Maybe Balanced, But Fair

There seems a pervasive suspicion in the blogging left that the American media is pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian. Meant presumably, is that the mainstream media is unjustifiably anti-Hamas, given that it is consistently sympathetic treatment of Palestinians per se (generally portrayed as innocent victims of Israel and otherwise, simply as innocent victims) and that the presenting issue is not the Israeli conflict with Palestinians but with the Hamas government.

To the ridicule of Daily Kos, Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist- not beat reporter or editor- notes today in the pages of The Washington Post:

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis, deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.

Still, news articles typically are headlined "Israel destroys Hamas homes, flattens Gaza mosque" (Associated Press); "Gaza mosque hit in Israeli air strikes" (Reuters); "Casualties rise as Israel strikes on Gaza persist" (International Herald Tribune, global edition of The New York Times); and most tellingly, coming from the Voice of America: "Israeli Airstrikes Kill More Than 200 in Gaza."

The article from the AP explains "Israel bombed a mosque it said was used to store weapons and destroyed the homes of more than a dozen Hamas operatives Friday.... but, coupled with print photographs and video, the message driven home to consumers of news is: Israeli bombs civilians indiscriminately. But as the AP acknowledges, even "Hamas has said about half of the dead were members of its security forces" and the U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator for the Palestinians Territories (not likely a flak for the Israelis) "estimated that more than 100 of the dead were civilians." Given that at that time the estimated death toll was 400, that would suggest nearly 75% were not civilians. A tragic loss of life, but which Israeli itself tried to minimize:

Before the airstrikes, Israel's military called some of the houses to warn of an impending attack. In some cases, it also fired a sound bomb to warn civilians before flattening the homes with missiles, Palestinians and Israeli officials said. Israeli planes also dropped leaflets east of Gaza giving a confidential phone number and e-mail address to report locations of rocket squads. Residents stepped over the leaflets.

Par for the course for the Israeli military, but tactics unbecoming a brutal imperialist.

Article Of The Week

Among the many positions I though I'd never be in would be one in which I recommend an article by naturalized American and journalist Christopher Hitchens in which he touched on Middle East politics (not much of a supporter of Israel) and Christianity (even less of a supporter).

Still, Hitchens is right on target with "Shame on You, Rick Warren." It includes his criticism of the Baathist regime in Syria, which

is joined at the hip with the Iranian theocracy, that is the patron of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and that is the official and unabashed host of the fugitive Hamas leadership whose military wing directs massacre operations from Damascus itself. (One might also add that the Syrian Baath Party's veteran defense minister,* Mustafa Tlas, published a book under his own name that accused Jews of using the blood of non-Jewish children for the making of those ever-menacing Passover matzos. I suppose it depends how you define extremism.)

It seems that Reverend Warren is an unabashed promoter of the Syrian government, perenially an enthusiastic state supporter of terrorism. After he met with Bashar Assad and described the nation the dictator lords over as "a moderate country, and the official government rule and position is to not allow extremism of any kind," he met with a mufti. Then he reportedly assured the Syrian people that he would convey to Americans the fine relationship he witnessed between Christians and Muslims in Syria, as well as the opposition of 80% of the American people to the war in Iraq (probably not a good thing to tell a regime hostile to the U.S.A., even if true, which it never quite has been).

But Hitchens' theme is expressed in the first sentence of his piece. Why, he asks, has it "been agreed by every single media outlet that only one group has the right to challenge Obama's promotion of "Pastor" Rick Warren, and that group is the constituency of politically organized homosexuals?" (And credit Hitchens for enclosing "Pastor" in quotes- as a title it is applicable only to members of a minister's own church.) It's a good question, one which as a heterosexual displeased with the selection of Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration I should have asked. But didn't. And now it has been.


...................................Happy New Year....................................

Arab Leadership Not Homogenous

The fanatically anti-Israeli Ian Welsh, posting on firedoglake.com, is either confused or intentionally deceptive as he alleges

So. Israel attacks Palestinians. Hamas responds by counter-attacking.

If Israel is responsible for initiating hostilities, and its adversaries are the "Palestinians," it comes as a surprise to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who in a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said of Hamas:

We spoke to them and told them "Please, we ask you not to end the cease-fire. Let it continue. We want to protect the Gaza Strip. We don't want it to be destroyed."

And when Gheit was asked who was to blame for the crisis in Gaza, he replied: "Ask the party that controls Gaza."

Memo to those, in the left blogs and otherwise, who find Israel largely to blame for the latest war in the Middle East: not all Arabs (or Palestinians) think alike, and there are leaders in their community who fervently hope the Israelis are successful in ending the terrorist regime in Gaza.

Pennsylvania, And Charter Schools

Perhaps charter schools are not a panacea.

The toast of many Republicans and New Democrats, charter schools are no longer free from criticism. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today of a federal criminal probe into at least four charter schools in Philadelphia. Allegations of nepotism, conflicts of interest and financial mismanagement are not uncommon.

And no wonder, given that

The law allows little scrutiny of charters. Districts approve charters but have limited power to shut them down. The state exercises scant oversight on charter spending, which totals more than $633 million this year.

The law dictates a crazy-quilt pattern of funding for charters. Each district pays a different amount even when the students attend the same charter. For example, Philadelphia pays $8,088 per student; Jenkintown, $15,174. Cybers get the same payments as other charters even though students receive online instruction at home.

Charters are paid extra for special-education students, regardless of their disability. There is no requirement they spend all the money on special-education services. Chester Community Charter spends only 20.7 percent of its special-education funds on special education.

The law bars school board members from serving on charter boards, but it does not prohibit politicians or a founder's friends and relatives.

It's clear, nevertheless, why so many conservatives like the idea of charter schools. In a 12/25/08 column in the Wall Street Journal, editorial writer Collin hailed President-elect Obama's selection of Chicago School CEO Arne Duncan (known for his Renaissance 2010 program, which calls for closing approximately 60 public schools and opening 100 new ones, many of them charters, by 2010. He laments:

unions aren't about to slink off into the sunset. If they're losing some of their clout at the national level, they maintain their grip locally. In many places, teachers angle to usurp the language of the reformers while pushing their own agenda.

It's understandable that Levy says little about academic achievement. However, in a 12/23/08 opinion piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Kevin Kumashiro noted Duncan's market-based school reform approach and wrote

There is evidence that encouraging choice and competition will not raise district-wide achievement, and charter schools in particular are not outperforming regular schools. There is evidence that choice programs actually exacerbate racial segregation. And there is evidence that high-stakes testing increases the drop-out rate.

The effort to give up on America's public schools will continue, perhaps in the next Administration, and probably beyond. Responsible policymakers not tied to an anti-union or anti-government ideology, though, will consider the actual causes of our inadequate educational system instead of rushing headlong into unproven, costly alternatives which undermine public schools and do little if anything to help students.

As Expected, Israel Retaliates

In today's New York Times article, misleadingly if accurately entitled "Israeli Attack Kills Scores Across Gaza," we learn

The Israeli Air Force on Saturday launched a massive attack on Hamas targets throughout Gaza in retaliation for the recent heavy rocket fire from the area, hitting mostly security headquarters, training compounds and weapons storage facilities, the Israeli military and witnesses said.

On the downside: The Israeli attack "came in mid-morning, when official buildings and security compounds were filled with personnel and children were at school, and not, as many had anticipated, at night." On the upside: The Israeli attack was expected and understandable, coming "after days of warnings by Israeli officials that Israel would retaliate for intense rocket and mortar fire against Israeli towns and villages by Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza." Consequently, most of the leaders of Hamas "had already been in hiding for two days" but there were some (regrettable) deaths of Palestinian citizens who, unsurprisingly, were not offered the same assistance by the (Sarcasm Alert) brave and compassionate terrorists running Gaza.

A white House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, noted "Hamas's continued rocket attacks into Israel must cease if the violence is to stop. Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people." The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza." Just the right balance on the part of the U.S. government. So far, so good.

A Metaphor Of The Bush Administration

In a Washington Post article dated November 10, 2008, staff writer Amit R. Paley described a stealth change to Section 382 of the tax code, undertaken when "the financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry." It took effect with a five-sentence notice which radically changed twenty-two years of tax policy by allowing "some banks to keep more money by lowering their taxes as a way to help financial instituitions during a time of economic crisis." Paley explains further:

Section 382 of the tax code was created by Congress in 1986 to end what it considered an abuse of the tax system: companies sheltering their profits from taxation by acquiring shell companies whose only real value was the losses on their books. The firms would then use the acquired company's losses to offset their gains and avoid paying taxes.

Lawmakers decried the tax shelters as a scam and created a formula to strictly limit the use of those purchased losses for tax purposes.

The notice came one day after troubled Wachovia Bank had agreed, with a guarantee by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to be acquired by Citigroup. Aided by the tax change, dubbed "the Wells Fargo Ruling," a more attractive bid made by Wells Fargo four days later resulted in its merger with North Carolina-based Wachovia. Over the next month, PNC acquired National City and saved approximately $5.1 billion, and Banco Santander netted $2 billion as it acquired Sovereign Bancorp.

This radical change to the tax code had all the earmarks of a classic Bush Administration policy, for it was:

- sudden, coming "out of the blue," the day after the House of Representatives initially rejected a bailout bill, "when Treasury's work seemed focused almost exclusively on the bailout;"

- secretive, with the Treasury Department neglecting to inform the tax-writing committees of Congress;

- fiscally irresponsible, given the calculation by Jones Day, a law firm which represents banks that could benefit from the notice, that it could cost taxpayers approximately $140 billion;

- brash, described by a partner at Jones Day as "a shock to most of the tax community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops. I've been in tax law for 20 years and I've never seen anything like this."

- (probably) illegal, with even several lawyers representing banks poised to reap a bonanza conceding the Department of the Treasury lacked authority to issue the notice.

This corporate giveaway reflects the notion that a company deserves a refund from the federal govenment in a year when it loses money. (Sarcasm Alert) Consequently, we can be confident that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will condemn this change in the tax code given her opinion about rescuing another industry with failed management:

When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions.

Unfortunately, the former vice presidential candidate may have concluded that $14 billion loaned to car companies threatens the Republic while a handout of $140 billion to financial institutions is sound fiscal policy.

Palin Undeterred By Facts

When interviewed by Human Events on December 22, Governor Sarah Palin said of the domestic auto industry:

Picking winners and losers in Washington, D.C., is a dangerous thing to do when you’re talking about a system that supposed to be based on free enterprise. When you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that, and those decisions lead to some mistakes that are made in some industries, taxpayer bailouts should not be looked to as the be-all, end-all solutions.

"Picking winners and losers" is, of course, a folksy way of referring to industrial policy, and Governor Earmark is nothing if not faux folksy. And she implies, intentionally, that "picking winners and losers" is somehow antithetical to American "free enterprise." But as Robert Kuttner notes,

For instance, American commercial leadership in aerospace is no naturally occurring phenomenon. It reflects trillions of dollars of subsidy from the Pentagon and from NASA. Likewise, U.S. dominance in pharmaceuticals is the result of government subsidy of basic research, favorable patent treatment, and the fact that the American consumer of prescription drugs is made to overpay, giving the industry exorbitant profits to plow back into research. Throwing $700 billion at America's wounded banks is also an industrial policy.

Similarly, when Mrs. Palin claims "when you talk about rewarding for work ethic and good management decisions and then consequences are the results of the opposite of that," she assumes that such "consequences" are limited to the American automobile industry. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Under the headline "Toyota Sees First Loss In 70 Years," the Wall Street Journal on December 23 reported:

Toyota Motor Corp. forecast its first annual operating loss since 1938, a dramatic indicator that the troubles roiling the auto industry extend beyond the U.S. and are taking a toll on even the strongest car makers.....

The recent pleas from the Big Three U.S. auto makers for a bailout from Washington have kept the spotlight on Detroit. But Toyota's forecast of an operating loss indicates auto makers of every stripe are facing extraordinary challenges....

Like all car makers, Toyota has slathered on incentives to try to boost sales, but such moves have had little impact. Dealers say tight credit and low consumer confidence are keeping buyers away from showrooms and threatening to hold down car sales in the coming year. John Bergstrom of Bergstrom Automotive, a dealer of Toyota and other makes in Wisconsin, said consumer confidence is so low "it's almost like they need permission to buy something."

And this from Reuters on December 16:

While the Bush administration reviews the "Big Three's" financial data, there were fresh signs on Tuesday of the auto industry's dire situation.

Volkswagen , Spanish car maker Seat and Volvo , the world's No. 2 truckmaker, became the latest companies to announce temporary production halts in response to declining sales.

Honda moved up its year-end news conference by two days to Wednesday, raising the possibility that Japan's No. 2 automaker could issue its third profit warning this year.

Carmakers are seeking help from their suppliers: Toyota plans to ask Nippon Steel and other steelmakers for a 30 percent price cut, the Nikkei business daily reported on Tuesday.

Sarah Palin thus managed in two sentences to suggest three falsehoods: 1) only the automotive industry gets help from the federal government; 2) only U.S. automakers are asking for help (why do some conservatives always blame Americans first?); and 3) the "system" is still "based on free enterprise."

Except that it's not. While the Governor of the Socialist Republic of Alaska was campaigning for the presidency- uh, er, the vice presidency- of the United States of America, she evidently didn't notice that the Secretary of the Treasury in a Republican administration headed by the most conservative President in over 70 years gained control of $350 billion dollars (the amount thus far doled out) of taxpayer money. That's $700,000,000,000 in control of the federal government, initiated by President George W. Bush, a Republican from, presumably, what Palin refers to as "the real America....(the) very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation."

That is the "free enterprise" Sarah Palin is talking about. And while she breathlessy accused the Democratic presidential candidate, who advocated cutting taxes for 95% of working families, with wanting to "experiment with socialism," the leader of her own party generated a plan allowing the financial industry to grab from the American people sums never contemplated by any "Socialist" of her imagining.


Merry Christmas........................................................Happy Chanukah