Later On

The Wife points out this stunning collection of Armistice Day photos. (Remembrance Day is the name used in Canada for what the US now calls Veterans Day, formerly known as Armistice Day here and still referred to as Armistice Day in Great Britain.)

The Washinton Post has come a long way—unfortunately, downhill. Katherine Graham must be spinning in her grave. Glenn Greenwald looks at what the paper has become:

Several weeks ago, I wrote about a truly twisted, deranged rant by neocon royal family member Rachel Abrams. Abrams — wife of Iran-contra convict and Bush 43 official Eliot Abrams, step-daughter of Norm Podhoretz, half-sister of John Podhoretz, and a Board Member of Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI) — unleashed a torrent of anti-Palestinian hatred upon the release of Gilad Shalit that could be produced only by the most rotted of souls:

Then round up [Gilad Shalit's] captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.

While Abrams’ post sparked widespread revulsion, it found one noted admirer: The Washington Post‘s Israel-obsessed blogger Jennifer Rubin, whore-tweeted Abrams’ promotion of her post with obvious (and admitted) agreement.

In the ensuing controversy, ECI claimed that Abrams’ murderous desires were directed only toward Palestinian “terrorists,” not Palestinians generally — a self-evidently false excuse that quickly fell apart after Abrams wrote that, in essence, all Palestinians are Terrorists (“there are no fine points of distinction in what they’re after”). To make her genocidal wishes even clearer, Abrams then directed her bile to ThinkProgress’ Ali Gharib — an Iranian-American who was one of the many commentators objecting to her original post — explaining that she’d also “feed HIM and his friends to sharks.” To put it mildly, Abrams’ post was bigoted, violence-inciting, and driven by hatred of the purest and most repellent strain.

It’s the opposite of newsworthy that a rabid neocon like Abrams spews this sort of anti-Arab hate-mongering; that is basically the defining attribute of neoconservatism. But what is significant is that Jennifer Rubin promoted and endorsed it without any hesitation. Over the past 18 months, we’ve witnessed a series of journalists fired for far less virulent sentiments directed at Israelis and Jews (Rich Sanchez’ complaints about disproportionate Jewish media influence and Helen Thomas’ call for Jews to leave the region), and even for completely innocuous remarks whose only sin was offending neocons (Octavia Nasr’s mild eulogizing of a moderate Hezbollah cleric). Yet here we have a Post blogger who has endorsed this extreme hate-mongering, and does so with total impunity.

Is there any doubt whatsoever that had Rubin promoted a rant spewing these sorts of ugly caricatures about Jewish children and Israelis with accompanying calls for savage violence — rather than directed at Palestinians — that she would have instantly been fired, then castigated and attacked by all Serious precincts? As Gharib reports today, that was the question posed by a Post reader via email to the Post‘s Ombudsman, Patrick Pexton. To his credit, Pexton had previously condemned Rubin on his Ombudsman blog, writing: “in agreeing with the sentiment, and in spreading it to her 7,000 Twitter followers who know her as a Washington Post blogger, Rubin did damage to The Post and the credibility that keeps it afloat.” After denouncing Abrams’ rant as “reprehensible,” Pexton added: “That a Post employee would retweet it is a huge disappointment to me.”

That’s all fine as far as it goes, but what about the question posed by the reader: wouldn’t Rubin have been fired for promoting this hate-mongering had it been directed at Jews and Israelis rather than Palestinians? Pexton’s email response, published by the reader who emailed him, was this:

Off the record, I think it’s quite possible. But the ombudsman does not hire or fire people here. I only comment.

Leave aside the bizarre belief of establishment journalists that they can unilaterally decree their statements to be “off the record” and then expect that to be honored in the absence of any agreement by the person to whom they’re making the statement. What is most striking here is Pexton’s highly revealing cowardice — probably well-grounded — in wanting his observation about this double standard to be kept private; shouldn’t an Ombudsman who believes this be eager to raise it in public? As the reader noted in reply to Pexton:

If, in your opinion, such a grave double standard exits, why do you comment off the record? Why not publicly state your opinion? Why self censor? Doesn’t that reinforce insidious limitations on free speech?

Think of the absurdity. You must stay cautiously silent about a perfectly reasonable opinion while Rubin and Abrams can let fly with genocidal remarks. With respect, your silence contributes significantly to the poisoning of public debate.

Please speak up.

What’s particularly remarkable is that Pexton is admitting (albeit wanting it kept secret) what any honest observer knows to be true: that there is a very high likelihood — I’d say absolute certainty — that Rubin would have been fired had she promoted a post like this about Jews and Israelis rather than Arabs and Palestinians.

But this is the insidious, pervasive bias that has long been obvious in a profession that relentlessly touts its own “objectivity.” Even the mildest criticism of Israelis and anything even hinting at criticisms of Jews is strictly prohibited — a prohibition enforced by summary, immediate dismissal and enduring stigma. As Nicholas Kristof wrote during a visit to Jerusalem last year: Israel “tolerates a far greater range of opinions [about Israel] than America.”

But the most extreme forms of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred flourish often with no condemnation and virtually always with no sanction (Juan Williams’ firing by NPR was one of the very few exceptions, though that was ultimately motivated by long-standing NPR animosity toward Williams’ role on Fox). Had Rubin promoted (and admitted agreeing with) such disgusting bile toward Jews and Israelis, her journalism career would have been over, but because it was directed at Palestinians, it continues to thrive. Indeed, the neocon fanatic who runs the Post‘s Editorial Page, Fred Hiatt, predictably defended and praised Rubin, calling her “an excellent journalist and a relentless reporter” who “is often the target of unjustified criticism.” (Pexton argued that what Rubin did violated Post rules “that apply to editors, reporters and bloggers,” but since Rubin is an opinion writer, those rules do not apply to her: except Hiatt and Rubin herself repeatedly describe her as a “reporter” and a “journalist”).

Herein lies one of the great myths of American political culture: . . .

Continue reading.

Excellent article by Jo Becker in the NY Times on the prosecutor’s view of the events:

For months, Gov. Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania had reason to suspect a sexual abuse scandal was going to explode at Penn State University. He also had no way to talk about it, or to prepare for it.

Mr. Corbett, as state attorney general, had begun an investigation in 2009 into allegations that a former Penn State assistant football coach had abused young boys, and that university officials might have covered up the scandal. He had convened a grand jury, and his prosecutors had taken testimony. But when he ran for governor, and even after he took office, he was obligated to keep the investigation secret, even as he saw the university officials at the center of the investigation doing little to address the substance of the inquiry.

“He was upset about the inaction,” said Kevin Harley, who worked with Mr. Corbett in the attorney general’s office and is now his press secretary. “He knew what witnesses were going to the grand jury even though he was running for governor. So then he became governor, and he knew at some point that this day would be coming. He just didn’t know when it would be.”

That day came last Friday, when the charges became public against the former coach, Jerry Sandusky, and two senior university officials. Suddenly, though, Mr. Corbett faced a new challenge: . . .

Continue reading.

Very revealing of the underlying military attitude toward troops as disposable equipment. Craig Whitlock and Greg Jaffe report in the Washington Post:

The Dover Air Force Base mortuary for years disposed of portions of troops’ remains by cremating them and dumping the ashes in a Virginia landfill, a practice that officials have since abandoned in favor of burial at sea.

The mortuary in Delaware, the main point of entry for the nation’s war dead and the target of federal investigations of alleged mishandling of remains, engaged in the practice from 2003 to 2008, according to Air Force officials. The manner of disposal was not disclosed to relatives of fallen service members. . .

Continue reading.

This sounds terrific. Seems like a lot of capability for $150 ($80 without Wi-Fi). In fact I use a wired connection for my various entertainment devices: TV, Blu-ray player, Roku unit—they’re all plugged into the modem with cable. So no need for Wi-fi here.

I particularly like the sound of the brown-rice cakes in this NY Times column by Mark Bittman—and I bet The Wife will like those for her lunches up in Palo Alto (not the first one, which has cheese, but the others). Take a look. Here are the cakes (but note the column includes other recipes, equally intriguing):

Parmesan and Scallions

Combine 1 1/2 cups brown rice with 3 cups water over high heat. Bring to a boil, then lower the heat. Cook, stirring occasionally and adding more water if needed, until the rice is starchy and soft, about 1 hour. Chill for at least 1 hour. Stir in 1 cup grated Parmesan, 1/2 cup chopped scallions and 1/4 cup chopped parsley. Form into patties and cook in olive oil over medium-high heat until browned on both sides. Garnish: Grated Parmesan.

Carrots and Parsnips

Skip the cheese, scallions and parsley. Instead, stir 1 cup shredded carrots, 1 shredded small onion, 1/2 cup shredded parsnips and 1 tablespoon minced sage into the rice; proceed as above. Garnish: Chopped parsley.

Caramelized Leeks and Spinach

Skip the cheese, scallions and parsley. Cook 2 chopped leeks in 2 tablespoons olive oil until very soft and brown, 15 to 20 minutes. Add 3 cups chopped spinach and cook just until wilted. Stir the leeks and spinach into the rice; proceed as above. Serve with lemon wedges.

Interesting post at Cool Tools: gloves that allow you to use touchpads and touchscreens without having to remove the gloves.

Trent Hamm of The Simple Dollar has an interesting post this morning:

When I first started The Simple Dollar, a little over five years ago, I had just started the process of turning around my finances and I wanted to share that story with my friends.

Before that, I hadn’t really been mindful about my financial choices. I would spend with reckless abandon, fulfilling the things I wanted in the very short term without really reflecting on what it meant not only for the long term, but in terms of other short term desires.

Simply put, I didn’t really think about what I was doing with my money. Sure, I would plan ahead enough to make sure that the next month’s bills were paid, but I wasn’t even all that good at doing that. I spent money without thinking. I was mindless.

That mindlessness ran over into a lot of other aspects of my life. It affected how I spent my time. It affected how I acted toward others. It affected how I handled my career. It affected my physical fitness. It affected my relationship with my wife. It affected my hobbies and interests.

In each case, I would make most of my choices without really thinking about them. I’d say things based on my immediate emotional or intellectual response. I’d spend time on what seemed fun at that exact moment. I avoided doing things that weren’t fun, no matter how much they would pay off for me down the road. I never considered the things I was doing in a scope that was beyond me (and sometimes Sarah, too) and I rarely considered them beyond the next few weeks.

Most of the time, I simply acted on impulse in everything that I did.

Thankfully, I was raised well enough that my impulsive responses weren’t terrible. My parents ground a basic level of politeness into my head, for starters, and I had a decent general sense of what it took to survive from day to day and week to week.

The problem is that acting constantly based on such impulses built very little for the future.

It left my finances in a shambles. It left me losing touch with the career I’d dreamed of since I was a boy (writing). It left me completely unprepared for parenthood. It left me with a life that didn’t really seem to have any long-term values.

The biggest change that I’ve made in my life over the last several years is to simply startthinking about all of the little actions I take.

By that, I don’t mean that I stand there and puzzle over what kind of gum to buy in the checkout line. Instead, I spend quite a lot of time thinking about what caused me to make decisions in the heat of the moment and I try to make sure that those decisions are the best possible ones. Not just for the short term, but for the long term. Not just for my immediate convenience, but for a better overall life. Not for my immediate emotional gratification, but for building relationships over the long haul.

Today, I actually spend a lot of time reflecting on why I make the choices that I do and how I can correct the unconscious rules that guide my impulses. I’ve learned a few things.

If I think about something for a while, I’ll find that I remember those thoughts the next time the situation comes up. For example, if I’ve realized that I’ve been spending too much time lately playing a particular game, the next time I pull up that game, that conscious thought actually pops into my head. It makes me stop for a second, reconsider playing that game, and usually causes me to simply not play it.

If I repeat a new behavior a few times, . . .

Continue reading.

Businesses, I’m beginning to think, should stay at arm’s length from the government because the missions and mindsets are so different. Businesses focus on making profits—pretty much to the exclusion of any other consideration—whereas governments have a multitude of missions that have nothing to do with “profit” but focus instead on “the common welfare”: actions that benefit the community, state, or nation as a whole.

For example, a commenter on this blog was talking about how the government was “burning through” the tax revenues, spending those revenues all over the place. Spoken like a businessman, who avoids spending as much as possible: any cost savings goes directly to the bottom line as profit, so businesses constantly search for ways to stop spending money.

Government, in contrast, collects tax revenues specifically to spend them (on projects that enhance the common welfare). Do you want governments to collect tax money and then sit on it, hoarding it, trying to “turn a profit”? No, that’s totally the wrong idea. The money we pay as taxes we expect to be spent, and spent in ways that benefit the community/state/nation as a whole.

Indeed, as we discovered with the Clinton surplus, which was to be a bulwark for social services as the baby boom ages, a large government reserve attracts the attention of businesses, who devote enormous amounts of thought and effort on how to get that money for themselves—and, as it turns out, it’s fairly easy: buy key Representatives and Senators, put a CEO in charge of the executive branch (Dick Cheney), and Bob’s your uncle. I think that KBR probably had to use those Brobdingnagian dump trucks that normally work strip mines to carry away our tax money, thanks in great part to the no-bid, cost-plus contracts (aka “blank cheques”) that Cheney saw that they got.

Kevin Drum has a good post on how business interests muck up the process of government:

The “Volcker rule” is a simple thing. Basically, it says that if you’re a bank that takes deposits and benefits from federal deposit insurance, you can’t also make risky trades that might blow up your bank and cost the taxpayers a bundle. Wall Street never liked the rule, because banks make a lot of their money these days trading for their own accounts and didn’t want their trading profits cut off. They fought the idea in Congress, but in the end, the Dodd-Frank bill that passed in 2010 included a version of the Volcker rule in its final draft.

Was this a victory for common sense? Hardly. Last month regulators unveiled their first take on the actual implementation of the Volcker rule, and it had become a monster. ”Only in today’s regulatory climate could such a simple idea become so complex, generating a rule whose preamble alone is 215 pages, with 381 footnotes to boot,” complained American Bankers Association Chief Executive Frank Keating.

Poor banks! But step back for a moment. How did Paul Volcker’s baby get so bloated? Keating’s crocodile tears aside, the answer is: banks. When it comes to financial regulation, fighting against new laws is merely their first line of defense. When they lose, as they did in the Dodd-Frank battle, the action simply moves to the regulatory agency charged with implementing the law. James Stewart explains what happened next:

When the proposed regulations for the Volcker Rule finally emerged for public comment, the text had swelled to 298 pages and was accompanied by more than 1,300 questions about 400 topics.

…”Here’s the key word in the rules: ‘exemption,’” former Senator Ted Kaufman, Democrat of Delaware, told me. “Let me tell you, as soon as you see that, it’s pronounced ‘loophole.’ That’s what it means in English.” Mr. Kaufman, now teaching at Duke University School of Law, earlier proposed a tougher version of the Volcker Rule, which was voted down in the Senate. “We’ve been through this before,” he said. “I know these folks, these Wall Street guys. I went to school with them. They’re smart as hell. You give them the smallest little hole, and they’ll run through it.”

This is probably the biggest reason that no one should take too seriously Republican complaints about burdensome regulations strangling the economy. The truth is that most reformers prefer fairly simple rules. In the tax world, they’d prefer to simply tax all income. In the environmental world, they’d prefer to set firm limits for pollutants. In the financial world, they’d prefer blunt rules that cut off risky activity at its knees.

But businesses don’t like simple rules, because simple rules are hard to evade. So they lobby endlessly for exemptions both big and small. This is why we end up with tax subsidies for bow-and-arrow makers. It’s why we end up with environmental rules that treat a hundred different industries a hundred different ways. It’s why financial regulators don’t enact simple leverage rules or place firm asset caps on firm size. Those would be hard to get around and might genuinely eat into bank profits. Complex rules, conversely, are the meat and drink of $500-per-hour lawyers and whiz kid engineers. If the rules are complicated enough, smart lawyers can always find ways around them. And American corporations employ lots of smart lawyers.

Keep this firmly in mind the next time you . . .

Continue reading.

Today’s shave had two brushes (only one shown in photo), two soaps, two razors, two brands of blades, but only one aftershave—well, come to think of it, I did use the alum block following this shave, so two aftershaves as well.

At reader request, I wanted to compare Floris and Creed shaving soaps and the iKon S3S and the Pils (with a Personna 74 in the S3S and a Swedish Gillette blade in the Pils).

After a wash with MR GLO, I quickly worked up a wonderful creamy lather from the Floris Elite, using the Frank Shaving brush shown in the photo: excellent lather, and I split the first pass between the S3S and the Pils.

For the second pass, I realized I didn’t want to rinse out the brush to start anew, but I do have a new Frank Shaving brush exactly comparable to the black one (with a white handle, no metal base), so I used that for the Creed: once again a superb creamy lather.

Again on the second pass I used both razors, as I did for the third (half my face with Floris lather, half with Creed).

A pass of the alum block, a rinse, dry, and splash of Acqua di Parma.

Findings: a) Creed is better than Floris, IMO, though both are excellent; b) the two Frank Shaving brushes performed the same; c) the S3S shaves better than the Pils, though both are excellent—the difference is that the mass of the S3S is better concentrated somehow. Anyway, given a choice, go for the S3S (IMO).

Interesting shave. Thanks for suggesting it.