NON-NEWS

Let me be absolutely clear: I don't give a shit about the Oscars.

I don't know why anyone cares besides the investors in the winning movies and the people who made them - the first for immediate profits and the second for long-term earnings.

An Oscar isn't going to make me like a movie I hated, or hate a movie I liked. I can see a nice dress or a pretty face in every second ad. I can get vapid commentary listening to The View - or listening to my neighbors, as a matter of fact. All the women around me show their tits - I've seen enough already. And I can't stand Ellen Degeneres. Is she going to "dance"? Please God, I don't want to see her tits.

Now that I think of it, here's the important question: is there any man who's not in the entertainment business and not gay who watches the Oscars voluntarily? If so, who is he, and is he wearing a sign so I can run the other way when I see him approach?

Today I read two newspapers - the Palm Beach Post and the Palm Beach Daily News. The sections of those papers devoted to entertainment and "culture" were crammed completely with Oscar buzz. I should leave the county immediately - because if there is anything going on here that's entertaining or cultural, you'd assume they'd be covering that and not national non-news.

Too bad I like it here.

POST OSCARS UPDATE:

Yes, I watched it. A couple of retractions:

Degeneres was okay - nothing great but no pandering (which makes me wonder how she can look at herself in a mirror after one of her typical "Ellen" shows.) She didn't dance - not really. Tits were minimal - literally. It was nice to see Al Gore and Randy Newman, and to hear James Taylor, and Celine Dion in the performance she was always meant to give. Commentary was less vapid than usual - actually, probably less than usual, period.

But I still don't give a shit.

MARTHA'S VINEYARD?

George Will has apparently raised an important question: assuming global warming is a reality, is it a good thing or a bad thing?

The answer depends on where you live. It depends on economics, ultimately. Who cares if Palm Beach goes underwater? (Probably not even Palm Beachers, because they can afford to lose their houses, and they're insured, anyway.) The beaches may move, but there will still be beaches. Who cares if species die? Assuming Darwin is right, there will be new ones coming, adapting to whatever conditions we wind up with.

Global warming could actually turn out to be a great thing, economically. If things change everywhere, there will be a scramble for the places where things turn out better, and a huge flow of capital into those places.

What we really need to be told is two things:

1) which places are going to be better, and which are going to be worse?

2) is there anything in global warming which threatens the existence of the human species?

Those questions may already have been answered - but if so, I don't know where or by whom. Here's a good article for the Sunday Times magazine - good enough so that I might actually read that irrelevant rag.

In the meantime, I'm keeping a wary eye on the melting ice caps. I have to figure out when is the optimal time to sell my place in Florida - which would be some decent time period before we're immediately threatened with drowning - and where I need to move to have the same lifestyle in the next Heat Age.

Don't tell me Martha's Vineyard. I already can't afford it.

HUH?

From the Huffington Post:

Geneaologists have found that civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by relatives of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Now I understand everything.

NOTHING

Olmert and Abbas meet with Rice, and nothing happens. What a shock. She's the master of pseudo-diplomacy. Either it's all a show, or she really is a lousy Secretary of State. Come to think of it, she's lousy in either case.

As soon as she's available, I'm going to hire her to teach a class on bullshit on this site. Just in case I'm not making bullshit clear enough for you.

STAY THE COURSE?

The New York Times leads with American intelligence and counterterrorism officials saying that top Al Qaeda officials are regaining power and opening up a new crop of training camps in Pakistan. Although American officials used to describe Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri as on the run and isolated, new evidence seems to suggest they are a key part of Al Qaeda's resurgence.

Well, I guess we stayed the course in the wrong place, didn't we.

JUSTIFICATION

Want proof Lieberman's position on the war is motivated by his support for Israel?

From Daily Kos:

Lieberman is a strong adherent to his Orthodox Jewish faith. He does not work on the Sabbath, which begins at sundown Friday and ends at sundown Saturday. If an important Senate vote fell on the Sabbath, Lieberman would walk three miles to cast his vote. He never campaigns on the Sabbath and regularly misses Connecticut's state Democratic nominating convention, even when he is a candidate, because it falls on the Sabbath. He supports allowing a moment of silence in public schools.

Joe Lieberman wouldn't campaign for President on the Sabbath. But a few minutes ago--remember, it is the Sabbath-- he voted against cloture in the Senate and thus against permitting a vote on a resolution repudiating the President's plan for a military surge in Baghdad, a strategy which is supported by almost nobody except a few neocon and Republican dead-enders?.

Jewish law permits a Jew to violate Sabbath strictures if his action will save Jewish lives. That has to be Joe's justification for voting on the Sabbath, and his justification for supporting Bush on the war.

THE WATER

From People For The American Way:

Powerful Texas state Rep. Warren Chisum (R), an advocate of religious-right causes such as banning adoption by gay couples and amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, has passed along a "memo" from a kindred spirit in the Georgia House claiming that "teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs," reports the Dallas Morning-News.

"Indisputable evidence - long hidden but now available to everyone - demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges …

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

Bridges, the sponsor of bills to undermine the teaching of evolution in Georgia, referred Texas lawmakers to a web site dedicated to opposing both the theory of evolution and that the earth revolves around the sun.


It must be in the water down there.

REHAB FIRST

From Crooks and Liars:

On Thursday, February 15, the Iowa Senate approved, on a voice vote, a resolution in opposition to President Bush's surge in Iraq. Iowa is the third state in the nation to pass such a resolution.

This, among many other reasons, should make it clear why I'm hoping a governor gets the Democratic nomination. People trained in Washington are far too into process and rarely get anything done - except if they're hidden in the executive branch where nobody can watch them.

However, if any state official from Texas starts showing up, let's hustle him into rehab before he wins. That way, we'd at least have a chance of curing his Texas disease.

I CRINGE

Chrysler is cutting 13,000 jobs, and may be cut loose from Daimler. This is good for Chrysler? Why did the stock price go up 8%?

Chrysler's CEO says: "We believe that this represents a solid plan to return to profitability and lay the groundwork for a solid future." Yes, cutting costs is good, but to "return to profitability" you have to be selling something someone wants. As I've said many times before, American companies have allowed their brands to become so devalued that people are embarrassed to drive their cars. And I don't know how Chrysler is going to get around that.

So why did the stock go up? This is what I figure: some smart people concluded that some dummies would think the current news is good, so they pushed the stock up for a short-term profit unload onto the dummies. I know this is really naive of me, but I cringe when I think that some people spend their entire lives doing that sort of thing. Then again, I wish I was smart enough to be one of those people.

NOT DEAD ENOUGH

In view of stuff like this, I'm getting the feeling that I was born too late and I won't be dead enough when things get really out of hand.

KETCHUP

From Truthdig:

Flynt Leverett, a former aid to Condoleezza Rice, has essentially accused the secretary of state of lying to Congress and the American people when she denied seeing a 2003 proposal from Iran. Tehran had offered a deal similar to what the U.S. wants now, but the Bush administration had no interest at the time. Leverett said former Secretary of State Colin Powell told him he “couldn’t sell it at the White House.”



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reuters:

Speaking at a conference on Capitol Hill, Leverett said “this was a serious proposal, a serious effort” by
Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.

“The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal,” he said.

Testifying before the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee last week, Rice told lawmakers who asked about Leverett’s previous public comments and writings on the Iranian proposal: “I don’t know what Flynt Leverett’s talking about.”



The appropriate job for this woman? "Do you want ketchup with that?"

DEATH TO VALENTINE'S DAY

From Dvorak Uncensored:

As a Valentine’s Day card smoldered, more than 100 members of the Hindu extremist group Shiv Sena chanted “Death to Valentine’s Day” and “People who celebrate Valentine’s Day should be pelted with shoes!”

I just converted to Hinduism from my prior faith, Hallmarkism. How can you not love people like that?

DEFINING DOWN

Having just read this, I sit here in utter bewilderment at what passes for intelligent policy in America.

The problem is, I think, that people who should be doing menial jobs can't find them in this country anymore ... so they've got to create a niche for themselves in the Information Age. This requires a defining down of what constitutes information - a term which now means "anything anybody says." Which requires a complete repression of the exercise of judgment. Something like how the media operates now.

Geez. It's exhausting.

FEITH

From Think Progress:

In a recent interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, former Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith attacked Paul Pillar, a 28-year veteran of the CIA who specialized in counterterrorism, for claiming that al Qaeda was not working with Saddam Hussein’s secular regime:

FEITH: I think that there were people, there were people in the CIA who had a theory that the Baathist secularists would not cooperate with the religious extremists in al Qaeda. And because they had that theory, when they looked at information that was, that showed, or that suggested that there was cooperation, they were inclined not to believe that information. […]

One of the main people who was propounding that theory…that the Baathists wouldn’t deal with the jihadists is now out in the private sector, and he’s actually been quite vocal, and has written articles, and his name is Paul Pillar.

Pillar was right; Feith was wrong. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s Phase II report noted that Saddam Hussein “issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa’ida.”

Asked to respond to Feith’s attack, Pillar told ThinkProgress:

It is hogwash that community analysts, as Feith alleges, were peremptorily dismissing, or “suppressing,” reporting based on some bias on their part about what was or was not possible in Baathist-jihadi relations. In fact, I can’t think of any recent issue on which the intelligence community has exhaustively devoted more scrutiny — at great expenditure of senior as well as working-level time and attention–than this one of Iraqi-al-Qa’ida relations. I can say that confidently, based on intelligence assessments I read and meetings I attended.

Pillar also told ThinkProgress that the recommendation from Feith’s office was that the CIA’s assessment on Iraq-al Qaeda relations “should be ignored. Not challenged, not made the subject of a critical dialogue between policymakers and analysts, but ignored.” Pillar described how he personally witnessed Feith’s dismissive attitude towards intelligence professionals in one White House meeting in the fall of 2002:

When an intelligence officer responsible for counterterrorism politely pointed out that something Feith had just said (and was recommending as a public talking point) about Iraqi-al-Qa’ida relations was not supported by the intelligence, Feith dismissed my colleague’s point as “nit-picking” and quickly went on to the next subject. It was a don’t-bother-us-with-the-facts- we-have-a-war-to-sell approach.

Today, Feith claims he was merely asking “tough questions” and “challenging the CIA” prior to the war.


No shit, Sherlock.

A MESS

Israel is a mess - just like us. But at least they are beginning to recognize what a disaster Bush has been for them. Too bad many American Jews haven't figured that out.

YES YES YES

About Iran. Read it.

THE WAY IT'S DONE

Bush is pushing an Iranian government connection to Iran-made weapons found and used in Iraq. As TPM puts it, "at stake is whether or not the Iranian government is pursuing what amounts to an act of war against U.S. troops."

I'm stunned. We armed Iraq against Iran in the early 80's. We armed bin Laden against the Russians in the late 80's. Did anyone say at the time that we were committing an act of war against Iran or the Russians?

If this is an Iranian act of war, then we've attacked the Palestinians, too, and anyone else attacked by a country we've given or sold arms to.

This is the way it's done, George. But no one expects you to actually know that.

WHERE IT LEADS

A bunch of American Jews - Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol et al - commandeer American foreign and military policy and send America to war in Iraq - and maybe in Iran - in the interest, not of America, but of Israel. There's a tale worthy of the author of "The Protocols of Zion" - except this one happens to be true.

If, as the ADL insists, antisemitism is rising in America, you'd hear that story everywhere. It's a natural. But you hear it nowhere. So you can conclude: either there is no significant antisemitism in America, or the Jews are controlling the media and keeping the story repressed. Since Rupert Murdock isn't Jewish, and so far no cabal has been identified, I'd have to go with the first, for now. The ADL hypes antisemitism just in case - it's a preemptive strike against potential antisemitism, pretty much like Iraq was supposed to be a preemptive strike against terror. The thinking behind both has been the same: eliminate the risk before there actually is any.

Is antisemitism on the rise in the rest of the world? You bet. They're not paying attention to Anna Nicole. America has to be the least sophisticated nation in the world. No wonder we've got the president we've got. I'll bet Amazonian pygmies have a better conception of what is affecting their world than we do.

Why is antisemitism on the rise elsewhere? Some of it is endemic, of course. The natural course of history. But some of it comes from the way Israel handles the Palestinians. And some of it is a reaction to Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle and Kristol, and what they've done.

Progressive Jews are accused of antisemitism. But they are the least responsible for what's causing it. And this nefarious spreading lie is what could turn me antisemitic.

For the record, I am not antisemitic. I am anti-duplicity. If, knowing the actual facts, America wants to go to war with Iran, I think it's stupid but it's the country's decision to make. But to be lied into war for reasons the public does not understand ... Well, I can only get into trouble if I point out where this leads.

I TOLD YOU SO

Did we invade Iraq for Israel? Check it out.

MAUREEN

Maureen's getting back to her old form.

Hope she keeps it up.

KIDDING

At the Westminster Dog Show, the dog food company Pedigree solicited money from viewers to support a program promoting the adoption of dogs from shelters.

And I thought: wouldn't it be nice if you got more social status from adopting a shelter animal than from buying a designer dog?

And then I thought: who are you kidding? That kind of thinking went out with Martin Luther King.

JUST STARTING

From Majikthise:

John McCain is freebasing again. Later this month, the Republican presidential hopeful will deliver a keynote address at The Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank.

Jerry Falwell will co-host a meet and greet for McCain at a national convention of religious broadcasters next week in Orlando. Falwell insists that his co-sponsorship of the event is not a show of support for McCain's presidential bid. In fact, Falwell's office says he may not even show up!

That's right, John McCain, feel the love emanating from the evangelical base.


We used to think McCain got it. Now one thing is clear: if McCain gets it, we sure don't. What does he know about the state of our Union that we don't? What makes him think these endorsements matter any more?

God, I hope he's wrong. I was just starting to breathe easier ...

CRAZY LIKE A FOX

Read it.

DIFFICULT

From Think Progress:

“It’s difficult to say that you’re against the war and at the same time not say that you’re against the troops.” — Today show co-host Campbell Brown.


It's not difficult to say it. It's difficult for some morons to understand it.

BETTER

From the Huffington Post:

The Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday threw out science standards deemed hostile to evolution, undoing the work of Christian conservatives in the ongoing battle over what to teach U.S. public school students about the origins of life.

The board in the central U.S. state voted 6-4 to replace them with teaching standards that mirror the mainstream in science education and eliminate criticisms of evolutionary theory.


As a medical matter, don't America feel better now that there ain't a screw loose in its belly button (Kansas is in the middle, hey)?

SUGGESTIONS?

As far as I can tell, Anna Nicole had nothing going for her but her looks. Now, of course, it's her story - she's about to become a legend for no reason I can think of except her premature death, meaning the premature loss of that body and that face.

The driveling over Anna Nicole is sad, but it suggests something to me:

Now that plastic surgery can make anyone beautiful, maybe it's time we revamped the way we evaluate others. Unfortunately, I can't think of any standard that makes sense that most people would use. Respect for others' accomplishments, intelligence or innate goodness will always be the province of a small minority. I'd recommend taste, but that isn't going to assist the tasteless. The standard now is to worship anyone other people worship, for whatever reason. That's deplorable.

Any suggestions?

WHO IS HE?

So six-nation talks have apparently produced a decent chance of North Korea abandoning its nuclear weapon program. This is what I want to know:

How in the name of God did an administration which refused to talk to adversaries and called North Korea "evil" wind up participating in this effort? Is there someone hidden in the administration somewhere with common sense and a conventional understanding of statecraft (it certainly isn't John Bolton, who has already condemned the agreement, conclusively proving he has no business in the midst of the world's foremost forum for negotiations; and I doubt it's Condoleeza Rice, who shows no understanding of anything) - and if so, how did he win the day on this one?

Whoever he is, if he exists, could he please put the same effort into stopping Cheney on Iran? If he does, there's a guy who deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

JUST THE NAME

From AmericaBlog, speaking of Dick Cheney:

"What didn't he touch? It's almost like there was almost nothing too trivial for the vice president to handle," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert in the bureaucracy of the executive branch.

"The details suggest Cheney was almost a deputy president with a shadow operation. He had his own source of advice. He had his own source of access. He was making his own decisions," Light said.

From Tweet Petite's Onions, November 2005:

When is America going to recognize that Dick Cheney is our president and Rumsfeld our vice president, and the other guy is about as meaningful as Queen Elizabeth is to England - and in much the same, ceremonial way.

When people were talking about Bush possibly dropping Cheney from his ticket, I had to laugh - because if anyone had been dropped, it would have been Bush. I don't mean to suggest that that possibility was ever considered - it was never necessary, since the only damage Bush could do is to speak off the cuff, and he was rarely permitted to do that.

When the shit hits the fan, it's Cheney who hunkers in the bunker. What more proof do you need of who is considered more important?

A year and a half later and they still don't get it. Cheney is not deputy president, he is the president. The relation between Bush and Cheney is child king to regent. The only part of the presidency Bush has is the name.

TELEDILDONICS

Okay, this is just the beginning. But of what?

WONDERMENT

Is America ready to elect a black rapper president?

Because that's what Obama is. Oh, he's not a gangsta rapper. He's a polite rapper. An orator. And the only thing I've heard about Obama is that people like what he says and the way he says it.

If America wants to elect a nice black kid, why not Tiger Woods? He's accomplished a lot.

Why is it America demands less skill and experience from its politicians than it does from its golfers?

THEY WANT TO

Why are we preparing to attack Iran?

1. Iran is evil. Yep. That's a sophisticated, meaningful assessment.

2. Iran could get nuclear weapons. We have nuclear weapons. How come we're not preparing to attack ourselves?

3. Iran might use nuclear weapons on Israel. Possible. Equally possible: Israel may use nuclear weapons on Iran. Why aren't we preparing to attack Israel?

4. Iran is supporting factions in Iraq. And we're supporting factions in Iraq. What was that reason why we're not attacking ourselves?

5. Iran is supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq. We're supplying weapons to Iran's enemies in Iraq. At least we're supposed to be doing that. But then nobody knows who the people we're giving weapons to are really allied with. Maybe we're supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq. What was that reason again?

6. Iran doesn't like us. We don't like them.

7. Their president is crazy. So is ours.

8. Their president doesn't believe in the Holocaust. Maybe that's true, maybe not. He's said several things. But is that a reason to bomb Iran? Is America a Jewish state?

9. Iran is aiding al-Qaeda. Hmm. Al-Qaeda is Sunni, Iran is Shi'a. Al-Qaeda is attacking Iraqi Shi'a. Anyone see a problem there?

10. Iran tried to kill my Daddy. No, George, that won't work this time. The only president Iran ever messed with was Jimmy Carter. That shouldn't bother you very much.

11. Because some Americans want to.

Note: no argument there. Look, here's the real answer: neocons and Republicans need a foreign enemy so they can continue to pull fast shit in the U.S. Iraq hasn't worked out so well. So we're moving on to Iran.

OBAMARAMA

Here's a good one on Obama.

FUNNY, HUH

From UPI:

At a farewell reception at Blair House for the retiring chief of protocol, Don Ensenat, who was President Bush's Yale roommate, the president shook hands with Washington Life Magazine's Soroush Shehabi. A grandson of one of the late Shah's ministers, Soroush said, "Mr. President, I simply want to say one U.S. bomb on Iran and the regime will remain in power for another 20 or 30 years and 70 million Iranians will become radicalized."

"I know," President Bush answered.

"But does Vice President Cheney know?" asked Soroush.

The president chuckled and walked away.


I'm just amazed he didn't try to give Soroush a neck massage.

HOLY SHIT!

From the Huffington Post:

It's been billed as the "meal of a lifetime," a 10-course dinner concocted by world-renowned chefs for the most discriminating palates and -- at $25,000 a head -- the fattest wallets.

And that doesn't include tax and gratuity.


This item is very meaningful to me. Nobody could possibly think any dinner is "worth" $25,000. It's not even an investment. So why are people doing it?

Because it puts them in a very select circle. This makes sense if you're networking for business prospects, or if you just want to be among interesting folks. Which assumes all rich are interesting. Which is only true if what interests you is being rich. But then you are already rich if you can afford this dinner ... I guess they just want a new way to tell themselves: "Holy shit, I'm rich!"

FART WARMING?

From Think Progress:

This week, Congress held its first hearing on the landmark IPCC report on global warming. That report concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.

During the hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who does not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?’

Unfortunately, he's right. Who knows what happened 55 million years ago?

But - we do know that current global warming is not caused by dinosaur flatulence. Could be from human flatulence ... so maybe we all better think twice before we let one loose.

THE GUY IN THE CAVE

In a current column, David Ignatius of the Washington Post says something I should have said two years ago:

Whatever we do, whether we stay or go, what comes out of Iraq is likely to be a catastrophe for that country, much of the Middle East, and probably us. That's why all current debate on Iraq is pointless; the quantitative and qualitative differences will only matter to the few people whose fate may not be the same under Leiberman's as opposed to Levin's, plan.

Here's Ignatius' point: the above being the case, what we need to focus on is containing the catastrophe. I.e., not on the present but on the inevitable future. That means keeping the disaster inside Iraq, if possible.

Ignatius notes that Condi Rice's recently announced plan to realign our interests to the Sunnis and against Iran (as opposed to our plan to date, which was to strengthen the Shi'a in Iraq) could produce exactly what we most dread. Aside from the fact that the Sunni are no improvement on the Shi'a, setting up a regional Shi'a-Sunni conflict is not exactly likely to contain the violence. Ignatius also advocates protecting the oil resoures, discussion with Iraq's neighbors and promoting Arab-Israeli peace.

We need to go a lot further than that. We need to plan for the likely consequence of Bush idiocy - a serious attack on Israel, the fall of the House of Saud (and the Hashemite kings in Jordan), the Islamicization of Egypt, etc. We need to assume the worst-case scenario and do what we can to avoid its consequences to us. Unfortunately, that's going to require the kind of thinking that Americans - with their short attention spans and short-term focus - aren't good at.

Hell, there must be someone we can ask to think this through.

Maybe that guy in the cave on a mountaintop in Tibet?

Or - anyone know: is Claude Rains dead?

JEWISH GIRLS

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that 14% of doctors - for essentially religious reasons - do not believe doctors must present all treatment options to patients, including those they oppose on moral or religious grounds; and 29% do not believe they must refer patients to other doctors if they refuse to provide a particular treatment.

Never mind the Hippocratic Oath. Never mind the patient's right to be fully informed of all options so that they can give "informed consent" to a procedure or treatment process. Never mind these docs are setting themselves up for malpractice cases.

I guess we have to ask our docs what religion they adhere to, and if there is any available treatment they will not do or will not advise us of. Since those with moral objections to particular procedures are not likely to answer the second question fully, we'll have to depend on the answer to the first question to decide whether we want to stick with a doctor, or not.

Oh, one tip - female doctors are much more likely than males to refer patients out if they oppose available treatments, and much less likely to hide treatment options.

See? It all works out. Stick with the Jewish girls and you'll be fine.

TO STIFLE

Essential listening: On Point With Tom Ashbrook podcast for 2/6/07 called "American Jews and Israel." Get it at iTunes.

The program deals with the accusation - recently remade - that Jews who criticize Israeli policy are either antisemitic or aiding and abetting antisemitism.

There is great meat in the On Point discussion, and every point I have made or wanted to make on the subject appears in it. What I want to focus on here is this:

This attitude is American, not Israeli.

Several speakers point out that, in Israel, criticism of government policy is a venerated practice. It's only here that certain Jews don't want Jews to criticize Israel. There are several reasons for that, I think. One is that, to these Jews - probably primarily Orthodox - Israel is a religious, not a political entity. So while one may be free to criticize the actions of man (politics), one may not criticize God, and they consider what Israel does as what God does or wants. They say they welcome criticism of Israeli policy, but when you listen to what they describe as antisemitic criticism, it is precisely Israeli policy that's being discussed. (In this attitude, by the way, they are no different from evangelicals who condemn criticism of their behavior as anti-Christian, or, in fact, from Muslims who protest cartoons in Western newspapers as heretical. Their openness to being reasoned with does not exist.) What this means is that the confusion of "Jews" with "Israel", one of the main objections to antisemitic speech, is "aided and abetted", not by the left, but by these Orthodox, primarily right wing, Jews.

The second reason is that these American Jews, who have done quite well for themselves, have arrogated to themselves a lot of wealth, political power, influence, etc., are terribly afraid that they could lose them, as happened in Nazi Germany. They do not want anything to upset their status quo, and they see any change as potentially destructive to them. They therefore try to quash any conversation which raises any issue which they believe might lead to a bad result. They have got things where they want them, and they mean to keep them there. They say that Israel is, for them, an escape hatch - a place for them to escape to if things get bad. But I think what they are really saying is that Israel's F-16s and tanks and nukes are the only real protection they have - and they don't care what nature Israel takes on as long as those weapons are available to protect them, if necessary. (Whether they actually are available to protect them is quite another question.)

Unfortunately, it's this sort of Jew which has taken over America's major Jewish organizations - ADL, AIPAC, etc. That this should happen is logical; Jews to whom Israel is not absolutely emotionally necessary will more likely join the ACLU or other progressive organizations which promote causes they're involved in than organizations which have a monopolar focus on Jewishness.

But that has to change - because AIPAC, for example, has an extraordinary influence on American politics which, these days, has led the country in several bad directions. It's not enough for progressives to speak out; they need to organize an effort to take the concept of being a Jew away from where it is now - a defensive and offensive push to stifle free thought and speech - and return it to where it used to be historically - an inclusive concept which thrived on intellectual conflict and development.

Bush wants to stifle America. AIPAC wants to stifle Jews. Jewish Americans need to work against both with equal vigor.

SKID MARKS

From CBSTV:

First it was cell phones in cars, then trans fats. Now, a new plan is on the table to ban gadget use while crossing city streets.

Legislation will be introduced in Albany on Wednesday to lay a $100 fine on pedestrians succumbing to what State Sen. Carl Kruger calls iPod oblivion.

Next thing you know they'll be checking your briefs for skid marks. All sorts of unhealthy bacteria in there, you know, only two layers of cloth away from your chair in a restaurant.

Geez.

A GOOD NIGHT'S SLEEP

George Bush says the greatest threat to America is Islamic extremism. I think the greatest threat to America is George Bush. But let's accept his thesis, and see what he's done about it:

Saudi Arabia was the Prime Mover in Islamic extremism. The Saudis funded madrassas all over the world to spread Wahhabism, the fundament of Islamic extremism. Saudis fund most of the Sunni terrorist movements. What has Bush done to pressure the Saudis to cut it out? He may have dropped a word to them here and there, but the public face of the Saudi-Bush relationship shows the Saudis in control, not the other way aroumd. You can blame oil for that, but that's not entirely correct. It's true we need Arab oil, but they also need to sell it. Until recently the US could have bankrupted the Saudis by refusing to buy their oil. Now, with China and India on the rise, that option is disappearing. If we had any options with the Saudis, we are losing them. Why? Because Bush's friends are in the oil bidness, some of them selling products made from Saudi crude. It's the income of American oilmen that Bush is protecting, not the Saudis'. So, in a way, it's Texas that is threatening America.

Egypt? The only reason that country has not gone extremist is what amounts to a Mubarrak dictatorship. On the other hand, the Mubarrak dictatorship has moved many Egyptians - like Mohammad Atta - into the extremist ranks. We said we removed Saddam to promote democracy in Iraq. We could remove Mubarrak and promote democracy in Egypt. Of course, that would likely lead to an Islamic state. But that could have been avoided if we had helped Egypt build an economy that could employ its own talented citizens, the ones who turn to extremism because the autocratic Arab world does not provide them opportunities. We didn't help Egypt's economy because Republicans don't believe in doing things like that. And we didn't remove Mubarrak because he's good for Israel - he represses movements that might target that country. Why do we care what's good for Israel? One reason is because Bush is evangelical. So, in a way, it's Jesus that is threatening America.

But there are other reasons. We have been convinced by the Israel lobby that Israel is our only reliable ally in the region. We have also been convinced that because of the Holocaust we owe Israel unconditional support. Both of these reasonable propositions, however, lead us into great danger. Israel is not just an ally; its right-wing policies vis a vis the Arab world resonate with the neocons - in fact, the only policy neocons have never wavered from is sdvancing the Israeli world view. The current Israeli world view is made up of a combination of arrogance towards others - something of which the world has often accused Jews, so it hurts me to have to say that as matters stand the world is probably right - and fear of others, in which Israel is (in the abstract) undoubtedly justified. One wonders, though, if to some extent the former creates the conditions that cause the latter. I don't dispute that Arabs have been stupid and intransigent when it comes to living with Israel - but nowadays Israel isn't making any serious effort to talk to Arabs who aren't stupid and intransigent. That mirrors the American policy of conducting no negotiations with opponents - which is about as stupid a policy as can be. There are no guarantees that agreements can be reached, but if they are not even attempted, there can be no peace. In part, I think Israel follows that policy now because it is run by a group whose Kabbalistic view of non-Jews is, as Jimmy Carter wisely pointed out, very much like the attitude of white South Africans towards blacks. But in part Israel follows that policy because our neoncons want them to. There is a symbiotic relationship between Israel and American neocons - each supports and teaches the other, and each pushes the other toward positions which are no less extreme than Osama bin Laden's.

In the meantime, Pakistan - the only Muslim nuclear power - slides toward chaos for the same reason Egypt does. Significant developmental help could have worked there, too. The other thing that could have worked there was a more consistent effort in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban down. Why didn't we do that? Bush was focused on Iraq. I think there are four reasons why that refocus occurred, and I've already talked about three of them. Somebody in America - Cheney? - wanted to take over Iraqi oil. Evangelicals of the LaHaye stripe believe Iraq was the home of the Devil. (The way things are going, they may have been right about that, though they unfortunately overestimated their ability to do something about it.) Israel wanted any Iraqi threat neutralized. And fourth - Bush wanted to avenge his Daddy.

So what did Bush accomplished by destroying Saddam? He didn't get rid of the Devil. He hasn't yet got Iraqi oil - although they're working on it. He turned a Sunni state into a Shi'a state, weakening the Saudis, Jordan, Egypt and God knows who else. He increased Iranian influence in Iraq, which the Israelis consider a greater threat than Saddam. And he gave Islamic extremists another reason to hate America. All in all, he made everything worse. You have to wonder whether his friends - the Saudis, the Israelis, the evangelicals - didn't know that if he destroyed Saddam their positions would deteriorate. If they did know, did they tell Bush? Is it possible that, wanting to help these groups, he didn't take their advice, insisting - as he always does - that he - who is totally ignorant of just about everything - knew better?

So Iran now threatens to unseat the Saudis as the dominant regional power. Iran has more people, more initiative to improve itself, and - believe it or not - is less religiously doctrinaire. In fact, Iran is more like a Western than an Arab state. There is hope that Iran may evolve into a responsible world citizen. The only hope for the Arab states is violent revolution.

But we won't talk to the Iranians. There goes another blown opportunity.

All of the above explains why I believe Bush - and his party, and the people who have his ear - are the greatest threat to America. They're frantic, fearful, arrogant, just like the Israelis - and not a little like fascists used to be - and they have no idea what to do to get us back into a position where we can relax and actually believe things are going to turn out all right.

So let's get rid of them all, and earn a good night's sleep.

THANKS AGAIN

From The Blotter:

The growing violence in Pakistan has raised concerns that President Pervez Musharraf is losing control of his country, a senior U.S. official tells ABC News.

The official said there are growing fears he could either be killed in an assassination attempt by the resurgent Taliban his country once fostered or be ousted in an Army coup of the kind that he led to seize power in 1999.

Tuesday's suicide bombing at the international airport in Rawalpindi follows a series of suicide attacks against government forces in northwestern Pakistan and a bombing on Jan. 29 at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad.

The only Muslim country which actually has nukes may be headed down the drain?

Thanks again, Georgie.

UM HM

From Matt Stoller:

Hillary Clinton just can't take responsibility for the war in Iraq.

"I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

I've read a lot of Hillary Clinton's speeches and statements, and I reread this several times, but I can't seem to find anything to suggest that she thinks she did anything wrong. The inability to admit error is a serious, serious problem, and as we've learned in the last six years, a sign of weakness. There are other signs she isn't learning or growing with the country. For instance, John Aravosis pointed out this offensive quib in justifying her war vote.

"As a senator from New York, I lived through 9/11 and I am still dealing with the aftereffects," Clinton said. "I may have a slightly different take on this from some of the other people who will be coming through here."

Conflating 9/11 and Iraq, and implying that other Americans don't 'get' 9/11 so as to use it for political purposes is a really bad sign. It's exactly what Bush does, repeatedly.

And this is a rather small point, but I'm pretty sure (though not entirely sure) that the Senate was in session on 9/11, and that Senator Clinton was in DC. So it's not quite clear that she 'lived through 9/11' the way that she wants us to think that she lived through 9/11.

Some New Yorkers use 9/11 the way us Jews use the Holocaust: "I went through it, not you, so don't you criticize me!" That is, criticize me for anything. It's an attitude I can't stand.

Listen up, Hillary: I lived through three hurricanes in two years. I got a whole lot closer to physical danger than you did. So when I say I don't want you for president, I know what I'm talking about!

Um hm.

JUST IN CASE YOU THINK US JEWS DON'T HAVE INFLUENCE

From Cannonfire:

Last night, I caught much of a History Channel program promoting war with Iran -- an exercise in propaganda so blatant as to make Goebbels blush. The whiff of war is in the air.

Most Americans have been led to believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demands the destruction of Israel; even if he had not been misquoted, he could never achieve such a goal without bringing an end to his own nation's long history. Bush has told the world that Iran is arming the Iraqi insurgency -- an inane and obvious lie, reminiscent of the falsehoods told to justify the Iraqi invasion. Why would Shi'ite Iran arm the Sunnis? In fact, good evidence suggests that aid to Iraq's Sunnis is coming from Saudi Arabia -- which really wants no part in the conflict, but which is being forced to act in a more high-profile fashion. Indeed, Iraq may soon turn into a Saudi/Iranian proxy war.

Today, we learn that Hillary Clinton backs military action:

“U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In dealing with this threat as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”

By what right would we attack a nation that has never gone to war with us or with its neighbors?

The History Channel neglected to mention a key fact that everyone else knows: Any aerial attack on Iran will almost certainly go nuclear, especially if Iran's fearsome Sunburn missiles destroy one of our warships. How can we justify a nuclear first strike to prevent the spread of nuclear weaponry?

Iran did not attack us on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi, the hijackers were Saudi, much of the money was Saudi. Al Qaeda was largely a creation of Pakistani intelligence, and Pakistan is the current home of the movement. Yet America did nothing to discourage Pakistan from developing nuclear weaponry. The Pakistani bomb was created with Saudi financing and encouragement. Some say we covertly aided that development.

Yet Bush has decreed that Pakistan may do that which Iran may not. Thus, we are being prepared for a third World War -- one which will throw the entire region into chaos.

Why? Scott Ritter gives one origin theory in his book Target Iran:

"the conflict currently underway between the United States and Iran is, first and foremost, a conflict born in Israel. It is based upon an Israeli contention that Iran poses a threat to Israel, and defined by Israeli assertions that Iran possesses a nuclear weapons program. None of this has been shown to be true, and indeed much of the allegations made by Israel against Iran have been clearly demonstrated as being false."
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

Bush speaks of "democracy" as the goal. But Saudi Arabia is not a democracy, and neither is Pakistan. Neither is Jordan nor any of the Islamic nations with which we have good relations.

Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is an elected leader. And it is hard to argue with the sentiments he expressed to the United Nations:

“No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the `international community.’ Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.”

Yet America's position derives from the theory of American exceptionalism: We may have nukes; they may not. We may strike first; they may not even strike back. As WIlliam Pfaff puts it in his recent NYRB piece:

The Bush administration defends its pursuit of this unlikely goal by means of internationally illegal, unilateralist, and preemptive attacks on other countries, accompanied by arbitrary imprisonments and the practice of torture, and by making the claim that the United States possesses an exceptional status among nations that confers upon it special international responsibilities, and exceptional privileges in meeting those responsibilities.

This is where the problem lies. Other American leaders before George Bush have made the same claim in matters of less moment. It is something like a national heresy to suggest that the United States does not have a unique moral status and role to play in the history of nations, and therefore in the affairs of the contemporary world. In fact it does not.

And:

Even Francis Fukuyama, a recovering neoconservative, acknowledges in a recent book that American economic and political policies today rest on an unearned claim to privilege, the American "belief in American exceptionalism that most non-Americans simply find not credible." Nor, he adds, is the claim tenable, since "it presupposes an extremely high level of competence" which the country does not demonstrate.
How will the world react? At first, with harsh words -- which will be no reaction at all. But the counter-attack against the United States will be slow and ongoing, and it will take place on innumerable fronts.

America cannot long endure in a world that considers us despicable. We do not possess the "extremely high level of competence" Fukuyama speaks of. Our intellectual and economic infrastructure is crumbling. After we bring ruin to Iran, even countries and peoples we now consider our friends will long to see us humbled. An unprovoked attack will birth new terror strikes that make 9/11 seem tame, and in their wake, we will command no sympathy. Do you want to see a world in which the fall of the Golden Gate or the Sears Tower elicits cheers in Berlin, London, Melbourne, Moscow and Peking? Such a world is closer than you think.

Many Europeans already -- and with good reason -- considers the United States a land of superstitious, arrogant louts. What will they think after we bring death to innocent millions? Why should the rest of the world care about our dollars, our goods (those few goods we continue to make), or our ill-educated work force? We cannot survive many more disruptions to our energy supply. We cannot survive disinvestment in our fragile economy. The Bush family has a private empire in Paraguay; the rest of us have no escape.

Even if we prevail in the coming war with Iran, victory will defeat us.

Tweet supplied the emphasis.

YES

From the Huffington Post:

Remember Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? When Jimmy Stewart had to stand and keep talking until he passed out. Ah, the good old days of filibustering. Well, I think the Democrats should bring that back.

If the Republicans want to filibuster the Iraq debate, then they should be forced to get up and keep talking about how well the Iraq War is going and what a great idea escalation is. They can tell us for hours and hours how much they believe in the escalation and how the Iraqis will throw roses at our feet.

I hear we are having "enormous successes" in Iraq. Maybe Dick Cheney could make a special guest appearance to help his Republican buddies in Congress talk about how much progress we're making there.

They could read the telephone book for all I care. I just want to embarrass them. Make them get up there and physically block a vote about what we should do in Iraq. Have them in front of the cameras telling the American people why we wouldn't shouldn't vote on the most important issue in the country.

They want a filibuster? Give them one. Let them make jackasses of themselves.

The Democrats could join in and counter with their own points about Iraq. A filibuster isn't supposed to end debate. It's supposed to extend debate. Great! Let's do it. My guess is that the Republicans will be begging to close that debate pretty soon. And they'll let the Democrats vote on whatever resolution they like.

This could be the best filibuster since Strom Thurmond read the phone book to try block the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That was classy. The spectacle of the Republicans desperately trying to block a vote on Iraq might come close to matching it.

The Young Turks

NO COMMENT

From Think Progress:

For the first time since the war began, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) is holding aggressive oversight hearings into the billions in waste, fraud, and abuse of U.S. funds in Iraq.

On Jan. 10, when President Bush first made his plans for escalation public, he also announced plans to “appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.” The next day, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice named career diplomat Timothy Carney to the position.

During this morning’s hearings, Waxman revealed that the State Department has blocked Carney from appearing at the hearing, despite the fact that Carney personally told Waxman he “was willing to come.” Moreover, the Bush administration has apparently rushed him to Baghdad despite claiming that the reason he could not appear at the hearing was because he “did not yet know what he was going to do in Iraq.”

WAXMAN: So I invited Ambassador Carney to testify today. When my staff talked to Ambassador Carney directly, he was cooperative and said he was willing to come. This the State Department refused.

Their first excuse was that he had not yet filled out his paperwork. Even though Secretary Rice publicly announced his critical new position, he apparently could not talk to Congress because he had not been officially hired.

Next, the State Department said Ambassador Carney could not come because he did not yet know what he was going to do in Iraq. This seemed odd, especially since the secretary had already announced that he was her new point person on Iraq reconstruction.

Then, just last week, we were informed that the department suddenly decided that Ambassador Carney was needed in Baghdad right away. So even though he was not officially hired and, according to the State Department, had no idea what he was going to do in Iraq, he was put on a plane to Baghdad this past Friday.

Waxman added that the State Department has “now told us that they may make him available to Congress in six months.”

BIG TALK

Oregon Republican Senator Gordon Smith a few weeks ago:

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore ... We have no business being a policeman in someone else's civil war."

Today he voted against debating the anti-war resolution.

Um hm. Right. But, then, so did Hagel.

Two more folks we don't have to pay attention to any more.

NEWSOM FOR PRESIDENT

From the Huffington Post:

"Mayor Gavin Newsom said Monday that he plans to seek counseling for alcohol use, following the disclosure that he had an affair with the wife of a trusted aide."

I'm trying to figure this out. He had sex with someone else's wife because he drinks? Maybe he had sex with someone's wife because he eats too much. Because he smokes. Because he plays tennis.

Um - what was it Bill Clinton said? He had sex with Lewinsky because he could.

I understand why Newsom blames alcohol. That's the tabloid explanation people are buying at the moment. And because alcoholism has been defined as a sickness, it wasn't his fault. In fact, it wasn't his conscious choice. Geez, can't blame the guy. His sickness made him do it.

But that anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty would buy this explanation - or Gibson's, or Lohan's, or any of them - boggles the mind. Lots of men want to have sex with their friend's wives - he just had the balls to do it (as, of course, did she.) That's why I'm voting for Newsom for President. Or maybe I'll vote for the friend's wife.

STARTING NOW

From Think Progress:

On Jan. 31, President Bush headed to Wall Street and for the first time, acknowledged that income inequality exists in America: “The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years.”

But apparently, he’s not quite ready to do anything about it. Bush’s 2008 budget cuts crucial aid for America’s middle class:

– “$77 billion in funding cuts for Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years, and $280 billion over the next 10.”

– $223 million in funding cuts (4 percent decrease from this year’s levels) to the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

– “$4.9 billion, or 8 percent, cut in education, training, employment and social services” grants.

– $100 million cut for Head Start, which provides child development services to economically disadvantaged children and families.

– “$2.4 billion cut in community and regional development grants — which often provide funding for low- and middle-income communities — to $16.5 billion from $18.9 billion.

– $400 million — 18 percent — cut in the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, “which provides $2.2 billion to help people pay heating bills this year.”

– $172 million — nearly 25 percent — cut in funding for housing for low-income seniors.

While Bush forgot about the middle class in the new budget, he made sure to look out for the wealthy. As the Tax Policy Center notes, “People with incomes of more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging $162,000 a year (in 2012 dollars) in perpetuity.”

Who exactly is going to let the middle class know about this? Considering Democrat performance on the Senate anti-war resolution, it would be a little foolish to count on them. What they do will bear real watching. Starting now.

LOVE THIS

Good God, I just love this, from Wonkette:

Thank our American God the law is coming down hard on these two terrorists. The men were hired by the “Time Warner” company to leave little cartoon things around Boston, which caused a complete shutdown of the once proud city.

Other sinister men left the same comical things all over other, smarter U.S. cities … weeks ago … where they went unnoticed. Meet the new face of evil, after the jump.

Even though it was a marketing stunt by one of the biggest media companies in the world, it was a very high-profile terror scare (thanks to that same media company’s Cable News Network).

The harmless cartoon Lite Brite thingies might just be harmless cartoon Lite Brite thingies, but the prosecutor still has to be very tough and extra-crazy in such a terroristic situation: “Assistant Attorney General John Grossman called the light boards ‘bomblike’ devices and said that if they had been explosive they could have damaged infrastructure and transportation in the city.”

Yes, and if prosecutors were actually barrels of shit wrapped in dynamite, courthouses around the country could be severely damaged and extremely unhygienic.

HOOF IN MOUTH DISEASE

From the Huffington Post:

"Stumbling badly out of the gate, Sen Joe Biden (D-MBNA) will be put down, it has been learned. "We've tried everything," his trainer said. "Plugs, blogs, GaffEx, repunctuation, Jon Stewart -- nothing's worked. At this point, it's the humane thing to do." Spin doctors believe that the new injury proved intractable because it fractured the same joint weakened twice before, in the Kinnock Derby and the Hill-Thomas Stakes.

"Representatives of all the cable news networks will be present when the lethal dose of sodium pentothal is administered. In lieu of flowers, contributions may be sent to the PAC of your choice."

Not really necessary. He's already dead. Why not just let him live out a peaceful and perhaps productive life in the Senate - providing he's willing to back out of the presidential race? He may not be willing to do that - and if not, death would be kinder to a man who can't seem to learn the "macaca" lesson.

But, for a more mature perspective, try this.

ON JIMMY CARTER'S ANTISEMITISM

Here's the truth.

TRUE

On the Boston terror fiasco. And so true.