Fri, Sep 21, 2007
Slacker Friday
Have I
mentioned how much I admire you people who have an extra ticket for the 9/25
rehearsal show? I'll be happy to say so in person ... (I teach in Brooklyn
until 6 on Mondays and cannot make the 9/24 one, thanks for asking).
permalink
On the day after Republicans, in the Senate, again largely failed to join Democrats in a vote to constrain the President's war in Iraq, Ira Chernus, professor of religious studies and author of Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, offers a gripping explanation for why the Bush administration's recent "surge of words" has, at least briefly, staunched the President's loss of support on the American home front.
While the Democrats may focus on facts and realities in Iraq, Chernus shows why their message doesn't do the trick, why the "good old-fashioned American yarn" the President and his top officials continue to tell (even if, most recently, through the mouth of General Petraeus) about a "band of brothers righteously defending themselves against evildoers who will annihilate us if we don't annihilate them first" still captures just enough bedrock American yearnings to keep his domestic opponents at bay.
"A good plot," writes Chernus, "raises the right question, one that keeps people in the theater because they care deeply about the answer. In the battle of narratives, this administration, no matter how crippled, still knows what the right question is." Democrats raise the question: Can inept Iraqi politicians succeed in getting their act together, when brave Americans give them the time to do so? Republicans, on the other hand, "build dramatic tension by raising a very different question, which really does matter to a sizeable part of the American audience: Does our nation have the 'character' or the 'stomach' -- Dick Cheney's favorite word -- to keep on fighting evil until something that can plausibly be called "success" is conjured out of the dusty air of Iraq?"
In this
canny piece, Chernus concludes: "All theater, all storytelling, rests on
the power of illusion and the willing suspension of disbelief. Bush and the
Republicans have repeatedly given millions of doubters a chance to suspend
their post-Vietnam disbelief in traditional tales of American character; the
Democrats have given millions of doubters a chance to suspend their disbelief
that the will of the people can make any difference whatsoever. The two parties
join together to give the whole nation a chance to believe that a fierce debate
still rages about whether or not to end the war. That political show we can
expect to go on at least until Election Day 2008."
permalink
Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton,
MA
"I need a fix, 'cause I'm goin' down."
Weekly WWOZ Pick To Click: "It's Gonna Be OK" (Jesse Moore) -- Once again, I have neglected to take Roger Ailes hostage in order to force him to give me three hours on Fox News Channel to tell America how much I love New Orleans.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but has anybody checked to see if Harry Reid is, you know, actually alive? Conscious? Ambulatory? Clothed and in his right mind? Put a mirror under his nose for a second, will you? If you're keeping score at home, the Democratic majority of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body this week failed to get the WGDB to pass a bill to give overstretched soldiers what amounts to their statutorily required stateside respite. It also found itself unable to endorse the general concept of habeas corpus, thereby putting the WGDB somewhere up the track behind John Lackland of England on the subject of civil liberties. It also then -- with six more votes than it was able to muster for soldier's relief, and with 22 Democratic senators forming a eunuch chorus -- resolutely got pissed off at a newspaper ad. This last, while infinitely more trivial, will be infinitely more significant, for a number of reasons:
1) It manages to put the Democratic majority in the Senate on record as whacking around some of the party's most dedicated activists and most enthusiastic donors.
2) It gives a win to a rodeo clown like John (Box Turtle) Cornyn.
3) It gives the elite political press another chapter in the story it's been chewing on for the past 20 years -- that the Democrats are nervous about their left-wing base, which will enable the cats 'n kittens to ignore the fact that the Republican base, which has been driving the crazy train since the turn of the century, holds positions embraced in many cases by a whopping one-third of the population. (Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani were down in Florida this week, for pity's sake, proudly pandering to the lunatic dead-enders in the Terri Schiavo case as though that wasn't one of the biggest political fiascos of the past 20 years.) It prevents them from being forced to write about gutted civil liberties and exhausted soldiers, neither of which most of the elite political press give a rat's ass about.
4) It was utterly unnecessary. First of all, it's pointless to respond every time someone flings poo out of the conservative monkeyhouse. It's what happens in a monkeyhouse. You duck and walk away to go watch the penguins. Secondly, it has been argued that the MoveOn ad was a "tactical" mistake. In what way? What tactical advantage did the Republicans gain from it? Every damn poll since General Petraeus set all the dogs and ponies to dancing shows that nothing he said moved the needle an inch in terms of support for the war. The country, you should pardon the expression, had MOVED ON. Certainly, Republican poo-flinging wasn't going to change that. The country hates the war, hates this president, and isn't particularly fond of his party. It hates the Democratic Congress because that Congress doesn't hate the war, the president, and his party enough. The "controversy" existed only in the minds of useless political hucksters. Now, though, with the assistance of damned near half their caucus, the Democrats have managed to make a tactical blunder out of this affair a week later, cheesing off valuable friends, being laughed at by what is a despised minority party everywhere except Washington, D.C., and currying favor with a political elite that will never, EVER, give it any kind of credit for its abject self-abasement. It is an altogether remarkable feat.
I'd like to point out that, given everything that's gone so very wrong in this country over the past seven years, the last thing we need right now is another f**king O.J. trial? Mother of God, all week, my electronic cable television has been full of the Undead from the last one. (Nice to see that Jim Moret is still with us, and that Marcia Clark apparently outsourced her plastic surgery to the Borglum family.) And, of course, there's a whole generation of television "news" drones for whom the previous O.J. trial was a formative cultural event, and who are positively giddy to have an O.J. trial of their own to cover. And in Vegas! Whoo-hoo! There aren't enough tackhammers in the world to drive enough nails into my eyeballs if this gets rolling again.
Congratulations to the GOP for being able to muster up six whole U.S. senators to vote in favor of Magna Carta this week. There's your campaign slogan -- The Republican Party -- Proudly Plantagenet Since 1215.
Of course, Arlen Specter was no surprise, since he signed the original.
Thank you.
You're too kind.
P.S. -- I have been inexcusably remiss in not thanking Sal for his Katrina Anniversary Mix, which is tasty indeed.
P.P.S. -- It's all about setting the rotation up for the playoffs, so am I worried? Nah. Besides, elsewhere in the sporting world, Sam's home. Up the Kingdom!
P.P.P.S. -- Considering the number of Americans who died trying to liberate the place in TWO world wars, in the first of which its liberation was sold to the country as a primary casus belli, shouldn't I have been able to learn from the American media that Belgium is, like, falling apart? Thanks, BBC. I can't say I'm not intrigued by the fact that there soon may be a country called Walloon in the U.N., though.
P.P.P.P.S. -- And then, five guys in HazMat suits showed up
to remove J-Pod's
and Jonah's
keyboards. And
"phooey" is spelled with a "ph," you freaking
dolt.
permalink
Name: Michael Green
Hometown: Las Vegas
No big surprise that the media have missed big parts of the story about Danny Boy.
First, one of the best books of media criticism in recent years was Bad News by Tom Fenton, the longtime chief foreign correspondent for CBS, back when it had a news division with real correspondents. Fenton said he spoke with the "Big Three" anchors. Tom Brokaw said he had offered to give back his salary, or part of it, to pay for more reporters and producers, and the corporate overlords told him the money would go back into the pot for them to spend. Rather told Fenton something similar happened at CBS, but wouldn't elaborate. Like you, Eric A., I don't have a lot of sympathy for Dan on financial issues, but let's face it: "60 Minutes" ruined broadcast journalism when Don Hewitt proved that news could be profitable. Ever since, the networks have been pushing the money end instead of the quality end. There WAS a golden age, and it was when Cronkite and Chancellor and Brinkley were anchoring and the reporters had some depth and brains.
Now let's consider why Dan doesn't deserve an ounce of sympathy. First, he actually states that he narrated a report he had nothing to do with preparing. That's a real journalist.
But it gets
better. When Rather took over as anchor of the CBS Evening News, Walter
Cronkite wanted to contribute to the broadcast. Understandably, CBS wanted
Rather to establish himself and make the broadcast its own, but he and the
network teamed up in a systematic effort to keep Cronkite off the broadcast,
even when he could have helped on big stories. And Rather joined his producers
in making an "A-list" of correspondents who could appear because they
were stars, including his then-friend, Bernard Goldberg, who had not yet gone off
the rails. So, for Rather to sue CBS for keeping him off the air is a lovely
bit of disingenuousness.
permalink
Name: Josh Silver
Hometown: www.freepress.net
Eric:
A quick update from the field ... last night, Chicago hosted the 5th of six official FCC hearings on media ownership. Free Press and our local allies once again turned out a big crowd that was some 95% opposed to further media consolidation. The hearing is a precursor to Bush-appointed FCC Chairman Kevin Martin's expected move to eliminate the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban. Our newly-revamped campaign coalition at www.stopbigmedia.com has successfully prevented him from moving the rule thus far. Our job is continuing to ensure the kind of headlines we're seeing this morning: Chicago Tribune "FCC Urged to Restrict Media Consolidation"; ABC News7: "Concerns raised about media ownership in Chicagoland" (click for video).
Free Press organizers have been working the event for weeks, hosting workshops and ensuring strong turnout. The end play: maintain enough public pressure that Martin postpones the ruling until late next year, when the elections will prevent anything from happening until 2009. The key issue will be minority media ownership - on which we've done a series of groundbreaking research reports. Last night, Commissioner Adelstein called for a task force to be created to address minority ownership before making any new rules. The task force has already been endorsed by Sen. Robert Menendez and Reps. John Conyers and Hilda Solis.
On September 12th, Free Press filed a FOIA request to uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics unduly influenced a recent Justice Department filing against Net Neutrality - the longstanding principle that prevents phone and cable companies from discriminating against Web sites and services.
A DOJ filing on a matter like Net Neutrality is extremely unusual ... until you realize that back in June, the Bush Administration invited one of AT&T's key lobbyists, Ed Gillespie, to serve as White House counselor. A few weeks after that, BushCo expanded AT&T's resident lobbyist's role to include most of Karl Rove's portfolio. Just days after Gillespie took over that role, the DOJ intervened into the FCC's request for comments on Net Neutrality, weighing against Net Neutrality. At the same time, the new acting attorney general -- who's filling in while they try to replace Alberto Gonzales -- is a longtime AT&T lawyer who's been trying keep the courts from looking into the telco spying controversy. The level of corruption is staggering, and we eagerly await the FOIA results.
National Association of Broadcasters President David Rehr continues his neck and neck battle with Voldemort and Dick Cheney for "most evil" guy of the year. After successfully killing "free airtime" proposals for political candidates, consolidating radio and television to historic levels, and all but decimating all minority ownership of US media, Rehr & Co. are now fighting innovative use of broadcast 'white spaces' that could connect millions of Americans with the Internet, and close the digital divide.
Every area of the country has set aside unused public airwaves for broadcast television. These empty spaces on the public airwaves could be used to create wireless Internet networks to compete with the cable/DSL monopoly, drive down prices and increase connections speeds. We will be in a pitched battle this year to see that the public airwaves are used for the public good.
Next up:
- September 26: Free Press policy director Ben Scott testifies at the Senate Small Business Subcommittee on Net Neutrality. We don't expect any legislation on that issue this fall, but we're keeping the pressure up, and building our public interest/industry coalition in preparation for next year.
- October 3: Working with a right-left coalition of publishers, have successfully initiated a House subcommittee hearing on the recent postal rate increase. We are aiming to have Congress create some relief for news magazines that have been adversely affected.
Name: Jim Reuss
Hometown: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Is my memory
faulty, or do I remember some Bush politico insinuate that the cost of oil
would actually go down as a result of invading Iraq? Something about $20 a barrel? If the
Altercators would help out, I'd appreciate it.
permalink
12:48pm EST |
Permalink |
|
Digg this!
The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Thu, Sep 20, 2007
Wrong 'em, Boy-O
I've got a new Think Again column called "Michael Mukasey: Man of Mystery" here.
This is too funny. Yes, the problem with U.S. Middle East coverage is the fact that Muslims intimidate journalists and, hence, coverage is overly sympathetic to Arabs. You read it here first.
No, this
is actually much funnier. "Dean" Broder on the genius of Newt
Gingrich. (Um, Dave, I guess I wrote you your own personal
column. I called it "Think
Again: Beware the Ideas of Newt,"
and it's here.)
permalink
I make it a point not to feel sorry for people who make $8 million a year. (This is especially true in Dan Rather's case because he keeps meeting me and then forgetting he's ever met me ...) But you could tell he got screwed by CBS when they dropped him in response to right-wing-driven hysteria, lest anyone look too carefully into George W. Bush's draft-dodging. Remember, not even the Thornburgh commission ever determined whether those documents were fake, though it is a given of virtually all discussion of the matter that this was somehow proven. What the right has always understood is the fact that the one of the most powerful forces in the universe is the fear of the heads of large corporations feeling themselves to be embarrassed. This is nowhere more true than for the heads of large media corporations.
Rather became an embarrassment for CBS and so he was unceremoniously dumped, just as CNN dumped its producers way back when for a story on the use of nerve gas in Vietnam that may or may not have been true but fell within the radar of the right's minions. Thing is, the producers at CBS needed the money that paid for their silence afterward. Rather, because he'd been netting that $8 mil or so -- and by the way, anchor salaries are one big reason all network news is in such trouble today. How many journalists do you think you could hire at, say, $150K per year with the salaries of Messrs. Williams, Gibson, Russert, Schieffer, Stephanopoulos, and Ms. Couric? The number for Katie alone would be about a hundred. (Remember, Peter Jennings left his family $50 million when he died during the years that ABC News was all but decimated.)
Anyway, Dan-O's big bucks come in handy right about now because he couldn't be bought out with a confidentiality agreement.
According to the suit, Rather contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a "biased" and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, "seriously damaged his reputation," and charges that CBS and its executives made him "a scapegoat" in an attempt "to pacify the White House," though the formal complaint presents virtually no direct evidence to that effect. To buttress this claim, Mr. Rather quotes the executive who oversaw his regular segment on CBS Radio, telling Mr. Rather in November 2004 that he was losing that slot, effective immediately, because of "pressure from 'the right wing.' " Sounds true to me.
And how telling is this? "Instead of directly vetting the script he would read for the Guard segment, Mr. Rather says, he acceded to pressure from Mr. Heyward to focus instead on his reporting from Florida on Hurricane Frances, and on Bill Clinton's heart surgery."
And this: "Under pressure, Mr. Rather says, he delivered a public apology on his newscast on Sept. 20, 2004 -- written not by him but by a CBS corporate publicist -- "despite his own personal feelings that no public apology from him was warranted."
Read all
about it, here
and elsewhere, I'm sure.
permalink
Tuesday, I wrote
of the New York Post, The Washington Times, and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, "None
of these are remotely the kind of newspaper that would give anyone pride of
ownership or serve to manifest a sense of civic duty."
To be fair, that statement is entirely true of the Times and the Post. It may well be true of the Tribune-Review. I am certainly under the impression that it
is. But my impressions regarding the Tribune-Review
are not really worth very much. I've noticed a few instances where Scaife
has messed with the news over the years, and I've allowed these to color my entire view.
Perhaps my impression is correct, perhaps not. But I should have kept my mouth
shut about it. I try hard not to write strong words about things that
I've not taken the time and effort to understand, and I did not do that in the case of the Tribune-Review.
permalink
Eric R. on why the University of California
Regents should have let Larry Summers speak, here.
permalink
Alter-reviews: John Coltrane, Interplay, on Concord
I guess Fred Kaplan had a better time at the Sonny Rollins show at Carnegie Hall on Tuesday night than we did, given that we had to buy our own balcony seat and wait on an unbelievably long will-call line to get in. And since we don't pay bubkes for our reviews here, we can't afford Fred except as a link, so read him there and on his jazz blog, here.
In the meantime, you're stuck with a far less erudite review by yours truly of a wonderful new box set from my friend Stormin' Norman Lear and his homeys over at Concord of Coltrane material called Interplay. The beautifully sounding five CDs are drawn from seven collaborative records that Trane recorded for Prestige between 1956-58. When I first heard about it, I got worried. I love early and mid-Coltrane, but I try and fail to love or even stand the later stuff. But as with the water in Casablanca, I was misinformed. This is melodic Coltrane, and aside from the Miles years and just a few of the famous masterpieces, it's pretty damn difficult to beat, anywhere. We don't get any Sonny Rollins -- the two men respected and admired one another but stopped playing together quite early -- but we do get Coltrane with Kenny Burrell, Frank Wess, Red Garland, Tommy Flannigan, Jackie McLean, Paul Quinchette and Mal Waldron, among others. And the jam sessions included not only put a song in your heart but also, I know this sounds sappy, a smile on your face.
The discography is excellent and the CDs are handsomely packaged, though not with indiviudal jewel cases, if you're the kind of person who likes to take them out of the box. The introductory essay is by Nat Hentoff, but more important, the notes are by Coltrane scholar Lewis Porter, with original liner notes by Ira Getler. Great, rare photos too.
Name: Dan R.
Hometown: Lancaster PA
Hey Dr. A.,
As much as most people actually hate
the New York Yankees, you have to admit, nothing sells like drama. The Yanks
are drama. What are the Mets? By the way, a quote from the great Bob Feller
says it best, "As much as we disliked the Yankees, fans and players alike,
they were good for baseball. Unsuccessful teams like the Browns, Senators, and
A's paid a lot of their bills with those big crowds that poured through the
gates when the Yankees came to town." Not much has changed from those days
to these days.
permalink
Name: John S.
Hometown: Seattle
Dr. E.,
The prospect of unprovoked war with Iran is terrifying.
A few months ago I called my Congressional reps and urged them to tell the President:
If the President orders an attack an Iran without Congressional approval, we will commence impeachment proceedings immediately.
We all need to call Congress. Early and often.
Thanks for your good work.
permalink
Name: Brian
Geving
Hometown: Minneapolis, MN
Eric,
After reading the Times piece on Alan Greenspan, I agree with you that the only reason for his mea culpa is because he's hawking a book. No intelligent person would believe that he would suddenly start criticizing Bush's horrible fiscal policy after nary a peep for 6 years, even though he's had plenty of opportunities.
But it was the last two paragraphs that jumped out at me:
In retrospect, Mr. Greenspan's moral collapse in 2001 was a portent. It foreshadowed the way many people in the foreign policy community would put their critical faculties on hold and support the invasion of Iraq, despite ample evidence that it was a really bad idea.
And like enthusiastic war supporters who have started describing themselves as war critics now that the Iraq venture has gone wrong, Mr. Greenspan has started portraying himself as a critic of administration fiscal irresponsibility now that President Bush has become deeply unpopular and Democrats control Congress.
This is a subject that has been
brought up in the blog before, and I've commented on, but what is it about
having George W Bush and Dick Cheney in the White House that causes formerly
courageous men and women to lose their moral bearing? Has Dick Cheney sent his
minions to steal Wonder Woman's Magic Lasso to use on
these fine individuals? That's the only explanation that makes sense to me,
without bringing up uncomfortable subjects like whether the nature of mankind
is good or evil.
permalink
Name: Paul
Hometown: Oak Harbor, WA
Just watch the movements of U.S. Navy aircraft carrier groups if you need to validate your concern about the U.S. attacking Iran. When all of our carriers are deployed, then your worst fears will be justified. In the interim, I think the U.S. will prefer to use proxies to fight/contain Tehran.
Of course, attacking Iran will drive the price of a crude oil over
$100/barrel almost instantaneously, which will in turn drive the U.S. and world
economy into a rather unpleasant depression.
permalink
1:16pm EST |
Permalink |
|
Digg this!
The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
Wed, Sep 19, 2007
Whoopee, we're all gonna die ...
I say this over and over, but the genius of this administration is the impossibility of keeping up with both their evil actions and their evil intentions. Just when you've discovered one evil thing they're up to, you discover that they're plotting something else. Sometimes the thing they're plotting is so outrageous and obviously counterproductive that it requires an effort even to take them seriously. But then they do it.
I was at a dinner about a month ago for a lefty movie with smart people, and when I opined that I thought there was a 50/50 chance we'd attack Iran, nobody believed me. Nobody could bring themselves to take it seriously. But recently, if you've been paying attention, it's looking more and more possible. These people don't care that it will, undoubtedly, inspire terrorist attacks against Americans worldwide. (Iran is capable of this in a way Iraq never was.) It will also get a great many Americans in Iraq killed. It will further turn the Islamic world against us, destroy the ability of Iranian democrats to function at home, kill a bunch of them too, and it's unlikely to work against the alleged threat about which -- once again -- we have precious little reliable information. All systems go ...
Here's Wes Clark:
Think another war can't happen? Think again. Unchastened by the Iraq fiasco, hawks in Vice President Cheney's office have been pushing the use of force. It isn't hard to foresee the range of military options that policymakers face.
[...]
How might Iran strike back? Would it unleash Hezbollah cells across Europe and the Middle East, or perhaps even inside the United States? Would Tehran goad Iraq's Shiites to rise up against their U.S. occupiers? And what would we do with Iran after the bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: Iran as a chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as a hardened and embittered foe?
Tom Edsall reports, here:
The drumbeat for a military assault on Iran is getting louder at some conservative think tanks, in the offices of hawks on the Bush and Cheney staffs, and among ground forces in Iraq dealing with weapons and explosives constructed in Iran.
[...]
At the September 5 GOP debate in Durham, N.H., Rudy Giuliani declared:
"America has to have a clear position. The position should be that Iran is not going to be allowed to go nuclear. Senator McCain put it very well a few months ago. He said it would be very, very dangerous to take military action against Iran, but it would be even more dangerous if Iran were a nuclear power. And I think a president has to make that very clear."
In a September 3 blog post, The Weekly Standard's William Kristol, wrote:
"Why are terror training camps in Iran, camps that are directly training terrorists to attack U.S. troops, off limits? After all, if Khameini (to whom the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps reports) has already established the principle of cross-border attacks against accelerators of violence, who are we to disagree with the wisdom of the Supreme Leader?"
*On the same day, American Enterprise Institute fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote in Newsweek that Iran is "a radical revolutionary force determined to sow chaos beyond its borders. Assuming that normal negotiations can bring it around is, therefore, a grave mistake. The mullahs don't want peace in Iraq--just the opposite. War may come, but not because negotiations break down. The likely trigger is an Iranian provocation.
*On September 12, FOX News reported in a story based largely on pro-war sources in the administration and allied think tanks that there is a "consensus" among administration officials that attempts to peacefully persuade Iran to abandon development of its nuclear facilities have "come up empty... Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, 'everyone in town' is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely time frame for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections."
*The Heritage Foundation, in turn, maintains a web site titled "Iran: The Rising Threat" where the non-profit declares that it supports "a policy of aggressive diplomacy and the strongest possible economic sanctions, combined with the willingness to use force if necessary, to stave off Iran's becoming a nuclear power."
*During Senate Iraq hearings last week, Senator Joseph Lieberman asked Gen. David H. Petraeus if he had "all the authorities you need from a military point of view to deter, disrupt and respond to the Iranian attacks on our troops in Iran's efforts to destabilize Iraq?" Petraeus replied that he does have the authority he needs, while he claims that he does not have plans to go into Iran.
Lieberman, who himself does not preclude action against Iran, contended that "we have evidence that Iran is taking Iraqi extremists to three training camps outside of Tehran, training them in the use of explosives, sophisticated weapons, sending them back into Iraq, where they are responsible for the murder of American soldiers."
With the retirement of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, Lieberman may well find that he has a new ally in the Democratic Senate caucus after the 2008 elections: Former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey who is considered likely to seek regain the seat.
Kerrey is no dove on Iran. In a May 22 op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote:
"We must not allow terrorist sanctuaries to develop any place on earth. Whether these fighters are finding refuge in Syria, Iran, Pakistan or elsewhere, we cannot afford diplomatic or political excuses to prevent us from using military force to eliminate them."
The Democratic presidential candidate who has most explicitly addressed the question of military action against Iran is Barack Obama. In a September 12 speech in Clinton, Iowa, he said:
"Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program, supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran.
"They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war."
And look here:
Bush setting America up for war with Iran
[...]
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran's nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
permalink
News Jews (and Goyim) Can Use:
1) Jon Weiner interviews Sari Nusseibeh.
2) Jon Weiner interviews Saul Friedlander.
3) Jon Weiner interviews Michael Chabon.
4)
Attachment to Israel Declining Among
Young American Jews,
here.
permalink
Too good not to steal from TNR, here. Trust me. (You
can skip part II if you're pressed for
time.)
permalink
I suppose on balance it's a good thing that Alan Greenspan is finally telling a partial truth about the awfulness of this administration after so many years of being a good boy and letting all of it happen without raising a peep. But let's not kid ourselves. Eight million bucks convinced him to belatedly level with the American people whose economy has been perverted with his silent cooperation. Just like the generals who finally manage to speak up about this war once they are ex-generals, I find them useful but hardly admirable.
Greenspan's memoir does allow me to tell this story, though, at some Washington event onceuponatime:
Andrea Mitchell: "This is Eric Alterman, Alan."
Eric: "Hello, Mr. Greenspan. You know I have a CD of you playing with Henry Jerome. Leonard Garment gave them out at his book party."
Alan: "How did you like it?"
Eric: "A lot better than your monetary policy ..."
It's true
...
permalink
Number of times the all-news cable channels last week mentioned the nine U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq the same day General Petraeus testified before Congress: 2.
Number of times the all-news cable channels last week mentioned the MoveOn Petraeus ad: 500+.
Know Your
Sources: The Mainstream Press Keeps Finding Wacky Immigration Experts, here.
permalink
Alter-reviews: Songbird and San Francisco Nuggets
It's the most wonderful time ... of the year. Box set time, that is, and it's proving to be a really good year for such, so clip and save for all your holiday needs ... Today's entries are both from Rhino but otherwise have nothing whatever in common.
Box one is Emmylou Harris' Songbird, which is a handsome small box featuring four CDs and one DVD of some of the most beautiful country and country rock of the past 30 or so years, including difficult-to-find material and live performances from her days with Gram Parsons and, later, the Hot Band to her bluegrass material and her recent collaboration with Mark Knopfler, drawn from her 20-something records. There's also some previously unreleased material from the Dolly Parton/Linda Ronstadt sessions, and a new duet with George Jones, along with tributes to Tammy Wynette, Kate Wolf, Hank Williams, Townes Van Zandt, Webb Pierce, Merle Haggard, and Gram Parsons. It must be added that in addition to her golden voice and angelic demeanor, Emmylou's always had exquisite taste in material. The DVD has some wonderful historical moments including a pair of performances from the BBC's Old Grey Whistle Test -- "Together Again" with The Hot Band featuring James Burton in 1975 and "Making Believe" with The Hot Band featuring Albert Lee, filmed in 1977.
Box two is different in every way: Love is the Song We Sing: San Francisco Nuggets 1965-1970, as Warren Zevon might say, unlike Emmylou, "ain't that pretty at all." Well, actually, the book is pretty pretty. It's a handsome production with just about all the contextual material you'd need to make sense of the material, which is heavy on one-not-quite-hit wonders. The four CDs and 77 songs are all drawn from the mid-late '60s in the land of free love and too many drugs, and we get the biggies like the Dead and the Airplane and Steve Miller and Janis, etc., but also bands with names like The Chocolate Watchband ("No Way Out"), Frumious Bandersnatch ("Hearts To Cry"), Butch Engle & The Styx ("Hey I'm Lost"), and Teddy & His Patches ("Suzy Creamcheese"). They are surprisingly good, as the folks at Rhino have done yeoman's work mining the good stuff from the seeds and stems. The historical material and production values are first-rate but the song-by-song histories and explanations make the experience of listening much more than just musical. The photos are funny too. It's ironic to have such a handsomely produced box of music that was mostly produced by stoned hippies, but again, it's not as if anyone could argue that drugs have not been intimately involved with the creation of some of the most significant musical -- indeed, artistic -- achievements of all time. Do me a favor, though: When you listen to San Francisco Nuggets, be sure not to wear some flowers in your hair ...
You can visit the good
folks at Rhino here.
permalink
Name:
Dawn
Hometown: Orlando
I
was struck most by how Petreaus's crystal ball was so murky when asked about
what the situation would be even 6 months from now if we stay in Iraq and
execute all his plans. How dare someone ask such a hypothetical!!! Then the
picture miraculously cleared up when he was asked what would happen if we pulled
out. He responded with the usual litany of very specific horrors. So, it seems
to me that if he knows the results of pulling out, he can work to mitigate the
possible bad effects, right? On the other hand he has no idea of what will
happen if his plans are kept in place. By his own logic the less risky choice is
to pull out. But what do I know
...
permalink
Name: Greg
Hilliard
Hometown: Phoenix
Remember that Internet hoax in 2000 that had
dumb quotes from Al Gore that actually had been voiced by Dan Quayle (such as
"my fellow astronauts")? The Tribune-Review
fell for that and ran a Sunday editorial mocking Gore. I called editorial page
editor Colin McNickle that Monday, and he defended the piece, but he did say he
would run a correction if I could prove it wrong. A librarian at The Republic
helped me confirm at least nine cases that they were Quayle's, including one
said at Phoenix Civic Plaza, but when I reached McNickle he wouldn't budge,
saying, "I stand by my sources." He's still at the Tribune, by the way.
permalink
Name: Carl
Conetta
Hometown: Project on
Defense Alternatives
PDA has just updated its online Security Policy Libraries, adding 900 links to full-text articles on terrorism and homeland security, US defense strategy, military transformation, and the Chinese military. The libraries now link to more than ten thousand documents, all full-text and categorized. You can access them via the PDA home page (left column) or here.
We've also just posted a resource compilation on US Neoliberal and Neoconservative Security Policy: Views, Criticism, and Alternatives. This, too, is available at our home page (right column) or directly here.
Finally, given the interest in General Petraeus' recent report to Congress re: Iraq, we've collected relevant background reports and articles here.
These resources are meant to
facilitate the work of journalists, academics, students, and policy analysts. I
hope you'll find them useful.
permalink
Name: David
Dennie
Hometown: Norfolk, Virginia
Dear Eric,
In response to the question that followed your self-confessed bragging about live music in New York, here's how things are in my city (Norfolk, Virginia, about 3% the size of NYC -- repeat: that's 3% the size of New York):
Next week I'll be seeing Bob Dylan, Elvis Costello and Amos Lee on Tuesday evening, Shemekia Copeland on Friday, and John Lee Hooker Jr. on Saturday - all in Norfolk.
We do O.K. sometimes out here in the boonies, thanks for asking.
Eric replies: Um, dude, I believe the shows I
mentioned were all free, save one which was in the beautiful Delacorte Theater
inside Central Park. Yours?
permalink
1:58pm EST |
Permalink |
|
Digg this!
The opinions voiced in these columns are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of Media Matters for America or any other organization or institution with which any author may be affiliated.
