Last week, David Frum wrote a column both laudatory of Obama and highly critical of Rush Limbaugh read it here . As a consequence, he’s been the target of criticism from others on the right read them here .
But the zinger in all this is an interview Frum did with talk radio host Mark Levin. It’s pretty ugly, so be prepared. But though it is ugly, it is entirely the tone of most of conservative talk radio. Audio file is here .
Bank of America Says Bonus Disclosure Will Cause ‘Grave’ Harm
By Karen Freifeld
March 5 (Bloomberg) — Disclosing the identities of Merrill Lynch & Co. employees who were paid $3.6 billion in bonuses just before the firm merged with Bank of America Corp. will cause “grave and irreparable harm,” said lawyers for the companies.
Bank of America today filed documents in state court in Manhattan to intervene in a case brought by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to compel former Merrill Chief Executive Officer John Thain to testify about the bonus recipients.
“Neither the individual names nor the job titles bear any reasonable or relevant relationship” to Cuomo’s investigation, the firms argued in the documents. “Nor is there a reasonable or relevant reason to disclose such information to the general public.”
The information Cuomo seeks would provide a “road map” revealing which business lines the banks believe to be most valuable and enable competitors to poach the bank’s top talent, Bank of America argued in the court filing. Disclosure of the information would also cause “internal dissension and consternation,” pose security risks for the exposed bankers and their families, and cause employees to leave, according to the filings.
The case is People v. Thain, 400381/2009, New York state Supreme Court (Manhattan).
Bloomberg
h/t TPM
Posted in Uncategorized
As Greg Sargant and others are noting, the Republicans have launched a big PR campaign to target Obama and forward the notion that he has betrayed his campaign rhetoric of bipartisanship and adult politics by this mean and personal targetting of Rush Limbaugh. Two key voices in this have been Karl Rove and Ari Fleisher which brings hypocrisy to a brand new level.
Here’s a great admission in Howard Kurtz’ column this morning from Mark McKinnon, advisor to W’s campaigns:
“We used a similar strategy by making Michael Moore the face of the Democratic Party. That’s why we gave him credentials to cover the 2004 convention and then turned the spotlight on him.” read here
For the archaelogical crowd (or the linguistics folks re origins and spread of Indo-European) there’s an interesting piece here . The new evidence suggest domestication perhaps earlier than 3000 BC.
By way of contrast, dogs were first domesticated about 12,000 BC and the domestication of sheep, cattle, and goats around 8,000 or 9,000 BC (the same period when cereal crops were domesticated) in the middle east. This latter period holds particular interest for some (myself included) because it marks the point in human history where we shifted from nomadic hunter/gather societies moving seasonally to a society of permanent settlements (the first real cities). This shift also marks a sharp rise in human populations but also a shift in how societies organized themselves.
If you’d like to read about a truly remarkable archaeological site demonstrating human activity right at this significant cusp in our past, see Catal Huyuk
Brooks’ last column in the Times gained a fair bit of criticism from smart bloggers on the left. Apparently the WH too was not entirely happy with the conclusions and framing of the column and so they got in touch with the fellow. I’ll quote the first and the last paragraphs of the piece here. As you’ll see, the final graf shows Brooks, though he holds a number of political ideas which I do not share, to be that rare species of modern American conservative who is not tied to an unyielding and narrow ideology nor to a knee-jerk partisan stance.
On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. The column generated a large positive response from moderate Obama supporters who are anxious about where the administration is headed. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration and in the interest of fairness, I thought I’d share their arguments with you today.
And then, finally:
Nonetheless, the White House made a case that was sophisticated and fact-based. These people know how to lead a discussion and set a tone of friendly cooperation. I’m more optimistic that if Senate moderates can get their act together and come up with their own proactive plan, they can help shape a budget that allays their anxieties while meeting the president’s goals.
Clearly, the tone and presentation by whomever he talked with in the WH was careful and non-confrontational as well. Still, I expect that’s been the case with this WH in most of its communications with Republicans/conservatives but the sort of response we see from Brooks here hasn’t been the rule. A tip of the hat is definitely due. We’d wish that many more conservatives were Brooks’ sort.
But the title of the piece is problematic – “When Obamatons Respond”. Did Brooks write this? An editor? And why? Unless it is intended as irony (they are not automatons, as the silly side of the party tries to suggest). Otherwise, that title seems totally out of place here.
(The full column is here )
Posted in Uncategorized
