New York Times, "U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls": Welcome to the Fascism of the New Left

After learning that Susan Rice would replace Thomas Donilon as national security adviser and that Samantha Power had been nominated by Obama to replace Rice as UN ambassador, I went to sleep feeling nauseous.

Rice, who happily lied to Americans on behalf of the Obama administration concerning the facts on the ground in Benghazi? Yes, I know, David Ignatius in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Susan Rice, a provocateur in the West Wing" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-susan-rice-a-provocateur-in-the-west-wing/2013/06/05/5b7f0e10-ce22-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html?hpid=z2) writes today:

"And then there’s Benghazi: Obama is swapping a man who generally avoided the Sunday talk shows for someone who nearly committed career suicide for delivering the famous talking points (for which she was otherwise blameless). Enough, already, about Benghazi."

Sorry David, but not enough already about Benghazi. Americans were spared having to see what was done to Ambassador Steven's body after the Obama administration refused to lift a finger to prevent his murder. Since that time, none of those responsible for this abomination have been made to pay the price. Forgive me - maybe it's my Posttraumatic Stress Disorder acting up - but I can't forget such outrages.

Samantha Power? The very same person who called for a massive US army presence to protect Palestinians from the Israel Defense Forces? The person who called Hillary Clinton a "monster"? The person who wrote of John Kerry (http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2008/03/barack-obama-interview-power):

"The lesson we got was that the only thing worse than John Kerry being Swiftboated was his being slow to respond. God love him, he must have thought that having got shrapnel in his ass out there bought him some credibility. It didn't."

Well, at least she was right concerning America's new secretary of state.

But as nauseous as I was last night, little did I know what would await me in the morning.

In its current lead online article entitled "U.S. Is Secretly Collecting Records of Verizon Calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/us/us-secretly-collecting-logs-of-business-calls.html?_r=0) by Charlie Savage and Edward Wyatt, The New York Times reports:

"The Obama administration is secretly carrying out a domestic surveillance program under which it is collecting business communications records involving Americans under a hotly debated section of the Patriot Act, according to a highly classified court order disclosed on Wednesday night.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in April, directs a Verizon Communications subsidiary, Verizon Business Network Services, to turn over 'on an ongoing daily basis' to the National Security Agency all call logs 'between the United States and abroad' or 'wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls.'"

The article concludes:

"The New York Times filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in 2011 for a report describing the government’s interpretation of its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act. But the Obama administration withheld the report, and a judge dismissed the case."

What has happened to The Times? After refusing to participate in Eric Holder's off-the-record discussion, they are now investigating violations of Americans' basic First Amendment rights? Is Jill Abramson finally getting wise to Obama's "Little Shop of Horrors"?

Thomas Friedman, "Israel Lives the Joseph Story": Too Bad Their Leaders Are Not As Farsighted as Thomas . . . Not

Does anyone still take Thomas Friedman seriously?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel Lives the Joseph Story" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/opinion/friedman-israel-lives-the-joseph-story.html), this would-be Middle East expert writes:

"Over the last 40 years, a class of Arab leaders took power and managed to combine direct or indirect oil money, with multiple intelligence services, with support from either America or Russia, to ensconce themselves in office for multiple decades. All of these leaders used their iron fists to keep their sectarian conflicts — Sunnis versus Shiites, Christians versus Muslims, and Kurds and Palestinian refugees versus everyone else — in check. They also kept their Islamists underground.

With these iron-fisted leaders being toppled — and true, multisectarian democracies with effective governments yet to emerge in their place — Israel is potentially facing decades of unstable or no governments surrounding it. Only Jordan offers Israel a normal border. In the hinterlands beyond, Israel is looking at dysfunctional states that are either imploding (like Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Libya) or exploding (like Syria)."

Excuse me, but when did these "iron-fisted" leaders ever prevent conflict between Sunnis and Shiites? Take for example the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988. Take for example the Sa'dah War in Yemen, which began in 2004 and continues until today.

Christians have been abused in the Arab Middle East as long as I can remember. The churches, homes and businesses of Egypt's Copts, for example, have been under constant threat for the past 40 years. Chaldo-Assyrian Christians in Iraq have not fared any better over recent decades.

The Middle East's 30 million stateless Kurds? When have they not been savagely persecuted by Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria?

Friedman continues:

"There is no successful model of democratic governance in the Arab world at present — the Islamists are all failing. But Israel, if it partnered with the current moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank, has a chance to create a modern, economically thriving, democratic, secular state where Christians and Muslims would live side by side — next to Jews. That would be a hugely valuable example, especially at a time when the Arab world lacks anything like it. And the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem.

Together, Israelis and Palestinians actually have the power to model what a decent, postauthoritarian, multireligious Arab state could look like. Nothing would address both people’s long-term strategic needs better. Too bad their leaders today are not as farsighted as Joseph."

A "hugely valuable example"? The al-Qaeda backed Sunni rebels in Syria and Hezbollah backed Shiite/Alawite regime forces of Assad will simply throw down their arms and stare in amazement at a successful "model of democratic governance" in Palestine? Yeah, right.

Tom Terrific seems to forget that the term in office of Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, ended on January 9, 2009, yet Abbas has steadfastly refused to hold new elections. "The current moderate Palestinian leadership in the West Bank," like the rest of the Arab world, is not interested in democracy.

"And the world for the most part would not begrudge Israel keeping its forces on the Jordan River — as will be necessary given the instability beyond — if it ceded most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem." But this is exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Abbas in 2008, but Abbas refused. Is there any reason to believe that Abbas and friends are now prepared to accept the existence of a Jewish state living in peace beside them? I don't think so.

Keep dreaming, Tom. I am forever amazed that anyone is willing to pay for this pap.

Bill Clinton to Receive $500,000 for Speech at Peres Academic Center Gala Dinner

As reported by The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/jnf-to-pay-bill-clinton-500000-for-45-minute-talk/):

"The Peres Academic Center has paid former US president Bill Clinton $500,000 for a headlining appearance in Rehovot on June 17. Clinton will feature at a reception, and then do a one-hour speech and Q&A session.

Guests were last week sent invitations requiring them to stump up NIS 3,000 (just over $800) apiece to attend the gala dinner, and thus to help cover his fee, but that requirement has now been canceled. "

Yes, I'm nauseous. Chew on the following information from a recent Jerusalem Post article (http://www.jpost.com/National-News/OECD-Israel-is-poorest-country-in-developed-world-313208) concerning poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor in Israel:

"Israel has the highest poverty rate among OECD countries, according to a report released by the 33-nation Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Wednesday.

The data revealed that Israel’s poverty rate stood at close to 21 percent of the population in 2011, compared to the 11.1% average among the rest of the members.

In addition, Israel was ranked fifth with regard to income gaps after Chile, Mexico, Turkey and the United States."

Also consider the following information from a December 2012 article in The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Poverty-report-paints-disturbing-picture-of-Israel):

"According to the data, which was presented at a conference in Rishon Lezion on Monday morning, half of the children of impoverished families are forced to work today – a sharp increase compared to 2011, when this figure was only 19 percent. In general, one out of five Israeli children have had to drop out of school for this reason.

Ten percent of children of impoverished families have also begged for money on the streets over the past year due to difficult economic situations at home. In 2011, only 3% of children did so.

Overall, 27% of children in Israel have experienced full days without food this year, up from 21% in 2011.

Economic hardship also seems to be taking a toll on the children’s education.

According to the report, 21% of needy families had to send their children to boarding school in 2012, an increase of 23% compared to 2011.

Also, one-fifth of those families reported that in order to be able to purchase basic food products, they had to give up on proper education for their children."

A cool half million for Wild Bill to speak at a time when Israeli children are suffering in this manner? "Be'teavon" (Hebrew for "good appetite") to all those who attend this "gala dinner."

Condoleezza Rice for President?

Intelligent, eloquent and powerful. Doesn't need a teleprompter as she advocates intervention in Syria.

David Brooks, "The Way to Produce a Person": And a Person is . . .?

Benghazi, the IRS, AP/Rosen? Heck no! David Brooks appears intent upon avoiding these topics like the plague, except to the extent that Benghazi tarnished the reputation of his friend Victoria Nuland (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-next-scapegoat-benghazi.html). Instead, Brooks, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Way to Produce a Person" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/opinion/brooks-the-way-to-produce-a-person.html?_r=0), discusses an article in Sunday's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/31/join-wall-street-save-the-world/) about an MIT graduate working for a high-frequency trading hedge fund, who donates much of his income to fight malaria. The student believes that for every $2,500 that he gives away, one person can be saved from this mosquito-borne disease. Brooks cautions this young man:

"First, you might start down this course seeing finance as a convenient means to realize your deepest commitment: fighting malaria. But the brain is a malleable organ. Every time you do an activity, or have a thought, you are changing a piece of yourself into something slightly different than it was before. Every hour you spend with others, you become more like the people around you.

. . . .

Second, I would be wary of inverting the natural order of affections. If you see the world on a strictly intellectual level, then a child in Pakistan or Zambia is just as valuable as your own child. But not many people actually think this way. Not many people value abstract life perceived as a statistic as much as the actual child being fed, hugged, nurtured and played with.

. . . .

Third, and most important, I would worry about turning yourself into a means rather than an end. If you go to Wall Street mostly to make money for charity, you may turn yourself into a machine for the redistribution of wealth. You may turn yourself into a fiscal policy."

Brooks's conclusion:

"If your profoundest interest is dying children in Africa or Bangladesh, it’s probably best to go to Africa or Bangladesh, not to Wall Street."

I also read this Washington Post article with avid interest, given that some 35 years ago, I was working for a leading Wall Street law firm in the field of mergers and acquisitions and also giving my money away to charities. I won't bore you again with my history: I ate the bad pizza and left the firm. Regrets? No. I recall the dialogue from the 1982 science fiction classic "Blade Runner" in which Dr. Tyrell explains to one of his robots why it must "die":

Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns for half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy. Look at you: you're the Prodigal Son; you're quite a prize!

Batty: I've done . . . questionable things.

Tyrell: Also extraordinary things; revel in your time.

Batty: Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.

Owing to my peregrinations after leaving the Wall Street law firm, I also saw where some of my donated money from years past had been going, and I was not satisfied with the destination. It was not what I had fantasized.

Do I have qualms about the "lifestyle" of the MIT graduate? Sure, but they are different from those of Brooks, who seems most concerned by the corrosive effects of this young man's chosen way of living.

I detest the behavior of most hedge funds and see no value in high-frequency trading. I always believed that securities exchanges provided the means for new companies to raise capital, create jobs and bring to market new products, some of them life-saving. Today, when you are buying or selling shares, there is a good chance that the party on the opposite end is a computer, whose algorithms don't take into account the worth of what any public company is seeking to achieve or whether such trading can be destructive.

How important are corporate goals? After all, public companies are driven by profit motives. True. On the other hand, I have seen the painfully slow pace of university research, and this is not the driver of innovation that many people think. People might feel "good" about contributing to university research, which can indeed be important, but in my experience, such donations are not the best way to achieve desired tangible results.

Public companies can be wasteful and indifferent to their shareholders? Absolutely, and this is why I am no longer willing to invest passively. If I invest at all, it is premised upon active involvement in a company's affairs. Needless to say, most companies don't want this, and consequently my "portfolio" is extremely limited. In addition, such involvement imposes severe restrictions upon my ability to trade in such a company's securities, but this is a price that I am glad to pay.

Bottom line: I'm certain that the MIT graduate is doing much good, and it's a pity that there are not many more people like him. Far be it from me to lecture him on how "to produce a person." (Given my often childlike behavior - ask my kids - I am embarrassed to say how old I will become on Saturday, yet pleased to acknowledge that I am still "morphing.") On the other hand, given this young man's talent and commitment, I am confident that if saving lives is his ambition, it can be achieved more effectively and efficiently than by working for a hedge fund and making donations.

Obama's Friend Putin Rushes to Fill a Middle East Power Vacuum

And so it continues:

In Syria, Shiite fighters from Lebanon (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/hezbollah-boosting-assads-forces-in-northern-syria/2013/06/02/3bb59c7e-cb9e-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html), Iraq (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraqi-shiites-fight-for-syrian-government/2013/05/26/6c3c39b4-c245-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html?hpid=z10) and Yemen (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Yemen-Houthis-fighting-for-Assad-in-Syria-315005) are hurrying to prop up Kerry's "dear friend" Assad in his battle against al-Qaeda backed rebel forces.

Arab Gulf states are considering punitive action against Iran's surrogate Hezbollah for its involvement in Syria (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/06/02/Gulf-FMs-reject-Iranian-interference-in-GCC-countries-.html).

Meanwhile, the fighting in Syria is spreading into Lebanon and threatening to destabilize this country as well (see: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2013/Jun-03/219235-deadly-clash-opens-new-chapter-of-syria-war-in-lebanon.ashx#axzz2V4UtEFgW).

Iraq is experiencing a new wave of sectarian bombings (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586800/new-wave-of-bombings-in-iraq-leaves-at-least-30-dead/).

And in Turkey, an open street rebellion has sprouted against the tyranny of Erdogan, one of Obama's "five top interatnional friends" (see: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269076-obama-names-turkeys-erdogan-among-top-five-international-friends.html), whose AKP Party has jailed more journalists than any other country in the world (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/02/2013217124044793870.html).

Now surely you remember President Obama's open microphone gaffe in Seoul in March 2012, when he asked for "space" from Putin in exchange for "flexibility" after the presidential election in November:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him [Putin] to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

So how is Obama's friend Putin responding to this regional crisis?

Russia is pouring fuel on the fire by threatening to send advanced S-300 ground-to-air missiles (http://news.yahoo.com/russia-unlikely-ship-300-missiles-syria-autumn-interfax-081448222.html) and MiG-29 fighter planes (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Russian-papers-S-300-delivery-to-Syria-not-before-2014-315006) to Syria. This comes on the heels of Putin's decision in March to deploy Russia's navy in the Mediterranean on a permanent basis (see: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-send-nuclear-submarines-southern-seas-123741129.html).

Israel has gone on record as stating that it will destroy the S-300 antiaircraft system if it is delivered to Assad (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168493).

Putin's action follows Obama's inaction in response to the use of chemical weapons by Assad against Syrian rebels. Putin is well aware that Obama's "red lines" are meaningless.

In short, a power vacuum has been created in the Middle East owing to a perception of American infirmity, and Russia is rushing to fill it. It remains to be seen whether this chaos, being fanned by Putin, will spread to Arab regimes in the Gulf, which have been traditionally friendly to the US.

Frank Bruni, "Who Needs Reporters?": Ask Reporters Who Attended Eric Holder's Off-the-Record Discussion

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Who Needs Reporters?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/bruni-who-needs-reporters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), Frank Bruni tells us that with regard to politicians, journalists "must be able to poke and meddle." Bruni writes:

"Lately we journalists have been agitated, justifiably, by the Obama administration’s prosecution of leakers and spying on the reporters and news organizations who set up or sop up those leaks. It’s an overzealous overreach and a serious threat to our ability to police government, which has shown time and again that it needs policing.

But our role and relevance are arguably even more imperiled by politicians’ ability, in this newly wired world of ours, to go around us and present themselves in packages that we can’t simultaneously unwrap. To get a message out, they don’t have to beseech a network’s indulgence. They don’t have to rely on a newspaper’s attention. The Bachmann, Weiner and Clinton videos are especially vivid examples of that, reflections and harbingers of an era in which YouTube is the public square, and the fourth estate is a borderline obsolescent one.

. . . .

If there’s a trend line at work, it’s of politicians’ being ever more orchestrated and anxious about the establishment of their own narratives (and they were plenty orchestrated from the get-go). President Obama rose to national prominence literally on the power of his own storytelling, with an electrifying convention speech and a best-selling memoir, and has since been emphatic about the polish of his public appearances and the distance at which reporters are kept. He prefers teleprompters and the soft focus of 'The View,' Letterman and 'Entertainment Tonight' to potentially messy interactions with political reporters."

Frank, are you really so surprised by this trend? There is a saying that "a fish rots from the head down." Listen to Obama adviser Anita Dunn at an event focusing on the president’s tactics, hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, in which Dunn discusses how Obama controlled the media during the 2008 election (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlGNhAnwp_Y):

"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe [Obama’s chief campaign manager] videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters. We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. . . . very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control."

More recently, consider how many news organizations were willing to attend Eric Holder's "off-the-record" meeting on Thursday, concerning the scandals involving AP and Fox News.

By the way, at least this once The New York Times got it right - they refused to participate in this discussion, intended to win back media sympathy, but not intended for public consumption (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-calderone/whos-attending-holders-off-the-record-meeting_b_3359562.html?utm_hp_ref=media).