My new Nation column is “A Wake-Up Call for US Liberals” with the subhead “The state of conservative intellectual debate demonstrates the power of movement crazies.”
I also published this interview with Steve Earle last week which you might have missed because it appeared as a blog post rather than a web article as intended. As with the interview Katrina and I did with Jackson Browne, and the one I did alone with Graham Nash, it runs over 6,000 words and goes back and forth between music and politics. Steve strongly opposes BDS, by the way, which you’ll see if you read to the end.
My new ebook and paperback on demand—the first original work to be published by Ebook Nation—has so far received three reviews: one neutral in The New York Times, and two relatively critical: one from my right in Capital New York and one from my left in Jacobin.
I’m OK with the Times notice. I’ve not seen an ebook get noticed by the Times before and so I’m glad to see everything spelled correctly.
The Capital New York review was a disappointment because its author does not appear to understand the relationship between an author and his publisher (and a columnist and his magazine) and so the entire thrust of his review is fundamentally misguided. Suffice it to say, I have nothing whatever to The Nation’s editorials and no one at The Nation had anything to say about the content of the book. Hence, the fellow’s entire argument makes no sense. There are other errors in the piece but one looks petty if one corrects all the errors about one’s book that appears in a review and so you will have to take my word for it that this one ginormous error stands in for many more. (I made this comment at greater length at the bottom of the review, should you click on it.)
The Jacobin review is by someone with greater expertise but a significant ideological axe to grind. One again, it would be a mug’s game to detail all my differences with it except to point out its most fundamental distortion of my argument. The reviewer, for instance, writes: “Alterman takes at face value the notion that hard-line ‘broken windows’-style policing is an effective way to reduce urban violence, despite copious evidence to the contrary.”