Happy Hanukkah...or something

The incompetence of the Bush presidency has reached comedic new heights. Say what you will about launching disastrous wars of choice costing hundreds of thousands of lives or eating cake while cities flood and American citizens perish, but now the White House has sent out Hanukkah cards with a picture of a giant Christmas tree. From CNN:

"The invitation sent to American Jewish leaders on behalf of the President and First Lady, requesting "the pleasure of your company at a Hanukkah reception," bore an image of a Clydesdale horse-drawn cart, carrying the White House Christmas tree, with a Christmas wreath-adorned White House in the background."

Oops.

Thoughts on the Mumbai Attacks

Well by now everyone has certainly heard about yesterday's horrific attacks in Mumbai. You'd have to be living under a rock not to. There has been saturation coverage - round the clock updates, stories on local people with connections to Mumbai - the whole shebang.

But how many of you remember hearing about a complex and coordinated terrorist attack in the same city 28 months earlier that killed nearly twice as many people (over 200) and injured over 700? Or how about the coordinated bomb attacks in and around the city of Guwahati less than a month ago, which killed 84 and injured 470? Or about any of the other 21 major terrorist incidents to happen in India just since 9/11, 2001 (10 of those occuring in the past 18 months)?

Probably not that many. The obvious difference? Those attacks did not target "Westerners." The obvious lesson? If you want your terrorist attack to gain international recognition and infamy you have to target "Westerners" (ideally Americans and Brits) and the places they like to frequent. I'm sure, for instance, that we all remember the Bali bombings of 2002 in which over 150 Western tourists were killed. (Not so much the 2005 Bali bombings which killed mostly Indonesians and only a handfull of Australians)

On a somewhat related note, I have also been struck by total lack of context provided by most of the reporting on the attack. (Struck but not surprised) No mention of the long and troubled relationship between the Hindu majority and Muslims minority in that country, no mention of ongoing sectarian violence, no mention of the anti-Muslim riots in 2002 and 1992 in which literally thousands of Muslims were killed. But I guess that's to be expected - why would they treat this differently than every other complex issue they cover.

I'm also curious how many Indian Muslims will be murdered in the coming days in retaliation for this attack. Probably a lot. But I'm pretty damn sure I won't be hearing about that on my local radio.

The Bailout Rap

Courtesy of 47-year old NYC stockbroker Gregg Somerville:

Unbelievable

unbelievable.

Here's AJ on the whole thing.

Robert Reich on Citi Bailout

From his blog:

Today it was decided the government will guarantee more than $300 billion of troubled mortgages and other assets of Citigroup under a federal plan to stabilize the lender after its stock fell 60 percent last week. The company will also will get a $20 billion cash infusion from the Treasury Department, adding to the $25 billion the bank received last month under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

This is not a particularly good deal for American taxpayers, but it is a marvelous deal for Citi. In return for all the cash and guarantees they are giving away, taxpayers will get only $27 billion of preferred shares paying an 8 percent dividend. No other strings are attached. The senior executives of Citi, including those who have served at the highest levels in the US government, have done their jobs exceedingly well. The American public, including the media, have not the slightest clue what just happened.

Meanwhile, more than a million workers in the automobile industry, along with six million homeowners in danger of losing their homes, and a millions of Americans who depend on small businesses and retailers for paychecks, are getting nothing at all.

In the face of all of this I'm beginning to feel radicalized. Anyone else? Oh well, At least Obama has come out with a bold plan to auction off Larry Summer's neck fat to put towards the bailout.

Would We Eat Our Words?

Now that Begich has won Alaska, and Franken appears set to come from behind in Minnesota, the possibility of a Filibuster-proof Senate Majority is within reach. It is a distant possibility, dependent on an upset victory from Jim Martin in the Georgia runoff, but a possibility none the less.

If Martin somehow pulls off a win, observers will undoubtedly hail Obama's position on the Connecticut Senator as an act of unparralled political genius, the logic being that Lieberman is now in Obama's pocket on any key vote. If we secure 60 seats pundits will say that keeping Holy Joe happy was worth it.

But will progressives become reconciled with the Lieberman decision?

I'm not sure of the answer, but pondering the question makes me feel a little less angry. A little bit.

BREAKING: Dems Allow Lieberman to Keep Homeland Security Committee

It turns out Nader was right after all. I guess they really are the same party.

UPDATE: "Well, I'm a big Hillary Clinton fan. I think if he decided he wanted her and she decided she wanted to do it, she would be a great secretary of state." - Joe Lieberman

Robert Fisk Keeping Score PLUS More thoughts on US/Israel

We haven't heard much from Fisky of late. Here he deconstructs what he thinks Obama should do with Middle East and "War on Terror" policy, versus what he will do.

Obama has got to close Guantanamo. He's got to find a way of apologising to the world for the crimes of his predecessor, not an easy task for a man who must show pride in his country; but saying sorry is what – internationally – he will have to do if the "change" he has been promoting at home is to have any meaning outside America's borders. He will have to re-think – and deconstruct – the whole "war on terror". He will have to get out of Iraq. He will have to call a halt to America's massive airbases in Iraq, its $600m embassy. He will have to end the blood-caked air strikes we are perpetrating in southern Afghanistan – why, oh, why do we keep slaughtering wedding parties? – and he will have to tell Israel a few home truths: that America can no longer remain uncritical in the face of Israeli army brutality and the colonisation for Jews and Jews only on Arab land. Obama will have to stand up at last to the Israeli lobby (it is, in fact, an Israeli Likud party lobby) and withdraw Bush's 2004 acceptance of Israel's claim to a significant portion of the West Bank. US officials will have to talk to Iranian officials – and Hamas officials, for that matter. Obama will have to end US strikes into Pakistan – and Syria.

[...]

But Obama's not going to be able to make the break. He wants to draw down in Iraq in order to concentrate more firepower in Afghanistan. He's not going to take on the lobby in Washington and he's not going to stop further Jewish colonisation of the occupied territories or talk to Israel's enemies. With AIPAC supporter Rahm Emanuel as his new chief of staff – "our man in the White House", as the Israeli daily Maariv called him this week – Obama will toe the line. And of course, there's the terrible thought that bin Laden [...] may be planning another atrocity to welcome the Obama presidency.

It's an interesting point here about Rahm Emanuel. According to Haaretz his father was "a member of the Irgun (Etzel or IZL), a militant Zionist group that operated in Palestine between 1931 and 1948." Rahm himself volunteered with the Israeli Defense Force in the 1991 Gulf War. Having a guy like Rahm on staff (and putting Hillary "obliterate Iran" Clinton in the State Department) leads one to suspect that BHO is going full steam ahead with the standard Likudnik policies of his predecesors.

Still, I don't want to fully condemn the President-elect before he takes office. If I really wanted to change US/Israel relations I probably wouldn't chose Noam Chomsky for State Department. I'd chose someone with an solidly militant record on Israel issues, and then tell them to change their tune. Tough talk from Hillary Clinton would be taken a lot more seriously by Israeli statesman than tough talk from some peacenik. I know, I know, looking at Obama's selections in this light is the hight of delusion. But a guy can dream, can't he?

Something to Remember

Since he began writing for the New York Times, I've realized something new about myself; I have a soft spot for Dick Cavett. Still, as much as I enjoyed his recent post "The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla" I think it's important to remember that poking fun at George Bush's speaking ability didn't stop him from winning elections. When Palin returns, as we know she will, we need to be equipped with stronger defenses than an abiding love of the English language. I hope I'm wrong, maybe after Bush Americans are sick of inarticulate leaders. Somehow, I doubt it.