days at the Oberoi, his hotel room alone will be greater than the per capita GDP in India. On his next trip from N.Y. to Beijing, Tom will spend 50% more on his business class American Airlines Flight than the per capita GDP in China.

In 2005 there were an estimated 2.4 million Africans flattened by Aids. They died of it.Yesterday 58 people were killed in Iraq. And of course, we are all waiting to hear whether or not our friends in Afghanistan hang a man for becoming a Christian.

 

During George "Not on My Watch" Bush's watch 400,000 are dead in Darfur. And it is estimated that 18,000 Americans died last year because they had no health insurance.

We knew that George Bush had neither interest in nor knowledge of any foreign cultures when we elected him. We knew that despite his "devotion" to Christ,he had only disdain for the poor and the sick.

But Tom Friedman is paid to be smart and to inform us of the world - supposedly the whole world. Not just the world which bemoans the lack of PhD candidates in the study of  Sanskrit in India, as his utterly useless column did today.