Gail Collins, "A New Era in Political Corruption": Influence Peddling, Market Manipulation and Illicit Drugs Sustain the Economy

Corruption involving New York State politicians? Who would ever believe?

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "A New Era in Political Corruption" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/collins-a-new-era-in-political-corruption.html), Gail Collins provides a laundry list of recent misdoings in the Empire State and its environs:

• "We have a Democratic state senator, Malcolm Smith, under indictment for trying to buy the Republican New York City mayoral nomination."
• "Also there’s Eric Stevenson, an unremarkable assemblyman from the Bronx accused of taking bribes from some men who wanted to start adult day care centers. Among other things, he introduced legislation prohibiting anybody else from opening a similar facility anywhere in the New York City area."
• "[Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] recalled the recent discovery that Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey had been using his influence to try to resolve a multimillion-dollar Medicare billing dispute for a Florida ophthalmologist whose company contributed more than $700,000 toward the election of Senate Democrats, Menendez included."
• "One of the stranger elements to the New York story was word that a Bronx assemblyman named Nelson Castro has been wearing a wire for the feds for virtually his entire political career. He originally got into trouble when election officials noticed nine voters were registered as living with him in his one-bedroom apartment."

Bribery among politicians, both Democrats and Republicans? Is there anything "new" about that? Is there anyone among us who is shocked?

On the other hand, I am still horrified by the 2007 cancellation of the Uptick Rule, which has contributed mightily to America's prolonged economic downturn by enabling hedge funds to short shares, i.e. sell shares they do not own, in almost unlimited quantities, and permitting them to benefit from resultant investor panic (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/paul-krugman-rubio-and-zombies.html).

More recently, I was overwhelmed after hearing about friends' children, who became hooked on hard drugs in suburban high schools.

And so, despite yesterday's dismal jobs report, which let us know that the "labor force participation rate has not been this low — 63.3 percent — since 1979, a time when women were less likely to be working" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/business/economy/us-adds-only-88000-jobs-jobless-rate-falls-to-7-6.html?_r=0), influence peddling, market manipulation and illicit drugs remain growth sectors in an otherwise dismal economy.

"Change"?  "Forward"? How about "Over the Cliff and Into the Abyss"?

All The Washington Post's Mice: Fareed Zakaria's Lie Goes Uncorrected

Open Letter to Martin Baron, Executive Editor, The Washington Post

Dear Mr. Baron,

As you will recall, I recently wrote to you and inquired whether Washington Post opinion piece writers are permitted by your newspaper to lie in their opinion pieces. More specifically, I observed that in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama appeals to Israel's conscience," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-appeals-to-israels-conscience/2013/03/27/a4365b18-96f5-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html?hpid=z2), Fareed Zakaria wrote:

"After all, Israel has ruled millions of Palestinians without offering them citizenship or a state for 40 years."

Of course, as well known to Zakaria, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused.

You were kind enough to respond to my e-mail and inform me that you were forwarding my message to your editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt. Fred Hiatt, however, has not answered me.

Doug Feaver, your reader representative, has also not answered.

I realize, of course, that you are a newcomer to The Washington Post and have no responsibility for the editorial page, but perhaps you know of someone at your newspaper willing to answer my question, which I believe deserves a response.

I remember how your newspaper's courage and integrity were once responsible for exposing the Watergate scandal. Are journalistic courage, integrity and ethics mere relics of the past?

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

. . . .

After publication of this blog item, Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of The Washington Post finally replied:

Dear Mr. Grossman,

The history of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is contentious and, as I’m sure you know, subject to widely differing interpretation. Mr. Zakaria’s statement is within the bounds of acceptable interpretation for an opinion columnist.

Thank you for your interest.

Fred Hiatt

I will respond to Hiatt's absurd contention (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/magazine/13Israel-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) in a later blog entry.

David Brooks, "The Practical University": A Place to "Fornicate Meaningfully"?

"What is a university for?" asks David Brooks in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Practical University" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/opinion/Brooks-The-Practical-University.html?_r=0). He further inquires, "Are universities mostly boot camps for adulthood, where young people learn how to drink moderately, fornicate meaningfully and hand things in on time?"

Me? University, i.e. college and law school, were long ago, and they have become distant unpleasant memories. Drink moderately? True, I never passed out. Fornicate meaningfully? I was too shy, and it never happened. Hand things in on time? Yes, but by and large, my university papers were drivel.

Nothing I ever learned at university ever taught me how, afterwards, to draw a proper balance between force and moral rectitude in life and death situations, or, still later, to lead and motivate in the business world when, in 2008, all seemed lost.

Brooks, however, believes that universities are places that can effectively teach "practical knowledge," whose skills include:

• "the ability to be assertive in a meeting;"
• "to disagree pleasantly;"
• "to know when to interrupt and when not to;"
• "to understand the flow of discussion and how to change people’s minds;"
• "to attract mentors;"
• "to understand situations;"
• "to discern what can change and what can’t."

Brooks continues:

"Anybody who works in a modern office knows that they are surprisingly rare. But students can learn these skills at a university, through student activities, through the living examples of their professors and also in seminars."
 

Rare in a "modern office"? These skills are rare anywhere.

Learn these skills from professors, whose lives have been sheltered from the ugly realities of the inner city, the evolution of self-destructive capitalism, the mind-bending terror of today's battlefields, and the maniacal mental machinations of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and the deranged belligerence of North Korea's Kim Jong Un? I don't think so.

Ultimately, will universities go the way of the dodo bird? Possibly. Given the cost of tuition today, young people are being forced to engage in a mature cost/benefit analysis, and for their part, universities will need to evolve if they are to survive in our wintry brave new world.

Gail Collins, "Remembering the Affair to Remember": People Who Live in Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones

How does a national columnist write an opinion piece concerning the sexual foibles of politicians from South Carolina without a mere mention of former Democratic Senator John Edwards? In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Remembering the Affair to Remember" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/opinion/collins-remembering-the-affair-to-remember.html?_r=0), Gail Collins, focusing on former Republican Governor Mark Sanford's effort to return to his old House seat, demonstrates how it can be done.

Do I find the lives and loves of Edwards and Sanford remotely entertaining? No. On the other hand, it might serve Collins and her readership well to examine the ethics of her own beloved newspaper.

In a December 4, 2012 op-ed entitled "Iron Empires, Iron Fists, Iron Domes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/opinion/iron-empires-iron-fists-iron-domes.html), Thomas Friedman falsely alleged that Israel's planned E1 construction "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state." This was followed by a December 20, 2012 editorial entitled "The Fading Mideast Peace Dream" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/the-fading-mideast-peace-dream.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&), in which The Times went on record as stating:

"So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state."

Unfortunately for both Friedman and the editorial board of The Times, E1 construction by Israel, if it ever happens, will not sever the West Bank. This is a fact.

As provided by Section 15 of "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (italics added) (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf):

"The Times treats is readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."

As further provided Section 16 of the "Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" of The Times:

"Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails that warrant reply."

The New York Times did not bother to correct Friedman's op-ed piece or its editorial, notwithstanding my e-mails to Andrew Rosenthal, its editorial page editor, and Margaret Sullivan, its public editor. Moreover, both Rosenthal and Sullivan didn't bother to reply to me.

The ethics of politicians and journalists? Today, is there any difference?

Quite honestly, I am far more perturbed by the conduct of Friedman, Rosenthal, Sullivan and the anonymous editorial board of The Times than that of Edwards and Sanford.

Maureen Dowd, "Happily Never After?": Gay Good, Jew Bad?

Gay good, Jew bad? Or would those from the New Left tell me that I am being politically incorrect and should phrase this question, Gay good, Israeli bad? Or better still, Gay good, Zionist bad? But what happens when a gay is also a Jew? Does his/her homosexuality trump his/her Jewishness?

In her third consecutive New York Times opinion piece concerning same-sex marriage entitled "Happily Never After?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/opinion/dowd-happily-never-after.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd, a would-be champion of human rights, publishes a touching short essay that she received from Max Mutchnick. Mutchnick, of course, created and wrote "Will & Grace" with David Kohan.

Mutchnick, who was married by a rabbi to entertainment lawyer Erik Hyman, writes:

"More and more people think it’s wrong to hate gays. The support for same-sex marriage now exceeds the opposition to it. According to Rick Santorum, that’s all because of 'Will & Grace.' (Thanks, cutie. DVD sales are way up!) But, if the good guys are on my side, why do I feel so depleted? I live in a place where all men are created equal, but, for some reason, I am not afforded the same rights. Should my take-away be: I am not a man? It feels as though the Supreme Court is O.K. with that notion."

My recommendation to Mr. Mutchnick: a little patience. There are the individual justices of the Supreme Court, and then there is the Supreme Court as an entirety. Rarely do Supreme Court justices vote unanimously. So before jumping up and down and beating our breasts in dismay, let's first let the Supreme Court reach a decision. I am hopeful that gays will be granted the absolute equality that they deserve.

But back to Maureen, with whom there is still unfinished business.

In a March 2010 Times op-ed entitled "Loosey Goosey Saudi" (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/opinion/03dowd.html), Maureen Dowd claimed that Saudi Arabia is upgrading the rights of women:

"But after spending 10 days here, I can confirm that, at their own galactically glacial pace, they are chipping away at gender apartheid and cultural repression."

Dowd, however, ignored an abomination involving the Saudi legal system pursuant to which a Saudi woman, who had been gang raped, was sentenced to a one-year prison term and 100 lashes for committing adultery and trying to abort the resultant fetus (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/03/shame-on-maureen-dowd.html). Unusual in the Desert Kingdom? No way.

Similarly, Dowd remained silent concerning the issue of "honor killings" in her host country. Had she written on this issue, her pleasure tour would have come to an abrupt end.

More recently, following a Times op-ed entitled "Neocons Slither Back" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/opinion/sunday/dowd-neocons-slither-back.html), Dowd was accused of anti-Semitism. As summarized by Politico's Dylan Byers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/09/maureen-dowd-meets-antisemitism-charge-135700.html):

"New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd set the Jewish political community on fire today with a column about the Republican ticket's foreign policy proposals that, according to her critics, peddled anti-Semitic imagery.

Dowd fairly observed that neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan are experts in the field of foreign policy, but asserted their strategy was orchestrated by a 'neocon puppet master' who was leading the neocon effort to 'slither back' into power.

Such language, to say nothing of the questionable legitimacy of her claims, struck experts on American-Israeli relations as an inappropriate (though perhaps unintentional) appeal to anti-Semitic stereotypes, and especially offensive ahead of the first night of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah."

Observing the outrage expressed by Steven A. Cook, Jeffrey Goldberg, Blake Hounshell, Daniel Halper and Jonathan Tobin, Byers reported that Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal had defended Dowd from these charges by declaring:

"No fair-minded reading of Maureen Dowd's column supports the allegations you and others are making. She makes no reference, direct or implied, to anyone's religion."

Yeah, right. Not one of these commentators critical of Dowd, from both the left and the right, is "fair-minded." As best I know, Dowd never responded to the accusations.

But heck, why shouldn't Maureen be cut some slack? Not long ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/opinion/friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and-vladimir.html?ref=opinion):

"I sure hope that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

Is this any less horrifying than what Maureen wrote?

Then there was Roger Cohen's New York Times op-ed "Obama in Netanyahu's Web" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28iht-edcohen.html), whose title was painfully in keeping with the anti-Semitic tradition of depicting Jews as voracious spiders. As Rosenthal later acknowledged to me, this "was not a good headline."

And let's not forget Nicholas Kristof's  recent retweet of a message referring to AIPAC as one of "the 2 Most Pig Like Lobbies" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/01/nicholas-kristof-retweets-obama-told-2.html). We never received an explanation concerning this horror from Nick, who soon thereafter took book-writing leave from The Times.

In Mutchnick's message to Dowd, he writes:

"It’s tiring being a member of the last group in America subject to official discrimination."

Max, you also say, "I’m like every other dad in this park: horn-rimmed glasses and baseball hat, New York Times folded in quarters, ignoring my kids dressed in Ralph Lauren Collection playing." Well, you might want to consider some of the vile "unofficial" intolerance being voiced against Jews in that newspaper folded under your arm.

David Brooks, "Freedom Loses One": A Victory for the Good Life! Ask the IRS!

Yes, there are benefits to being married, and if you don't believe me ("Yes, dear. Coming in a moment, dear"), ask your friendly Internal Revenue Service agent. He or she will immediately turn your attention to the first page of your Form 1040, where you can tick off (or do I mean "check") your spouse and list your dependents (those persons roaming around the house who begin each sentence with "Can I have . . ."), and then multiply the total on line 42 of the second page by $3,800 and use the amount as a credit. And lo and behold, your humble and long suffering servant has been creditworthy all these many years.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Freedom Loses One" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/opinion/brooks-freedom-loses-one.html?_r=0), David Brooks observes that an imbalance has arisen between freedom and restraint, giving rise to:

• "A decaying social fabric, especially among the less fortunate."
• "Decline in marriage."
• "More children raised in unsteady homes."
• "Higher debt levels as people spend to satisfy their cravings."

My cravings have given rise to higher debt levels, which are destroying our social fabric? Oh my goodness! I'm returning my Panasonic 55", which I am paying for in 24 equal installments, tomorrow . . . not.

Brooks continues:

"Marriage is one of those institutions — along with religion and military service — that restricts freedom. Marriage is about making a commitment that binds you for decades to come. It narrows your options on how you will spend your time, money and attention."

Now, I don't know too much about religion, but marriage and military service constraining my time, money and attention? I think I can darned well vouch for David on that point.

Brooks immediately goes on to say:

"Whether they understood it or not, the gays and lesbians represented at the court committed themselves to a certain agenda. They committed themselves to an institution that involves surrendering autonomy. They committed themselves to the idea that these self-restrictions should be reinforced by the state. They committed themselves to the idea that lifestyle choices are not just private affairs but work better when they are embedded in law."

"Whether they understood it or not"? Hmm. ("What's that you said, dear? Every word that comes out of my mouth annoys you, dear?")

Brooks's conclusion:

"The proponents of same-sex marriage used the language of equality and rights in promoting their cause, because that is the language we have floating around. But, if it wins, same-sex marriage will be a victory for the good life, which is about living in a society that induces you to narrow your choices and embrace your obligations."

Ah, yes, "a victory for the good life"! Celebrating my triumph and roaring with laughter, I just spilled half a cup of steaming coffee over my underwear. As the philosopher Hegel (not that moron, Chuck Hagel) would tell you, pleasure cannot exist without pain.

Bottom line: I have always favored same-sex marriage, but not because marriage "narrows your choices" and compels you to "embrace your obligations." Rather, it's a simple matter of equality.

Moreover, if Bill and Hillary Clinton can maintain their farce of a marriage - the architects are already busy planning Bill's semi-detached "Monica Wing" of the White House should Hillary win in 2016), why shouldn't anyone be entitled to engage in this folly.

"Just kidding, dear."

Are Washington Post Opinion Piece Writers Permitted to Lie?: An Open Letter to the Reader Representative

Open Letter to Douglas Feaver, Reader Representative of The Washington Post

Dear Mr. Feaver,

Early last month The Washington Post announced that you had been appointed to be its first Reader Representative (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-03-07/news/37515611_1_reader-comments-executive-editor-katharine-weymouth):

"The Washington Post today announced Doug Feaver as its first reader representative. Feaver will serve as an advocate for readers, responding to their questions and concerns."

Congratulations on your appointment.

As you are well aware, a few days ago I asked you and others at WaPo whether it is your newspaper's policy that opinion piece writers are permitted to lie.

More specifically, I brought to your attention the fact that Fareed Zakaria had written in a March 28, 2013 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama appeals to Israel's conscience" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-appeals-to-israels-conscience/2013/03/27/a4365b18-96f5-11e2-b68f-dc5c4b47e519_story.html?hpid=z2):

"After all, Israel has ruled millions of Palestinians without offering them citizenship or a state for 40 years."

Of course, as well known to Zakaria, Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert offered Arafat and Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed upon land swaps, and Olmert even offered Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. Arafat and Abbas refused. I alerted WaPo to Zakaria's lie, and Martin Baron, executive editor of the newspaper, kindly sent me an e-mail saying that he was passing my complaint to Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor. Has Hiatt gotten back to me? No.

And so, given that it is your job to "serve as an advocate for readers, responding to their questions and concerns," I again ask whether it is the policy of The Washington Post to permit opinion writers to lie.

We already know that Washington Post opinion writers can plagiarize the work of others and continue to work for WaPo, as evidenced by the fact that Zakaria continues to write for your newspaper; however, I think it is of critical importance to know if they are also permitted to lie.

I would appreciate your answer, as would tens of thousands of other Washington Post readers.

I await your "advocacy" on our behalf.

Who ever said that your new job would be easy? . . .

Yours sincerely,

Jeffrey