NY Times: Romney Ain't All Bad

The New York Times's vetting of Mitt Romney is so thorough that their research sometimes compels them to publish mildly flattering portrayals. The article's headline, In Real Estate Deal, Romney Made His Loss a Couple’s Gain, seemed lurid enough to suggest some sort of untoward kickback scheme, but as it turned out was more about Romney being just a good ole' Mormon softie. It's a quick read, and a good opportunity for the Times to promote its objectivity. But what stands out to me is the intensive scrutiny the paper is applying to this candidate for president - which is of course entirely appropriate - in stark contrast to the - well, not mere indifference to any examination of Obama's background, but outright hostility to any efforts to examine it at all.

He Gave an Order

A cyber-attack program, aimed at Iran's nuclear development capabilities, initiated in the Bush administration and developed by a small group within military intelligence, owes its effectiveness to the astonishing leadership abilities of President Obama. That's according to a lengthy article in the NY Times. Obama Order Sped Up Cyberattacks Against Iran crows the headline.

When one of the "worms" the program had developed escaped into the general cyber-community and became known in 2010, Obama grabbed the reins.

“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.

Those lucky guys in that room, getting to witness greatness at work before their very eyes - the leg tingles. And don't discount the momentousness of the President's vision.

Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games [the code name for the program], was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade.

You see, Obama's helmsmanship is up there with Truman and Eisenhower - don't kid yourself. Well, I don't want to ruin it for you - read the whole thing - there's more, much much more. You don't want to miss this gripping tale of decisiveness, boldness, and penetrating vision. A story about espionage, code-breaking, immense technical hurdles, rogue agents, multi-agency and international cooperation and intrigue and unintended consequences - why would you think it would be about anything besides Obama?

Dealing with Syria and Iran - a Message?

The Times has a couple interesting - for the Times, anyway - articles on Syria and Iran. On Syria, it's the first account I've seen in the mainstream press attempting to provide a balanced look at the situation there. The article describes the sectarian nature of the insurrection and contrasts nicely with Tom Friedman's bizarre twisting of the story yesterday ("the opposition in Syria began as a largely peaceful, grass-roots, pan-Syrian movement for democratic change...[President Bashar al-Assad] wanted to make the conflict about his Alawite minority versus the country’s Sunni Muslim majority as a way of discrediting the opposition and holding his base").

On Iran, the article discusses American analysts assessment of the outcome of an Israeli strike on Iran. While hardly dire, the outcome looks to be quite a mess for the U.S. I would expect such analysis to go completely unheeded by the administration.

Except that perhaps the Times is trying to get word to the White House - back off from Syria, and keep the pressure on Israel to hold off on any strikes. I can't see Obama as the kind of guy who wants to deal with wars and international turmoil - he seems much more comfortable worrying about whether black students get suspended too much from school and how to increase Pell grants to urban students. But he is apparently easily intimidated into taking action based on "human rights" concerns. So maybe the Times is trying to tell him something none of his advisers ever would.

Anatomy of a Coup

Speaking of the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, didn't the transformation of Mr. Mubarak into the Evil Man of the Middle East seem to happen faster than Dr. Jekyll could turn into Mr. Hyde with a drink of his special potion? Who was beating those war drums, anyway? Let's look at how the New York Times viewed Mubarak over time. Was he always a dictator? I searched the Times for all articles containing the words "dictator" and "Mubarak", and what I found was a pattern that would have made Hearst himself smile.:

Note that the two words were seldom used in the same article (and not once in all of 2010!) until January 2011, when they were used 12 times then in February 48 times! Note also that prior to January 2011 the graph shows annual counts, while it's monthly thereafter - so the incidence of the use of those 2 words now occurs on a monthly basis about as frequently as it used to occur annually before 2011. But the difference is even more stark - if you look at the actual articles before 2011, the word dictator was almost never actually applied to Mubarak himself, but was used to refer to a different autocrat in the region - Mubarak nearly always being referred to respectfully as "President Mubarak."

Where's the Challenge in That?

Tom Friedman, the great cheerleader for the Tahrir Square uprising, today discusses the Great Dilemma now puzzling our Foggy Bottom cogitators given recent developments: Is the now politically-dominant Muslim Brotherhood a modern, moderate force pretending to be radical to its backward Egyptian constituency; or a radical Islamic force pretending to be moderate to the international community? Friedman, of course, argues that surely, both are right! And of course he has no second thoughts - no regrets whatsoever - about the overthrow of the clearly moderate Hosni Mubarak. And why should he - it's all good.

In short, the days of dealing with Egypt with one phone call to one man just one time are over. This is going to require really, really, really sophisticated diplomacy with multiple players — seven days a week.

Yeah, who wants our foreign affairs to be easy? That's like rooting for a football team and wanting them to have easy victories every game. Are you a true sports fan, or just a "homer"? Not Tom Friedman - he's a foreign policy aficionado - he's no "homer".

We're Eating Less Meat - Hooray?

It's taken about 3,500 years for high-density, sedentary societies to get to the point where animal protein is finally abundant enough to be eaten at every meal - and no sooner has this day arrived than our benevolent rulers have decided we'd be better off going back to 3 daily servings of gruel. Today the Times' food writer, Mark Bittman, celebrates the recent strides Americans have made in debasing their diets.

...our meat and poultry consumption will fall again this year, to about 12.2 percent less in 2012 than it was in 2007. Beef consumption has been in decline for about 20 years; the drop in chicken is even more dramatic, over the last five years or so; pork also has been steadily slipping for about five years.

He goes on to attribute much of the reason for this decrease to the troubled economy. And, apparently, we're supposed to think that's really great news - that our most nutrition-dense food product is being consumed less because it costs more. He then goes on to point out the obvious trend in people purposely eating less meat - and nothing could be better than that!

Over the course of the 3 decades that meat consumption has declined, obesity and diabetes among Americans have grown to epidemic levels. The apex of the American diet was probably the late sixties, when middle-class married women stayed home and cooked meals for the family: meals that would invariably consist of meat, a vegetable, and a starch. Desserts were often little bowls of jello or pudding or fruit cocktail. These meals might have featured too many carbs for some, and too many saturated-fats for others, but overall it was a well-balanced, nutritious meal.

Meat not only has protein but its fats provide essential nutrients as well (Vitamins A, D and E, for example). Some mothers even had the audacity to fry up beef or calve's liver in bacon grease and serve the liver topped with bacon and sauteed onions. It's hard to imagine any child managed to ever grow to maturity with the onslaught of protein and vitamins such a meal must have delivered. I still see liver sold in the supermarket, so obviously some mothers are still preparing it - perhaps DYFS should subpoena grocery-store purchase records to track these child abusers down and remove their children to safe vegan homes.

Reading the article's comments is a surreal experience - Who Are These People?

I read this article while eating my tofu, green bean, and brown rice stir-fry. I have been vegan for two years and have never felt better physically or morally. I applaud Mr. Bittman for the great piece- yes, people are choosing to eat less meat for all the right reasons: animal suffering, environmental degradation, and the horrendous health effects of a meat-based diet. I think we will continue to see the numbers drop as well as the incidence of lifestyle-related diseases.Chris Settino, Huntington NY.

Uh, not likely Chris - "the incidence of lifestyle-related diseases" has continued to go up while meat consumption has dropped - and that's what you'll continue to see. A small handful of people - those whose lives are under perfect control at all times - can indeed switch to a vegan diet that will allow them to feel satisfied and live healthily. But for most, avoiding meat will mean glombing down dreadful foods like cheese fries and mozzarella sticks and California rolls, or they will eat value-less ramen noodles or more likely pizza. But mostly, the constant scolding about eating meat has just frustrated the typical mother (fathers are still for the most part completely useless in this regard) who doesn't know what to do. Preparing a truly healthy meatless meal is quite daunting and not very tasty for children (who naturally avoid bitter tastes), and so they tend to get take-out, where the nutritional quality is exceptionally poor. The illuminati should be scolding parents to cook basic, well-rounded meals for their families, not shaming them into abandoning their traditional meals so that they can fail at preparing quinoa with roasted beets and yogurt.

Now it may be that the way meat is processed today - with all the hormones and antibiotics and fertilizers and soy grains - it's not as healthy as it should be. I don't know how true that is. But that seems like a simple matter to correct. If people were more confident about their meat diets - and these SWPL scolds turned their attention to cleaning up meat processing, then less pharmaceutical farming methods would no doubt prevail. But the goal isn't to make meat healthier - it's to eliminate it. Because, you see, meat eating is the province of troglodytes - i.e., lower-class, reactionary whites - not of the enlightened. And so eliminate it we must!

Does the Times Editorial Staff Owe Glenn Beck a Collective Apology?

Tumult of Arab Spring Prompts Worries in Washington

While the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring created new opportunities for American diplomacy, the tumult has also presented the United States with challenges — and worst-case scenarios — that would have once been almost unimaginable.

--unless of course you're a ranting lunatic like, say, Glenn Beck --

What if the Palestinians’ quest for recognition of a state at the United Nations, despite American pleas otherwise, lands Israel in the International Criminal Court, fuels deeper resentment of the United States, or touches off a new convulsion of violence in the West Bank and Gaza?

Gee, yeah, what if - but who could have foreseen that?

Crises like the expulsion of Israel’s ambassador in Turkey, the storming of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and protests outside the one in Amman, Jordan, have compounded a sense of urgency and forced the Obama administration to reassess some of this country’s fundamental assumptions, and to do so on the fly.

Like the fundamental assumption that a stable government, internationally recognized, that has been in power for decades, is presumed to be the legitimate representative of that country? Oh that's right, that assumption was already thrown out the window back in February. Yes, an apology would be appropriate.