I've now a new "Think Again" column called "Official Evidence vs. 'Gut Hatred'" here.

It's about the derision those people who were right about Bush and Iraq continue to experience from those who were wrong, inspired by Tom Ridge and Marc Ambinder. (And p.s., we recall that Ted Kennedy, we are reminded by our friends at Thinkprogress.org, called his vote against authorizing the invasion "the best vote I've made in my 44 years in the US Senate." We could not agree more.)

My Nation column, here, is called "Novak Without Tears." You can guess what that's about.

A (very) short story about a photograph: Back in January 2007, I took my kid to Washington to enjoy the festivities surrounding the inauguration of the first ever female speaker of the House, together with a (mostly) Dead reunion that night. Before the concert, I stopped off at a reception for my good friend and favorite Congressman, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. As the kid and I were walking in -- she was eight by the way -- we were joined at door by the senior senator from Massachusetts. We said hello and he did that thing that politicians do sometimes in front of kids, which is act like they are thrilled to meet the great man who is their dad, which was nice given who he was, and all, but even better, he asked us to turn around and go back to his van so he could introduce the kid to his dog, who was waiting there. We did and then he asked me if I would please take a photo, since this was such an exciting moment for him. It's a crappy photograph, as you can see, but one this family will always treasure.

Now, if you have not already, go read this seminal piece by the great Charles Pierce.

Like everyone else of sanity and decency -- this does not mean you, Mr. Limbaugh -- I'm pleased that Ted Kennedy got to die in bed of somewhat natural causes. There's a letter below about the issue of people bringing guns to healthcare rallies where the president speaks. I've been thinking about this. Remember the Bush folks had people arrested for wearing unflattering T-shirts or driving with anti-Bush bumper stickers. I used to live near the Washington Hilton, where the president always spoke. One day, I was coming back from the gym to my apartment, and the secret service would not allow me to pass the hotel while the president was entering. I thought this was annoying, and so I asked under what law he was allowed to prevent an American citizen from walking down the street, unarmed to his own apartment. He said he could shoot me if he wanted to and so I decided to sit tight. I investigated it a bit and he was right. The secret service are almost all powerful if they are protecting the president. So why are they letting idiots bring guns to places where the president is speaking just because it is not against the law in that state? My guess is that Obama et al do not want to rile up the NRA for the next mid-term election. NRA hysteria is, more than anything, what caused the Democratic debacle of 1994. Of course, this is pure speculation. If anyone actually knows the answer to this question, please send it along.

Gene Krzyzynski noticed this on WashingtonPost.com:

Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz is a contributor to CNN and host of its weekly Reliable Sources program, which is part of State of the Union.

Changed to:

Washington Post reporter Howard Kurtz is a paid contributor to CNN and host of its weekly Reliable Sources program, which is part of State of the Union.

Curious, huh?

If there is a sadder fate for a newspaper in this world than to be lectured, accurately, by Gawker on journalistic ethics, I'm unaware of it. Congrats to the editorial page of Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal for this signal achievement.

This week on Moyers:

Produced by Academy Award winner Alex Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room) and based on Maggie Mahar's acclaimed book of the same name, Money-Driven Medicine reveals how a profit-hungry "medical-industrial complex" has turned healthcare into a system where millions are squandered on unnecessary tests, unproven and sometimes unwanted procedures and overpriced prescription drugs.

From The HuffPo Investigative Fund:

This weekend, the new Huffington Post Investigative Fund reported that one of the nation's most widely-used herbicides has been found to exceed federal safety limits in drinking water in at least four states, but water customers have not been told and the Environmental Protection Agency has not published the results. Records that tracked the amount of the weed-killer atrazine in about 150 watersheds from 2003 through 2008 were obtained by the Investigative Fund under the Freedom of Information Act. An analysis found that yearly average levels of atrazine in drinking water violated the federal standard at least ten times in communities in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Kansas, all states where farmers rely heavily on the herbicide. In addition, more than 40 water systems in those states showed spikes in atrazine levels that normally would have triggered automatic notification of customers. In none of those cases were residents alerted. In none of those cases were residents notified. In fact, the brochures in their water bills - reviewed for this report--contained misleading lower numbers.

Today, the Investigative Fund followed up with a story, revealing that many water utilities across the country are ineffective at removing the herbicide from drinking water -- and also lack the capability to filter out other organic material like plasticizers (phathalates), pharmaceutical compounds, PCBs, and alachlor. Utilities cited the financial crisis, and about 57 are currently planning to sue the makers of atrazine, Syngenta, to recover the costs of removing the weed-killer from their water.

The Investigative Fund has posted the EPA's five years of raw atrazine data on their website, here. To watch reporter Danielle Ivory discuss atrazine, the EPA, and how all of this was perfectly legal on Democracy Now, click here.

Alter-reviews:

Did you know that The Simpsons is the longest running animated series in television history? I think it's also the longest running comedy show ever. And it's still great. Season 12 just came out on DVD. The kid and I are pretty into it this summer. We really liked the episode at the book festival, painful as it was for Mr. Updike. And the one where the Who play "New Springfield." And those are like in the first three. And we also love the packaging, which mimics the fine comic book products sold by the overweight, over-opinionated and under-bathed retailer Comic Book Guy. Special features, if that's your thing, include: an introduction from Matt Groening; audio commentaries on every episode with Groening and The Simpsons executive producers, writers, actors and directors; deleted scenes; animation showcases; original sketches; special language feature; featurettes and more.

New Loudon Wainwright and Radiohead re-releases by Sal:

"Charlie Poole didn't write the songs he performed and recorded -- they were the popular, sacred, and standard tunes of his time. Charlie may not have written the songs, but he certainly "owned them -- that is to say, made them his own."

This is how Loudon Wainwright III introduces his new CD on page one of the beautiful accompanying booklet to High Wide & Lonesome: The Charlie Poole Project, 2 CDs conceived by Wainwright and producer Dick Connette as a tribute to the hard drinking, hard living charmer of the Depression era, Charlie Poole.

This absolutely wonderful set of music is a real tribute indeed. Wainwright, along with many other Wainwrights, Roches and friends of both families, run through thirty tunes, each with its own gripping story filled with black humor, genuine sadness, lost hope, as well as plenty of booze and women. There are old timey string arrangements, acapella gospel tunes, and simple voice and guitar, all leaving room for Loudon Wainwright's love of the material to shine. I've always loved Loudon, but I didn't expect to love this set as much as I do.

On Another Note:

One of the most overrated bands in the history of music, Radiohead, sees its self-indulgent, experimental, tuneless and boring post-OK Computer records get expanded with even more depressing, droning, twaddle. Kid A, Hail To The Thief, and Amnesiac all now feature a second disc with b-sides and live tracks. Now I realize that is a bit unfair, and the truth is, I don't hate Radiohead. I happen to think The Bends and OK Computer are two of the best records of the 90s. But I do believe these three CDs would have made ONE fine CD. Forgive me.

Sal Nunziato
BURNING WOOD
www.burnwoodtonite. blogspot.com

Eric chimes in: Sal is right about Loudo, of course. I'm really enjoying the record and I'd recommend listening to Terry Gross's interview with the guy which ran last week and was a lot of fun. My comrade could hardly be wronger, however about Radiohead, which I maintain is just below U2 and at least tied with REM as the greatest band of the 90s. I actually think OK Computer is their weakest album. These two are all three totally excellent, particularly Kid A, which is kinda Pink Floydish. They've not only got b-sides and live tracks but also DVDs and these demonstrate the thought and care that went into these great albums. And Pablo Honey is also great, he didn't mention that. Great band, Radiohead; closest thing to what the Beatles would have been if the Beatles had been in the 90s. (I know Bono says that about U2, but he's wrong. U2 were way different than the Beatles; much better live, I'm guessing, and also much more explicitly socially concerned.) Anyway, if you don't have the remixed versions of these records, I'd strongly recommend all of them -- with the possible exception of OK Computer which is a little too noisy for my taste.

Name: Tim Burga
Hometown: Dallas, TX

Dr. A,

In your Daily Beast column you said, regarding Obama reaching out to the GOP on health care, that "the problem with this strategy is that it rests on the widespread realization that the Republicans are not serious about governance."

Based on the polls it seems the public *does* realize this, which makes it all the more confounding that Democrats are not in full-on messaging mode to reinforce this self-evident state of affairs. Why are Sen. Grassley's stunningly frank admissions about the bad faith with which the GOP is operating in the health care debate only covered on left-leaning blogs and not in press releases and op-eds from the White House?

Despite all the progress and transformation within the Democratic Party in the last decade, it unfortunately seems the leadership is still playing checkers at a chess match.

Name: Bill Doyle
Hometown: Valparaiso, IN

Hi Eric,

I love your Daily Beast stuff, and I think (and hope) you may be right about the President's strategy. For the past few weeks, I have been boring my friends with my theory that the time to get real is in Conference Committee next month.

I have to comment on the frightening article in which the White House accepts the fact of assault rifles being brandished at Presidential events. I sent a letter to the Chicago Trubune about that, but they had used up their liberal comment quota for the month, so no dice there.

This weapons parade is lunacy. The Secret Service should extend the weapons free zone around the President to a full one mile. And then Congress must make it a federal offense to carry any weapon of any kind to a public event, demonstration or meeting connected to any appearance by the President, a Member of Congress, or any of their designates.

Congress can do this. There are already thousands of weapons free federal zones across the country, and it is the federal function, not the specific building, that gives the feds this preemption. Just try strapping on a weapon and going into a VA hospital. Better yet, one of these bozos should try entering a US military post or an FBI office. If they are not shot, bail will be very high.

The biggest reason we have to do this, though, is that it is only a matter of time before one of these weapons is discharged, and some citizen--possibly a child or a Grandma--is killed for the crime of exercising her First Amendment rights. Why shouldn't we the people have the same right to a weapons free First Amendment zone that Members of Congress enjoy in their Capitol office space, or federal employees have at their workplaces? The NRA and their paid minions have no right to trample on "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I simply do not understand why the White House does not understand this basic concept--that free speech is not free if it is inherently dangerous, and that civilian weapons do not belong in any crowded place, especially when children are part of the crowd.

Name: Frank Lynch
Hometown: http://www.samueljohnson.com/ blog/

Ah, Tom Ridge... I remember an early 80's lyric from Utopia:

"Here are your leaders, come on take a look They lie and cheat and steal and sell the rights to the book"

The problem with Tom Ridge's account of the pre-election day decision is that while the preceding events argue for guilt, the fact that there was a tape from OBL is enough to cast a reasonable doubt. If there were conversations before the tape's arrival about "wouldn't it be nice" and OBL's tape were the catalyst, that would be one thing, but on this singular event the decision process so far seems in the grey area. And I am no Bush defender, as you know.

(I speculated at the time of the tape that there had been some gamesmanship being played regarding the tape: that OBL really did want Bush re-elected because he was good for recruiting, and dumped on Bush's overreactions in the tape in a bit of reverse psychology (Americans would reject his mocking of Bush). Ron Suskind's Cheney book later revealed that the CIA and State also felt that OBL handed Bush the reelection with that tape.)

But aside from the pre-election pressure Ridge felt, the prior events themselves don't make Ridge look good. While he claims to have held back against capricious color raises in the alert levels, he didn't do that often enough. He could have determined that the intel regarding attacks on the financial centers was stale, and he didn't have to interject praise for Bush as he did so. I, for one, have gotten sick and tired of the claim of "he kept America safe," when Suskind pointed out that a major attack on NYC's subways was aborted not because of anything Bush had done but because Al Qaida didn't think that the bloody plan was bloody enough.

Tom Ridge gets no partial credit, in my opinion.

Name: Michael Green
Hometown: Las Vegas, NV

Brother Pierce hit it out of the park when talking about the late development of conscience among Bush administration members who might find life interesting before a war crimes tribunal. Especially Colin Powell. Indeed, one of the little treasures in the history of American popular culture was in "Mars Attacks!" Paul Winfield played a general sent to greet the Martians. En route, he calls his wife to say he always knew he would be given something important to do if he just kept his mouth shut. And that was nearly five years before Powell became secretary of state!

Now, for a TV review. Sunday night's 60 Minutes was one of the worst in that broadcast's mostly distinguished history. The tribute to Don Hewitt was well-intentioned, but by the fifth or so time that he was shown saying the key is to "tell me a story," I realized they had no idea how to tell his story. Instead, they had three separate reports that were largely repetitive and suggest just how much the broadcast misses Hewitt.

Also, they missed a couple of his innovations. For example, the graphic "matte" at the bottom of the screen, and the "double- projector system" that enables a correspondent to do a voiceover were, I believe, his work when he produced the CBS evening newscast. But it was more fun for 60 Minutes to show, over and over, Hewitt yelling in the control room and walking down the hallway. And CBS is claiming Dan Rather wasn't up to the standards of 60 Minutes? If I may invoke my hero, Barney Frank, what planet do they live on?

Name: Terry
Hometown: Cheyenne

Dear Eric, While I trying to understand the White House need to appear all stately and bipartisan, (which never works, btw) I was confronted with a new bumper sticker on a van at of all places, our library in "Idiot America," er, Cheyenne today. While I remain of the tree-hugging, liberal, let's-communicate-and -not-hate persuasion, I did react. The sticker read "Does not play well with liberals." I happened to have a post-it note, so I stuck this atop: By all means, celebrate your bigotry and intolerance. It's a free country. True, not the Woody Allen/Annie Hall recommended response of "let's get some bricks and baseball bats and deal with these neoNazis," but somewhat satisfying.

Sure was fun to see the latest video of Mr. Pierce expounding in.

Name: Jordan Scott
Hometown: Seattle

Eric, Unfortunately, you're not right. Obama "gave in a little on the stimulus?" Just like he gave in a little on prosecuting torture or, as a Senator, on telecon immunity. I'm no psychologist, but I suspect it has more to do with, like Clinton, being raised by a single mother and always wanting to please than some brilliant political tactic. Start reading some Pierce and buck up, will ya' buddy. Obama invited you to dinner--the rest of us need you guys who have access to the people in power to follow the instructions of "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it," rather than being an enabler of useless attempts at bipartisanship. As you point out, the strategy is not working and the lies are winning. Obama needs to be reminded of his own definition of insanity. person that's going around of late. :-)

Name: Steve Gabai
Hometown: Fair Lawn, NJ

Eric,

I was watching New Jersey's Networks (NJN) news broadcast tonight and they had a report on Rep. Frank Pallone's town hall meeting. The anchor introducing the story, as well as the reporter covering it, used the word "controversial" in regard to the public option. What is so controversial about the public option (was George Bush's Iraq war "controversial?")?

This town hall meeting, like the rest we've seen, had it share of enraged screamers. So by describing the public option as "controversial," they actually gave credibility to this mob, as if they actually had something to scream about.

This report was no different from the rest of the coverage we've seen this month, network or cable. Little attention has been paid to the reasonable and practical side of this "debate." Instead, the media has focused, mainly, on the angry side who are enraged at this "controversial" health care legislation. Why?

Ironically, what's made this health care "debate" so controversial, are these town hall mobs. But the way the media has handled it, you'd think it was the other way around.

Would be asking too much for our illustrious media to treat the public option seriously, not as a controversy, and give it roughly the same amount of air time they do these town hall screamers?

Unfortunately, yes.

Name: Don Appel
Hometown: Riverdale,NY

Where the heck is LTC Bateman??? Will his photo soon be on the side of milk cartons?

Name: Billy Ralph Bierbaum
Hometown: Waxahachie, Texas

Re: condensed journalism.

If someone could write me a fucking nut graf on all this healthcare shit, I'd really appreciate it. More especially, a nut graf on why Obama and the Democrats collapsed like that cake left out in the rain in MacArthur Park. I apologize for my tone and my language, but fuck, if I'd wanted a bunch of rubbery retread refried defrosted still feckless Clintonoids to run this ball (and I'm looking at you, Rahm), I would have voted for a fucking Clinton.

Contact Eric Alterman

Use this form to contact Eric Alterman.

Full Name (required)

E-mail address (required)

Hometown (required)

Message

 Subscribe me to EmailNation, a free e-mail newsletter

 You can send me information about subscriptions and special offers to my e-mail address.

 You can send me information about subscriptions and special offers to my postal address.