Brew City Brawler

Perhaps the Journal-Sentinel's McIlheran should avoid writing about the whole rock genre

Patrick McIlheran embarrasses himself by approvingly linking and quoting a rightwing hack who suggests many of the 75,000 people at Obama's Portland,Ore. rally were there to see local indie rock heroes The Decemberists, who opened up for Obama.

Patrick would have been well advised to have read Sadly No's (exponentially more reliable than the New York Sun or the National Review put together!) take on the hopeless argument that even a fraction of the people gathered would have been there primarily to see the Decemberists. As one commenter there notes, when the Decemberists played in NYC for two nights they played at a 3,000-capacity venue.

Does McIlheran think that the Decemberists are "spawn" of Bob Dylan?

And which is worse:Getting people to come to a rally by having the Decemberists open up or walk through a Potemkinized street of Baghdad and say things are going great?

(The Brawler wishes to note that while he is not a huge fan of the Decemberists, Colin Meloy's book for 33 1/3 about the Replacements' Let It Be is very, very, very good.)

This silliness gets exhausting. Back to hiatus!

Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran: Eyeless in Iraq part 2

Patrick McIlheran, Feb. 21, 2007:

Expect to hear the surrender chorus yammering on about how Britain's drawdown of troops from 7,100 to 5,500 in coming months [From the Basra area -- Brawler] signals that our allies are abandoning us.

Which ignores fact. The British are leaving troops in Iraq, mainly to train Iraqis. This differs from what we're doing there -- because the British are in a different part of Iraq, where conditions differ. As Prime Minister Tony Blair pointed out, "The situation in Basra is very different from Baghdad," he was quoted in the Times. "There is no Sunni insurgency. There is no al-Qaeda base. There is little Shia on Sunni violence. The bulk of the attacks are on the Multinational Force. It has never presented anything like the challenge of Baghdad."

In fact, the British are turning over their main base near Basra to the Iraqis. Swaths of the south, the part of Iraq they cover, are in Iraqi control.

This withdrawal is a landmark of the very thing the surrender side here claims can never happen: Iraqis controlling their own country.

CNN today:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Fighting between Iraqi security forces and supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr left 50 dead in the southern city of Basra and spread to several Baghdad districts Tuesday, Iraqi officials said.

The fighting erupted as al-Sadr's political organization launched a nationwide civil disobedience movement to protest recent arrests of its members.

The discord threatens to unravel a much-praised cease-fire by the cleric's militia, the Mehdi Army, which U.S. commanders have credited with helping ease the sectarian warfare that gripped Iraq in 2006.

An official with Basra's Provincial Council, speaking on condition of anonymity, told CNN that at least 50 people were killed and 120 wounded Tuesday.

The dead included Iraqi troops, police, civilians and militiamen, the official said.

In addition, at least 30 Iraqi security force members were kidnapped by militia fighters in Basra, he said.

I guess it all depends how you define "control."

The Brawler noted at the time that McIlheran's assessment was bunk, asking "Is Patrick McIlheran watching the same war?" The Brawler even noted prophetically (fine, along with hundreds of other observers):

Paddy: It's tough to say that anyone's "controlling"  Basra given the level of violence has been increasing, rather than decreasing.  A fact the Pentagon acknowledges. And what Iraqis are going to be controlling this part of the country? The Brawler would suggest Muqtada al Sadr before too long. Is that part of the British master plan?

This resurgence of violence was completely and utterly predictable to anyone familiar with the history of the region or the history of occupations (I'll refrain from saying "imperialism") in general. Really, it doesn't take a genius to comprehend this. But it helps if you're not ideologically invested in the Bush presidency.

But, no doubt before the week is out, McIlheran will once again insult or condemn as un-American people -- the surrender chorus, now a majority of people in this country -- who want us to get out of Iraq.

Meanwhile. the grim odometer (an old Paddy term) turns and starts approaching 5,000 (from the same CNN story):

The U.S. soldier who died Tuesday was on patrol in the largely Sunni district of Adhamiyah when a mortar attack struck, Stover said. The fatality brings the number of U.S. dead in the five-year-old war to 4,001, including eight Defense Department civilians.

You can lead Patrick McIlheran to water but you can't make him think

Patrick McIlheran doesn't like the Great Lakes Compact, which places limits on how bordering states and Canadian provinces can use this precious resource, because it would place constraints on Waukesha County.  And, oh yeah: Waukesha County Republicans don't like it.

McIlheran claims that Compact supporters in Wisconsin (a majority in the senate, as it happens), are motivated by hatred of the suburbs. But don't think of McMansions, McIlheran inveighs his readers: Think about the city of Waukesha:

Remember, the water question is about Waukesha itself, the area served by the water utility -- not Dousman or Eagle or Vernon, but Waukesha, a city that dates roughly from territorial days. It is made up of houses that you'd expect to find in a city -- some of them big, some new, many of them modest ramblers or capes on city-sized lots. Waukesha has factories. It has apartment complexes within walking distance. It has a bus system.

Whatever cul-de-sac McMansion nightmare afflicts its enemies, the reality of Waukesha is different. When the anti-suburbanites talk of refusing water for Waukesha, they'd be drying up the most urban part of the county, the part with sidewalks and middle-priced housing, not affecting in the least the water supply of the parts with big houses on one-acre lots -- those are the parts most often on private wells, still drawing clean water from the unaffected shallow aquifer.   

What McIlheran omits, of course, is that the mayor of Waukesha supports the Compact -- and is catching hell from County Republicans about it.

You'd think that'd be worth mentioning. But it undermines McIlheran's argument so it's just cast aside.

McIlheran: You can call my mother church a whore -- as long as you're a Republican!

When it came to light last year that some bloggers who worked for John Edwards had said some crude things about Catholicism, Patrick McIlheran could barely restrain himself.

Keeping them on was a clear signal to Catholics that Edwards held them in "vulgar contempt," McIlheran fulminated.

But now that John McCain, the GOP nominee for president, has actively sought -- and retained -- the endorsement of megachurch minister John Hagee, who has called the Catholic Church a "great whore" and an apostate religion, what do we hear from McIlheran?

Crickets. Quietism.

Shoot -- even the Catholic League is denouncing McCain and Hagee (no doubt because it recognizes the Dems are going to roll in November and wants to maintain a figleaf of nonpartisanship to retain its tax-exempt status).

No doubt McIlheran is holding his tongue because he wants McCain to win.

You know what's truly worthy of contempt? Picking and choosing which candidates to denounce for purported anti-Catholicism -- and make no mistake, McCain's sin is far greater here -- based on your partisan leanings.

Cross-posted at Whallah!

Hey Journal Sentinel: Why did Charlie Sykes get "voter fraud" report before the mayor?

Dear Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Daniel Bice had an interesting column the other day about how both the police chief and the mayor were blindsided by the release of an 18-month old report on voter fraud that -- weakly -- made the case WI should adopt voter ID laws and dump same-day registration.

It didn't answer the question of why the report was leaked to Charlie Sykes and his apparatchiks.

Patrick McIlheran, demonstrating he's more a copy editor than reporter at heart, hails the leak as "whistleblowing." Which might be true if it exposed wrongdoing by MKE leaders or revealed something that the good people of Milwaukee didn't already know (that there were problems with the 2004 election).

The report's stealthy release didn't do either of those things. What it did do is keep the meme of extensive voter fraud alive .... even if the facts reported are old news and don't demonstrate a compelling need to overhaul the state's election laws. (And to what extent do we trust the judgment of investigators who say -- with a straight face -- that there was a question whether Gwen Moore would be elected to Congress?)

The report's release does fit in with the RPW's efforts to raise the specter of voter fraud -- often based on zero or crap evidence, It's done so in the past two election cycles. And none other than the Brawler predicted they would do so just in time for the County Executive race. Is the Brawler a prophet? No! He just knows a pattern when he sees one.

Some questions you might want to ask:

1. Was there any contact between the RPW/RPW surrogates and the people who leaked the report?

2. Was there any contact between Scott Walker/his surrogates and the people who leaked the report?

3. Who actually wrote the recommendations in the report?

4. Was anyone given a sneak peek of the report?

5. Why the timing of the report?

The Brawler suspects the people of Milwaukee would be interested in finding out whether their tax dollars funded a report that, through the cooperation of some rogue cops and the RPW, was aimed at making it more difficult for people in Milwaukee to vote.

But that's just a hunch.

Why is the Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran lying about Obama?

On February 13, in Janesville, before an audience of UAW workers, Barack Obama (who voted for a free trade deal with Peru) says this:

It’s also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won’t stand here and tell you that we can – or should – stop free trade.  We can’t stop every job from going overseas.  But I also won’t stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements.  And that’s a position of mine that doesn’t change based on who I’m talking to or the election I’m running in. 

In a February 16 column, Patrick McIlheran says this:

On manufacturing, first he'd deep-six free trade.

In the same column, McIlheran -- who curiously believes he's entitled to his own facts -- appears to blame Jimmy Carter for the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act... when that law was enacted in 1973.  That'd be three years before Carter was elected.

Journal Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran demagogues Obama on taxes

Barack Obama's gonna tax, tax, tax ya, Patrick McIlheran insists in his blog and his Sunday column.

Is that true, though? To be sure, Obama would roll back the Bush era tax breaks for the wealthy. Given the economy seemed to do OK during the 1990s, it's hard to argue reverting to that tax level would be crippling now. (Recall how Clinton's narrowly targeted tax increase was going to derail the economy?)

Moreover, nowhere in McIlheran's discussion does he discuss Obama's plans for tax relief for middle- and working-class families.

Not that that information isn't available ... it's simply that McIlheran doesn't want to share it.

From a position paper issued in tandem with Obama's Feb. 13 speech in Janesville:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families:

Barack Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they deserve. Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. This refundable income tax credit will provide direct relief to American families who face the regressive payroll tax system. It will offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of their earnings while still preserving the important principle of a dedicated revenue source for Social Security.

The “Making Work Pay” tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. The tax credit will also provide relief to self-employed small business owners who struggle to pay both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. The “Making Work Pay” tax credit offsets some of this selfemployment tax as well.

Create the American Opportunity Tax Credit:

Barack Obama will make college affordable for all Americans by creating a new American Opportunity Tax Credit. This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university. And by making the tax credit fully refundable, Obama’s credit will help low-income families that need it the most. Recipients of this credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of public service a year, either during the school year or over the summer months. Obama will also ensure that the tax credit is available to families at the time of enrollment by using prior year’s tax data to deliver the credit at the time that tuition is due, rather than a year or more later when tax returns are filed.

Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit:

The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Currently the credit only covers up to 35 percent of the first $3,000 of child care expenses a family incurs for one child and the first $6,000 for a family with two or more children. And the credit is not refundable, which means that upper-income families disproportionately benefit while families who make under $50,000 a year receive less than a third of the tax credit. Barack Obama will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses. Coupled with Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit, this proposal will help put more money directly in the pockets of hardworking low and middle-income parents.

Capper succumbs to Obama's messianic charm here.

Journal Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran: Eyeless in Iraq

As the Brawler's buddy illusory Tenant has pointed out in a different context, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel conservative columnist Patrick McIlheran has an impressive ability to pack 50 pounds of offal in a 5 pound bag.

And so it goes with his "Quick Hit" on Friday, describing in glowing terms the stituation in Iraq.

Let's start from the top!

First, the surge would never work, until it worked.

Actually, the purpose of the surge was to create an environment for the different sides in Iraq to come together and form a stable government ...which they haven't. Therefore, the surge has not "worked."

Then al- Qaida couldn't be beaten, until we learned from a captured diary that the Iraqi jihadists feel they're on the ropes.

Excerpts of a captured diary...the entire contents of which haven't been released. Moreover, wasn't al-Qaida in Iraq on the ropes two years ago when Zarqawi was killed?  Those are some ropes. But aQI was always a bit player in the Iraqi conflict and many Sunnis felt aQI had outlived its purpose. Hence the "Anbar Awakening," an array of Sunni factions, taking it to the aQI ... with U.S. weapons and support. McIlheran and others celebrated the Anbar Awakening...but they've ignored how those same Sunnis are now flexing their muscles against the Iraqi government. Whoda thought that would happen?

Then, sure, military wins are one thing, but Iraqi democracy? Well, now the multiparty, freely elected government, the first Iraq's ever had, figures out a compromise to pass three crucial benchmark laws.

Actually, the meaning of those laws aren't entirely clear...and McIlheran fails to note that they cleared the parliament with a fair amount of acrimony, including some groups walking out in protest. The Brawler recalls from Irish history that it's never a good sign when major factions walk out of a parliament in a country's early days.

As for this government being the first freely elected one Iraq ever had, that's not entirely true. Britain, which established a "protectorate" over Iraq after its creation following World War I, granted the country a nominal independence in 1932. (And, truly, is Iraq's independence anything more than nominal now?) This came to an end in 1941, when, as World War II raged, Iraq denied permission for British troops to land at Basra. The British responded by invading and reoccupying the country and deposing a popularly elected government.

Says Rashid Khalidi in his highly prophetic book Resurrecting Empire:

The entire episod was labeled a revolt in the colonial historiography that still holds sway in the West, although in Iraqi and Arab histories it is understood quite differently as the attempt of a precariously independent state to defend its treaty rights and thereby assert its independence.

It's unclear if McIlheran, whose insights on the Middle East are informed by such tomes as World War IV by the laughable Norman Podhoretz (who apparently didn't know what a Kurd was), is familiar with this history.

McIlheran concludes:

You know, if we hadn't been assured by the left that Iraq's a failure, it would almost seem like we're on the way toward winning.

To adapt a phrase, "almost" only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

Shorter Patrick McIlheran: White flight was color-blind

Shorter Patrick McIlheran:

Despite the complexion of the term "white flight,"  hidden motivations of racism had absolutely nothing to do with the movement of white people to suburbs with discriminatory housing practices. Nor is there any racial element to people moving farther out today or to perceptions of crime at Mayfair Mall.

Addendum to shorter Patrick McIlheran:

Please ignore what John Gurda had to say on p. 360 of The Making of Milwaukee:

"Racism ... provided an important measure of the dark energy that carried white families to the suburbs, and it was imbedded in everything from hiring practices to housing covenants" (p. 360).

Also, please ignore how the "friendly" 'burb of Menomonee Falls responded to the creation of low-income housing (from the 5/16/99 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel):

January 1980: The Menomonee Falls Board of Trustees unanimously supports asking the federal government to cancel a proposed apartment complex for low-income families. At one heated meeting that led up to the decision, a resident tells the board, "We don't need Chicanos and everything else coming in our neighborhood." June 1982:  Arson is suspected in a blaze that damages the Menomonee Falls housing project in question in 1980.

Journal-Sentinel columnist Patrick McIlheran's odd sense of justice

In Patrick McIlheran's world, it's good when a woman faces $222,000 in penalties for downloading 24 songs.

But when the Catholic Church is being sued for looking the other way as priests molested children... bemoan the injustice of being on the hook for past crimes and attack the victims' lawyers! (Brawler's bold):

For which we'll now pay more, yet again, we Catholics who depend on the parishes and schools and hospitals of an archdiocese that may be heading for bankruptcy. All these names of back-when, these bishops and priests who did terrible things 30 to 50 years ago -- all the way back to 1964, when Archbishop Cousins didn't kick Becker out of the seminary for trying to have sex with a classmate -- and even the district attorney who heard about it and advised the archdiocese to give Becker "another chance" if he stayed clean for five years, all this history is going to cost us now.

The archdiocese is trying to raise about $105 million to fund education; it maintains that the money can be protected from lawyers who continue to predate [Brawler -- yes, it's clearly the Church that's the victim here.] on the church over old abuse. I'd like to believe that. I'm not quite certain, especially given the power of federal judges. I hear others voicing the same doubts. That I can't be sure that money I donate to support the church's educational mission won't instead end up in the pocket of some bottom-feeding legal opportunist like Jeffrey Anderson is the result of Archbishop Cousins not drawing the line in 1964 and Rembert Weakland sending threats to whistleblowers instead of doing something about the sins unfolding before his eyes.

Is Paddy seriously suggesting that the Church of today is not culpable for actions that happened a few decades ago? Odd line of reasoning given that Pope John Paul II once apologized for sins the church committed centuries ago. Of course, then again, not many of those folks were around to collect monetary damages.

Capper says that McIlheran should be ashamed of writing this last post. Who is the Brawler to disagree?