Marco Rubio and "Messy" Group Speak at The New York Times and The Washington Post

Tweet

In case you didn't notice, we witnessed a horrifying development this past week, evidencing the decline of an objective American press. We're talking about "Group Speak."

On Friday, November 6, 2015, New York Magazine published an article entitled (my emphasis in red) "A Guide to Marco Rubio’s Messy Personal Finances" by Margaret Hartmann, which told us of the "controversy surrounding Rubio's financial background." Concerning Rubio's credit card statements, Hartmann's article declared:

"The pressure grew so intense that Rubio promised to release records from his time in Florida’s House of Representatives 'in the next few weeks.' A Rubio campaign aide claimed, 'our plan has always been to release these,' but that's dubious since journalists have been trying to obtain the files for a decade."

"Dubious"? Rubio released 22 months of credit card statements on Saturday, one day after the publication of Hartmann's article.

Among other things, Hartmann, who was a press intern at Senator Hillary Clinton's  New York office in 2005, also said of Rubio in her article:

"He liquidated most of his retirement savings last year, though financial experts say that's usually a very bad idea."

The "experts" say that's usually a bad idea? In fact, that would depend upon the yield on your retirement savings fund, the rate of interest you are paying to borrow money, and the level of your anticipated future income. I am a business adviser to several leading life science companies (chairman of the board of one of them), and a decade ago, after weighing the risks, I also decided to liquidate my retirement savings fund in order to pursue a lifelong goal of establishing my own company, which has proven successful and gratifying.

But notwithstanding Rubio's release of his credit card statements, the press was not finished with the "scandal" - not by a long shot.

Do you remember past reporting of The New York Times concerning Marco Rubio's purchase of a fishing boat, repayment of student loans, and receipt of traffic tickets, which even Jon Stewart ridiculed? And do you recall how I told you one week ago that we should expect more of the same from the Times as regards Rubio, who stands too good a chance of beating Hillary in November 2016? Well, on Saturday, November 7, 2015, in a Times article entitled (my emphasis in red) "Marco Rubio’s Use of Party Credit Card Reinforces a Picture of Messy Finances," Jeremy W. Peters, Steve Eder and Jeremy Merrill also sought to impugn Rubio's finances, based upon the credit card statements. They acknowledged that there was nothing illegal in anything Rubio had done, and they didn't claim that he had failed to repay personal expenses charged to his Republican Party credit card. However, the authors of this article did inform us of several personal payments charged to the card (my emphasis in red):

"There were more than two dozen visits to La Carreta, a chain of Cuban diners, sometimes for amounts under $10. There were several hundred dollars in purchases at bookstores, one listed on the statements as a family bookstore and the others from trips to a Barnes & Noble in South Miami. He spent $25 at a CVS about a half-mile from his home in West Miami. There were also purchases at a Publix grocery store in Miami.

. . . .

Other charges from the newly released records that the campaign identified as personal included $599.45 for visits to a Honda dealership near Mr. Rubio’s West Miami home; $180 for a children’s activity center; and $715.28 to a Sym’s discount clothing store in New York City."

Rubio spent $25 at a CVS using his party credit card? Shame on you, Marco! Rubio bought clothes from Sym's using his party credit card? I can only hope that the clothes were not selected from the Bargain Basement, which might have landed him in deep trouble with Joan Rivers's "Fashion Police," if she was still alive.

But wait, there's more. On Saturday, November 7, 2015, The Washington Post also ran a lead story entitled (my emphasis in red) "Inside Marco Rubio’s messy American Express statements" by Manuel Roig-Franzia, Sean Sullivan and Tom Hamburger, which told us:

"The Florida Ethics Commission investigated Rubio’s credit card spending and dismissed a citizen complaint against him. According to an internal audit commissioned by the Florida GOP, Rubio repaid the state party for six airline tickets, costing $2,417, that he had double-billed to the party and the state government. The audit report states that Rubio was able to provide proof that other charges the auditor questioned were for business purposes, but it does not provide specifics.

The Florida GOP’s policy manual prohibited using the card for personal reasons, according to the audit. But some Florida GOP officials have publicly stated that such expenses were acceptable, as long as the cardholder paid for them personally."

Oh my goodness! What a horror story! The WaPo article fobserved:

"Rubio’s handling of the card gained renewed attention this past week after attacks by his 2016 presidential rival Donald Trump, who accused the Florida senator of being a 'disaster' with his card and living beyond his means."

Or stated otherwise, how dare this parvenu, the son of Cuban immigrants and who did not receive a $1 million dollar loan from his father to start his own real estate business, struggle on his own to achieve what many would regard as the American dream?

A "scandal" here? It sounds almost as serious as Mitt Romney's "dog on the roof of the car" affair. Moreover, any unseemliness does not even approach the stench emanating from Obama's purchase of his Chicago mansion or Hillary having to return $114,000 of White House "china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts."

But if there is something rotten here, it is to be found in the titles of the New York Magazine, New York Times and Washington Post articles, all of which refer to Rubio's finances as "messy." A coincidence? I don't think so. A case of great minds think alike? Not a chance. I think The New York Times and The Washington Post have more than a bit of soul searching to do here, particularly if they wish to preserve any vestige of past reputations for objectivity.

Khaled Mashaal Acknowledges Hamas Killed 3 Israeli Teenagers: Do Andrew Sullivan, Katie Zavadski and Sheera Frenkel Care to Comment?

In a Yahoo! News article entitled "Hamas leader: Don't compare us to ISIL," Khaled Mashaal acknowledges that Hamas was responsible for the killing of the three Israeli teenagers, which led up to the current Gaza conflict:

"Meshaal acknowledged for the first time that Hamas members — but not the group's political leadership — were behind the slaying of three Israeli settlers on the West Bank in June. But he defended the murders as a legitimate action against Israeli 'illegal occupation.'"

But notwithstanding Mashaal's attempt to distance Hamas's leadership from the murders, Haaretz reported two days ago in an article entitled "Hamas claims responsibility for three Israeli teens' kidnapping and murder":

"A senior Hamas official boasted during a conference in Istanbul on Wednesday that the group's military wing was behind the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers in the West Bank in June.

A video captured during the conference shows Salah Arouri, who is based in Turkey and is considered a primary figure within Hamas, saying that the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades were responsible for the abduction of the three youths, Eyal Yifrach, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16."

You will recall that Katie Zavadski in a New York Magazine article entitled "It Turns Out Hamas May Not Have Kidnapped and Killed the 3 Israeli Teens After All [Updated]" wrote:

"BuzzFeed reporter Sheera Frenkel was among the first to suggest that it was unlikely that Hamas was behind the deaths of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, and Eyal Yifrach. Citing Palestinian sources and experts in the field, Frenkel reported that kidnapping three Israeli teens would be a foolish move for Hamas. International experts told her it was likely the work of a local group, acting without concern for the repercussions."

Following Zavadski's piece, Andrew Sullivan's The Dish told us in an item entitled "The Lie Behind The War":

"Katie Zavadski, fresh from a Dishternship, nails down a critical fact in the latest Israel-Hamas death-match. As the Dish has noted before, the Israeli government knew from the get-go that the murderers of three Israeli teens – the incident that set off this bloody chain of events – were not doing official Hamas’ bidding even in the West Bank, let alone Gaza."

Do Andrew Sullivan, Katie Zavadski and Sheera Frenkel wish to say anything further on the subject?

[I sent an email to Andrew Sullivan, requesting a retraction. Do you think he will bother to respond?]

Joe Hagan, "Hillary in Midair": A Gassy Balloon Awaiting a Pinprick

Notwithstanding the fact that there are another three and a half years until a bumbling Barack Obama vacates the White House, all eyes are already on Hillary. Might Hillary, every bit as narcissistic and incompetent as Obama - name one accomplishment during her tenure as secretary of state - decide, for the good of the nation, to forgo the race? Not a chance. Meanwhile, America's "progressive" media is already clearing the path.

In a New York Magazine article entitled "Hillary in Midair" (http://nymag.com/news/features/hillary-clinton-2013-9/index3.html), Joe Hagan attempts to paper over the Benghazi affair:

"Hillary might have left the State Department unsullied by controversy if not for the Benghazi episode, in which the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other consulate staffers were killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate. The NATO intervention in Libya was the most important foreign intervention of her tenure, and a seemingly successful one, but the lack of security in Benghazi and the confusion over how the incident occurred set off a heated Republican attack on Clinton’s handling of the disaster, and she was roasted on the cable-news spit for weeks. In January, she took responsibility for the deaths of the four Americans before Congress—while also questioning her inquisition, snapping at a Republican congressman, 'What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.'"

Benghazi will be the go-to bludgeon for Republicans if and when Clinton tries using her experience at State to run for president. It is a reminder that Clinton, despite the cool, centrist façade she has developed in the past four years, is only a misstep away from being a target of partisan rage once again."

Hillary will be the "target of partisan rage once again"? Sorry, but let's have a look at exactly what was said by Hillary in her interchange with Senator Ron Johnson during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 23, 2013 (see: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/):

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Well, for starters Hillary actively participated in the cover-up surrounding the circumstances involving this travesty. One need only listen to what the mother of Sean Smith, one of four Americans killed in the Benghazi attack, has to say about Hillary and friends.

"It is our job to figure out what happened"? Well, if that's the case, Hillary and Barack didn't do their jobs. A month and a half ago, we learned from CNN that there has been no serious effort by the US government to investigate the murders of Sean Smith, Ambassador Stevens and two other Americans (see: http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2013/07/31/ctw-benghazi-witness-damon.cnn#/video/world/2013/07/31/ctw-benghazi-witness-damon.cnn). CNN's Arwa Damon spoke freely, in public, at a hotel coffee shop for two hours with Ahmed Abu Khattala, a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, who witnessed, and may have directed, the Benghazi embassy attack. No one from the US government ever contacted him.

Moreover, how do you "figure out what happened" in Benghazi and prevent it from ever happening again if you refuse to ascertain whether the deaths stemmed from a spontaneous protest or a planned attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate? It makes a big difference. In fact, I would say that it makes all the difference in the world if you want to take smart, effective measures to bolster US embassy defense and "to prevent it from ever happening again."

"Partisan rage" against Hillary? As much as it would be nice to have a first female president of the US, left, right and center should rise up against Hillary's unscrupulous, self-serving antics.

Nicholas Kristof, "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun": Kristof Witnesses Stoning of Woman . . . Not

Nicholas Kristof is a fun loving guy.

As described in his latest New York Times op-ed, "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/opinion/kristof-in-iran-they-want-fun-fun-fun.html), Kristof continues his 1,700-mile, magical mystery tour across Iran, accompanied by his son and daughter. In a journey akin to Borat's excursion across the US (yes, I know, Borat spoke English, while Kristof doesn't speak Farsi), Kristof continues to relay profound anecdotes from his chance meetings with ordinary Iranians. Discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? Kristof doesn't mention any. Exchanges of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? Again, no such thing. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals? No way, given that homosexuals are hanged in Iran. A visit to Evin Prison to check the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Sorry, not on this road trip. Better still, an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness the stoning to death of a woman accused of adultery? No, he wouldn't want his children to see such a spectacle.

Fun, fun, fun . . .

So what did the ayatollahs want and gain from Kristof's visit? The answer is easy: At a time when Iran is avoiding any concessions in its negotiations, i.e. stalling tactics, with the P5+1 over its nuclear weapons development program, Kristof, a useful idiot if ever there was one, concludes his opinion piece by observing:

"My road trip across Iran leaves me convinced that change will come here, too, if we just have the patience not to disrupt the subterranean forces at work: rising education, an expanding middle class, growing economic frustration, erosion of the government monopoly on information. My hunch is that if there is no war between Iran and the West — which would probably strengthen the regime — hard-liners will go the way of Mao, and Iran will end up looking something like Turkey."

Thanks for your "hunch," Nicholas, that fun loving Iran, if left alone, will someday end up looking like Turkey, which is growing more fanatic by the day and is now renowned for imprisoning journalists who dare criticize the ruling AKP. Meanwhile, however, Iran continues to threaten Israel with extermination, as it engages in unspeakable barbarism against its own citizenry and supports its terrorist proxies, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Kristof is obviously continuing where Roger Cohen left off. Rarely have I been so nauseated.

Roger Cohen, "Don’t Do It, Bibi": Cohen Confuses Obama With America

Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen is once again proffering advice concerning Iran, this time to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. In "Don’t Do It, Bibi" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/opinion/cohen-dont-do-it-bibi.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Cohen quotes a purported conversation between anonymous US and Israeli ambassadors in order to make the point that Netanyahu should be kissing the ground on which Obama walks. Never once does Cohen observe that Israel is facing an existential threat.

According to Cohen:

"Here’s the bottom line: an Israeli attack unites Iran in fury, locks in the Islamic Republic for a generation, cements the Syrian regime, radicalizes the Arab world at a moment of delicate transition, ignites Hezbollah on the Lebanese border, boosts Hamas, endangers U.S. troops in the region, sparks terrorism, propels oil skyward, triggers a possible regional war, offers a lifeline to Iran just as Europe is about to stop buying its oil, adds a Persian to the Arab vendetta against Israel, and may at best set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions a couple of years."

Goodness gracious, this is a truly horrifying set of repercussions. However, as noted by Cohen, "Israel, in such issues, has already gone it alone once, when it bombed a Syrian nuclear facility in 2007." If so, why didn't any of Cohen's litany of events unfold when Israel leveled the Syrian Al Kibar reactor in Operation Orchard? Moreover, Cohen is mistaken: Israel also bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981, much to the world's relief, in Operation Opera.

Cohen claims:

"In an election year, with U.S. intelligence convinced Iran is not yet building a bomb, Obama will not send oil prices soaring and the Muslim world into another bout of anti-American rage."

Yet Cohen fails to mention that the Saudis and the UAE are even more anxious than Israel to curtail the Iranian effort to attain nuclear weapons.

US intelligence is "convinced Iran is not yet building a bomb"? Oh really? As observed by Cohen's own newspaper (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iran/nuclear_program/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier):

"The International Atomic Energy Agency released [in November 2011] a trove of evidence that they said makes a 'credible' case that 'Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device' and that the project may still be under way. The report said the I.A.E.A. had amassed 'over a thousand pages' of documents, presumably leaked out of Iran, showing 'research, development and testing activities' on a range of technologies that would only be useful in designing a nuclear weapon.

The report offered no estimate of how long it would take for Iran to be able to produce a nuclear weapon. But it laid out the case that Iran had moved far beyond the blackboard to create computer models of nuclear explosions in 2008 and 2009, and conducted experiments on nuclear triggers. The report said that starting in 2000, the Iranians constructed a vessel to conduct those tests, which was not shown to inspectors who visited the site five years later."

These experiments on nuclear triggers and the start of enrichment at the Fordow underground facility near Qum are merely part of what Cohen describes as Iran's "opaque nuclear program," and plainly have nothing to do with the construction of a bomb.

Cohen tells us that Netanyahu "has poisoned relations with Washington," and notes that the Israeli prime minister went over Obama's head to address a joint meeting of the US Congress in May 2011, where he received 29 standing ovations (see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/israeli-prime-minister-gets-20-standing-ovations-in-congress-sends-message-to-white-house/). It would appear that according to Cohen, Obama is synonymous with "Washington," whereas Congress is a mere Republican-dominated aberration which in no way reflects the opinions and beliefs of the American people.

Netanyahu "poisoned relations with Washington"? Yeah, right. I suppose the awkward relationship between Netanyahu and Obama has nothing to do with the fact that Obama began his first term in office by flying to Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but never visited Israel. I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that much of Obama's foreign policy has been devoted to wringing concessions out of Israel without objecting to the Palestinians' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. I suppose it has nothing to do with Obama's efforts to placate Iran's mullahs -- Obama never objected when Ahmadinejad brutally subdued Iran's Green Revolution in 2009. I suppose it has nothing to do with Obama's prolonged courtship of Syria's tyrannical president, Assad. I suppose it has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is advised by a radical Israel-hater, Samantha Power. And I suppose it also has nothing to do with the fact that Obama listened over the course of 20 years to the "anti-Zionist" sermons of the Reverend Wright without once expressing his objections.

Cohen observes that "a re-elected Obama would, as a second-term president, have room to mark his displeasure if Israel was to go it alone." I would go one step further: Whether or not Israel goes it alone and attacks Iran, Obama, as a second-term president, will no longer disguise his ingrained enmity for Israel.

But is Israel concerned with the US elections? Sorry to disappoint you, Roger, but Israel is just too busy trying to survive another year.

Charles Blow, "Occupy-apalooza Strikes a Chord": A Pickled Lenin Winks from His Red Square Mausoleum

How low can Blow go? Certainly today he is testing new depths.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Occupy-apalooza Strikes a Chord" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/opinion/blow-occupy-apalooza-strikes-a-chord.html?_r=1&hp), Charles Blow begins by describing a meeting with a young woman, who, after a morning "boot camp" workout at the Y.M.C.A. and evening drinks with friends, intends to participate in the Zucotti Park Occupy Wall Street protests. When asked by Blow why she is going, she responds:

"I don't know. It's just cool"

"Cool"? That is a reason to participate in a demonstration?

This young woman went on to tell Blow that she wanted to be a part of OWS "in the same way that people from previous generations were part of the civil rights, women’s liberation and antiwar movements." Well, back 40 years ago, I was protesting the Vietnam War on the streets of Chicago, but it wasn't because it was "cool" or because I needed to belong to something, but rather, because I was passionately opposed to the war.

Given this young woman's inability to articulate a rational reason for participating in the OWS protest, Blow provides one:

"Needless to say, that doesn’t cover everyone. The protests have a Lollapalooza-like eccentricity and diversity to the crowds. Some come to revel in the moment. Others come to rage against the machine. But they are all drawn together by the excitement of animating a muscle that many thought had atrophied: demonstration and disobedience in the name of equality."

Blow proceeds to cite three polls showing that many Americans are in agreement with the "disparate ideas" of the OWS protesters, and concludes:

"If nothing else, the movement has established itself as a cultural phenomenon with surprising staying power, and as someone who wasn’t sure that it would catch hold, I must echo the young woman in the restaurant: that’s just cool."

However, one of the "disparate ideas" of the OWS protesters is anti-Semitism in its basest forms, but of course no mention by Blow of this unpleasant phenomenon (see, for example: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/). I am confident that if the N-word was being freely tossed around by these radicals, Blow would lose much of his enthusiasm for the movement, but these days, anti-Semitism has even weaved its way into The New York Times (see, for example: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/charles-blows-obama-and-jews-part-2.html) and has become mainstay in leftist circles.

Blow also doesn't trouble themselves to observe that 34% of the Occupy Wall Street protesters polled by New York Magazine believe that the US is no better than al-Qaeda, 37% believe that capitalism is inherently immoral and cannot be saved, and 55% didn't vote in the 2010 midterm elections (see: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/).

Needless to say, Blow doesn't bother to relate to the findings of pollster Douglas Schoen, who, in an article in The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html), wrote:

"[T]he Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda."

Sorry, Charles, but there is nothing "disparate" about the ideas of these protesters, and there is certainly nothing "cool" about them, notwithstanding your best efforts to provide them with a positive spin. Shame on you!

David Brooks, "The Milquetoast Radicals": The Inanity of Occupy Wall Street

Yesterday, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "Panic of the Plutocrats," Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman spoke of the "actual goals" of Occupy Wall Street and opined, "It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction"(see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/10/paul-krugman-panic-of-plutocrats-paul.html). "Actual goals"? Name them.

Unlike Krugman, Eugene Robinson, in his October 10 Washington Post column entitled "The Occupy protests: A timely call for justice" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/occupy-wall-street-a-timely-call-for-justice/2011/10/10/gIQASKleaL_story.html), recognized the clueless intellectual underpinnings of Occupy Wall Street, but could not refrain from expressing his admiration for the movement:

"Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love ’em."

Not surprisingly, desperate "any port in a storm" Democrats now seem ready to embrace Occupy Wall Street. As observed in an article in today's New York Times entitled "Protests Offer Help, and Risk, for Democrats" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/us/politics/wall-street-protests-gain-support-from-leading-democrats.html?hp), Eric Lichtblau writes:

"Leading Democratic figures, including party fund-raisers and a top ally of President Obama, are embracing the spread of the anti-Wall Street protests in a clear sign that members of the Democratic establishment see the movement as a way to align disenchanted Americans with their party.

. . . .

Mr. Obama has spoken sympathetically of the Wall Street protests, saying they reflect 'the frustration' that many struggling Americans are feeling. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, have sounded similar themes."

Needless to say, Krugman, Robinson, Obama, Biden and Pelosi don't trouble themselves to observe that 34% of the Occupy Wall Street protesters polled by New York Magazine believe that the US is no better than al-Qaeda, 37% believe that capitalism is inherently immoral and cannot be saved, and 55% didn't vote in the 2010 midterm elections (see: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/). Robinson "loves" these people? Excuse me while I lose my breakfast.

In his New York Times op-ed of today's date entitled "The Milquetoast Radicals" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?hp), David Brooks injects a bit of balance into the assessment of these would-be "Occupiers":

"If there is a core theme to the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent.

This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite.

Unfortunately, almost no problem can be productively conceived in this way. A group that divides the world between the pure 99 percent and the evil 1 percent will have nothing to say about education reform, Medicare reform, tax reform, wage stagnation or polarization. They will have nothing to say about the way Americans have overconsumed and overborrowed. These are problems that implicate a much broader swath of society than the top 1 percent.

They will have no realistic proposal to reduce the debt or sustain the welfare state. Even if you tax away 50 percent of the income of those making between $1 million and $10 million, you only reduce the national debt by 1 percent, according to the Tax Foundation. If you confiscate all the income of those making more than $10 million, you reduce the debt by 2 percent. You would still be nibbling only meekly around the edges."

But why should any of the facts cited by Brooks matter? When bad things happen to you, find someone else to blame.

Obama is ready to flirt with Occupy Wall Street in order to remain in the White House? Good luck to him. As observed by Alana Goodman of Commentary Magazine in a "Contentions" item entitled "So Much for Gratitude" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/10/obama-bank-of-america/), 20% of Obama's 2008 campaign funds came from Wall Street, and Bank of America has contributed more to Obama than any other politician since 1991.

I would expand upon Goodman's piece and note Obama's ties with Goldman Sachs. As observed in the past by CNN (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-20/politics/obama.goldman.donations_1_obama-campaign-presidential-campaign-federal-election-commission-figures?_s=PM:POLITICS):

"According to Federal Election Commission figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Goldman Sachs' political action committee and individual contributors who listed the company as their employer donated $994,795 during 2007 and 2008 to Obama's presidential campaign, the second-highest contribution from a company PAC and company employees."

What a pity this money from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs was not used for medical research or to feed the poor.