Well-chosen words on music, movies and politics, with the occasional special guest.
The new book is here.
I’ve got a new Think Again column on Sarah Palin and Blood Libel here, called “The Gift Who Keeps on Giving.”
And my Nation column is called “A “Worm” in the Neocon War Plans?” and that’s here.
For the Daily Beast I did “The GOP’s Health Care Kabuki” and that’s here.
I got kicked off Parker-Spitzer last night apparently for Ron Reagan, who writes in his new book that his father probably had Alzheimer's while president. In 2000, the great Charles P. Pierce published a book called Hard To Forget, which was about both his father's Alzheimer's, and how all four of his siblings eventually succumbed to it, and about the history of the disease and the researchers who were fighting it at the time. In it, on page 59, he wrote this, in part:
I will believe this until I die—for at least four years, the United States was governed by a symptomatic Alzheimer's patient. I believe the people near him knew that and I believe that they covered for him in a hundred ways, large and small...I do not envy them their dark miracle or their consciences.
The Reagan people reportedly were furious at Pierce for having written that. (The Alzheimer's community is a talkative one.) But he felt confident in writing because, almost to a person, everyone he talked to in the research community believed it. At a conference in Japan, Pierce told me he was talking to Dennis Selkoe, one of the top guys in the field and mentioned that there was one episode in particular that made him think that Reagan had become symptomatic, and Dennis, without missing a beat said, "The first debate with Mondale." There were always hints. Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus wrote a book called "Landslide" that begins with a young WH lawyer being tasked to research the presidential disability provisions of the 25th amendment. Every memoir—from Lawrence Walsh's to Ollie North to Lesley Stahl's—has at least one instance of Reagan being utterly vacant. John McCain told Pierce that he had seen one in the WH. Many Alzheimer's patients have a catastrophic episode—Reagan had a few, and these were evident during his testimony during the Iran-Contra scandal…among others.
For reasons I cannot imagine, New York magazine didn’t ask me to contribute to this, but this list making stuff is fun. Here’s mine. (For reasons of honesty and expertise, I decided to limit myself to people and events I was old enough to actually experience.)
Governor: Mario Cuomo
Congressperson: Bella Abzug
TV Show: The Odd Couple
Honorable Mention: Mad Men, 30 Rock, All in the Family, Saturday Night Live, The Honeymooners, Dick Van Dyke
Worst: Friends, Seinfeld, Sex in the City
Honorable Mention: Dog Day Afternoon, Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Taxi Driver, Wall Street, The French Connection, Do the Right Thing, 25th Hour, Inside Man, An Unmarried Woman
Musical: Guys and Dolls, revival (because it’s my favorite musical, not because the revival was so great), Hair (because the revival was so great), Two Gentlemen of Verona (both the original and revival)
Drama: Angels in America
Song: “Take the A Train”
Honorable Mention: “New York State of Mind,” “Incident at 57th St,” “Take a Walk on the Wild Side,” “Sugar Hill Rap,” “The Message,”
Worst: “New York, New York”
Novel: Catcher in the Rye
Honorable Mention: Goodbye Columbus, Mr. Sammler’s Planet
1) Walt Frazier
2) Joe Namath
3) Tom Seaver
4) Willie Mays
5) Yogi Berra
6) The rest of the 69 Knicks
7) Mickey Mantle
8) Derek Jeter
9) Mike Tyson
10) Tug McGraw
11) Reggie Jackson
12) The ’69 Rangers
13) Phil Rizzuto
14) Dwight Gooden
15) Gil Hodges
16) Buddy Harrelson
17) Ron Darling
18) Thurmond Muson
19) Fran Tarkenton
20) Billy Martin
Columnist: Murray Kempton
Honorable Mention: Pete Hamill, Sydney Schanberg
Worst: A. M Rosenthal
Sportswriter: Roger Angell
Worst: Dick Young
Theater critic: Frank Rich
Music critic: Robert Christgau
Honorable Mention: Gary Giddins
Host of SNL: Steve Martin
Concert: Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band at Madison Square Garden, August 21-23, 1978.
Honorable Mention: The Clash at Bond’s, 1982
Concert I was too young to see: John Coltrane at the Village Vanguard, 1961
Honorable Mention: Allman Brothers, final show at the Fillmore,
Refugee: Larry David
Immigrant: John Lennon
Hedline: “Headless Body in Topless Bar”
Carpetbagger: George Steinbrenner
Annoyance: Donald Trump
Disc Jockey: Vin Scelsa
Honorable Mention: Jonathan Schwartz, Alison Steele
Archtypal New Yorkers: Walt Frazier, Woody Allen, Miles Davis, Patti Smith, Lillian Ross, Jason Epstein, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Tina Fey, Paul Simon, Spike Lee, Bobby Short, Nora Ephron, Martin Scorsese, Robert Caro, Ahmet Ertegun,Tony Randall,
About that Dalal girl and hospital treatment. Can't she also go east, to Jordan? Why is it always the seemingly exclusive responsibility of Israel to provide medical facilities and treatment?
South Venice Beach FL
"BIRTHS: Sometime between 1948 and 1960, Maureen Dowd"
With that line alone, you may rest on your laurels for the balance of this new year.
Merrill R. Frank
Jackson Hgts, NYC
Who would think one of the beneficiaries of Sargent Shriver’s noble legacy would be none other than Sarah Palin and her family. Due to his advocacy regarding special needs kids her special needs child at least gets a shot at a decent life and is not sent off to some institution to wallow. Her grandchild benefits from the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. If she only knew the value of his liberal legacy, how the many have benefited from it and somehow conveyed it within her wordy jumble. Then again she probably would decry these progressive reforms as socialism or have credited Reagan for their success.
Mill Valley, Calif.
“Layla”? “Layla”?! Why not just pick “Stairway to Heaven” and be done with it? Hell, there are at least two songs on Stephen Stills’ first album that are better than “Layla”, and that’s just 1971.
I’ve never understood the whole “Layla” thing. You want Clapton at his best? Try “Rain” from Eric Clapton or “Sleepy Time Time” from Live Cream. Allman? Please.
Eric, I thought you knew these things.
Eric replies: Dude, you don’t get it so it’s not true? You noticed maybe that "Layla" has an Allman on it too? I maybe could have gone with “Why Does Love Got to be So Sad?” particularly the version I saw (twice) by Clapton with the Allmans, but absolutely nothing at all by Cream touches either one. I like "Let it Rain," who doesn’t, but the above is just silly. I sense a bustle in your hedgegrow, and I’m alarmed now. And the Stephen Stills almost is only ok…
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
I’ll be on Dylan Ratigan around four, on MSNBC and Parker Spitzer on CNN around 8 tonight, by the way. The book is here.
Meanwhile, I’ve got a new Think Again column on Sarah Palin and Blood Libel here, called “The Gift Who Keeps on Giving.”
And my Nation column is called “A “worm” in the Neocon war plans?” and that’s here.
For the Daily Beast I did “The GOP’s Health Care Kabuki” and that’s here.
I'm about finished with my history of postwar American liberalism, at least the first draft of it, and if someone asked me, who, over the past six or seven decades, displayed the best judgment, morally, politically, intellectually and in policy terms of any of the politicians I've studied, I think I'd have to say, in historical order, "Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Sarge Shriver..."
This is really interesting from Time, Friday, Jan. 03, 1964: “Man Of The Year: Martin Luther King Jr., Never Again Where He Was.”
More reasons I could not imagine life without TCM. “Screen Directors Playhouse.” Never heard of it before they showed ten of them on Tuesday night. Almost all were wonderful. There was a even a John Ford/John Wayne show that nobody’s seen in over fifty years. Incredible stuff. And perfect productions values, far better than those kinescope dramas released a year or so ago, because, I’m guessing the sponsor Eastman Kodak wanted to show off its stuff. Anyway, the whole thing is first rate and given that none of us knew about it before, a little bit thrilling. I watched all of them as I was doing my reading and writing yesterday.
More tomorrow. Now here’s Reed
Speaking of Kabuki Democracy
My apologies to the good doctor for appropriating his new book’s title, but that is exactly what our House of Representatives wrought last night’s vote, a legislative tale told by you-know-whats full of sound and fury signifying nothing, a reality that even Fox News had to acknowledge, calling the vote a “symbolic move.” Still, freshly minted Speaker John Boehner seemed undaunted by the prospect of clearing the hurdles of a Democratically-controlled Senate and a sure-fire presidential veto in the next two years, throwing out a boilerplate quote about how:
“Congress can do better in terms of replacing Obamacare with common-sense reforms that will bring down the cost of health insurance and expand access for more Americans.”
Being all for commonsense, I wandered over to the Congressional Republicans’ website to read more about all these neglected health care reform policies that will comprise the second half of their two-stage “repeal and replace” strategy. Thankfully, right there on the Health Care Solutions page I found a prominent link to a summary of the House GOP’s proposed replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act. If you like, you can go directly to it here. Don’t worry, it won’t take long to read.
Yes, that’s right, as of today, it is a link to nowhere. As far as symbolic moves goes, I think these beat last night’s conservative dramaturgy on C-Span hands down. “Give us a break, we’ll get around to it this spring,” seems to be their excuse. Of course, one could easily argue that promoting the wholesale repeal of a comprehensive law that addresses perhaps the most pressing problem facing our society with nary a peep about specific alternatives isn’t a serious attempt at governance. But, in a way, it does makes sense—dare I say, commonsense?—since Republicans’ plans to replace the Affordable Care Act with anything approaching full, affordable health care access for all Americans are, in effect, nonexistent. (And no, malpractice reform and a couple hundred billion more in tax cuts for the rich doesn't qualify.)
Admittedly, the incredulous tone of the media coverage of this pseudo-event was a bit better than I expected, although few news organizations made more than a passing mention (if they mentioned it at all) of the noticeable absence of any concrete alternative proposals by the Republican House leadership. And now, take a breath, but I have to give due credit to Fox News.com. Not only did this article make a point of calling out the “death panels” bromide as the lie that it was and is (and, by extension, define Sarah Palin as an “extreme case”), it did a better job than many other news outlets in spelling out the specious reasoning behind the Republicans’ claims that full implementation of the ACA will result hundreds of thousands of lost jobs. Keep this up (for a loooong time), and they just may lose their title of Most Distrusted Media Outlet in America.
To be completely fair, however, the GOP isn’t all talk and no policy walk on this issue. In 2009, the Republicans were shamed into at least taking a crack at crafting a health care reform plan. How’d that go? Well, here’s a refresher:
“According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit. The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan.”
According to Republicans, the major problem wasn’t that their healthcare reform plan was exposed as an embarrassingly ineffective policy failure, it was that the analysis by those government bean-counters over at the CBO—lacking in commonsense, no doubt—were either biased or just naive. In fact, the Republican response to the CBO’s stark judgment two years ago was to skew and/or ignore its findings to suit their political needs in what might be considered a Congressional Republican’s version of “Whatevs!” In fact, just today, the House GOP’s website reinserted the text of this woeful bill as a placeholder on its Health Care Solutions page (24 hours earlier, that link was dead as well.)
Turns out, that bashing and distrust of the CBO was merely a coming attraction. Nowadays, it seems like the most popular parlor game among conservatives. During the buildup to last night’s vote, there were the by now requisite slings and arrows of “unconstitutional,” “socialism” and “tyranny,” to describe the ACA, but also littering the debate were new entrants—supposedly damning phrases like “discretionary spending,” “implausible assumptions,” “double-counting” and “doc-fix,” all of which are an effort to purportedly unravel the CBO’s dastardly double-dealing over the GOP’s costly plans for repeal. (If you’re so inclined, Ezra Klein, over at the Washington Post, provides a good blow-by-blow fisking of many of these GOP talking points.) And at the risk of maligning the good, honorable people who actually pick cherries for a living, I’ll just say that it won’t take you three guesses to figure out which governmental budgeting office the Republicans turn around and repeatedly cite for their claim that the ACA will kill 650,000 jobs.
When the Democrats managed to successfully thread the legislative needle by meticulously (or arduously, take your pick) passing a healthcare reform law that levels the insurance playing field to a large degree, provides a pathway to healthcare for pretty much every American and lowers the deficit—three public policy goals that both parties, at least rhetorically if not practically, support—the Republicans were left with a choice. Debate, on the merits, the elements of the law that do need fixing (as is invariably the case in such a large undertaking) or engage in a full-throated repeal campaign that demagogues the ACA as a “government takeover.”
The rhetoric during the recent mid-term elections made clear the GOP’s choice, but last year’s lame duck session showed the depths of their intransigence on even those parts of the ACA where there is bipartisan support for improvement. And it is of a piece with the GOP’s preference for rolling back financial reform, reinstating DADT and returning non-discretionary spending to the pre-stimulus levels found at end of Bush’s second term. In short, it’s a broad-based attempt at undoing the last two years of Obama’s presidency, while he’s still in office.
But this attempt at what I call The Great Regression is simply governance by spite, pettiness masquerading as principle. For House Republicans to spend the next two years operating in an alternate reality that says the best way forward is to simply take our country back to the swarming crises of 2008 is to demand a willing suspension of disbelief among Americans that ultimately harms our democracy. After all, for most of the past decade we watched this theatrical production unfold on Capitol Hill and the White House and the ending, we know, is tragic.
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new Think Again column is called “The Hate We Tolerate," and it’s here.
And I did this short piece for the Beast called “Was the Arizona Shooter an Anti-Semite?” and that’s here.
So, what about today in history? Let’s see:
1990 “Simpsons” premiered on Fox-TV
1978 Sex Pistols’ final concert
1914 Henry Ford introduces assembly line, for T-Fords
1784 Revolutionary War ends; Congress ratifies Treaty of Paris
1957 Humphrey Bogart
1898 Lewis Carroll
Hear Me Howling! is just the kind of thing for which I’m always looking, but almost never find. It’s a history book, a photo book and a four-disc box set with four hours and 40 minutes of music, 72 tracks altogether of which 38 are previously unreleased. Everything you could want. Would have made a perfect birthday present, but it’s too late. Anyway, apparently this fellow, Chris Strachwitz, created Arhoolie Records in 1960, having spent the previous six years (and the next eleven) in the Bay Area, and recorded all these excellent people for his label pretty much under the radar, of which this is a history. (Great record store, too.)
Who, you ask? Well, first and foremost, Lightnin' Hopkins. But also Mississippi Fred McDowell, Bukka White, Skip James, Big Mama Thornton and Big Joe Williams, Mance Lipscomb, Lonnie Johnson, and Sonny Terry. Some rockers too, well sort of: Country Joe & the Fish, Bob Neuwirth, Joy of Cooking, the Hackberry Ramblers, Rev. Gary Davis, and zydeco master Clifton Chenier. What are you waiting for? It’s here.
And while we’re on the topic of valuable historical studies of blues archivists, Viking has just published, or is about to publish, Alan Lomax: The Man Who Recorded the World by John Szwed. I’ve not read it but there’s a review in the Guardian by Sean O’Hagen, who thinks it’s great. I’m going to read it, particularly after reading this view, but also because I’m pretty sure it’s ridiculously well-edited.
This just in from Gershom Gorenberg:
I am trying to help a three-and-a-half-year-old Palestinian girl from the West Bank who suffers from CP get essential care at an excellent hospital in Jerusalem. The girl's name is Dalal Rusrus. According to Dr. Eliezer Be'eri of Alyn Hospital in Jerusalem, if Dalal is treated, there is even a chance that she might eventually be able to walk. If she is not treated, she will not even be able to use a wheelchair.
The Civil Administration is refusing to give her parents permission to enter Jerusalem, which makes it impossible for her to receive care. You can help by contacting the relevant spokespeople and asking why they aren't getting permits. If the authorities know the world is interested, there is a reasonable chance that they could grant the permits to avoid the embarrassment. Please note: The girl needs to get a permit by Monday. So send an email today, and take ten minutes when you get up Sunday to make a phone call or three.
The Israeli hospital wants to help her. Israelis and foreign donors have contributed for her care. Instead of letting this humanitarian cooperation take place, the military bureaucracy is standing in the way.
After Dr. Be'eri examined Dalal in the West Bank in October, Alyn hospital invited her to come for a full examination. Two appointments were canceled because her parents could not get permits. Finally, her mother was given a permit and Dalal was given a multi-disciplinary examination on Dec. 20.
Now Dalal is supposed to go to Alyn on Monday, Jan 17 for a preliminary treatment, and then be hospitalized on Jan 23 for two weeks. In order for the treatment to happen, permits are needed for her parents, especially for her father. The mother is caring for a 9-month-old infant and it would be extremely difficult for her to be the one to accompany Dalal. The family has no immediate relatives in the area who would be able to help out.
So what you do is write or call both of the spokespeople below and the Civil Administration health official, say that you are writing a story, and you want to know if the Osama, Sunya and Dalal Rusrus have received permits to enter Jerusalem and if not, why not. The name of the spokespeople link to their email addresses. You should include the ID numbers of Osama, Sunya and Dalal, which you will find below.
IDF Spokesman's Office (Foreign Press Branch):
Lt.-Col. Avital Leibovitz: 972 2-5485807/2, Fax: 972 2-5485825, Mobile: 972 57-8186248
Civil Administration, Judea and Samaria:
Capt. Amir Koren: 972 2-9977372, Fax: 972 2-9977341, Mobile: 972 50-6234081
Civil administration health coordinator:
Dalia Basa: 972-2-9977084, or 972-2-9977022, Fax: 972-2-9977041
Here are the ID numbers:
Osama Rusrus 909512386
Sunya Rusrus 903627057
Dalal Rusrus 420037004
You can find more information on her story at these links:
South Jerusalem: Saving Dalal
The American Prospect: Crossing Borders
For all further info to build the story, you can contact the B'Tselem human-rights organization's fantastic health staffer, Suhair Abdi.
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new Think Again column is called “The Hate We Tolerate," and it’s here.
And I did this short piece for the Beast called “Was the Arizona Shooter an Anti-Semite?” and that’s here.
I had to cancel the West Coast Kabuki Democracy book tour, owing to the snow, and most of the media appearances have been cancelled or rescheduled owing to the events in Arizona, and so well, I dunno. But you can buy the book here. And there's an excerpt up from the media chapter on Dissent's website, here.
The Jewish film festival began at the Film Society at Lincoln Center yesterday. I went to the opening film, Mahler on the Couch, by Percy Adlon & Felix Adlon, about Gustav Mahler’s relationship with his tempestuous wife, Alma, and his consultations with Sigmund Freud on matters of creativity and passion. And this afternoon I’m seeing Sholem Aleichem: Laughing in the Darkness by Joe Dorman who made the terrific Arguing the World.
The schedule is here.
Also, on February 10, 11, and 12, the Center for Public Scholarship at The New School presents the 23rd Social Research conference, on “The Body and the State: How the State Controls and Protects the Body.” It will bring together distinguished experts in many different fields to discuss the body as an international human rights arena in which many forces—religion, science, medicine, media, market—struggle for control over policies that regulate our bodies. Didier Fassin will deliver the keynote address on February 10. More information is available here.
Now here’s Reed:
Sticks and Glocks…
Politics and sports have long shared a linguistic connection in our nation’s discourse. That our Presidential campaign season is also referred to as “the horserace” is therefore no surprise and that the Super Bowl also begat “Super Tuesday” is decidedly no coincidence. But, boiled down to its essence, the underlying rhetorical thread tying these two arenas together is really a penchant for analogies of another, more battle-scarred and bloodthirsty type. The answer to “War (What Is It Good For?)” frequently turns out to be “Metaphor!”
But our fondness for employing violent imagery and war-like connotations in our language appeared particularly unseemly—at least temporarily—after the attempted assassination of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the tragic murders of six of her constituents this past week in Tucson. As is commonly the case these days after such a momentous political event, comity was invoked, civility was championed, compromise was promised and handgun sales went through the roof. (I mean, seriously?!) Of course, at least one of the members of Congress not busy strapping on a Glock decided that perhaps it was a good time to consider “Security for me, but not for thee” legislation. And even Fox News President Roger Ailes advocated for taking a subdued and refreshingly honest approach to covering the fallout from the shooting: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.” [italics mine]
Though a part-time employee of Ailes’, Sarah Palin apparently didn’t get his "side's" message and, true to form, came out whinging when critics raised questions about her political action committee’s 2010 electoral targeting map, which had overlaid gunsights onto 20 Democratic Congressional districts, including Giffords's. Displaying their trademark tetchiness, she and other conservative supporters quickly deployed their aggrieved defense mechanisms:
First try: Why, they weren’t crosshairs at all! Really?
Then: “I hate violence.” Hmmmm.
Finally, and bizarrely: By criticizing my rhetoric, the media is itself inciting hatred and violence, actions that are metaphorically equivalent to hundreds of years of horrific, Anti-Semitic lies. Wow.
In a contorted attempt at rhetorical jiujitsu, Palin (and others) are arguing that we should reserve the greatest opprobrium not for those who employ and abuse these violent metaphors but for those who question them. As part of their counter-attack, they intentionally conflate criticism with censorship and free speech with freedom from responsibility for one's choice of words and images.
Now, there is a contextual, free-speech defense for using violent, war-like imagery and language that, on one level, I do agree with (minus any egregious and inappropriate dashes of hyperbole added by Palin, of course). And to be fair, there has yet to be any specific evidence presented (and likely never will) that speaks to conservative talk radio, Fox News, Palin or any other Tea Party political figure prompting the deranged gunman to act as he did. So all the right’s talk of “reloading,” being “armed and dangerous,” “Second Amendment remedies” and so on, in the context of the Tucson shooting, could be easily defended as free from blame.
However, there is context and then there is context. This attempted political assassination didn’t occur in a vacuum. It took place in a country that, since the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling on gun rights two-and-a-half years ago, has seen more than 100 incidents involving right-wing calls for open insurrection if not outright violence and mass killing, according to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Placed within this larger context, it becomes completely reasonable to debate the effect all this loaded language emanating from one side of the political spectrum is having on our democracy’s broader political climate.
Unfortunately, this is not a new debate. Indeed, the American tradition of campaign mudslinging and political violence is as old as the Republic itself. Case in point, Alexander Hamilton, who in 1804 was famously gunned down in a duel by Aaron Burr, the sitting Vice President, after he supposedly slandered Burr at a political gathering in New York. Not to be outdone, President Jefferson, wary of Burr’s greater ambitions, later dropped him from the ticket and attacked his character with this devastating, violence-laden soundbite: “I never thought him an honest, frank-dealing man, but considered him as a crooked gun, or other perverted machine, whose aim or shot you could never be sure of.”
That’s why I’m skeptical of these appeals for “restoring civility” that pundits and politicians, including our President, trot out after these tragedies. It’s an easy, intellectual dodge, a way to avoid making hard decisions about what we value more in our democracy. It’s also why the nastiness and amped-up, violent rhetoric always returns, because it was ever thus.
Rather than empty platitudes and meaningless bipartisan Congressional resolutions, a better recourse to the tragedy in Tucson would be to commit to taking actual steps toward improving our political discourse. Since we can’t legislate the tenor of our political debate, we can at least mandate that we know as much as we can about who’s behind the voices. Forget civility, it’s this principle of transparency, which was seriously undermined a year ago by our conservative Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, that is in dire need of restoration in our democracy. After all, does anyone honestly believe that the Founders would have been satisfied with a national election where one-third of the spending by outside political advocacy groups—amounting to $132.5 million—involved organizations that don’t have to disclose their financial backers? (An amount that is sure to skyrocket in 2012 if left unchecked.) Although I’m not convinced legislation like the DISCLOSE Act ultimately goes far enough, I’d submit that it’s ability to rein in the growing influence of the unseen hand on our democracy would be a good first step and a positive way to honor Rep. Giffords’ ongoing struggle.
After all, when increasingly negative and incendiary claims can be outsourced to just a few anonymous donors who, in turn, are able to deluge the marketplace of ideas, our democracy becomes even more vulnerable to misinformation and manipulation, an ominous phenomenon this University of Maryland study found evidence of this past election. The price of speaking out is supposed to be free in our democracy, but when money increasingly equals speech the cost of doing nothing can grow unacceptably high. But in a nation that currently displays no willpower for reining in the physical tools used to perpetrate political violence, leveling the playing field in terms of knowing more about whose words may be fomenting it will have to suffice.
I was going to write to your blog about the good columns of late, and especially to share with you my affection for the late great Alan Sherman. But then I woke up for the night shift to today's dreadful news from Tuscon. During the bizarre summer of automatic-weapons-at-public-gatherings, I sent you a comment about the dangers inherent in parading around with weapons in crowded places full of adults, children, vehicles, bicycles, etc. I first saw it as a safety issue, since when you have weapons around you must assume that some day one of them will go off. I also felt that this childish and dangerous behavior with weapons threatened the rights of everyone at such a gathering to peaceably assemble, and to meet with their representatives in a public space to redress their grievances. Why should anyone have to feel even remotely in danger in order to exercise their First Amendment rights? You might as well carry around cans of gasoline in a public venue as carry a weapon, and I stated then that these Second Amendment spectacles were in direct conflict with the primal American right of peaceful association and expression.
And now it has happened, and among the dead is a nine-year-old Girl who should never have experienced anything but curiosity, joy and satisfaction in exercising her rights as a citizen. The new leadership in Washington has been talking a lot about the Constitution this week. Well those killed and wounded today are guaranteed life and liberty by that Constitution, but those rights are deemed secondary to the Second Amendment (as interpreted by extremists). And the wise command to promote the general welfare is a permanent underling to the dictates of property.
I have been around tough people my entire life, and I have been working since I was 16 in places that would have these Tea Partiers puking into their luch boxes, if they could carry one. I am sick to death of fools who think that a weapon makes them tough, or a bankroll makes them wise.
A final irony, by Colonel Bateman's leave. God speed to you and your Outfit Sir, and your last message was wise and heart breaking. My nephew and Godson ("The Sarge") has been serving his 2d tour in the Sangin region of Afghanistan (looking for IEDs). He is close to his leave, and near a base where he could call my Sister today. They spoke for ten minutes, and then she said he called right back and said, "Mom, turn on the TV!" And that's how my Sis found out about Tuscon--from her Son, a soldier of the empire, calling from an outpost to report bad news from home. God help our Republic.
Michael S. Haugen
New Richmond, WI
As a loyal reader of your blog and your contributions to The Nation, I want to thank you for providing me with a consistent source for thoughtful commentary and refreshingly clear writing. I don't read your stuff because I always agree with your analyses, rather, I read you because I trust you. Your intellectual honesty allows me to contemplate arguments which confront my own preconceptions but not always without a high level of exasperation...and such it is with your piece in "The Moment" about your getting hit by trucks going in both directions when writing or speaking about Israel and the Palestinians.
My level of exasperation approached "critical mass" when you described The Nation interns' inability to provide an answer to the question "what do you do now?". It would appear to me that the interns were questioning your criticism of The Nation for blaming Israel "...for every aspect of the conflict" and you answered them with a tangential question of: "Yes, but what do you do now?". The Nation questions the powerful bully for abusing its weak neighbor and you want to answer with the question "yes, but what are you going to do about it?". That is exasperating to me.
I certainly understand or at least try to understand the difficulty American Jews have in dealing with the problem of criticizing the government of Israel or some of its political factions without criticizing Israel's existence. In this case, however, the responsibility to criticize Israel's behavior can not be avoided with the admonition of "a pox on both your houses". In fact, the responsibility to criticize Israel's continued occupation of Palestine and the murder of Palestinians falls most heavily on American Jews.
So, if this old broken down, retired Norwegian American can figure this out, why can't you? Thank you for indulging my exasperation, I will continue to read with great interest the glimpses you give us into the soul of the American Jewish intellectual.
Lebanon, New Hampshire
Professor, a few years back (and in a different venue) you wrote of the classic material that Jorma Kaukonen performs (solo and with Hot Tuna) and wondered what all the fuss was about the Jefferson Airplane?
Besides the obvious answers - that it's unclear whether he'd have reunited with his childhood bandmate Jack Casady, nor certain that the two would have the opportunity to be signed by a major label (and thus come to our attention) - listening to the recent release of the final October 1966 performance with singer [Signe Anderson] reminded me of why that band mattered.
I know, I know: the pretense (especially after they hit stardom) could be annoying, and the morphing into Starship was literally that: veering off into space. Contrasted with the classic blues: it was very topical and not always enjoyable.
But at its best - and yes, when the Jorma/Jack faction was the feature of their songs - well, if you were to give "Volunteers" a listen, I think you'd say it holds up well (not to mention the fiery "Bless its Pointed Little Head" live album). Yet even in the more folk-rock (pre-Surrealistic Pillow) show on this new release: you hear the risk-taking that these two men specialized in ... that perhaps just doesn't lend itself to their vision of classic blues? I had forgotten about it, until this new disc came my way.
In the original "Rolling Stone Album Guide" the reviewer I liked the least was Paul Evans; he criticized groups such as the Moody Blues yet waxed as 'rap auteurs' the Beastie Boys (even indicating the album at which "they began playing their own instruments" ... good grief). But he did note one thing accurately: citing Jorma & Jack as "a ferocious guitarist, and the most dexterous US bassist" - yet adding one might not know that listening solely to Hot Tuna recordings.
I should probably add that this is more applicable to Jack than Jorma. It was said that in a Fillmore-era multi-band jam he could carry all of the other bassists; one reason why he was an early role model to me on that instrument. Alas, his 2003 solo album "Dream Factor" was a pleasant album yet - as the All-Music Guide's Hal Horowitz wrote - "those anticipating this legendary bass player's long-awaited solo debut to showcase his considerable instrumental abilities will likely be disappointed".
In sum: for all of the reasons stated, it was good for both men to have been a part of the Airplane and - despite its shortcomings - the best of the band's output merits its R&R Hall of Fame induction.
Colorado Springs CO
Having spent some time living and working in Denmark, I can vouch for the fact that it is a country that works very well, and yes, it is true: the Danes are generally happy and very proud of their country. It is also true that their system of taxation is quite oppressive by our calculus. If you buy a car, you will effectively buy it twice--the second time in taxes. Nobody is particularly thrilled about paying so much, but I've yet to meet a Dane who doesn't think they get their money's worth. Any politician (right or left) who suggested paring back the social safety net would not be elected dog catcher.
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new “Think Again” column is called “The Economist’s 'Happy' Ignorance,” and it’s here.
My new Nation column is called “The new Congress and the Coming Class War” and it’s here.
And The Nation’s excerpt from my book is called “Kabuki Democracy—And How to Fix it” and it’s here.
My new Moment column is called “I ♥ Israel” and it’s here.
The Kabuki Democracy book tour starts this Tuesday, 1/11/11 on the release date of the book.
I will be on Brian Lehrer’s WNYC show at 11:00 (on 1/11/11, get it?) and on Crossfire on MSNBC and Parker/Spitzer on CNN that afternoon/evening. Here is the schedule of appearances:
Tues 1/ 11 New York, NY 7:00 PM Barnes and Noble 2289 Broadway (at 82nd St.)
Wed 1/ 12 Seattle, WA 7:30 PM Town Hall/ Elliott Bay 1119 8th Ave.
Thurs 1/ 13 Portland, OR 7:30 PM Powell's 3723 SE Hawthorne Blvd.
Fri 1/ 14 Corte Madera, CA 7:00 PM Book Passage 51 Tamal Vista Blvd.
Sat 1/ 15 Capitola, CA 6:30 PM Capitola Book Cafe 1475 41st Ave
For future dates, you can go here for the schedule and you can buy the book at fine bookstores anywhere. Here is a link to the BN event. Here is a link to the Powell’s event. Here’s a link to the Elliot Bay event at Town Hall. And for lazy, here is an Amazon link. The damn thing costs less than two lattes.
Now here’s Reed:
Worst. Media. Ever.
Fans of The Simpsons are familiar with the long-running in-joke involving Comic Book Guy. His character, a notably minor one in a vast chorus, often appears as a stand-in for the public, offering up fickle meta-criticism for what is deemed as the TV show’s ongoing decline. Over time, his “Worst Episode Ever” catchphrase has evolved into a broader cultural trope about the perils of the public’s unabashed nostalgia for the bygone days of almost any institution in our society, even the media. But while this fondness for the past is understandable, if left unchecked, it can skew our memories and perceptions of reality to the point where any change or evolution is seen as a betrayal of principles and something to be summarily lamented.
That’s why I found this Boston Globe essay from earlier in the week to be so refreshing and worthwhile. Though the trend in our media toward ever-shrinking sound bites might appear to be yet another unfortunate unraveling of journalistic standards, author Craig Fehrman looks beyond the data to make a compelling case for why this isn’t such a travesty after all.
[Study author] Hallin has argued all along that television news in the 1960s and 1970s, which many take to be the genre’s golden age, was never actually that good. Stories were dull and disorganized; those long quotations would be followed by a couple of seconds of dead air. Early newspapers, in their time, were no different.
I certainly agree. What’s more, politicians’ words are rarely eloquent, frequently misleading and often stand directly opposite of their actions. So why not focus more on covering what they do and less on quoting what they say? But, Fehrman points out, where the problem lies is in what has filled the newshole vacuum once occupied by campaign quotes and candidate’s speeches.
[A]s networks shortened their sound bites, they also changed the substance of their political coverage. They started using more in-house experts, pundits who looked less at what people said than at how they said it. TV news became more about strategy and the parsing of strategy — about buzzwords like ‘expectations’ and ‘momentum’ — than about the issues that presumably lie at the heart of politics. Journalists wanted to turn campaigns into larger narratives, and there was no easier narrative than covering politics as though it were a sport.
In other words, this trend toward soundbite journalism has perversely created a media environment that is even less focused on policy. This preference for “keeping score” is perhaps not surprising since the American mainstream media’s adherence to objectivity tacitly, if not openly, discourages forthright judgments between right and wrong, truth and lies. All those column inches and all that air time has to be filled with something, however, so why not stick to analyzing who’s “up” and who’s “down,” instead. But this silly façade of media neutrality isn’t the prerequisite for a functioning democracy, as this NPR report reminded us this week.
‘I think it's quite a striking thing about the British press that you get this polemical battle over the basis for what news is, which I feel is to a large extent missing in the American scene,’ [Guardian Editor-in-Chief Alan] Rusbridger says. ‘No judgments are free of ideologies, so who you choose to quote and how you structure stories are highly political judgments. I think that's the problem with trying to place too much faith in something called objectivity.’
That kind of bracing honesty about the sausage-making of journalism is sorely lacking in the American media. Indeed, compare Rusbridger’s comments to those of Leonard Downie, who was quoted in a follow-up NPR story from yesterday:
‘I believe The Washington Post does make clear where we're coming from,’ says Leonard Downie, the Post's former executive editor. ‘Where we're coming from, in our news reporting, is no partisanship or ideology of any kind. Our reporting speaks for itself. It is not coming from a point of view.’
To cling to this level of institutional intransigence and pious infallibility might be attractive if, say, you happen to have this job, but it simply defies logic in a profession aimed at informing the public in a democracy. In fact, what this cloistered mindset encourages is reporting that does the very opposite of speaking for itself, shackled as it is to a neutral, artificially balanced framework. It’s what permits groupthink and headline-chasing coverage that distorts policy debates and perpetuates myths until, as in the ongoing debate about Social Security, someone has to step in and try to undo the untold damage. The fear of substantial change is, in many ways, paralyzing the media right now, and, as a result, our democracy is likewise suffering. If we don’t put aside the trap of Comic Book Guy’s nostalgic thinking, his criticism will apply all too accurately.
Now here is Ltc Bob and the rest of the (hate) mail:
LTC Bob Bateman
Letters from a Semi-Foreign Land
Vol. I, Issue 5.
So it is here, packing day.
This is a day that every soldier knows, most dread and all must complete. We do not really discuss this day. This is the day when you pack up your ruck, and your dufflebag, with all that you will have, for a year. It is the mundane, the necessary and the sad, all at once. The things that you put into these two containers will sustain you, clothe you, keep you warm and protect you. And after you put all of those items in there, there remains but a sliver of space in which to place the things that define you.
Soldiers, and I should note, Marines as well, experience this day in different ways depending upon where they are in their careers.
When you are young what you will pack is mostly prescribed for you. The Lieutenant Colonel probably has some ideas, because he does not want to be blamed if you do not have something, and these go on the packing list for the whole battalion. The Captain, well, he too thinks about the things that you might potentially need, in every possible contingency, and so he adds things. The Lieutenant, not to be outdone, adds items just for the platoon. By the end of this process there is more material on the list than could ever fit within what a soldier can carry. But that is the list, as laid down by the officers, and so the soldier crams it all in. And there is no more room.
If he is lucky he has a good First Sergeant, or even better, a good Platoon Sergeant. That sergeant will hold what we call a “lay out inspection,” where every man will, in formation, dump all the contents on the ground, nominally so that the sergeant can insure that all of the items are packed. But a good sergeant, who has been to war and who knows what matters, will inspect each man’s assembled pile of goods…
“What is this? You don’t need this.” Toss.
“And this? Are you kidding? Private, you are the SAW gunner, you do NOT need this either.” Toss.
“You ain’t gonna use that.” Toss.
“Or that.” Toss.
And at the end of this process, after three, or seven, or ten items are discarded, to be left behind, he tells the private, “Alright, bag your shit, get some things you need, and then put your A-bag on the pallet. Move out.”
Now that private, or corporal, or young buck sergeant, has a small space, a few square inches perhaps, but it is his. And he will learn.
Because those last few cubic inches may be the most important ones in the bags.
When you are older the process is different. If you are a Sergeant First Class, or a Major, or higher in either category, you know that nobody is going to check your bag. Yes, there is the packing list, but you know from years of experience, going to the “field” and going to war, what you do need, and what you do not need. Yet still somehow you still only end up with those few small cubic inches, because what you need may be different, but it still has to fit into those same damned two bags.
So your helmet and body armor are in there, ammo pouches and tourniquet and blood clotting bandages, a camelback, and the things you need to keep your weapon clean. You toss in some uniforms, and lots of underwear, and a huge number of socks. Then the professional things you need for your job. Things that are not on the private’s packing list, but that you need to do your job just as clearly as he needs some specific things to be a rifleman or a machine gunner. You pack those too. And then there is that last little space.
You pack yourself in there.
One or two professional books that you believe might matter and because you are a professional. One of them might help you think of something that makes the damned war a little shorter, or maybe saves some lives, or both. In my case I also need a specific type of pen, because I write almost everything out longhand first, and for me the pen matters. And then there are the pictures: Pictures of your beloved from that Halloween a few years back when she dressed up as a librarian and accidentally gave you the erotic fuel to last you twelve months, even years later; pictures of your three daughters from that last perfect summer before the war when they were eight, six and four; a picture of your parents, and a picture of the house where you grew up 25 years ago. You pack these because these are the things that you can stare at and use to transport yourself away when you are “downrange” and it has been a very bad day.
You throw in your medicine, of course, because you are not young any more. Then come the toiletries, and in particular at least several months worth of the things that you like: Your favorite kind of razor, or shaving cream, or toothpaste, because you know that once you deploy you will not have choices anymore. You might toss in a specific seasoning that reminds you of home whenever you taste it, and again, you do this because you know you will not be able to get it out there. These are all small things, mostly. You know from hard experience that you only have those inches, and no more. The space fills.
And then finally there is just a plastic baggy with two cotton balls inside. This is your life raft.
The cotton is soaked in your wife’s perfume. It is reserved for the worst days. The days when you need to hold other people up, and yet you do not know where you will draw the strength yourself. The days when grown men cry, and feel that there is no point, and they need somebody to provide a pillar that they can use to pull themselves to their feet again, and it has got to be you, regardless of if you are ready or not, to hold them up, but you are so fucking tired, and worn, and drowning yourself...then, well, then is when these two little balls of cotton come into play. They are your emergency supply of willpower, to be used sparingly, stingily, hoarded, just in case, for those bad days. The perfume is too strong right now, but you know that over a year, it will fade until there is barely more than a memory wafting from that bag. But sometimes, that slightest scent, it is enough. To hold you, and others, up.
And then you are done. There is no more room, nothing more to pack and the only thing remaining is a very long flight to a very foreign land.
You can write to LTC Bob at R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com
Liked your comments on ROTC, Ivy League, and the growing conservatism of our military. You left out the overt Christian evangelism going on in our military and the service academies. I've been saying for years that an absolute pre-requisite for admission to the academies or OCS should be at least eighteen months service as an enlisted soldier, sailor, airman, or marine. That would eliminate a lot of the beloved (of closet sadists) chickenshit since they'd already know how to shine shoes and make bunks, and would give them practical experience in following orders. They'd also have gotten some valuable lessons in deciding what makes a good leader/officer.
John S. Starsiak Jr.
I was frustrated after reading your Jan. 3th article in the Nation. Why won't any progressive state the ugly truth. Most Americans are stupid and you can't fix stupid. That's why during the era of the Founding Fathers only about 10% of white males (the talented tenth?) were allowed to vote. In other words, progressives need better propaganda (including lies) than the conservatives. To borrow a cliche from computer programming, "Keep It Simple Stupid". The mob will always be lead by the nose. The only question is who will be leading them.
In trying to sort out if Mr. Rosen is humorous or ignorant (or both) I did some research into Ko Lanta Thailand to see if there were clues. I found on Wiki that it is nice quiet tourist place where there are several divergent religions and people all respect each other. I now suspect that Mr. Rosen has purposely misstated his home town so that we would not find out his true identity which based on his vicious humor must be Rush Limbaugh.
Ko Lanta Thailand
I check myself in google every once-in-a-while and there I find an email I wrote to Alterman—I certainly wouldn't read The Nation since it is an arm of the malicious Democratic Party and foolish as well. So why don't I write some more—I have some spare time here in S. Thailand. I should improve my previous post. Alterman is not "A Vicious, Mendacious, Horrible Monster"—that would give him too much prominence. Perhaps he is something like a small-time, sociopathic punk—just another of many punks that make a living pandering to the "Big Guys". One sees many of this type now lining up to insult WikiLeaks and Assange, support (excuse) Obama and the whole rotten enterprise known as USA. There's money to be made schilling for the Media (that includes The Nation if you thought differently—check it out, ie. Pollit and Dreyfus as well, etc.)—they (the Media) got the money to spread around, they provide the exposure, they engage in self-serving mutual flattery—I'm talking here about all of the majors like NYTimes, Foxx, CNN, all the newspapers, all TV, even most of what has come to be known as the Alternative Media (Huff, Kos, etc.)—all the same: support the Party's candidate, support National Security, support Israel, support the economic system, wait for better days, send money—there are a few exceptions. Liberal Democrats are the worst for hypocracy and support for what we used to call "the system", support for Obama, Patriotism—this is the Alterman crowd—totally indifferent to human suffering, Hell Bent on self interest. No point mentioning the Republican crowd, Same-Same. No point writing too much. I would like to correct the spelling of assassination. Alterman is a Jerk but worse than a Jerk because he benefits, encourages, supports Death, Destruction, Fear and Misery—kind of like A Vicious, Mendacious, Horrible Monster but more weak and pitiful. He would be a sad case if he didn't lend his hand to so much Evil that is the USA.
can't you think of anything to write about than your unreasoning hatred of Marty Peretz? I have read that crap from you a dozen times, and I hardly bother to follow your trivial maunderings any more. You're such a putz. You do good work fighting the Republicans, then show yourself as a total ass with your fanatical love of the fucking arabs, not one of which would pause for a second if you were snuffed out, do you realize that?
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
“I mean fuck these fancy Upper West Side rabbis”: If you want to feel sorry for the Pathetic Mr. Peretz, then here is your chance. It’s a fine piece, though perhaps a little light on what makes his sourpuss mien more than merely pathetic, but actually destructive. For that might I recommend this. But also a few quibbles. For instance, Marty says he regularly attends the Sheik Jarrah protests against evictions in East Jerusalem. I think he’s lying and it was a mistake of the author to take his word for it. He also says that longtime TNR writer “John Judis "knows zero” about the Middle East. I think it might have been a good idea to signal to the reader that Mr. Judis knows a great deal about the Middle East, more, I imagine, than Mr. Peretz; he simply does not share Peretz’s particularly blinkered view of the place. The greatest weakness, however, of what is a really fine piece is that it lets Peretz off the hook for the manner in which he got himself kicked out of TNR. I mean that is the story, isn’t it. He’s desperately clung to the title of “Editor in Chief” for nearly 40 years after having long ago lost the money from his ex-wife’s inheritance he used to buy and control it. He wrote “the spine” devotedly no matter where he was. And now, nothing? I understand that perhaps nobody wanted to talk about this, perhaps because they feared Marty would pull the plug on his long-awaited exit, if it were to be spun as his getting kicked out in the media. I would not be surprised if it were a condition of Marty's cooperation with the piece that the subject not be addressed in any detail. But surely an author is entitled to educated speculation on the central question of his essay. Anyway, don’t cry for Marty Peretz. He may have lost TNR but he still has houses all over the world and the undying support and friendship of David Horowitz, who writes on Tablet:
“I am honored to be compared to Marty Peretz who is currently undergoing a purge by the left — one of its periodic witch-hunts of individuals who fail to toe the party line. Peretz sin — like mine — is hardly opportunism. He is being punished for attempting to tell hard truths. In the Middle East, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank where suicide bombers are national heroes and saints, and a death cult has been spawned in kindergartens and the government media, Muslim life is obviously cheap and cheap for Muslims. But Peretz has been crucified for blurting this out. The worst aspect of this public burning is the silence so far of all the writers and editors of the left whose careers he nurtured and launched. It just exemplies, [sic] what I know from my own experience, that the left has no heart for people, for the individuals who serve it. It only cares about the purity of its ideas.”
On the topic of Tablet, their list of the 100 Greatest Jewish Songs does not include what is probably the greatest Jewish song ever, Allan Sherman’s “Shake Hands with Your Uncle Max,” nor indeed, does it include anything at all from Sherman’s “My Son the Folksinger” which is the greatest Jewish album of all time. I believe that is “enough said,” but let’s give Allan the last word(s):
I sell a line of plastics
And I travel on the road
And I have a case of samples
Which believe me is a load
Every night a strange cafe
A strange hotel and then
Early in the morning
I am on the road again
When the season's over
And my lonesome journey ends
That's the only time I see
My family and my friends
I drive up Ocean Parkway
And before I stop the car
My ma leans out the window
And she hollers, "Here we are!"
Shake hands with your Uncle Max, my boy
And here is your sister Shirl
And here is your cousin Isabel
That's Irving's oldest girl
And you remember the Tishman twins
Gerald and Jerome
We all came out to greet you
And to wish you welcome home
Merowitz, Berowitz, Handelman, Schandelman
Sperber and Gerber and Steiner and Stone
Boskowitz, Lubowitz, Aaronson, Baronson,
Kleinman and Feinman and Freidman and Cohen
Smallowitz, Wallowitz, Tidelbaum, Mandelbaum
Levin, Levinsky, Levine and Levi
Brumburger, Schlumburger, Minkus and Pinkus
And Stein with an "e-i" and Styne with a "y"
Shake hands with your Uncle Sol mein boy
And here is your brother Sid
And here is your cousin Yetta
Who expects another kid
Whenever you're on the road mein boy
Wherever you may roam
We'll all be here when you come back
To wish you welcome home
“All shook up: As Newseum's operating costs soared to $250,000 a day, Freedom Forum's finances sank” Some really good reporting here.
So Judith Miller has finally found her natural home at Newsmax. And yet she was the lead reporter for the New York Times on the Bush/Cheney plans for war. How again, does that fit in with notion that the paper is ground zero of the global liberal media conspiracy? Just asking…
Here’s LTC Bob: you can write him at firstname.lastname@example.org
I am so tired of war.
Some of you say you are tired too, and argue. I will not argue the validity of your positions, back home.
I am 43 now. Not old, but no longer young. I have been a soldier for our nation for 25 years. You, through your elected civilian leaders, have decided where I would go. Sometimes it was to the Middle East, sometimes it has been elsewhere. A few weeks from now it will be to South Asia.
I am tired, but I understand. What needs to be done needs to be done.
President Obama, like his predecessors, knows that he must send people like me to places we would all rather not go.
And it sucks.
I mean seriously. It sucks.
Adventure is for teenagers.
But I know why we are doing it. Even though I know, and feel, the cost. See, for me it is not taxes. For me it is not a moral/diplomatic issue. For me it is my friends, my former students, my former soldiers, and they are dying. But what this President, and even the last one, has made clear about Afghanistan, is that it matters. And it matters enough that we need to be, well, who we are. And I mean all Americans.
Yea, who are we?
Let us be honest. Let’s talk big.
We Americans are the most annoyingly belligerent nation of self-obsessed morons that has ever existed upon the face of this planet. We make the Romans look polite. We make the French look chaste. We make the Russians look subtle, and we make the Japanese look normal. We are a country which largely consists of the people who were kicked out of all of the polite countries, and though we seldom mention it, we are actually really proud of that fact. We are a people who look a challenge in the face, and laugh, because we are so collectively argumentative, abusive and combative that we cannot even imagine a problem we cannot beat, solve, destroy or buy our way out of. Seriously.
And so now we have Afghanistan.
I would be depressed. Except. Except that I am like you. With all those other things about us…there is more…I am irrepressibly optimistic, perhaps irrationally so, because, well, because I am an American. I hate being irrational. But then I love being an American. And so, I am trapped between the two. I believe in our goodness, our fundamental intentions, I believe that a country which can rip itself apart, and then come together again matters. I believe that a nation which finds in itself the power to win two world wars has some gumption. And…and I believe that the nation which created both Seinfeld and White Christmas, is good. And so, friends, believe it or not, so does most of the world.
So I trust. I trust that my men and I, the ones who do the sad things, can make this happen. I do know that we are doing it for the right reasons, and I hope that we are doing it in the right way. Only time will tell I suppose. I don’t pray, myself, but if you want to toss one or two our way, that would be sort of cool. Thanks.
In reading your article wherein you noted the "increasing conservative bent of our military's officer corps", I thought of Mikey Weinstein's Military Religious Freedom Foundation almost immediately, since the military academies have been filled with cadets hewing to evangelical, fundamentalist ideologies since the early Reagan era. As an Air Force veteran (1974-79), I am deeply disturbed over the deliberate suborning of our military leadership wherein they answer to G-d first and country second.
The conservative bent was deliberately cultivated for a long time. It would be lovely to see ROTC trained officers able to challenge the existing conservative culture in today's military forces.
Las Vegas, NV
Dr. A., sorry but you lose me when you say that it isn't enough that Obama wanted to make the system work. I agree with you that, in an ideal world, we would have seen a lot more legislation passed that would have done a lot more good. But neither of us lives in that ideal world, and after all that you have written about Kabuki Democracy, it strikes me that, just as all of us can do better, our fellow lefties could do better than form circular firing squads and hold their breath until they turn blue every time they don't get absolutely everything they want, and you can do better than what you wrote in The Daily Beast.
Who's the leader?
What Palin said about lame ducks when she resigned as Governor of Alaska:
And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade—as so many politicians do. And then I thought—that's what's wrong—many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that—I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!
What President Obama said at the end of the most productive lame-duck session in history:
“One thing I hope people have seen during this lame-duck: I am persistent,” Mr. Obama said, with a flash of energy, at a valedictory news conference. “If I believe in something strongly, I stay on it.”
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new Think Again column is called “The Missing ‘Least-We-Can-Do-No-Brainer Act of 2010’” and you can find it here.
I did a Daily Beast column on what I see as Obama’s getting his lunch eaten, (but that’s only if you consider substance to be important), here.
And I recommended the year’s best books, sort-of, here.
There is not much to review in the way of Alter-reviews today. I took a look at a few old movies in the new DVD box set “Cher: the Film Collection.” Here’s what I learned “Good Times” and “Chastity” are unwatchably bad. “Silkwood” holds up pretty well. I skipped “Moonstruck” as I remembered it as a one-time thing. “Mermaids” is quite good until it falls apart. I skipped “Tea with Mussolini” both now and when it was released. Good actress, good sense of humor, if that thing about her removing her rib is true, well, I’m going to have to disapprove of the entire enterprise, though she was funny with Beavis and Butthead, though I see no mention of that here. If that inspires you, you can read all about it, here.
Now here’s Reed:
Credit Where Credit Is Due
The past week, it would be hard to dispute, has been the most productive legislatively in Obama’s two-year tenure as president. Of course, I, like many others, have expressed reservations about some of what’s being produced. And, thanks to five craven Democrats, who are apparently just fine siding with the nativist xenophobes within their constituencies, the week wasn’t without its unfortunate failures. Nevertheless, it’s hard to argue that this, this and this aren’t successes to be celebrated during a holiday season ostensibly about peace on earth and goodwill toward everyone. (Of course, the Grinch in me must point out that the last two of those legislative victories, issues where Democrats yet again enjoyed a majority of public support, were only achieved after inexplicable compromises like this and this, respectively.)
But, as a proud veteran who served to uphold the Constitution and this nation’s principles of equality and justice, this is, by far, the best present of this holiday season.
While fully implementing the repeal of DADT can’t come soon enough for several obvious reasons, I’ll add to the list this disturbing trend about the eroding quality of our military’s recruits and enlistees. In addition, let me predict right now that the doubts some scholars harbor about ROTC programs reappearing on Ivy League campuses ultimately will be proved unfounded and overblown. To broadly imply that having an interest in attending one of the best academic institutions in the country as well as a dedication to serving one’s country in the military are mutually exclusive is an insult to both of these institutions and is to traffic in tired stereotypes.
In the mid-90s, I earned my Army commission through the ROTC program at Boston University, which had likewise banned the program during the late 60s (only to reinstate it a few years later). If I do say so myself, BU’s ROTC program was, and remains so today, a respected and integral part of the school’s student-life community and one of the most robust and highly regarded Army accession programs in the region, if not the country. All this despite the fact that the school shares many of the same supposedly challenging characteristics—large urban setting, high tuition costs, etc.—as schools like Harvard, Yale and Columbia.
What’s more, the potential reemergence of ROTC on these campuses could also help to counter another worrisome trend, the increasingly conservative bent of our military’s officer corps. As author and Army officer Jason Dempsey detailed in his recent book on civil-military relations, “Our Army,” this trend has been accelerating over the past few decades. “With the end of the draft and the closure of ROTC programs at many elite universities in the aftermath of Vietnam,” Dempsey notes, “the gap between the nation’s armed forces and academia left many on campus with no point of reference for the military beyond the tired stereotypes.”
Over time, as fewer academics and policymakers have remained conversant with the military’s issues and its experiences, this disconnect has leached into the political realm (abetted by a media that is often uneducated, uncomfortable or simply uninterested in consistently reporting on military and foreign policy issues). As a result, those that are, or purport to be, knowledgeable on these topics can gain undue rhetorical power in our press, sometimes egregiously so. The danger this development represents to our democracy was brought into stark relief the past few months by the shameless backtracking and hysterical opposition to DADT’s repeal by Sen. John McCain. As someone continually portrayed by the media as one of Senate’s few “experts” on the military, McCain’s supposed stature not only earned him a bigger megaphone on this issue than was warranted, it provided political cover to other lazy and uninformed lawmakers who couldn’t cite any real legitimate reason for repealing DADT other than “If John McCain thinks it’s bad, that’s good enough for me.”
Still, some in the mainstream media, most notably the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, whom I’ve criticized recently, found it within themselves to finally call out McCain’s increasingly obstinate and outrageous behavior for what it is. That our better angels overcame this demagoguery wasn’t some supposed Christmas miracle, however. Years of hard work and lobbying from tireless advocacy groups, like the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, were the real heroes here, but in navigating the final few steps, I’ll give credit to President Obama, (the often underestimated) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and, though it surprises me somewhat to say it, Senator Joe Lieberman, who revived the bill when nearly everyone else was ready to abandon it.
But even in this unquestionable civil rights victory, one that all Americans should feel proud of, there is an ominous warning sign about the limitations of bipartisanship in serving our democracy. After all, what no reporter apparently thought to ask Sen. Lieberman during the legislative battle to overturn DADT this past week was what the chances for repeal would have been if he actually had gotten his way two years ago. For Democrats who are looking to continue this momentum, maybe that’s the best lesson to take into the New Year.
Edward J. P. Gallagher
I just read your comments on Tom Friedman. I also read the complete Friedmman column. You may want to re-write your comments with more info so that they make sense.
Koh Lanta, Thailand
I just came across some responses to a comment I made about Eric Alterman. They were quite insulting and nasty. I would like to respond to them but you have chosen only to present these self-serving responses. I would be very glad to debate the worthiness of Alterman as a decent human being. Alterman is an Obama supporter and an obvious Democratic Party supporter although he does offer some mild criticism. Obama and the Democrats are murderers, terrorists, destroyers (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan Wars), support torture and kidnapping (Rendition, Black Sites), outlaws (assination, denial of Habeas Corpus), thieves (giving money to support Bankers and Rich people in general, cowards and liars. I would be glad to have the space to explain but it is all so obvious—you can try to justify it but it is obvious. Perhaps Alterman is a good Jew in that he supports Israel's depredations and violence but to me he is a vicious, mendacious, horrible monster.
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My Daily Beast column this weekend dealt with all of these “victories” of Barack Obama and it’s here.
But the reason I’m posting today is because I thought I’d mention a couple of things about White Citizens Councils:
Thing One, Citizens Councils and the Montgomery Bus Boycott: As Taylor Branch notes, one of King’s aims was to “to answer one peevish charge that” had been printed in early stories about the Bus Boycott, namely “that the Negroes had borrowed the boycott tactic from the White Citizens Councils, which had openly adopted a policy of harsh economic reprisal against Negroes who fought segregation.“ As blacks organized to boycott the bus lines, White Citizens Council organized boycotts of those blacks working for desegregation.
Thing Two, Citizens Councils and Jimmy Carter: The Plains area witnessed the formation in 1958 of the violently segregationist “Citizens Council.” The leaders sought Carter out. “They pointed out that it would damage my reputation and my success as a businessman in the community if I proved to be the only hold-out,” Carter recalled to James Wooten. “And because of their genuine concern about my welfare, they were willing to pay the dues for me.” Carter refused.
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new Think Again column is called “Think Again: The Fox Propaganda Train Rolls On" and it's here.
My new Nation column is called “What’s the Story, Mr. President?” and it’s here.
And my Daily Beast column addresses the silliness that is the Michael Bloomberg for president discussion, here.
Now here’s Reed:
They Blinded Me With Science
This country’s scientific community is experiencing a number of dangerous shortages. First off, there’s the alarming underrepresentation of ethnic minorities and women in scientific fields. There’s also a looming scarcity of qualified computer scientists necessary to design and maintain our increasingly complex digital infrastructure. Even in clean and renewable energy technology, the US’s scientific edge over the rest of the world is rapidly eroding. But there’s one other shortfall that sprung to mind this week in lieu of this “dog bites man” revelation concerning Fox News’s ridiculous climate change equivocation: the startling deficiency in clear, concise and relevant reporting about science.
Scientists themselves have certainly noticed, as this Pew survey from last year shows.
“A substantial percentage of scientists also say that the news media have done a poor job educating the public. About three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not. And 48% say media oversimplification of scientific findings is a major problem.”
Hmmm, injecting a false equivalence between unequal ideas or arguments because analyzing the details and explaining them is too hard, you say? Where have we heard that before? And let’s not kid ourselves that only Fox News does stuff like this. Lots of mainstream news organizations get sucked into repeating—willingly or not and without a hint of the hypocrisy involved—talking points like the previous administration’s odious phrase about policy being guided by “sound science.” Maybe it’s time that we in the media break free of the same rigidly objective approach when it comes to reporting on science as well?
Nah, says Daniel Sarewitz in this perplexing Slate article. Instead, we need to have more Republican scientists to balance everything out! His argument flows from an apparently startling (to him) statistic found in the same Pew study mentioned earlier. It discovered that the political ideology of the surveyed scientists (who were all members of the AAAS, it should be noted) now runs more than nine to one in favor of Democrats. “This immense imbalance has political consequences,” he soberly warns, before calling for a kind of affirmative action effort to put more pocket protectors on conservatives.
“How would a more politically diverse scientific community improve this situation? First, it could foster greater confidence among Republican politicians about the legitimacy of mainstream science. Second, it would cultivate more informed, creative, and challenging debates about the policy implications of scientific knowledge. This could help keep difficult problems like climate change from getting prematurely straitjacketed by ideology. A more politically diverse scientific community would, overall, support a healthier relationship between science and politics.”
In fact, this prescription for encouraging greater ideological balance within the scientific community sounds awfully familiar to the same remedies many mastheads have undertaken to counteract the journalism profession’s supposed liberal bias. And it suffers from the same fatal flaws. By implicitly endorsing the notion that the legitimacy of one’s work is necessarily a byproduct of one’s private political beliefs stands against the very principles of scientific inquiry. The same logic that says journalists, who tend to be liberal in their personal political beliefs, must propagate a “liberal media” also dictates that liberal scientists therefore can’t help but conduct “liberal science.” The message, in other words, becomes inseparable from the messenger. And from there, its but a short and slippery slope to enforcing an ideological test upon the makeup of scientific academies or government-sponsored research to add “legitimacy,” as Sarewitz suggests. But this will only serve to heighten the politicization of science rather than neutralize it. I mean, take one look at how well this hyperpoliticized approach is working out for our judiciary.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for more diversity and I welcome conservatives joining the ranks of our nation’s scientists, mathematicians and engineers, just as I would be fine if they suddenly flocked to journalism. But if I were the deans of MIT and Caltech (or the Columbia Journalism School, for that matter), I’d wait a bit before deciding to double the endowments to handle the oncoming crush of new conservative students. Simply put, some professions correlate more strongly with people of certain ideologies because of the required skill sets of those professions. Careers that necessitate seeking out the unfamiliar, testing new ideas, gaining new perspectives and facilitating change or progress, by their very nature, tend to attract small-l liberal thinkers. By contrast, other professions, like, say, the financial industry or the military (specifically the officers corps), emphasize different values and so they happen to be populated mostly by conservatives. (And, for some reason, I’ve yet to come across an essay bemoaning a lack of liberals among our nation’s hedge fund managers.)
But Sarewitz can’t seem to accept that this self-selection process naturally draws liberals into the sciences in greater numbers. Surely, something else must be going on, and there is, although he stumbles across the reason inadvertently:
“Consider the case of climate change, of which beliefs are astonishingly polarized according to party affiliation and ideology.
A March 2010 Gallup poll showed that 66 percent of Democrats (and 74 percent of liberals) say the effects of global warming are already occurring, as opposed to 31 percent of Republicans. Does that mean that Democrats are more than twice as likely to accept and understand the scientific truth of the matter? And that Republicans are dominated by scientifically illiterate yahoos and corporate shills willing to sacrifice the planet for short-term economic and political gain?"
These sound like trick questions. So let me give carefully crafted and qualified answers: Yes and yes.
Time was, Republicans and Democrats could be occasionally counted on to work together to confront serious scientific problems and craft policy solutions to fix them, based on a common acceptance of data and facts on the ground. Take, for example, the Clean Air Act, one of the most effective pieces of environmental science policy ever enacted in this country. Forty years ago, this bill got its start thanks to a Democratic Congress and President Nixon’s signature. It was strengthened and updated 20 years later by another combination of a Democratic Congress and Republican president, George H. W. Bush.
One doesn’t have to wonder too long about this kind of cooperation occurring in the next divided Congress. Not when the recent midterm elections offered Republican voters across the country a Hobson’s choice on electing climate change deniers. Not when a smug, incurious man whose only discernible legislative function appears to be publicly excusing gross corporate malfeasance will be serving as the next chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Not when the new junior GOP senator from Kentucky either doesn’t know or, more likely, doesn’t want to rankle his creationist constituents by publicly acknowledging an incontrovertible scientific fact about the age of the planet he inhabits. And heck, when the senior GOP senator from South Carolina merely wrote an op-ed about wanting to work with Democrats on watered-down climate legislation, he ignited a fierce backlash of right-wing anger so intense that he ultimately found convenient excuses to back away from the bill this year. I mean, it’s simply not a coincidence that this book was also a New York Times bestseller.
Indeed, what Sarewitz doesn’t seem to grasp is that this ideological imbalance isn’t a case of science abandoning Republicans; it’s Republicans who have abandoned science. In the intervening years since the first President Bush, Republicans—first nationally, and now at nearly every level of political office—have executed a broad-based retreat from scientific policy engagement. They can no longer abide regulatory solutions—successfully proven, I might add—like the Clean Air Act, and so complex science and environmental issues now get crudely hammered, like everything else, with the same “tax cuts and free market” cudgel. And so armed, it becomes easy to dismiss something like the overwhelming preponderance of climate change data found by every major scientific research organization, because the facts, as Stephen Colbert famously joked, have a known liberal bias.
So, to try and do for science what the same conventional wisdom has done for journalism would be a tragic case of fixing what ain’t broken. Our nation’s scientific community does have its share of problems, no doubt, but one of them most certainly not worth worrying over is the unbalanced ideological makeup of its practitioners. That’s a lesson I hope we in the media will someday learn as well.
And the mail:
About Bush v. Gore.
What has always amazed me is that the Constitution expressly provides a remedy for disputed national elections. The House votes for President, the Senate for Vice President. Had Florida sent two sets of electors (not the first time in history a state would have done so) Congress would have been required to resolve the election, the Congress sworn in on Jan. 3 2001.
With a solid GOP majority, the House would have certainly elected Bush President. The Senate is where things would have gotten interesting. Democrats had as I recall either a one seat majority or a majority due to Gore being the sitting Vice President. There is no way the Democrats would have elected Leiberman and thereby lost their Senate majority. They could have, and had the choice been available, would have elected Al Gore to serve another term as Vice President under Bush. Why? To maintain their Senate majority (Jeffords had not yet changed caucuses).
I know for a fact at least one Democratic Senator was aware of this as I and another attorney explained it to him in December 2000 just before the Bush v. Gore atrocity was handed down. The election was a near tie and the Constitutional resolution would have had both candidates in office. The Supreme Court decision really elected Cheney VP, thereby providing him with the Constitutional office from which he could safely put into practice his evil plans.
Chapel Hill, NC
The compromise that isn't—because its really the conservative position through and through—is one bad (and scary) thing. But what really upsets me about Obama is that he is not what I think we expected—the progressive version of Ronald Reagan. Now, no one despises old Ronnie more than I, but he was very successful at shifting the paradigm. Republicans now routinely extol repugnant ideas that would have been unspeakable just 40 years ago. They have changed, I expected Obama to shift the paradigm in the same way. But he has not. He has not proposed huge federal works projects (a national healthcare database and high speed rail would have been nice); he has not proposed an overhaul of the federal tax code; he has not been the champion of the middle class that he could have been. What he has done will be easily overturned by conservative majorities now and in 2012. Obama told the soft-spoken, sometimes tongue-tied Harry Reid that he had a gift—meaning Obama's ability to stir people with rhetoric. I feel somewhat foolish that I actually thought he had some stirring ideas behind those words. Not to be overblown, but I do feel that we are doomed. The only thing I keep telling myself is that if you give a conservative enough rope, they hang themselves. I may not live to see it and what the conservatives accomplish may make my middle class existence a living hell (I'm 56) but they will, some day, go down in flames. Problem is, they may take most of us with them.
Maybe I'm wrong and just speaking for myself, but I think most "liberals" understand that the tax deal had to be made, given the circumstances. The outrage is that Obama and the Democratic majorities allowed those circumstances to develop. That 57 votes out of a hundred are not enough to pass legislation in The World's Greatest Deliberative Body is ridiculous. It was obvious from the start that would be a problem; and now it's become some kind of warped conventional wisdom that, duh, you need 60 votes to pass anything. If the Republicans win the Senate in 2012, I'll bet that rule is changed the day after they're sworn in.
Fort Worth, Texas
The Republicans disgust me, but they never disappoint. Their utter shamelessness and open contempt for the well-being of the United States and its people have become Republican trademarks.
The Democrats constantly disappoint, but they're more pathetic than disgusting. I keep hoping they will stand at last and cast the Republicans' lies back in their teeth, then do what they know to be right and damn the consequences. They never do, of course. You might as well expect courage from clams.
The American people disappoint me and sadden me beyond words. We have proven that we are easy prey for demagogues and for those who appeal to our baser nature. We have become intolerant, cowardly, shallow and selfish. We are willfully and proudly ignorant, quick to judgment and just plain mean. We have betrayed our country and everything noble that it once stood for.
I am extremely disappointed in President Obama's concession to the GOP on extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy and can only hope the Democrats in the House and Senate have the good sense to just let the issue die by the end of the year. When the Republican majority in the next session then brings the tax cuts up as their primary act, I hope that the Democrats will obstruct the bills as the Republicans have done in this session in order to stem the flow of our wealth into the grubby hands of the greedy sons-of-bitches who put millions of people out of work and were rewarded handsomely for their fraud and criminality, rather than being thrown into jail where they belong. Does anyone truly think that the tax cuts will eventually convince investors to put their money back into the US economy in the form of hiring workers? The private sector hasn't shown much willingness to work for the benefit of citizens so far.
The wealthy individuals in our society were given a huge income boost through the actions of Congress through TARP and the grants and loans provided from the Federal Reserve to our Wall Street investment brokers and shareholders. After such a massive plundering of the public treasury for the well-being of an extremely small minority of individuals, it's long past time for the Democrats to say "no" to the voodoo economics that has infested our politics since the Reagan era. We cannot sustain our government on borrowed money, but we equally cannot sustain our government by strangling its revenue sources.
Bluff City, TN
Unfortunately one of the best blogs you ever wrote was a couple of months ago and it is the truth. Fox news is setting the agenda for the whole nation.
They are not only controlling the GOP, they control what the other networks report. Whatever they want to make as the issue of the day, the other networks fall in step. How they want to frame an issue is how the tone is set. There aren't any mavericks in broadcast news anymore. 60 Minutes no lnger exposes corruption, they profile celebrities.
This past election was all about the Bush tax cuts. Do you think they would have pumped all of that money into local congressional races if there wasn't a better return for their money? Fox news acted like the DEMs created this mess and no other major news organization challenged them on it. Unless the DEMs find a way to challenge Fox news, it is going to get tougher.
BTW, if more people are watching Fox news than any other network, aren't they the mainstream media?
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
I’m all about the atrocity that was “Bush v. Gore” this week. My Think Again column focuses on press and the manner in which the politics of that period presages the crazy political moment in which we live today, and that’s here.
My Daily Beast column over the weekend was about the “Bush v. Gore” decision itself. That’s here.
And I did another Beast column this morning one the Barack/Bubba meeting scheduled for today and that’s here.
Now here’s the mail:
Fort Collins, CO
As a self admitted news junkie, I try very hard to read critically, even when reading The Nation and other media and pundits with whom I generally agree. I must say your analysis in this blog was a real breath of fresh air and one of the best articulations of something I have long felt and known but lacked the skill to put forward as you did here. One of the best articles I have read in a long time. Congratulations. Of course, I reserve the right to criticize the hell out of your position in the future if I think you are wrong.
Las Vegas, NV
Dr. A., in the world I want to live in, Barack Obama would have told repubicants (as I prefer to call them) to stick it. In the world I live in, I think this deal helps unemployed people and the middle class, which strikes me as ... liberal? But we see liberals saying, who cares about them, we can't help the wealthy. Sorry, but I have a lot of trouble following that.
I share your disdain, if I am choosing the right word, for Mr. Broder all the time, Mr. Milbank some of the time (he writes the occasional good column; his percentage may even be better than the infamous MoDo of The Times), and for the mainstream media in general. But I was struck by something. Like Keith Olbermann, I disagreed with Jon Stewart using the same false equivalency doctrine that you so brilliantly outlined. Then I put on Olbermann the other night and had to turn down the volume because he was screaming so loud in a 10-minute "special comment" excoriating Obama. Uh, Earth (to promote Stewart's new book) to Keith: you just proved Stewart more correct than you may have intended.
Because, in the end, you do not dispute how Obama concluded his press conference, and I do not believe it is possible for anyone with a respect for the facts to dispute him. This is indeed similar to the public option debate, but Obama could have gone further--much further. Last year, the left merrily concerned itself with demanding a public option and excoriating (I like the word, so I return to it) anyone, especially Obama, for not fighting enough for it. Ultimately, Congress barely passed a bill that will do a lot of good, though not enough--but note the barely, and someday I think Harry Reid may just get the credit he deserves for getting his entire caucus on board after convincing Obama that no member of the opposition would help (including Olympia Snowe, of whom Reid said that she will negotiate and negotiate, vote for a bill when her vote doesn't matter, and fold in the long run, if I recall correctly how it was depicted). As this went on, what did the other side talk about? Death panels. Socialism. And the Tea Party formed. Why wasn't the left concentrating on a message?
So, we can criticize the Obama administration, and should. But when we do so, we really should start making sure we are looking in the mirror, because we have demonstrated, on the left, an incredible ability to fail at everything but disgracing ourselves
Kansas City, MO
Not that it really affects the point you were trying to make but if the original statement is "If A then B", the contrapositive is not "If not A then not B" as you said but rather "If not B then not A"
Eric, Now what are we supposed to do? I can't see how I can go on supporting the president. Compromise, shrompromise. And then he yells at us. I'll be looking at your articles this week. This is the final straw.
New York, New York
HAPPY BIRTHDAY MOM
Editor's Note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.