The Dish

To the editors,

Paul Krugman (column, July 16) says George W. Bush’s investment in the Texas Rangers entitled him to $2.3 million from the baseball team’s sale. But, Mr. Krugman writes, “his partners voluntarily gave up some of their share, and Mr. Bush received 12 percent of the proceeds – $14.9 million. So a group of businessmen, presumably with some interest in government decisions, gave a sitting governor a $12 million gift. Shouldn’t that have raised a few eyebrows?”

We were among Mr. Bush’s partners. In 1989, when we bought the team, Mr. Bush became the co-general partner with Edward Rose.

At that time, the two general partners were granted a 15 percent share (Mr. Bush received 10 percent and Mr. Rose, 5 percent) in the investment, after each investor got back his investment plus interest. This is a standard limited-partnership structure. At the time, Mr. Bush was a private citizen, not governor of Texas.

When we sold the team in 1998, Mr. Bush received his 10 percent share. This was not “a $12 million gift” to “a sitting governor.”

Mr. Bush had a good idea and the ability to make it happen. He was a dedicated manager and investor, exactly what we hope for in our business leaders.
–
TOM A. BERNSTEIN
ROLAND W. BETTS
New York, July 22, 2002

The Mickster noticed the weird James Dao piece on the Senate hearings on Iraq last Wednesday. Great paranoid minds think alike! My column in the New York Sun today makes the same point (alas, it hasn’t been posted on their site). Here’s the gist of my piece: compare the Times story not just with the Los Angeles Times, as Mickey does, but with the Guardian, that ground zero of leftist, anti-war, anti-American Euro-weenie sentiment. The Guardian’s headline for exactly the same hearing was: “Iraq ‘close to nuclear bomb goal.'” Its lead paragraph read: “Saddam Hussein will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005, a former Iraqi nuclear engineer told senators yesterday, as the US Congress held hearings on whether to go to war.” Here’s the Times’ headline: “Experts Warn of High Risk for American Invasion of Iraq.” Its lead paragraph read: “In the first public hearings on the administration’s goal of ousting Saddam Hussein from the Iraqi presidency, an array of experts warned a Senate committee today that an invasion of Iraq would carry significant risks ranging from more terrorist attacks against American targets to higher oil prices.” You had to read far down into the text to find the only citation of the nuclear threat: “The experts also agreed that they consider Mr. Hussein a major threat to world peace because of his aggressive efforts to obtain biological and nuclear weapons. But estimates of when he might actually develop those weapons ranged from a few months to several years.” Oh, never mind then. Pre-empting a regional madman with close to nuclear capacity who has already invaded one country and used biological and chemical weapons against his own people – that can wait a few years. More evidence of Raines’ now-unmissable anti-war campaign. More slanted than the Guardian: the New York Times brand is now sinking into, er, a quagmire.

This piece in the Telegraph rang a few alarm bells for me. I was unaware that Jordan’s King Abdullah was so close to Saddam and Saddam’s son. Why hasn’t the press asked him about this? Here’s the money paragraph:

“It is unfortunate that Abdullah has hitched his throne to Saddam’s wagon,” Mr Chalabi declares. “He is under pressure from Saddam to do something about Hassan’s decision to show solidarity with the Iraqi people by visiting the conference we held in London on July 12.” Hassan’s appearance at this meeting was laden with symbolism, for Hassan would be a prime candidate for any restoration of the monarchy in Iraq.

The only explanation for Abdullah’s “bad manners” towards his uncle is that “he is so much under the thumb of Saddam”. Mr Chalabi claims that Abdullah has been friendly with Uday, Saddam’s son, for a long time: before Abdullah’s accession, they were fishing companions, and Uday presented the new king with three Porsches. Mr Chalabi accuses Abdullah of evading sanctions and playing a “double game” with the West, allowing intelligence agencies to recruit Iraqi agents in Jordan, but also passing sensitive information to Saddam, including warnings of an impending coup in 1996.

“King Abdullah has become Saddam’s lawyer in America. He defends Saddam and uses every opportunity to warn off any American attempt to help the Iraqi people liberate themselves. I think it is time that people here know what their supposed friends are doing to shore up Saddam’s regime.”

Chalabi, obviously, has an ax to grind. Still, I hope Bush didn’t tip his hand yesterday.

WHERE’S GORE? In New Hampshire, he’s oddly AWOL. Things are looking up.

WHY NOT MEANS-TEST?: Here’s a devastating email from someone who knows the social security system well. At least, I find it a devastating argument for changing the current system:

I’ve never understood the opposition to means testing Social Security. Perhaps it’s my background–I’m a financial advisor who works with the very wealthy. Most of my clients are retired, and I would guess that the average taxable income for my retired clients is about $5 million per year. They all get Social Security, though, typically the maximum of about $22,000 per year. I don’t really know the exact amount because it’s not material. Some of my clients spend more than that $22,000 annual amount every month on clothes alone.

So let’s look at how that works out for an American two-earner household making $80,000 per year. Let’s say each member of the household earns $40,000 per year. That means they each pay $2,480 in payroll taxes, PLUS the unseen employer portion of another $2,480 that would arguably go into employee pockets if it was not being paid as a tax. Our two earners, then, are working to pay $9,920 into the SS pot each year. It therefore takes 2.2 such households to support one of my clients, who do not need the money (some would prefer not to even get it, but you have to in order to receive most corporate pensions). Oh, sure, tell yourself that Social Security is a “trust fund” and not an income-redistribution scheme. Tell yourself that the SSA is setting aside that couple’s tax money to cover their benefit when they retire. As long as you never look at their books, you’ll feel fine. (In reality, it’s a monstrous Ponzi scheme.)

Now, not every retiree makes $5 million a year. But is it reasonable to draw the line there? How about $2 million? So, Senator Snowe, you have a problem with means testing? I guess you’re just looking out for the working stiff.

THOSE SEXY BRITS: Yeah, baby, yeah. But what’s this coming out of my nose?

NOT A MASSACRE: But don’t expect any apologies from the Independent.

Check out this superb essay by the incomparable Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times yesterday. Here’s the money paragraph:

I find myself somewhat surprised to be so much on the Bush side. I call myself a neo-pacifist because I do not believe in dying either for forms of government or to have rulers of one ethnic or national origin rather than another. The choice between living under the Kaiser and living under Lloyd George was not worth the millions of deaths in the trenches, as Lloyd George himself came to appreciate. And I am old enough to have been opposed to the Vietnam war as well as to the Falklands war and was dubious about the Gulf war.

“Neo”, because if our very lives and the right to exist are threatened, as my family’s were by the Nazis in the second world war and as the whole western world is threatened by al-Qaeda and by rogue states, I believe in fighting back with every available resource.

Islamist militancy is a self-confessed threat to the values not merely of the US but also of the European Enlightenment: to the preference for life over death, to peace, rationality, science and the humane treatment of our fellow men, not to mention fellow women. It is a reassertion of blind, cruel faith over reason.

I’m feeling a little better now.

The London Times’ Simon Jenkins sneers at the notion that Iraq is a threat to Britain or America. He describes the military campaigns in Serbia and Afghanistan as failures. He describes post-9/11 American foreign policy as “catatonic.” He likens Tony Blair to the premier of an East European state under Soviet tyranny. This isn’t in the Guardian or the Independent, it’s in the Times. But here’s the classic sentence: “If the Government is right and al-Qaeda remains a threat to Britain the more reason for caution in the minefields of Middle East politics. It is a reason for listening and watching, not blundering into the region with bombs and tanks.” You can’t get a more concise description of appeasement than that. Don’t fight back, because it could make them even angrier! Just listen and watch – exactly what the peaceniks urged on the West in the 1930s and throughout the Cold War and throughout the 1990s. And what if, while we listen and watch, a Saddam-sponsored biological weapon goes off in D.C. or San Francisco or London? Jenkins argues that we do not know for certain that that is likely. And he’s right. But the critical issue is not certainty. It is whether, after terroristic forces have already massacred thousands of Americans, self-defense should get the benefit of the doubt. Bush and Blair are responsible if their own citizens are murdered en masse again. And they don’t only have a right, they have a manifest duty to stop that happening. And the sooner, the better. Jenkins demands: “If We Must Go To War, for God’s Sake Tell Us Why.” Perhaps someone could arrange a trip for Jenkins to the site of what was once the World Trade Center, and he could get his answer.

The letter composed yesterday by the president of Hebrew University deserves a wider readership:

The forces of evil have struck yet again. For them, the entire State of Israel, its citizens, and its institutions are legitimate targets – this time, however, the target was chosen with much care. The attack required planning and determination in order to overcome the many layers of security and strike at the very heart of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This was not just an attack on our institution; it was an attack on a symbol of the rebirth of Israel in its own land, on a modern state that is rooted in tradition but embraces openess.

This attack was perpetrated against a university founded upon the principles of pluralism and tolerance, a university that seeks to understand the world in which we live and that – despite the wave of terror and murder we are experiencing – aspires to promote peace and understanding with its neighbors in this region. The aim of the terrorists responsible for the horrific scene that I witnessed several minutes after the explosion was to bring an end to those values that the Hebrew University embraces and embodies – understanding, tolerance, and the quest for peace.

The victims include many members of the University community – students, teachers, employees, and visitors from all parts of the world. They are Jews and Arabs, and citizens of the US, Korea, France, Italy, and other countries. This attack is a crime not only against Israel or the Jewish people; it is a crime against the free and enlightened world. As I stood facing the destruction, the pools of blood and the wounded, I was forced to ask myself how we can continue in our research, teaching and other vibrant activity while we mourn for the victims. The answer is clear and it is expressed by the Hebrew word davka, ‘despite everything’. The perpetrators of such heinous acts may kill those dear to us, but they cannot destroy our vision and our determination to continue to create a society that is based on reason and mutual understanding, and to work as a community of researchers and students which welcomes Israelis of all backgrounds and guests from all over the world. Above all, we will not let them kill our aspirations for peace.

Professor Menachem Magidor
President, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Like Mickey Kaus, I waded through the Jeff Gerth-Dick Cheney investigation, Rainesed on page one. Like Mickey, I can’t for the life of me see a single problem with Cheney’s conduct, as described breathlessly by Gerth. Except, as usual, with the Times’ fast-evaporating journalistic credibility. One small thought: if they can get the word asbestos in the same sentence as Cheney, they might milk this as successfully as the non-story about W and arsenic. At this point, the Times is simply throwing all they’ve got.

Doesn’t it tell you everything that Hamas bombed a university?

WHY NOT GRAHAM-SMITH? The money-quote from this New York Times story on Medicare drug coverage is from Senator Olympia Snowe. She opposed a sensible proposal to restrict a prescription drug benefit to the poor or to those who face catastrophic medical treatment. This means-tested benefit would help those who need help the most and keep costs down. So what’s the problem? “If we take the approach of low-income and catastrophic coverage as the sole type of benefit we will enact in the Senate,” Ms. Snowe said, “we are abandoning the principle of universal coverage under Medicare. I hope we don’t move in that direction. It’s the wrong approach – wrong for Medicare, and wrong for our nation’s seniors.” But why is it so wrong to provide help for those who need it most? Matt Miller’s latest column highlights a vital point here: under the current doctrine that Medicare and Social Security are universal non-means-tested benefits, we know what the future will be. We will have to pay much higher taxes or go bankrupt. So why not restructure the programs now to prevent such a crunch later? I’ve never seen a problem with having social security benefits either taxed or means-tested. What we’re buying with social security is “security”. It’s insurance that if we do end up indigent, we’ll be helped. What it has become instead is guaranteed middle-class welfare – a huge transfer of resources from the young, poor and working to the old, retired and rich. I wish one of the parties would get honest about this. But Democratic demagoguery on the subject all but prevents common sense from breaking out.

A DEMOCRAT WORRIES: Lots of positive press from the DLC meeting for the Dems, especially Hillary, but this Democratic state rep from New Hampshire, Peter Sullivan, begs to differ. Here’s his email:

Regarding Robert Borosage’s spin on the Democratic Leadership Council’s gathering in New York…we tried his approach. It was called the Mondale campaign. We all recall what a smashing success that exercise in squishy isolationism, neanderthal economics and racial resentment politics played out.
I attended the DLC event, and I noticed that a lot of people evidently took Borosage’s advice to go to the banquets, meet the money, eat the food, etc, but blow off the underlying message. The DLC made the mistake of offering any Democratic legislator in America asistance with either hotel or travel expenses. A lot of people who took them up on the offer were actually the very paleolibs the DLC (and we New Dem legislators) are trying to subdue. The delegation from my own home state of New Hampshire was riddled with an assortment of old school lefties, party hacks and educrats who view charter schools as the political equivalent of the West Nile Virus. There was also a large and annoying contingent of teachers-turned-politicians, who seemed to take a certain glee in badgering the moderators of the education policy workshops run by the DLC in New York on Sunday and Monday. I also suspect that these are the same folks responsible for the glowing reviews bestowed upon Hillary Clinton following her rather unremarkable address.
I hope that Borosage’s admonition falls on deaf ears. Otherwise, the Democrats will all too readily cede the political battlefield to a substantively vacuous but politically ruthless Bush machine.

THE BRITISH HACK: This little gem comes courtesy of another gem, the invaluable weblog, “Little Green Footballs.” It’s a poem by one Humbert Wolfe, whom I confess to know little to nothing about.

The British Journalist

You cannot hope
to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.

But, seeing what
the man will do
unbribed, there’s no occasion to.

Ahem.

WHEN WEED CURES: Fascinating new evidence for the effect of marijuana on suppressing traumatic memories and anxiety attacks. More data suggesting that the prohibition is unwarranted.

SUPPORT FOR THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ: Matt Welch, in a flight of high-mindedness, says I provide no evidence for my claim that the American public supports a war to disable Iraq’s potential to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Well, a Newseek poll last October found the following:

Nine out of 10 Americans say they support the current military action in Afghanistan. Seventy-nine percent support the use of military force against suspected terrorist targets in other Middle Eastern countries, with 81 percent approving the use of direct military action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Seventy-one percent support the use of military force to combat terrorism outside of the Middle East, in countries like Sudan and the Philippines.

I’d say 81 percent is pretty decisive. The notion that Americans need to be apprised of Saddam’s threat, have not thought about the pros and cons of war, and need a thorough from-scratch debate about this is self-evidently silly. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a real discussion about how to unseat Saddam, an exploration of all the possible consequences, and a sober period of argument and decision-making. But the war’s opponents are acting as if this is a new idea, as if it has to be debated de novo, as if September 11 is irrelevant, as if the public is divided or confused, as if there’s no compelling evidence to warrant intervention. That’s baloney. Here’s what the Washington Post reported yesterday:

U.S. opinion polls indicate that more than 60 percent of Americans support the use of force to overthrow Hussein, “and that’s without the administration doing much selling of the idea,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

And it is simply a fact that many people opposed to the war against Iraq are indeed “passionately opposed to using American power to defeat the forces of state terror.” They opposed using force when Saddam invaded Kuwait; they predicted quagmire and urged negotiations in Afghanistan. They want to stop this war. The job of war-proponents is to remind people of what last September showed was possible, assemble all the evidence to show how dangerous Saddam is, and make a strong case that we need to make his removal speedy, final and as casualty-free as possible.

WELL, AT LEAST HE DOESN’T MOLEST THEM: The Onion reveals the dark truth behind gym teachers.

HOW STRAIGHTS INTEGRATE GAYS AND LESBIANS: An important point. Just as miscegenation can help reduce black-white divisions, so can lots of interaction with straight people help gay-lesbian relations. A reader emails to add context to the notion that the Northwest music scene unites homos and lesbians:

What’s important to remember is that the music scene here, and the lesbians, gays and straights who part
icipate in and support it, are far from living in a sub-culture — this scene constitutes the dominant popular culture in the city. Lesbians and gays who attend these shows are finding common ground, but they’re sharing that ground with straight people too. What I’ve found so exciting and invigorating about this scene is just how mixed it is. Going to the swingiest gay club in town with pretty boys and pretty, sweaty bodies is disappointing in comparison…everyone seems to be doing their best to pretend they’ve just returned from a weekend on Fire Island, when everyone knows they’ve got to put on their raincoats at the door and hit the electric beach later if they’re going to maintain the image. There’s more genuine frisson around here when everyone’s mixed up in a group and you don’t know if the boy you’re checking out in the crowd at the show is gay, straight or…worth persuading.

In general, I think a lot of gay problems would be helped by greater integration. And the critical instrument for this, I think, is for gay men to have more interaction with straight men. Both groups would benefit – but both have to overcome their fears and awkwardness.

EVIL FORCES: If you want to discover what the inimitable Reihan Salam does when he isn’t editing your emails and posting brutal take-downs of yours truly on this site, then take a look at his collaborative blog, Evil Forces. And be afraid.

UNBEAUTIFUL MOVIE: I don’t know why we rented “A Beautiful Mind,” last night. It was boiling hot even here on the Cape and we huddled around the a/c. All I can say is that if that was the best movie in America last year then film-making is at an all-time low. Every scene a hideous cliche; the writing beyond bad; the cinematography straight out of a tv-movie; the treatment of a serious issue like mental illness alternately dumb and condescending. And Russell Crowe’s accent – more South Yorkshire than West Virginia – was the only comic relief. Is Hollywood that dumb? Don’t all answer at once.

Glenn Reynolds posts an email from Yehudah Mirsky, an old law-school class-mate of Glenn’s, who was near the Hebrew University bombing today. Read the whole email. But for my money, the end is the most poignant:

As it turns out I was reading Nietzsche today, and I wonder how much of this he is responsible for too, these crazy notions of self-actualization through violence that he spat into the culture and take on a life of their own, all over. I’m lucky, I have an American passport and in theory could head for the airport anytime I want. Where is everybody else supposed to go? And one more thing that makes me tired and angry, that like a nice Jewish boy I go on praying for peace not only for the Jews but for the Arabs too, while they keep praying to my God to kill me. Yours, without answers, but still praying for peace like a river, Yehudah.

The first part of our first IMterview – with Camille Paglia. It’s posted opposite. It made more sense to post what we have already before waiting for her to reply to your questions. Send more in if you want. I’m forwarding them to her and she’ll pick a handful to answer.