making sense of the news

Please visit my new blog

2008-12-15T10:36:00.001-08:00

Dear friends,

I'm off and running again with a new blog: America in the Age of Obama. Please stop by to check it out. You can find it by going to http://americaintheageofobama.blogspot.com.

Best,

Jerry

The media's job is to unearth facts, not repeat myths

2008-09-12T04:49:00.000-07:00

This piece was published in the Christian Science Monitor

9/10/08 -- In the summer of 2002, a senior aide to President George W. Bush met with a writer whose work had annoyed him to deliver a lesson in how his administration saw its mandate.

"The aide said that guys like me … 'believe that solutions emerge from … judicious study of discernible reality,'" Ron Suskind wrote, recalling the event two years later. "'That's not the way the world really works anymore...,' [the aide] continued. 'When we act, we create our own reality.'"

Even in the days before the Bush presidency and Karl Rove, widely believed to be the source of that quote, political campaigns of all stripes have strived to "create their own realities."

But while reporters have ridiculed Democrat Michael Dukakis for riding in a tank and belittled Barack Obama for the Greek columns at his nomination speech, Republicans have succeeded in turning the manipulation of myth into an art form.

That's been evident this week as Rove protégé and Sen. John McCain's adviser Steve Schmidt has steadied the ship of Sarah Palin's rollout. First, he bullied the news media into submission. Then the campaign pushed an unrelenting portrayal of her as a maverick.

As reporters disclosed that Ms. Palin sought earmarks for her hometown before she opposed them and supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, the campaign's message only got more persistent and better packaged. On Monday, it released a new ad titled "Original Mavericks."

And while the McCain campaign hammered the media for invading Palin's privacy, it has used every opportunity to idealize her family, even flying in the boyfriend of her pregnant 17-year-old daughter Bristol and parading both on stage behind the governor after she accepted the Republican nomination for vice president. Reality television seemed to trump reality itself as the nomination took on the look of a new daytime soap. Meanwhile, the news media – pushed back by the McCain campaign, then fed this feel-good story line – converted Palin from untested and unvetted to "hockey mom," a "pit bull with lipstick" ready to bite Obama.

The turnaround has been breathtaking.

Just over a week ago reporters disclosed that Palin is being investigated for allegedly trying to intimidate state officials into firing her estranged state trooper brother-in-law. Commentators raised sharp questions about her inexperience and poor vetting. Airwaves filled with idle – and sexist – speculation over whether a mother of five could handle the vice presidency.

But by Friday, an MSNBC commentator offered the breathy pronouncement that the McCain-Palin ticket "will be ahead in the polls by the end of the week." And on Sunday a long profile in The Washington Post pivoted on this sentence: "Of the many striking images of Palin – sportswoman, beauty queen, populist – in Alaska the most iconic is working mother, a perfectly coifed professional woman balancing public duties and child-rearing in a charismatic blur of multitasking."

Meanwhile, reports of Palin's hard-right credentials (anti-abortion, pro-gun, possibly pro-creationism, and pro-abstinence education) receded rapidly as did news, covered in a blur, that she had attended five colleges over six years before graduating.

The see-saw story of Sarah Palin should give the press pause. Feeding frenzies followed by fawning serve only to confuse. If the public is to make sound decisions, to sort what's real from what's manufactured, the media must do their job with greater consistency and greater care.

1. The media should redouble efforts to unearth facts and spend far less time on speculation and titillation. McCain, Palin, Obama, and Joe Biden all have records. It's the media's job to expose contradictions in them – and to keep doing so even when campaigns push back. It is not the media's job to speculate who will be leading next week or whether a candidate can parent and govern simultaneously.

2. The media need to reexamine the meaning of journalistic objectivity. It is not to give equal weight and space to each side of an issue. It is to report fully and fairly, to determine where the facts fall, and to write what's verifiably true – giving a say, but not equal space, to those who contest the facts without evidence.

Palin, for example, does not believe climate change has a human cause. The scientific consensus says otherwise. Should her views carry equal weight as the campaign grinds on? My journalism professors would have said "no."

3. The media should regularly explain what reporters do and why. In an era in which reporters are about as popular as $4-a-gallon gasoline, this is imperative. This spring I gave a workshop to some 50 university public information employees. I faced a long silence before anyone could tell me what the First Amendment protects.

Until the news media turn both tougher and fairer, provides contextual truth and not just balance, political operatives will hold the upper hand. And the public will move through election cycles like motorists peering into a thick fog.

"You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time," Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said.

Only a vigilant media can keep Machiavellian calculations of contemporary campaigns from fooling enough people enough of the time to make such deceit the deciding factor in our elections.

Hillary: It's Time for a Gracious Exit

2008-05-07T06:47:00.000-07:00

A slightly different version of this piece ran first in the Christian Science Monitor.

05/07/08

Dear Hillary,

Enough. You've reaffirmed your standing as a fighter, reconnected with blue-collar America, forged an identity as a woman of heart and steel. Now you can be a uniter, too, hailed for your toughness and grace in recognizing when a losing cause is just that.

It's time to bow out of the Democratic contest.

Yes, you can fight clear through to the convention, demand that the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated; bring in your attack dogs to question Barack Obama's testicular fortitude; wink at another round of Internet whispers that question your opponent's funny name, his patriotism, and his religion.

You can bash the press, browbeat the superdelegates, and boast of your prowess in the working-class kitchens of big states the party must win come November. You can post more ads of that irritating red phone and revel in your ability to nick your opponent just enough to keep him slightly off stride.

But you'll still lose. And the Democratic Party may lose with you.

Consider your legacy. Do you want to be remembered as Hillary the Pillorer, Hillary the Heckler, Clinton the Cutthroat? Surely not.

Doesn't Hillary the Healer seem more salving, more uplifting, on the pages of Democratic Party history? Surely you and Bill don't want to risk discarding your moneymaking memoirs in the trash heap of Democratic sore losers?

In so many intimate aspects of life, timing is everything. And in the end, even in the 24-7 glare of panting journalists and pushy photographers, politics is a most intimate sport. Seize the moment.

As you walk to the podium, the photographers will bring their lenses in tight. You are smiling now – a broad, wise, embracing smile. (Was that a hint of dampness in one eye or just the glare?)

You spread your arms and speak. Shower love on your supporters. Thank them for showing that a woman can win in America, that women will be back – in 2012, 2016, 2020. Hint perhaps that it may even be you. But then praise Obama as a man of toughness and integrity, a leader who can set a new course for America. Say that you will stand by his side in his fight against John McCain. That he deserves to be president. That you will fight with all your strength to make sure he gets there. That if called on, you will even serve as his vice president.

Again Hillary, timing is everything. Your horoscope reads: "Don't delay." So I'd speak out immediately. Why gamble away another $6.4 million on a campaign car that's leaking oil? There's no need to be the Ralph Nader of 2008; Ralph's already running. And who knows. By mid-June even some of your old friends could be calling you the Benedicta Arnold of the Democratic Party.

But act now and you will be an American heroine, irresistible to the TV bookers from Today to Tonight. Sure. Your campaign aides – and most loyal supporters – will feel hurt. Some may even feel sold out, and that's tough. But the press and public will hail you as a woman of character and principle, the savior of her party, a fighter who understood that her fight was for America's people and not for herself.

I can't help tearing up just thinking about it. You can still write a happy ending to your narrative, Hillary. Tomorrow it may be too late.

Warmest regards,

Jerry Lanson

A petty round of 'gotcha'

2008-04-16T18:58:00.000-07:00

04/17/08 -- Let's cut to the chase: I've never seen a worse-moderated presidential debate, a more biased moderator performance, a less intelligent series of questions.

For 45 minutes, the first half of last night's Democratic presidential debate, ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (Bill Clinton's old communications guy) double-teamed Barack Obama. Unrelentingly, they asked a succession of questions about this campaign's not so golden oldies: the beaten-to-death bitter comment, Obama's pastor, Obama's relationship with a neighbor who 40 years ago was a radical activist, even the Illinois senator's penchant for celebrating his patriotism in ways other than parading around in flag-lapel pins.

Someone might just as well have asked: "Senator, are you or were you ever a member of the Communist Party? A sympathizer, perhaps? Because the tenor of the questions at times seemed vaguely reminiscent of the '50s, the early '50s when Joseph McCarthy took his communist witch hunt from the State Department to Hollywood.

To his credit, Obama kept his cool. But he did so at a cost. He at times seemed muted, politely - perhaps too politely - understated as he said once, twice, and then three times that the American people were interested in how the next president was going to deal with health care and the housing crises, energy and the Iraq war, not the kind of gotcha issues the moderators kept bringing up. And then Gibson and Stephanopoulos fired back with the next gotcha question.

Sure, Hillary Clinton had to face her own gotcha moment: A Pennsylvanian taped earlier asked her why she said she'd been fired on by snipers in Bosnia when she actually was greeted with flowers. She rambled a bit, sort of went, "ah shucks," and then the moment ended. It was back to Obama.

My scorecard shows Obama got four gotcha questions, Clinton one. Even the camera pans of the audience repeatedly settled on Chelsea Clinton. Surely, someone from Obama's team was in the house?

Finally, when the script turned to actual policy in the second half, the two moderators sounded a lot more like employees of Fox News than of a neutral network. Would the candidates pledge to never raise taxes? Would they really withdraw troops from Iraq if their generals asked for more time? Would they bomb Iran to protect Israel?

John McCain couldn't have asked for a friendlier script.

Granted. Reporters get paid to ask tough questions. No complaint there. But they should be tough questions of substance, not rehashed spam. Surely, if ABC's producers had done some hard reporting, they could have found something fresh -- inconsistencies of policy statements over the campaign's long march, perhaps; contradictions between the candidate's current stands and past votes; or subtle differences between them on issues that really matter to the American public. Relooping an already weary newsreel, trotting out the tired and really terribly limited fudges and guilt-by-association embarrassments of this campaign, make for neither good debates nor good journalism.

For years now, I've grimaced when I see polls showing the persistent downward slope of public trust in the American news media. This Wednesday night, I could hardly blame that public.

McCain may be the last man standing

2008-03-26T06:47:00.001-07:00

03/25/08 -- The political whispers get stranger and stranger.

Now gossip is surfacing that Hillary Clinton would just as soon have John McCain win if she loses the Democratic nomination, figuring at his age he’d only last one term. I sure hope this rumor is false. But it does seem as if both Democratic campaigns are intent on stealing defeat from the jaws of victory come November.

A Barack Obama surrogate compared Bill Clinton to Joseph McCarthy (could Strom Thurmond be next?). Hillary marches around saying that she would pick her pastor with care and that McCain is better prepared than her opponent to be commander-in-chief. Suddenly a Bloomberg-Hagel third-party ticket is starting to look pretty good.

This Democratic primary campaign, one that started with so much excitement, so much anticipation, now has the feel of two lumbering prize fighters sleep-walking through the 14th and 15th round. They throw wild, wide punches that nick and sometimes cut but ultimately do nothing to change the outcome. The winner will be the last one standing. But how much of the audience will have thinned by then?

McCain, meanwhile, is waltzing through Tennessee, Iraq and anywhere else he pleases, largely unscathed. He’s taken the lead in several national polls against Obama and Clinton. And a new Gallup poll finds that he'd win the support of one in five Obama supporters should Clinton win the nomination and a whopping 28 percent of Clinton backers should Obama win it.

At this point, anyway, McCain is the frontrunner, a fact that is absolutely amazing given an incredibly unpopular Republican president who is spending the rough equivalent of 350 to 400 full, four-year private college scholarships per day on a war that John McCain believes we should stick with in perpetuity.

Meanwhile, our dollar, our housing sector, our health care sector and (less obviously) our democracy continue their collapse. Yet neither Democratic candidate has done much to connect the $500 billion cost of the war (so far; it will at least triple) and the debt-ridden society that is America today.

Will someone speak up please? The war is the economy, stupid. Look at it this way. If every time you ran out of money you took out a new credit card, don’t you think the time inevitably would come when you’d be in big trouble, when you’d reach the limit on borrowing and creditors would begin asking for repayment?

But that is today’s America – the big, muscle-bound, proud, patriotic and pawned super power. We're propped up by foreign investments from places Saudi Arabia and China. And it keeps getting worse, thanks in large part to those war policies that John McCain supports 100 percent.

I don’t believe either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton support them. But they – Hillary in particular – are so intent on bloodying each other that they seem to have completely forgotten the task they set out on: to lead America.

Yes. I, too, think it’s time for Hillary Clinton to step aside. In last week's New York Times, columnist David Brooks gave her a 5 percent chance of winning the nomination. Even if the odds are 10 percent, even if she does somehow win, by that point the Democratic Party will be so shredded I sincerely doubt she would be able to win the presidency. Soon the same will be said of Obama’s candidacy as well. Certainly, even if Obama can’t be convinced to give Clinton the vice-presidency, he could be convinced to make her his health care czar or housing honcho. Heck, he might even let her sit up at night to pick up the red phone when it rings at 3 a.m. Certainly there have to be enough goodies to go around in a new administration to salve wounds, enough Neosporin to disinfect them.

Sending out hound dog James Carville to howl that Bill Richardson is a Judas on Easter’s eve just can’t be a good thing for Democrats – whether you support Clinton, Obama or Chris Dodd, for that matter. I, for one, would vote for any of them over John McCain, a proud man, a largely honest man (for a politician, at least), but ultimately a misguided militarist who is still trying to win Vietnam or any other war down the pike.

Empires throughout history have collapsed when their appetite to control the world exceeded their reach. The United States is edging perilously close to repeating that error. And it’s starting to look as though no one capable of changing our course will be at the helm when the next administration’s begins Day 1.

All the dirt that's fit to print

2008-02-08T17:44:00.000-08:00

02/09/08 -- Once again those intrepid investigative reporters at The New York Times are hard at work.

This morning's front-page expose: How much marijuana did Barack Obama actually smoke in high school and college? Apparently, not enough for The Times. After snooping around for classmates of Obama in high school and college, the paper seems seriously concerned that the presidential candidate does not seem to have been as stoned out 30 years ago as readers of his book, Dreams from my father, might have thought.

How’s that for a hard-hitting revelation?

Writes The Times Serge Kovaleski: “Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs ... significantly differs from the recollections of others. That could suggest he was so private about his (drug) use that few people were aware of it, that the memories of those who knew him decades ago are fuzzy or rosier out of a desire to protect him, or that he added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.”

Of course, it also could suggest that Mr. Kovaleski and The New York Times editors need to stop shilling for someone else's whispered smear campaign. Instead of conjecturing about what is a non-story to start, they should consider doing some real reporting -- on real issues.

Does The Times' brass really believe this kind of ungrounded guesswork is serious, ethical reporting -- that this kind of Rupert Murdochian rumor-mongering belongs at a paper that once bragged it published only “all the news that’s fit to print?”

Let's see. There must be something more newsworthy out there.

Perhaps The Times should try analyzng how the campaigns are positioning themselves for the final push in a Democratic primary campaign that is neck and neck. Perhaps it should look in depth at who is pouring all that money into the coffers of the rival campaigns. Or then again, it could re-examine other stories that regularly appear and disappear without resolution these days, such as whether the United States is continuing the covert practice of extraordinary rendition – kidnapping people off the street and whisking them away to prisons in third-world dictatorships.

But no. It seems Obama's reefer madness ... NOT ... is more important. Mr. Kovaleski digs deep. He notes that he interviewed three dozen “friends, classmates and mentors” from Obama’s Hawaiian high school and Occidental College.

Why he bothered, given Obama’s own brief acknowledgement in the book of youthful indiscretion, is a serious question in itself. This very tired story already has led to the resignation of Hillary Clinton's campaign co-chair in New Hampshire for a snide comment about the drug connection and loud complaints about another prominent Clinton supporter for his remarks about Obama in South Carolina.

What's more extraordinary, however, is that after investigating this story and finding essentially nothing new worth writing about, The Times invented a theory, out of thin air and thinner evidence, that questions Obama’s integrity. That, quite simply, is bad journalism. Really bad journalism.

Of course, Mr. Kovaleski couldn’t have written this conjecture unless his editors had allowed him to. So let me ask them: Why would a man with aspirations to be president write a book in which he exaggerates his childhood drug use? Hmmm. Good question.

The answer: It defies logic.

But then, so does the entire premise of The Times article.

Can the Democrats blow it again?

2008-02-03T06:44:00.000-08:00

This appeared on CommonDreams.org on Feb. 3, 2008

02/03/08 -- The polling numbers in today's Washington Post offer nothing more than a pit stop in a long-distance car race.

But still. If the race today matched John McCain against Hillary Clinton, he'd have the support of 49 percent of voters to her 46 percent. If McCain took on Barack Obama today, the Illinois Dmocrat would be in front 49 to 46.

What the poll doesn't say is that Hillary Clinton already is running her best laps. She's got the gas to the floor. Barring the entrance of a third-wheel, right-wing Republican jalopy into the race -- and none has been advertised -- McCain likely would extend that lead and beat her to the finish line with some ease.

Obama, on the other hand, continues to gain momentum in this race. With each passing month, he handles his campaign car that much better. He's gotten tougher, quicker, without losing the ability to look way down the road, to see the whole map. Come the finish line, he beats McCain, pulling away and pulling a Democratic House and Senate with him.

Enough with the analogy. How about presidential politics? Listen to David Gergen, the Kennedy School of Government professor who worked for the Clinton White House: "She (Hillary) has not found the campaign theme yet," he tells The Boston Globe.

One year into the campaign, with some of the savviest political minds in America behind her and Hillary Clinton has not found her campaign theme yet? She's still talking about 35 years experience and managing from Day 1. She's talking about toughness and the intricacies of policy. She's always competent, never inspirational. And, besides that, her message won't work against McCain, a man with competence, experience and the resume of a hero.

I have nothing against Hillary Clinton. She's smart. She's undoubtedly an excellent manager. She is tough. She'd probably be a very good president.

She just won't win. Because in a race for the middle, this country still leans conservative. Because the American people are tired of looking back, so tired that they've to some extent mixed up Bill Clinton's largely positive legacy with the cumulative disaster of Bush I and Bush II. Because Hillary Clinton believes that politics is war even though, ironically, politics is one war both the American people and John McCain have had their fill of.

Enter Barack Obama, the man with a Kansan mother, an African father, a Hawaiian childhood. He talks of hope, of change, of bringing the country together. He can and does run against the Iraq war and the war of Washington politics as usual. He seems to live the politics of inclusion. But, as he's shown, with the Billary campaign in South Carolina, he can take a hit and fight back.

Most importantly for Democrats, he can win. He has inspired new generations in a campaign that would pit him against a 71-year-old war hero. He has consistently won the independent vote over his Democratic rivals and would compete well against a Republican opponent whose strength is with independents. Unlike Clinton, he will not mobilize the somewhat demoralized Republican right-wing base against him.

The trouble is, he's still the longshot to win the Democratic nomination. Clinton has the backing of the Democratic Party establishment. She and her husband have doled out favors for a long time. Clinton captures the imagination of women, particularly those 40, 50 and older who grew up banging their heads against a glass ceiling. And she has the loyal backing of many in the Latino population, a major voting block in key western states that doesn't fully know or trust Obama, yet, and feels at home with Bill and Hillary.

Taken together, these give her a formidable edge, a wide-body limo with little room for Obama's sleeker Corvette to sneak past. That perhaps will be the irony of 2008. If the primaries were spread across many months as in past years, I believe Obama would gain the momentum to race off with the nomination. This year, with Super Duper Tuesday, with too many votes in too short a time, it's a sprint. with Clinton drawing the advantage of the rail position.

Waiting down the track sometime this summer will be John McCain. He'll have his own wide-body limo and one with a lot more traction across the heartland of America. Should Clinton get to him first -- should she win the Democratic nomination -- the Democratic faithful, and particularly the Baby Boomers, will have no one else to blame but themselves.

Democratic Primaries 2008: Two narratives, two different winners?

2008-01-27T11:24:00.000-08:00

01/26/08

Quick: Which of these two is true?

One: Sen. Barack Obama’s victory in South Carolina is one more marker of a sharp generational divide in the Democratic Party this presidential primary season, with Obama consistently swamping Sen. Hillary Clinton among 18- to 30-year-olds and Clinton consistently out polling Obama among the AARP set.

Two: Sen. Barack Obama was swept to victory in South Carolina on the backs of black pride, taking four of five African-American votes in a state in which half the Democratic voters are black.

The answer, of course, is that both are true. But which one the news media chooses to emphasize could in the end play a significant role in determining who wins the Democratic nomination this year. The race is that close.

That’s right: The press, long a kingmaker and not merely a bystander in presidential politics, has a particularly sensitive and influential role in this election in how it interprets the numbers and to what extent it reports rather than merely echoing campaign spin.

Fascinating stuff. So let me weigh in early in an effort to influence that decision: Barack Obama’s strong victory among young voters is not a one-time phenomenon. It happened in Iowa. It happened in New Hampshire. It happened in South Carolina. And like it or not, despite the best efforts of the Billary Clinton campaign to churn the issue, race wasn’t even a factor in those first two largely white states. Or, as James Carville might say (were he not backing the Clintons), “It’s the generational divide, stupid.”

First, some context. That the media does more than “report the news” in presidential politics is not news. It became clear again this week when the Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that Clinton (first) and Obama (a close second) had each received roughly five times the press coverage of former Sen. John Edwards, the third Democrat left in the race, during the week of Jan. 14 to 20.

Given that Edwards lagged behind the other two in voting in the first two contests (though he did barely edged Clinton in the Iowa caucuses), one could ask, “What came first, his poor showing or the poor coverage?” But most of this survey was taken before Edwards disastrous showing in Nevada. And he most assuredly received far more than one-fifth the vote of either Obama or Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire combined. So I would say the press wrote him off early – and that his later poor showing in part reflects that decision.

I don’t believe this was out of malice or a plot to kill a populist’s campaign. No, the news media merely love a good story, and Edwards gets in the way of the first serious woman presidential candidate and the first serious African American presidential candidate going head-to-head. That’s why so many of columns posted on political blogs have been filled with headlines such as “Is America Ready for a Woman or an African-American first?”

P-L-E-A-S-E.

There is a better and more honest story line here. This is a campaign between the past and the future, between an earnest warning that Americans need experience (35 years worth “from Day 1”) and a call for change and hope and government that can cut across party division. It is a campaign between managed, pragmatic government and the poetry of promise, the rhetoric of common good.

Yes, American Democrats have a clear choice. It is, increasingly, a choice between two candidates who offer compellingly different visions of governing. One happens to be a woman. The other happens to be black. (As a footnote: I believe John Edwards also offered a compelling candidacy with his call for economic populism and the forgotten working class. But the news media never gave this message the attention they should have.)

The story line and the fault line between Clinton and Obama is generation, not gender. It’s the different visions of different age groups, not race. It has to do with how the American people want to be governed in the years ahead.

This story line, too, is well-supported by an analysis of the voting, if the pundits only open their eyes. Three remarkable things beyond Obama’s overwhelming support among African Americans emerges from the South Carolina returns and exit polls. The first is that Obama alone received more total votes than were cast for all candidates in the 2004 Democratic primary. That’s right. In 2004, Democrats cast 294,000 votes. This year Obama alone captured a thousand more and the total Democratic vote topped a half million.

The second is that 100,000 more South Carolinians voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican primary in a state that has been absolutely rock solid Republican in national elections for a long, long time.

And the third is that Barack Obama, according to exit polls, captured two-thirds of the vote of those under age 30 – including 52 percent of young white voters. (Clinton it turn captured 40 percent of all the over 65 votes.) It is this generational divide, its ability to lure new voters to the poll and the strong but contrasting qualities of these candidates that should be the dominant focus of news commentary between now and Feb. 5.

For those pundits interested in the easy way out, in endless ruminations about race and gender, listen to the words of Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late president, who, in Sunday’s New York Times, endorsed Obama.

She wrote: “Sen. Obama … has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people – known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics – to become engaged in the political process.”

If the press plays it straight and at least gives equal weight to this thread of the choice before voters, the Democratic primary should stay very, very close clear into the spring.

If …..

This election emerging as a generational tug-of-war

2008-01-09T05:03:00.000-08:00

01/09/07

This is proving to be a campaign of epic generational divides.

Two combative, tested political veterans emerged as winners in New Hampshire, the 70-year-old former POW, John McCain, and the former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, always fond of talking about her 35 years of public service. They won impressively, both rising from premature wakes – for McCain in July and for Clinton following her Iowa defeat last week. (So much for real reporting by political correspondents on the ground.)

This was just Round 2 of what could be races close enough to carry right through to the summer conventions. While exit polls in New Hampshire showed a sharp split between men and women on the Democratic side, something that had not occurred in Iowa, it also showed an equally remarkable split on the continuum of generation – something that did take place in Iowa as well. Barack Obama resounding won the under 40 vote. Hillary Clinton resoundingly won the over 65 vote. The rest leaned toward Clinton, too.

On the Democratic side from here, this campaign will pit age, experience and traditional partisanship against youth, exuberance and the poetry of the possible. Clinton promises to fight the tough fight, to hold the line rather than try to draw new ones, to deal with whatever comes her way “from Day 1.” She also likely use a bit of Bushian "be afraid," as she did the day before New Hampshire when she told The Boston Globe that a terrorist attack could follow the election as it did in Great Britain.

Obama promises a different vision – for the young, for the under-represented, for the collaborative of mind, for the world. He is both suave and passionate, speaking of a less combative framework for solving the country's and world's problems but then exhorting his followers with the chant "I'm fired up. I'm ready to go."

A similar age divide on the Republican side could emerge in the weeks ahead. McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, different men with different styles, nonetheless will all campaign on experience and toughness against terrorism. (McCain can add honesty, not always the mayor’s or Romney’s strong suit). Mike Huckabee, meanwhile, already is emerging as the Republican who appeals to the younger, poorer and more disenfranchised Republicans. He’s shown a sense of humor, stresses his poor roots and hasn’t shied from criticizing his president and party.

True, Huckabee won Iowa on the backs of evangelicals, and he is a man who readily and happily wears God on his sleeve. But his appeal will reach beyond the God groupies to those seeking a Republican candidate with an easier, more human approach.

Which side will win? I don’t know, though California is shaping up as the key state on the Democratic side.

One thing I expect to hear a lot more of in the weeks ahead is the weary Bush rhetoric of "be afraid." I hope America’s response is, “No, but you should be afraid instead.”

A different 'tude for 20-something America?

2008-01-04T06:30:00.000-08:00

This blog appeared first on Commondreams.org

01/04/08

As the big-time political pundits pick over the point spread and exit polls of the Iowa caucuses, they eventually will stumble upon what I consider the most interesting story there: The re-emergence of engaged young adults.

The statistics on the Democratic side are nothing less than startling. According to CNN’s exit (and entrance) polls, Barack Obama took 57 percent of the 18- to 29-year-old vote compared to 11 percent for his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. He took 41 percent of the votes of first time caucus goers, a dozen points more than any of his rivals. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee outpolled Mitt Romney nearly 2-1 among the youngest group of voters.

Even considering all the caveats – a caucus draws far fewer voters overall than a primary and Iowa is a small place to begin with – these figures suggest something is stirring out there.

“The huge difference was that we had the greatest organization ever built in this state,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told The New York Times. “And it was built on the backs of idealistic kids who came in here not just because they believed in Obama, but they wanted to change the course of history and the world.”

Passionate youth are nothing new to politics. Just four years ago, the tech savvy Deaniacs ushered in the era of big-time online fund-raising and this election cycle Ron Paul’s kiddie corps has harvested millions. But translating the passion to votes is another matter. Just ask Dean. In Round 1, anyway, Obama converted the passion to action.

If he continues to succeed at this, his story may yet be the biggest since two brothers named Kennedy crashed the political scene in the 1960s. That’s because, at least on the surface, it is irony, not hope, that has characterized my children’s and students’ generation.

Forgive my narrow-mindedness. But it seems their biggest contribution to American culture to date has been one word -- “whatever.” My two daughters wielded it with such wicked delight in their teens that it made me secretly want to throttle them. Now my peers and I use it regularly as well.

Barack Obama’s message is the antithesis of “whatever.” He is a man who prides himself in his capacity to engage anyone, friend or foe. (His father, he writes, did the same.) He is, he tells followers at every opportunity, “fired up, ready to go.” With his big ears and slightly goofy smile, he is the antithesis of cool, the geeky guy who in the end turns out to be cool because he so isn’t.

But perhaps, as with all political movements, in the end it’s not merely about the man, not about his call for change, not about the ascendancy of a new, race-neutral political America. Perhaps this time, "it's the voters, stupid."

Certainly the sweep of Obama’s support in Iowa, driven by young, single, first-time caucus goers, at least suggests that in this deconstructionist, create-your-own-reality, there-is-no-truth era of deeply cynical politics and personal life, idealism is showing signs of a comeback.

Whatever.

No. Make that, I hope so.

It's time to clean the House

2007-12-11T04:51:00.000-08:00

I first published this piece on CommonDreams.org.

12/11/07 --Nancy Pelosi should resign as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Since she won’t, I hope the voters in her liberal California district throw her out next November.

Here are the facts as reported by The Washington Post (facts that Pelosi has not contested). In 2002, Nancy Pelosi was given a briefing that informed her that waterboarding – a form of torture applied, among others, by the Nazis – was being used, or at least about to be used, by the CIA. She raised not a peep.

The Post notes that waterboarding, an interrogation technique that uses simulated drowning, has officially been regarded as torture by the U.S. military since the Spanish-American War. The Post article further notes that while Pelosi “declined to comment directly … a congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter …acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time.”

That's enough for me. I don’t want to hear the liberal equivocators, the ones saying, well, it was right after 9/11 when Americans were afraid -- the ones trying to draw distinctions between Pelosi’s acquiescence and Dick Cheney’s enthusiasm. When it comes to immoral actions, such distinctions just don’t wash. Those who stand by and acquiesce in the end are nearly as guilty as those who carry out the torture.

It is a crime in this country to have knowledge of a murder without reporting it. Plain and simple. It should be a crime in this country to have knowledge of torture without reporting it – in this case to the people who hired the Congress, the voting public.

Of course, in this era of unending fear and increasing secrecy, no one will push that argument. In fact, when the subject of torture surfaces on occasion, the president, with an assist from the press, usually puts it quickly to rest.

"Americans do not torture," W. says. And everyone goes back to sleep.

Sometimes the media barely wake up to begin with. The Washington Post story to me demonstrated an extraordinary degree of cynicism by the top-ranked Democrat, a leader who regularly complains about government secrecy in her role as opposition party leader. Yet this story has had little traction elsewhere in the traditional news media. Which leads me again to wonder: Who needs Nero's fiddle when we already dance daily around tales like Jennifer Love Hewitt’s hint of flab, oblivious to the corrosion of our democratic principles at a time of a war against “terror,” a war in other words without end?

Truth, it has been said, is the first casualty of any war. The truth is too ugly to witness and so we hide it behind euphemism and platitude, inventing words such as “collateral damage” in place of accidental civilian deaths. We hide the truth by hiding the pictures of the dead, the maimed and the forgotten from the public. We hide the truth by giving glorious and high-minded reasons for killing in the first place.

Remember “Operation Iraqi Freedom?” Try talking of freedom to the millions of Iraqis who have fled their homes. Promote it to the relatives of the tens of thousands of civilians who have died, too. Then there are the U.S. statistics: nearly 4,000 soldiers and Marines dead, seven times more wounded and maimed, and, according to a special CBS report, a sharply escalating suicide rates among veterans. (That story, too, disappeared in the blink of an eye though based on a five-month investigation.)

These are all numbers we can count. What’s harder to measure after five plus years of war is the deep-seeded cynicism of our leaders and the ennui – the boredom -- that is rotting our culture from within.

We have – or at least we used to have – a Constitution governing the United States. We follow – or we used to follow – the Geneva Conventions, which set standards for treatment of prisoners of war. We have – or we used to have – the rule of law.

But we will continue to only if we insist that someone enforces those laws – that we live in a government of debate, not silent deceit, that politicians of both parties serve guiding principles greater than those of accumulating power and getting re-elected. Whatever their political stripe, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Green, truly patriotic Americans need to stand up, to speak out, to stick by the principles under which this country was founded, and to throw the bums leading both parties out. Then, at last, our drift toward a totalitarian state will stop.

Justice and the primacy of just law will be the basis of our democracy only for as long as we, the people, demand that they be. They are not immutable, not rights that can be sustained forever if we choose to pull the covers over our heads and quake while bullies or tag-alongs of all

ideological stripe tear apart the bulwark of our system of government.

They are rights that we must cling to tightly – and not leave for safekeeping to those, like Nancy Pelosi, who talk of their value and then chose selectively to disregard them.

Eat, drink -- and buy

2007-11-20T05:28:00.000-08:00

11/20/07

"Dashing through the snow, on a one-horse broken sleigh ..."

Or something like that. I'm working on a new verse for America the Beautiful and I thought it should be seasonal. But let me cast work aside to concentrate on giving thanks in this season to remember life's precious things.

Thank you for there being 35 more shopping days until Christmas. This year I am counting Thanksgiving because I hear there are some great bargains and plan to shop instead of eat with the kids. Besides, it will mean eliminating all those hours sitting around the table, swapping family stories.

Thank you, Santa, for being there early in the mall this year. How else could I drop $50 in a flash -- make that on a flashbulb or two? (I guess I could spend the money to fill my car).

Thank you stores for carrying a whole new line of GPS systems. They're so high tech and so much fun. And when the day comes for mine to be stolen, I hope it gets snatched by someone who is really directionally challenged, or at least needs the cash.

Thanks, above all, for the peace and tranquility in Iraq. Finally, the good news is making its way onto front pages and holiday news reports, months after those nasty news organizations had the decency to hide all that disgusting smoke and blood that ruined my kids' Cheerios.

Clearly we are doing something very right with the $500 million or so a day we're spending there. Just think about it. Why waste that money each day on, say, 5,000 more four-year college scholarships? Can't college students hold down a job these days?

Why fritter it away each day on something so frivilous as expanding children's health insurance for a full month. Didn't President Bush say we couldn't afford to cover any more kids when he vetoed that terribly costly Democratic bill, the $35 billion one for five years of expanded children's health insurance coverage.

It's a good thing the president showed fiscal restraint, too. Because a few days later we needed all that money and more -- $46 billion -- for a stopgap war spending bill to cover end of the year costs of supporting our troops overseas.

Why waste time worrying about health care for the 30,000 veterans maimed or broken in the war when we can spend it spreading freedom to our friends in Iraq? Consider: If progress continues there, by next year we might even want to build of a mall in Baghdad! (Pinch me, please.)

Thank you, too, for the latest Iowa political polls, which either show Barack ahead or behind or tied with Hillary, depending on which newscast you watch and how you interpret the numbers, which change just about every day anyway. It's much more fun to follow that horse race religiously than to know what anyone actually believes in or stands for.

Besides, I know I'm for Rudy. I like the way he stands by his friends when they're indicted.

But Rudy, a marketing tip from a fan. Would you consider putting out a Monopoly knock-off for the holidays? With pictures of Bernie Kerik on the get-out-of-jail free cards? It would be so 21st century. And it would give me something to add to my shopping list this holiday season.

Is this the ghost of Rovian shenanigans past?

2007-11-18T14:01:00.000-08:00

11/18/07

The Republican presidential candidates have been bashing Hillary Clinton like a pinata for some time now. To believe their stump speeches, she's somewhere to the left of Karl Marx when it comes to health care and flip flops on policy like a flounder on a dry boat floor.

This, of course, comes from a crowd whose two front-runners are Rudy Giuliani, whose former chauffeur -- and the police commissioner when Rudy was New York's mayor -- is under indictment, and Mitt Romney, who became a fire-breathing, bedrock conservative only after he ran and won as a centrist, rasoned pro-choice moderate in Massachusetts.

It is not Clinton, however, but her closest Democratic rival, Barack Obama, who has emerged as the target of a far murkier and sleazier campaign to paint him as a closet terrorist and, if that fails, a backroom political hackster only dressed in Boy Scout blue.

First, in Iowa, home of the first caucus, people were getting phone calls suggesting that Obama didn't put hand over heart during a pledge of allegiance (heaven forbid) and was educated in a radical Islamic school in Indonesia. The not-so-subtle suggestion: This man is an unpatriotic muslim sympathizer.

Then, this week comes this from conservative columnist Robert Novak. He writes that Clinton supporters are in the midst of a whispering campaign to tell people like him that they have serious dirt about Obama but -- get this -- dirt they won't release.

"The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed," Novak wrote.

The Obama camp reacted swiftly and angrily, challenging Clinton to release whatever it is she's basing this murky rumor on. The Clinton campaign responded with one of its now-traditional "stick with the issues" statements (which, in this case, is particularly amusing given that Obama is trying to react to the lowest form of mudslinging -- utterly unsubstantiated innuendo from unknown sources).

Where this will go between the two Democrats is anyone's guess. But I will wager that Obama is shaking his fist in the wrong direction. It makes no sense for Hillary Clinton's campaign to leak this bit of non-news to Robert Novak, a conservative columnist with close ties to Republican conservatives. Karl Rove, on the other hand, whether "retired" or not, would do so in a heartbeat.

Perhaps you recall. This is the same Robert Novak who blew CIA agent Valerie Plame's cover after her husband, Joseph Wilson, embarrassed the Bush information by writing that the so-called uranium connection between Iraq and the African nation of Niger had no merit. His Highness (Dick Cheney) is said to have been furious. So there's a pretty fair chance that in outing Plame, Novak was acting as the water boy for a White House's slime campaign. (I'd urge upi tp ask Lewis Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, but he's already gotten into enough trouble on the issue.)

What's more, this kind of gutter innuendo looks a lot more like the game plan of Swift-Boating, dirty-tricks Republican campaigns of old than of anything that the relatively tame (and inept) Democrats have ever managed to muster.

What would Hillary Clinton have to gain by setting herself up for attack by Obama? She's got a big lead that probably was enhanced by her performance in the debate last week.

On the other hand, Republicans gain anytime they can egg the leading Democrats to tear each other down. And I suspect the neocons are much more afraid in the long run of Obama than of Clinton, whom they keep hailing as the inevitable Democratic nominee even as they bash her.

Why do they fear Obama? Because, as Atlantic Monthly write in its cover article this month, Obama has a worldwide following. His father was African. He attended school in Indonesia (though not radical muslim schools). He talks of the politics of hope and reconciliation. And his rhetoric and style appeal to a new generation and a new kind of politics that moves beyond the gridlocked red-state, blue-state pugilism embraced by the Baby Boomer leaders of both parties (and hyped regularly by the news media).

In short, if Obama gets to the final round, he'd be a much tougher target for Republicans to pound like a punching bag than Clinton, who just about every conservative loves to hate.

I confess. I have absolutely no evidence -- just a good sense of smell. I do hope some intrepid political reporter leaves the trail of polls and more polls and more polls to track down where this rumor came from. It certainly won't be easy: Karl Rove, you'll recall, is the fellow who couldn't keep track of his email even when he worked for the White House, and the law required it.

War Protests: Why No Coverage?

2007-11-01T06:26:00.000-07:00

This piece was published in the Oct. 30 issue of the Christian Science Monitor

Oct. 30, 2007 -- Coordinated antiwar protests in at least 11 American cities this weekend raised anew an interesting question about the nature of news coverage: Are the media ignoring rallies against the Iraq war because of their low turnout or is the turnout dampened by the lack of news coverage?

I find it unsettling that I even have to consider the question.

That most Americans oppose the war in Iraq is well established. The latest CBS News poll, in mid-October, found 26 percent of those polled approved of the way the president is handling the war and 67 percent disapproved. It found that 45 percent said they’d only be willing to keep large numbers of US troops in Iraq “for less than a year.” And an ABC News-Washington Post poll in late September found that 55 percent felt Democrats in Congress had not gone far enough in opposing the war.

Granted, neither poll asked specifically about what this weekend’s marchers wanted: An end to congressional funding for the war. Still, poll after poll has found substantial discontent with a war that ranks as the preeminent issue in the presidential campaign.

Given that context, it seems remarkable to me that in some of the 11 cities in which protests were held - Boston and New York, for example - major news outlets treated this “National Day of Action” as though it did not exist. As far as I can tell, neither The New York Times nor The Boston Globe had so much as a news brief about the march in the days leading up to it. The day after, The Times, at least in its national edition, totally ignored the thousands who marched in New York and the tens of thousands who marched nationwide. The Globe relegated the news of 10,000 spirited citizens (including me) marching through Boston’s rain-dampened streets to a short piece deep inside its metro section. A single sentence noted the event’s national context.

As a former newspaper editor, I was most taken aback by the silence beforehand. Surely any march of widespread interest warrants a brief news item to let people know that the event is taking place and that they can participate. It’s called “advancing the news,” and it has a time-honored place in American newsrooms.

With prescient irony, Frank Rich wrote in his Oct. 14 Times column, “We can continue to blame the Bush administration for the horrors of Iraq…. But we must also examine our own responsibility.” And, he goes on to suggest, we must examine our own silence.

So why would Mr. Rich’s news colleagues deprive people of information needed to take exactly that responsibility?

I’m not suggesting here that the Times or any news organization should be in collusion with a movement - pro-war or antiwar, pro-choice or pro-life, pro-government or pro-privatization.
I am suggesting that news organizations cover the news - that they inform the public about any widespread effort to give voice to those who share a widely held view about any major national issue.

If it had been a pro-war group that had organized a series of support marches this weekend, I’d have felt the same way. Like the National Day of Action, their efforts would have been news - news of how people can participate in a democracy overrun with campaign platitudes and big-plate fundraisers, news that keeps democracy vibrant, news that keeps it healthy.

Joseph Pulitzer, the editor and publisher for whom the highest honor in journalism is named, understood this well. In May 1904, he wrote: “Our Republic and its press rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press … can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery…. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.”

It’s time for the current generation of journalists - at times seemingly obsessed with Martha Stewart, O.J. Simpson, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and the like - to use that power more vigilantly, and more firmly, with the public interest in mind.

News of Jena finds us, and the news media, asleep

2007-09-20T12:19:00.001-07:00

09/20/07

It seems we still live in two Americas.

This week, one is cracking jokes about “don’t taser me bro,” after a Florida incident in which overzealous campus police did just that, and again seems riveted by wall-to-wall cable coverage of “all OJ, all the time, the Las Vegas Sequel.

I suspect much of this America long ago lost interest in the daily carnage in Iraq and lost touch with the daily inequities that are just part of life in this land of much-touted opportunity.

And the other America? It made its voice heard today when tens of thousands of mostly black Americans marched on tiny Jena, La., outraged by a town and story barely breaking into the consciousness of white America, but long on the radar, the websites and radio stations, of black-owned media.

Jena, news reports recount, is a place where three white boys were suspended from school for three days last fall after hanging nooses off a tree where typically only whites congregated – until a black kid had the temerity to sit there.

Jena, too, is a place where six black boys initially were charged with conspiracy to commit second-degree murder after beating up a white kid in what news accounts describe as a racially motivated fight in December. One of the six was convicted of a lesser charge – and faced up to 15 years in prison -- until a judge ruled that he shouldn’t have been tried as an adult. He’s already spent a year behind bars.

The news accounts I’ve found leave murky whether there was any direct relationship between the two incidents. And at least some of the Jena 6, as they’ve come to be called, had been in trouble before.

But please: Three days suspension from school vs. 15 years, or one, in prison? Is that equitable justice in America, 2007? And why is this story only now breaking into my consciousness? Is it less important than “don’t taser me bro?” Is it less important than all OJ, all the time? I don’t think so. I don’t think those marchers coming to Jena today from all over the country think so either.

For whatever the reason, however, the gatekeepers of this country’s top news organizations messed up. They badly misjudged or just plain missed this important story. Writes The Washington Post, “The prosecutions in Jena … and the racial clashes that preceded them received scant news coverage.” A quick comparison of stories devoted to OJ, or even the tasering incident vs. Jena shows no contest: Jena comes in a distant third.

Which leads me back to those two Americas.

I don’t believe race is the only determinant of which America each of us lives in today. Nor do I believe any but the slimmest minority of those riveted on OJ but oblivious to Jena would advocate, tolerate or in any way accept those who sling nooses over tree limbs. But as a society, we, and in this case particularly white America, at times seem just oblivious, numbed by a popular culture and, increasingly, a news culture that feeds us a steady diet of entertainment and information that too often diverts our attention from, rather than focusing it on, what really matters.

That’s true when it comes to our long, grinding and, in the view of many, unwinnable war in Iraq. And its true when it comes to domestic issues, issues of justice and civil rights and immigration. Except for those who can’t simply walk away, can’t change the color of their skin or the status of their papers, too often we, and the news media charged with informing us, have checked out.

Just as many of us – for and against the war in Iraq – consider it someone else’s fight (the soldiers, the military’s, the politicians), many of us believe the struggle for Civil Rights belonged to another generation, in another time. No problem here. No problem now. Case closed.

Well, in Jena, La., today people are marching – by the tens of thousands. Most, though not all, will be black. To them Jena is just one more reminder, one more indignity nearly 150 years after the end of slavery, that justice is not color blind in America, that justice is still not equal in America, that not everyone has the luxury of shopping in malls in oblivion or sitting in Starbucks over a non-fat latte. That if we want a democracy, that if we want liberty, that if we want freedom, we have to fight for it, to sacrifice for it, to stand together for it, to get off our duffs and do something about it. We always will.

Whatever the nuances of the Jena case, whatever its ultimate resolution, to
the protesters for their actions, I say, thank goodness.

Beyond the Politics of Equivocation

2007-09-09T08:11:00.000-07:00

09/09/07

“To go before or with … to show the way.”

That is the first definition of the verb “to lead” in my online dictionary, dictionary.com. Not surprisingly, the dictionary also says that leaders are those who lead.

Too bad, on the war on Iraq, that I can’t find a single sustained, vocal leader in the top ranks of the Democratic Party.

Tomorrow, Army Gen. David Petraeus will tell the world that the “surge” in Iraq is working. I haven’t been privy to an advance copy of his speech. I don’t need one. For weeks now, President Bush and his spin machine have been playing Petraeus and his generals as if they're marionettes.

Patraeus’ words will hold no surprises. He’ll tell us, in so many words, that, “We’re kicking ass.” It’s the new story line: Because we’re tough and have stayed the course, things in Iraq are getting better. Not that the American people are really fooled. They want facts.

So what have our Democratic leaders in Congress and the presidential nomination race done? For the most part, they've cleared their throats and shuffled.

I don’t understand why just one of them can’t tell the truth – can't say that even if we’ve brought some slight stability to parts of Iraq, we don’t have a chance in hell of sustaining it, of reversing the war’s course. That American soldiers will continue to bleed there, year after year after year, unless someone draws a line now. That our soldiers, as one officer of the Shiite Mahdi Army told The New York Times, are captives in the very country that we tore up and are now trying to mend.

Why can’t a leading Democratic candidate quote the words of Lt. Col. Steve M. Miska, deputy commander of a U.S. brigade trying to control northwest Baghdad? He told The Times, “We’ve essentially stalled the sectarian conflict without addressing the underlying grievances.”

Why can't a leading Democratic candidate stand up and ask, “How many American boys and girls still must die to bolster George W. Bush in his ever-changing lie?”

Or perhaps they have, only for their words to be swallowed in a stew of position briefs. That's not enough.

This is a call for courage -- for a Democratic candidate or party leader to get – and stay -- angry and on message. To speak out unequivocally and repeatedly. To risk the right’s counter-attack. To say, again and again, that we’ve fumbled the real war, the one against Osama Bin Laden, by exhausting our troops and our nation’s psyche in Iraq, spilling blood and endless billions on the scorched Earth of a country that never was much more than a colonial construct anyway. To demand that we get out -- and not five years from now.

This, in other words, is a call for leader.

The American people are waiting.

It won’t be Hillary. She’s got too comfortable a margin in early polls and too big a commitment to winning. She’s too deeply enmeshed in the vote that took us to Iraq in the first place. She’s plenty smart, but can be counted on the be plenty safe while the Bush boys spin their latest fantasy, their latest story line to a press corps that, with some notable exceptions, seems perfectly willing to pass it on with little skepticism – at least until some courageous Democrat steps up and demands more than half-baked compromise, at least until the American people get mad as well as weary, turn out in the streets instead of merely turning off the news.

But how about you Barack Obama, you who boasts of being the one wise enough to oppose the war in the first place? How about you John Edwards, you who was wise enough to apologize, early, for voting to send the troops? I know, I know.. Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, even Republican Ron Paul have said without a lot of wiggling that it’s time to bring the troops home. They’ve tried their best.

But their calls, at the back of the pack, are not enough. Someone who can command attention needs to speak out. Someone, in debates and on the Senate floor, has to get angry and stay that way, day after day. To steep themselves in the hard-gathered facts that the elite media have provided – in books, in articles, in television documentaries. And then to simplify, to use those facts as if they were propaganda, in slogans and slick phrases, because that is how the Bush Administration has convinced sizable chunks of America that it actually was Saddam Hussein who bombed the World Trade Center and that, given the chance, he’d have dropped the Big One, too.

It’s clear that an elegant lie, simply and repeatedly told, can fool huge swaths of the people much of the time. That’s the lesson of this world of 24-7 news. Unless, at least, there is a counterforce. Unless someone pushes back with an equally elegant truth, repeated just as simply and just as often.

But that takes guts. It takes someone willing to risk losing – the presidential nomination, control of the Senate or House, the battle for public opinion – in order to risk winning. It takes a leader.

Only that person would not lose. The American people are fed up. They are hungry for someone to speak truth to power and for someone in power to speak the truth. They want a leader.

That’s what The Boston Globe heard when it sent its reporters across America to hear the public’s views on the war.

:Lsten to Stu Michael, a Republican from Wheaton, Ill., who still supports the surge.: “It’s the old adage of trying to close the barn door after all the animals are out … Does anybody have an answer?”

Or to 23-year-old Chris Dolezilek, who, in Holton, Kan., seemed “eager for real information.”

“I want to make my own decisions,” he told The Globe. “But I can’t get any information because there’s so much false information out there.”

Are you listening Democrats?

Barack Obama. John Edwards. Anyone. Stand up. Speak up. Lead us from the stinking graveyard of Iraq War spin.

Redrawing the lines of Republican family values

2007-09-03T07:51:00.000-07:00

I published this opinion piece on OpEdNews.com.

9/04/07

This time the Republicans wasted no time. They buried the body while it was still warm.

Less than a week after news broke that Sen. Larry Craig had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in connection with a police sex sting this June in the men’s bathroom of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, Idaho’s conservative senior senator announced his resignation.

The speed of Craig’s resignation -- just a few days after he insisted his guilty plea had been a mistake and announced, “I am not gay. I have never been gay” -- said a lot.

At first glance, it showed that the righteous Republican Party, the one that brought us Rep. Mark Foley’s congressional page follies a year ago, figured it couldn’t afford another festering case of family-values hypocrisy in the run-up to next year’s presidential election.

But the cold-blooded haste with which the Republicans this time drew and quartered one of their own has tapped another oozing seam of party hypocrisy. Wasn’t it just last month that Republicans stayed mum at the news that Lousiana Sen. David Vitter’s name appeared in the client list of the infamous D.C. Madam? Have you heard anyone calling for his resignation?

Vitter, one of the most unctuous of the family-values sanctimonious on Capitol Hill, sailed through the incident with a brief (and undoubtedly humbling) admission that he had sinned. Larry Craig never had that chance. In Republican circles, it seems Larry Craig’s sins, which despite his guilty plea he has denied, are beyond forgiveness.

Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I can only conclude that if you’re a right-wing Republican it’s OK to talk about the sanctity of the family while diddling a member of the opposite sex behind your wife’s back. But it’s not OK if you’re so much as considering making whoopee with a member of the same sex.

Now there’s morality at work.

Republicans, of course, already have developed talking points to differentiate the two cases. Craig, Republican pundits and talking heads have pointed out, pleaded guilty to a crime (although not explicitly to soliciting sex). Vitter did not.

That, however, is hogwash, points out Joshua Micah Marshall on his blog, http://www.talkingpoints.com/

“For one thing, confronted with evidence that he made use of a prostitution service, Vitter conceded immediately that he'd ‘sinned,’" Marshall notes. “I'm not an expert in the subject, but as I understand it, paying for sex is a crime, and Vitter publicly acknowledged that he'd violated this law. He would have been subject to criminal charges, but the statute of limitations ran out.”

Oh …. Whatever.

Where is Karl Rove when the Republicans really need him?

Outtakes: Memories of Provence

2007-08-08T13:36:00.000-07:00

08/07/07 -- Like photographs, culled and cropped, notebooks filled with string rekindle memories of special times. This is from a March jotting.

Provence is old men with drooping mustaches and women, decked in colorful costumes, their hair a canvas of reds, blondes and purples.

It’s dogs – French mops and yellow labs, Jack Russells and cockers, bulldogs and poodles, lounging beneath bar stools and cafe tables, crapping on the street wherever they darn well please.

It’s song birds and flowering fruit trees, fast cars and pursed lips, the singsong of a language spoken with music and style, the dramatic sigh of a drawn-in breath, sashaying skirts and boots of fine-tooled leather.

It’s a frank stare and animated conversation in the market, a point brought home with the jab of a finger, the shouts of a vendor hawking plump strawberries near closing time, the smell of spices, the honey man, his hat pulled down low over his eyes to shade them from the brilliant sunshine.

It’s a bouquet of flowers, carried on a motorcycle by a tattooed guy who looks like he’d fit better as a bouncer at a topless bar than as a tender soul bringing his girlfriend (mother?) a placesetting for the midday meal.

It’s a cloudy glass of pastis, a wry sense of humor (“chat lunatique” one homeowner warned would-be trespassers ), five loaves of bread, carried in the crook of an arm on a brisk walk home. It’s the joyful cry of children playing and the body English of the old men playing boules in the town squares.

It’s life lived outdoors, succulent, graceful, ageless and iconoclastic, nurturing and sexy, thoroughly delightful.

Bread and Circus

2007-06-12T07:39:00.001-07:00

06/15/07 -- "Are you happy to be back home?" my neighbor asks.

I weighed the answer carefully. "In some ways," I reply. "But France was quite wonderful."

What I don't mention, at least not right off the bat, is my growing disenchantment with what I've begun calling "the idiot factor" of American life. The idiot factor clicks in when CNN salivates over whether Paris Hilton will serve five, 15 or 45 days in jail or the print media run rampant about whether Tony Soprano will survive his show's last episode. Gripping, important stuff, no doubt. But is there nothing else going on in the world right now? Was all the news I saw overseas on the BBC and France's TV5 a mirage? Can't we find even a toehold on TV for our emerging Constitutional crisis over the Administration's stonewalling in the firing of U.S. attorneys? And which war should we choose to ignore today? (There are too many to cover, anyway.)

American cable television is so effective at appealing to the idiot factor that I can't help but wonder whether someone has pulled a page from the schemers of ancient Rome. Remember bread and circus? Keep the masses fed, fat, diverted and distracted?

Certainly we have succeeded in super-sizing both our stomachs and the holes in our reasoning.

The first we see daily, on the street and in the handwringing headlines about overweight everybody.

As for those gaping gaps in logic, look no further than a USA Today poll about 10 days ago on the origins of life. The paper found that 66 percent of Americans think it is "definitely or probably true" that God created humans in their present form within the past 10,000 years. But 53 percent ALSO told the pollsters that man evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.

How, you ask, is that possible? The answer: A quarter believe both to be true.

And why not, one might ask, at a time and in a country in which the president has taught us that something is true as long as he SAYS it is true and the media to this day rarely bother to directly challenge that assertion. Who needs logic or evidence when we have opposing views -- when we have a starting point for talking heads to yell at each other?

To me, coming back from a continent in which conservation is part of life's rhythm, the "bread" of America is bad enough -- our supersized houses, supersized cars, even supersized erectile dysfunction drugs (you know the one: please call your doctor if your erection lasts more than four days).

But now that I have cable TV again, it's the circus that drives me truly wild. I'm a journalism professor so in a way that makes me a co-conspirator. I didn't realize when I signed up for this that I'd be educating students to stand on the steps of some distraught family's front porch, earnest expression on their faces, a tear in each eye, keeping a daily countdown on the whereabouts of the latest lost kid of the month. More often than not, however, that's what passes for serious news.

Stay tuned this summer, and you'll see. It will be show time because it's a slow time for anything but real news -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Gonzales, immigration, corruption, Darfur, missle shields, health care... The list is long. But who wants to ruin a beach day with a lasting problem when we can cry for someone whose problems will never touch us? Why get mad at our leaders for lying to us and deceiving us when we can get pissed at Paris (as in Hilton) instead?

Let's keep the public satisfied and distracted. That way they won't have to figure out this monkey business about why man can't both be created erect AND evolve from less forms of life. If all else fails, we can rely on that other fine American tradition and simply split the difference, as one fellow journalism educator suggested to me at a conference in South Carolina this week.

"Evolution is just a theory; it's never been proven," he said, his face muscles tensing. "Why not just teach it with creationism as opposing theories?"

Why sure, we could do that. But tell me: I have a theory, too. I believe that the planets were placed around us by leprechauns to brighten the sky. Do you think we could start teaching that in science class, too?

Lingering signs of tradition; hints of change

2007-06-06T18:46:00.000-07:00

AIX-EN-PROVENCE, May 26 – Continuity and change.

The signs – on billboards, bumper stickers and store names – can be seen across the South of France.

From Secrets Dessous, this city’s lingerie store that whispers of “Secrets Beneath,” to the 2,800 poems advertised by Chris of Cassis on all topics from romance to heartbreak, there are abundant signs the French still take quite seriously their responsibility as the standard bearers of amour.

We’ve seen that on the rotating billboard we've passed daily for four months on our walk to downtown Aix. A few months ago, in the early weeks of spring, it featured a young, scantily clad, woman leaning back. Avec moi, pas d'abstention -- “ with me, no abstention” --read the words below. By late May, on the eve of the holiday of Pentecost, the fifth and last French school holiday in the month, the same billboard featured a leggy, long-haired blonde in flowing white dress atop what looked like a wooden, carrousel horse. This time the words – vive les mamans sexy -- seemed aimed at a slightly older set: mothers. But the message hadn’t changed much.

Perhaps such signs should not surprise in a culture in which young men and women pass each other on the sidewalk and, in mid-stride, plant a kiss on both cheeks, a culture in which a middle-aged couple seated at our table at a town festival in the village of Venelles suddenly began kissing passionately in mid-main course and the grandmother ahead of us in the butcher shop line wore miniskirt, orange headband and silver heels.

A warning triangle in the back window of a high-end Peugot sedan in the tony village of Lourmarin seemed to sum up both the country’s passion for and humor about all things sensual. It alerted others that the driver stopped suddenly – for women in high-heeled shoes.

But if some things remain the same in the South of France, there are signs others are changing. Frenchmen, it might be argued, love their dogs nearly as much as les femmes. Enter a restaurant, bar or café and you can expect to find a cuddly Newfoundland curled in a ball beneath a table, a golden lab nibbling du pain from his master’s outstretched hand, a French fou-fou cuddled under papa’s arm.

Those days, however, are rapidly becoming as endangered as the 35-hour French workweek under the newly elected president, Nicolas Sarkozy.

The signs are subtle: a new breed of triangular warning signs has cropped up in several stores and restaurants here in recent weeks with a sketch of a dog, a line drawn through it: No dogs allowed.

This is quite shocking in a land in which canines have demanded – and been granted -- their share of egalite. But as more dogs are left at curbside, they at least appear to be exhibiting more grace than French students, angry at rumblings of change in the higher education system.

No protesters here. Just yesterday, outside Aix’s best butcher, the Boucherie/Charcuterie du Palais, a young husky, no leash or collar, stood patiently for awhile, ears perked, awaiting his owner. A new sign – dogs forbidden – had been taped to the window.

Inside, the human line moved slowly. And so, after a few minutes, the dog lay down, crossed his front paws in front of him and rested his chin on one, a bit sad perhaps, but accepting of the inevitable winds of change.

Mais Oui: A Culture of Contradictions

2007-05-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

05/22/07

AIS-EN-PROVENCE, France -- At the Musee National Picasso in Vallauris, where the master painted War and Peace on a chapel ceiling, photographs are forbidden. Visitors must check bags. But one tourist shared the chapel’s wonders with his toy poodle, tucked under his arm.

The museum’s exhibits were well lit and beautifully displayed. In high-heeled leather boots, one of the guards looked straight off Paris’ Champs-Elysees. But the seats had been removed from the men’s and women’s toilets.

To an American visitor, these might seem jarring juxtapositions. But then, this museum is quintessentially French.

In our more than four months here, my wife Kathy and I have found this to be a culture of sometimes startling contradictions.

Nowhere have we encountered greater courtesy than in the stores, cafes and casual encounters in the sunny city of Aix. Stop by Monoprix, a middle-class department store in its midst, and the counter clerk would sooner sell us a ripped shirt than ring up our purchase without first saying, “Bonjour monsieur et madamer,” fixing us first with a warm smile. It’s the same elsewhere. Face to face, the French of Provence are gracious, warm and embracing.

But in the anonymity of their cars, the Provencaux turn ferocious. I live in Boston, America’s rotary capitol, and I was trained for combat driving in the madness called Manhattan. But I turn with trepidation onto narrow mountain roads here. I’ve had French drivers hug my bumper at 40 and 50 miles an hour, either bursting past on “straightaways” a block long or forcing me to pull onto the shoulder to let them through. On the single-car wide lane where we live, drivers play a different game of chicken. When I hesitate as they bear down, they keep coming, stopping nose to nose, a few feet away. Then one car – well, mine – backs up, teetering on the edge of a ditch or under a hedge while the other inches past. (I have heard there are rules of etiquette on such narrow lanes – men back up for women; younger women for older women; and younger men for older men …. Perhaps I look really young for my age?)

Questions of pace are equally perplexing. Mealtime is sacred. Food must be eaten slowly, one course at a time, with plenty of time to digest in between. We’ve learned that evenings demand a choice: One can eat, or one can do something else. Because from appetizer to after-dinner coffee (typically course four or five), dinner takes three hours

In a hurry? We’ve managed a single-course lunch in 90 minutes, the last 30 reserved for smiling and waving a few fingers for the check every few minutes as the waiter walks by without a glance our way.

Given the pace of cuisine, one might expect the French to wait patiently for a concert to begin or a line to move. One might, but one shouldn’t. The other night, the Flamenco performance we attended began 15 minutes late. After five minutes the audience began clapping rhythmically. A second and third round of clapping, each louder, followed before the show began.

And these little outbursts don’t compare with the experience of getting on a French ski lift or a crowded bus. It’s a little like trying to escape through the single door of a burning theatre.

Peter Mayle, who has chronicled all Provencal, describes the idiosyncrasies of French impatience in his book, Provence A-Z: “It’s odd, this urge to save a few minutes, since the normally easygoing people of Provence are not noted for hurrying. My theory is that it has something to do with … a fierce joy in overtaking, whatever the conditions – a competitive instinct that is always there, whether on four wheels or two legs.”

And then, alas, there is the nagging question of “facilities” in a country where the perfect look is nearly as important as the perfect meal. Perfection does not apply to the plumbing, however. Not close.

Our second week in France, we stopped with a French family in an expensive, refurbished mountain cafe. The renovators had forgotten one thing. The old-fashioned stand-and-stoop toilets remained.

Our acquaintances were embarrassed. Such ancient facilities, they said, should be relegated to the past. But even in Aix, with its picturesque shops and people who not only dress well but, as Kathy notes, almost “in costume,” that has yet to happen. Walking through the Saturday market here -- with sparkling stalls of green, yellow and red pepper; bins of fragrant and pungent spices; and shoppers dressed in flowing, colorful skirts, scarves knotted just so, makeup applied to perfection -- is sort of like walking through a Hollywood set. It is a place of sparkle and elegant sensuality. We’ve learned, however, that choosing where to order coffee in the crowded cafes lining the market squares requires strategy. If nature calls, the wrong choice of where to sit can mean no seat at all.

Undoubtedly, like the 35-hour work week, this way of life will soon vanish. I may miss those topless toilets on future visits. But at the Musee National Picasso, in the village of Vallauris, I collected my camera and knapsack, said goodbye to the guard, and looked for a more modern W.C.

When Morality Fails Us

2007-05-17T11:39:00.000-07:00

This piece appeared first on CommonDreams.org.

05/17/07 --Just how pervasively and insidiously the grinding and open-ended Iraq war has eroded our moral foundations became clear to me late last week when I came across an article titled “Plan B for Iraq: Winning Dirty.”

It was written by Morton Kondracke, veteran executive editor of the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, and a regular contributor and co-host on Fox News.

“The administration and its critics ought to be seriously thinking about a Plan B, the ‘80 percent solution’ - also known as ‘winning dirty,” he wrote.

"The 80 percent alternative involves accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious…

"Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency. There likely will be ethnic cleansing (emphasis added), atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows…"

He ends his column by quoting an unnamed Congressman who supports this approach:
‘The quicker we back the winning side, the quicker the war ends,” his source says. “Winning dirty isn't attractive, but it sure beats losing.”

Kondracke, a Washington journalism insider for decades, seemed to be suggesting that America can still win in Iraq – if only it would support ethnic cleansing by an American-friendly faction of Shiites against the Sunnis.

He might as well have written: “They may be indiscriminate mass murderers, but they are our mass murderers.” But then, what would that make us? After reading Kondracke’s piece on www.realclearpolitics.com, I rubbed my eyes and waited for the fallout. Not a word.

Perhaps Kondracke, co-host of Fox News’ the Beltway Boys, was speaking strictly for himself. Perhaps his wild “plan” didn’t dignify a response? But what, I wondered, if this was but the first “trial balloon” of an emerging administration Plan B? Would anyone notice?

Because whatever its origins, Kondracke’s bankrupt reasoning seems an inevitable outgrowth of four years of daily carnage in Iraq. The erosion of American law, of the Geneva Conventions, of military conduct and ultimately of our country’s morality have been gradual but grinding.

In 2004, for example, the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison, captured in still photos by the interrogators themselves, shocked the American public. In comparison, disclosures nearly two years later of a Marine massacre of 24 men, women and children in the town of Haditha -- four were charged with unpremeditated murder -- caused barely a stir. Stories of other U.S. atrocities continue to trickle out, the result no doubt of a war being fought without clearly defined purpose, without true engagement by Americans at home, without clear end.

War, it’s said, is Hell. If it must exist, it should be limited to times when one wrong is so far worse than others that someone must combat it. Adolph Hitler’s Germany comes to mind, not Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, as evil as he without doubt was.

But this is not a column about why we entered the wrong war. It’s about why we keep fighting it and how, in doing so, we are draining our capacity to differentiate right from wrong. As awful as they have been, I can fathom the worst actions of our troops better than I can the cold-blooded calculations of some politicians and pundits stateside who seem bent on continuing the war at all costs.

American troops are fighting for their own lives and for each other – not for raw power or some vague strategic goal. They are the pawns let loose in madness, some perhaps turned mad by its grip. William Golding’s Lord of the Flies comes to mind.

But what excuses have those arguing for ways to legitimize mass murder in the name of foreign policy? And what excuses have those who, by standing by, continue to let the bullies and morally bankrupt hold sway?

Neither political party is blameless here. Yes. This is George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s war. Every serious Republican presidential candidate for 2008 continues to back it.

But even as congressional Democrats push to set limits on funding, they’ve been slow, the International Herald Tribune reports, to roll back the most heinous aspect of the Military Commissions Act. The law, passed a year ago, denies even the most basic right of law – habeas corpus, the right to challenge detention through the courts – to so-called enemy combatants held in Guantanamo and elsewhere.

This creates a Catch 22 for a democracy – how can a country determine whether the bad guys are really bad (and the good guys really good), when those bad guys have no rights and no voice? How can a democracy lock people up, throw away the key and still call itself a democracy?

Then comes Kondracke’s suggestion that we accept “ethnic cleansing” in Iraq. Ethnic cleansing, of course, is simply a euphemism for genocide. We ignored it in Rwanda. We’ve ignored it in Sudan. Are we now going to actively support it in Iraq?

Just what would we call ourselves then? Or have we, as a nation, reached the point where winning is all, where nothing else much matters?

And they call this the news?

2007-04-23T11:02:00.000-07:00

This piece was published on Monday, April 23, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

04/22/07

My cousin thought I must be having anger management issues.

She and her husband Paul had flipped through the satellite dials and settled on the McLaughlin Group on the European edition of CNBC. And there on screen sat four weighty U.S. news commentators, two on the right, two on the left, screaming at each other over the underlying social causes of the tragic, but largely inexplicable Virginia Tech slaughter. In the middle sat the wrinkled and ever-earnest John McLaughlin, the “moderator,” interjecting occasionally to throw another log on the fire.

After four months in the tranquility of Provence, France, where passionate discourse virtually never crosses the line into vitriol, this TV food fight, billed as “public affairs” journalism, ratcheted up my blood pressure.

“How can you watch this crap?” I snapped at my cousin Stephanie. “It’s made-for-TV muck — soap opera, not news.” And with that I stormed out to separate the trash from the recyclables.

By the next morning, we could both laugh about my meltdown. But I was left to wonder just what had pushed my button so hard. It isn’t Steph that I was mad at; it is how far my profession, the news business, has fallen in this era of all-noise, all-the-time. Because no one should mistake 24-7 television with all-news, all-the-time. The McLaughlin Group, after all, is considered relatively refined as food fight journalism goes. It takes on serious issues. Most of its regular and guest commentators are well-established journalists.

Yet it’s format — you scream at me and I’ll scream back — wouldn’t be carried on European news channels, not on the BBC, not on France’s TV5 or even, from what I can tell, on local commercial French television. Television news in Europe may be a bit dull, but content still seems to count. From what I can tell through the barrier of language, political talk shows — and there’s a presidential election going on here — are lively, but still leave the speaker time to finish a sentence. Stories on the news tell not just about France, Iraq and the United States, but also about such places as Albania, Nigeria and Vietnam.

As it turns out, a lot is happening in those places. But I doubt that half of my students in Boston could find them on a map, let alone discuss developments there. And with good reason. The U.S. media spends so much time examining America’s navel that it neither has the time nor inclination to look at the global body politic. (Nor, of course, in this era of profits and consolidation, does it want to spend the money to do so.)

Ironically, in fact, all-news, all-the-time seems to have brought Americans less content and less knowledge of all serious topics, American and foreign, not more. It fills the airwaves and print websites with endless redundancy of information and endless opinion with little context. Consider the findings of a recent report from the Pew Center for the People and the Press. Released in mid-April, it found that, “on average, today’s citizens are about as able to name their leaders, and are about as aware of major news events, as was the public nearly 20 years ago.”

Before, that is, the advent of the Internet and all-noise, all-the-time. A second look suggests that the words “about as able” paper over hints of a decline in knowledge. In 1989, the report notes, 74 percent of Americans were able to identify Dan Quayle, as lightweight a vice-president as has held the office in modern times. Today, just 69 percent of those polled could name Dick Cheney, arguably the most powerful vice-president in American history and a man, civil libertarians would argue, who has consistently consolidated power in the executive branch, often at the expense of constitutionally guaranteed checks and balances. In 1989, some 47 percent could identify the president of Russia. Today 36 percent can.

Are Americans, faced with an unending assault of screaming pundits, simply checking out?

Or are they so consumed by wall-to-wall news coverage of exploitative stories such as the death of Anna Nicole Smith that they haven’t looked up from their screens long enough to notice the rights of our democracy eroding around them?

In either case, the news media must shoulder a significant portion of the blame: The evidence suggests to me that all-noise, all-the-time helps undermine America’s security and democracy.

* When cable and network news ignore most of the world and sanitize much of the death and mayhem in Iraq, Americans lose the capacity to understand why and how deeply the rest of the world, including our allies, doesn’t like us. And that’s dangerous. (The topic was explored this morning here as part of a documentary — on the BBC.)

* When the cable and broadcast networks salivate endlessly over the sensational, whether it is the sad but trivial such as Smith’s death or the serious, devastating but ultimately distracting, such as the Virginia Tech mayhem, Americans lose sight of the myriad ways the Bush administration has eroded civil liberties, from the politicized firings of its own appointees to the Justice Department to the elimination of habeas corpus for foreign nationals picked up under the Military Commissions Act. (Or, as Jonathan Evans, a conservative British member of parliament, said on that same BBC special, it is essential in hunting terrorists that we “maintain our belief in democracy and human rights.”)

* And when journalists compensate for lack of original reporting by simply putting on loud-talking representatives of opposing viewpoints, they obscure the facts and blur the truth.
There is considerable evidence that Karl Rove and the Bush Administration have long known how to exploit this. One of my favorite examples, reported by Ron Susskind in the October 2004 New York Times magazine, is of an exchange he had with a “senior adviser” to the president. That adviser sneered at what he called the “reality-based community” represented by Susskind and his questions.

”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he reportedly told Susskind. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

Yet instead of pointing out just how illusory this “reality” continues to be, the media even today give the administration and its representatives ample and equal time to voice it. One repeated example is the platform that Dick Cheney still gets with regularity to assert that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had close ties before the Iraq War. Never mind that top-level government reports, from that of the 9/11 Commission to leaked CIA documents, have consistently discredited this repeated assertion.

We live in a world of point-counterpoint, shout-countershout. It’s the format in which all-noise, all-the-time feels most comfortable. And like the Bush Administration, it creates its own reality, a world of talking heads and wagging fingers, too often, I fear, to quote the great bard, “Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.”

One day at a time

2007-04-15T11:30:00.000-07:00

AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France
April 11, 2007

This morning, like nearly every other, we walked to town -- past the puffy white buds of the apple trees, beneath the sweet vines of fragrant, purple wisteria, through the throaty coos of the mourning doves. It was supposed to be cloudy, maybe even rain. But as usual, the sky broke blue, the breeze blew gently. Il fait du soleil.

Today, I tried to record our daily walk, stopping to take pictures of the gated estate with stepped stone walls beyond; the burning brush, smelling like a campfire, at the orange house on the corner, where a young family has moved in and is clearing the yard; the two yellow labs, collarless, who tracked us balefully as we walked past; the boys at Lycee Paul Cezanne, smoking out front, two playing hacky sack, a third twirling a spool on a string.

We walked past the signs, advertising concerts and cars and lingerie. (My favorite for its Frenchness, of a saucy blonde in skimpy pink underwear, leaning back in a provocative pose with the words, “avec moi, pas d’abstention,” had been replaced.) Past the Red Cross, where men and women milled around, possibly waiting for the gates to open to give blood. Past the city park and IS, the language school where we gained a foothold in French, and into Place des Precheurs, where the International Herald Tribune had sold out by 11 a.m., a sure sign the tourists are arriving now in growing numbers.

Our goal this morning was modest -- to mail a package to our two friends, the Lewis sisters in Switzerland. But a hand-lettered sign on a flip chart at the post office announced greve – strike – and a man, representing management said with an apologetic shrug, “perhaps tomorrow.” (An angry young woman, her black hair aswirl, remained unconvinced, muttering something like foues les facteurs, which I’m reasonably sure was “fuck the mailmen,” as she stalked away.)

We were less miffed, stuffing our packages back in the Sierra Club day pack that has come in so handy, and wandering off on our favorite daily task: poking around. We stopped in a leather purse shop – vent sauvage (wild wind) – where we picked out, but left behind for now, a likely graduation present for our niece. We stopped by the fabric store, where the sales woman reminded me that rond is round, not circulaire – a word I may have made up, and that nappe, not serviette de table is the right name for a table cloth. Whatever the name, we bought one for our outside picnic table at home, a rich Provencal blue with orange dots (bees? carrots?) and two fringed strips, one of daisies and lavender, and a second of olives, hanging below the table.

As we walked on, a pair of deep red, spiked high heels with ankle straps caught our eye; our older daughter’s birthday is only weeks away. And so Kathy squeezed into them because, as we explained to the seemingly bored, slinky blonde sales girl, her shoe size is presque to Betsy’s. A pres de, the sales girl corrected politely. (“She may be bored, but she’s OK,” I thought to myself. I love the way the French correct our many mistakes).

While Saturday is the grand market day and markets spread over three squares on Tuesday and Thursday as well, the market takes place every day at Place Richelme near city hall. And so on this day, a Wednesday, we couldn’t resist buying one of the season’s first Provencal melons. Nor could we simply ignore the nose-crinkling allure of the spice table, where a delightful young woman with a wide smile sold us 40 grams each of spices mixed specially for fish and omelets (they were two of about 20 choices there). And then, in French and English, she struck up a conversation of sorts, asking where we were from. She had visited New York, which, she marveled, had streets better organized than even Paris, streets on which she had walked and walked for miles. She had read about Boston, she said, but never been.

We told her that her spices smelled wonderful and she shrugged as if to say she hadn’t noticed, “I never lose the smell,” she said. “I go home and it’s my hair, in my clothes.”

We’ll seek her out again on market days: Another Provencal gem, like the man who earlier sold us an indoor table cloth and, when we tried to fold it, told us “c’est mon travail” and then, in English, “it’s my job.”

After the spices, we bought an International Herald Tribune at another stand, made one last stop to buy a baguette, and caught the 12:47 No. 4 bus up the hill to our apartment among the trees and songbirds. We ate a lunch of melted chevre on toast, fresh pears and white wine. And Kathy, her book folded open on her chest, fell asleep on the terrace as I sat down to write.

Just one more morning in this city of light and outdoor life, sun and grace, and – am I supposed to be too old to notice? – unending sensuality.

**********************************************************

The first round of the French election is just 12 days away and ennui – boredom – seems the watchword, at least in accounts in the English language Tribune. Nicolas Sarkozy, for the last four years the country’s interior minister, has emerged as a clear front runner in a campaign of many faux pas (an expression, by the way, that does not appear in my French dictionary) and little sustained substance. But 42 percent of the French remain uncertain who they will vote for, pollsters say, and the number rises to 56 percent among young adults. Sarkozy has steadfastly refused to appear in the poor and largely muslim suburbs outside of Paris, places in which he branded young militants as thugs when violence broke out in fall 2005. What’s interesting is that voter registration in those areas is up sharply. Still, he has led all along in the polls and seems likely to win.

The Tribune also ran the second day of a two-part series on the unquestioned dominance of English as the world’s second language today. This is bad news for the French, who both have enormous pride in their language and, at times, can struggle just as much with English as Kathy and I sometimes do with French.

We learned that not only in a series of conversations over our cousins' lost luggage but also in flipping through the pages of an upscale hotel directory: Chateaux et demeures de tradition.

This, word for word, is the entry for an Aix hotel in the directory. (It offers me hope of a return to France; I’m thinking of writing to the CEO and offering my services. )

Ideally located on the Cours Mirabeau our historic mansion reserves to you a marvelous framework of relaxation and userfriendly. The rooms, decorated by Roland Le Vevillon and Maurice Savinel will charm the lovers of the city. Our rooms offer to you sure cofort and rest with a complete bathroom jaccuzy or Turkish baths. You will appreciate air conditioned and soundproof. Our chef incites you to escape … His cooking inspires of savours. Of the world and married to the singing and scented accepts of Provence.

Bien sur. When I sell my services, the first question will be whether the chef incites you to escape before or after the meal.

Is this America, 2007?

2007-04-11T12:08:00.000-07:00

This article initially was published at OpEdNews.com

4/11/07

AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France – A few months ago, while visiting French acquaintances, I was surprised at how strenuously I had to defend the United States against their belief that we remain a thoroughly racist society.

“We have plenty of problems,” I told my hosts. “No question racism has been high on the list. But I sense that things are genuinely changing. My state – Massachusetts – elected its first black governor. My city – Boston – elected a black woman as sheriff. And Barak Obama is one of the top candidates for president. These are just a few signs of change.”

I felt pretty good about my defense, even in stilted French. You see, I believed it. Now I’m not so sure.

That Don Imus gets all of a two-week suspension – and not an immediate one at that -- for calling a championship-level, largely black, college women’s basketball team “a bunch of nappy-headed hos” is disgusting.

That the likes of CNN’s political commentator Jeff Greenfield, comedian Bill Maher and former Jimmy Carter aide Hamilton Jordan all apparently just shrugged off Imus' remark and kept scheduled appearances on his show, as the New York Times reports they did, is incomprehensible.

The same article reported that Sen. John McCain, whom Imus supports, was quick to come to Imus’ defense, saying he’d appear on the shock jock’s show again because he “believes in redemption.” Are there any limits, senator, to simply saying, “I’m sorry?"

Just what does all this say about America today?

Perhaps you don’t have to be French to realize that racism remains unvanquished in the United States, at least if the racist is white, male and making lots of money for major corporations as Don Imus is. Stop and consider for a moment. Can you imagine what would happen if any black man, a sportscaster, a radio jock, were to offhandedly refer to an all-white, college cheerleading squad – please forgive my language here; it’s to make a point – as a bunch of “dumb blonde cunts?” He’d likely be physically assaulted. He’d certainly lose his job, not get a two-week vacation.

We can’t begin to be a truly egalitarian society when crass, vulgar shock jocks are allowed to hide behind their crassness, behind their vulgarity, to issue overtly racist, sexist remarks with impunity against a team of young women who had done nothing more than play superb basketball and defy the oddsmakers by making their way to the NCAA Women’s finals.

I don’t care if Imus is making CBS radio and MSNBC oodles of money. Let him find another line of work.

“These young ladies before you are valedictorians, future doctors, musical prodigies,” the team’s coach, C. Vivian Stringer, said at a nationally televised press conference decrying Imus utterly gratuitous character assassination. She continued, “(these) racist and sexist remarks … are deplorable, despicable .. and unconscionable.”

If the likes of McCain, Jordan, Greenfield and Maher – white males across the political spectrum – can’t see that, if they don’t see enough problem in Imus’ words to end their association with him, and if the corporations that put on Imus’ show don’t feel enough pressure to end it, then in America, in the year 2007, Imus’ words, for many Americans, are not unconscionable. They are acceptable.

And for that, we can all share some part of the blame.

Where special things happen

2007-04-10T07:38:00.000-07:00

PARIS, April 1, 2007

There was no program. We shivered in the unheated church. The soloist never appeared. And the string quartet simply left out one of the major works advertised in advance.

But this was Paris, so it didn’t matter.

The setting was Ste. Chapelle. The evening light poured through its magnificent, rich-blue, 13th century, stain-glassed windows. The first violinist proved a virtuoso. And who can complain when Barber’s Adagio, one of the most beautiful pieces ever written, replaces Pachabel’s Canon?

The day we had arrived in town, the temperatures had plunged. It rained our first 36 hours. Coffee cost $4 and up. But this was Paris, so it didn’t matter.

We ignored the rain and walked through gilded rooms of the Louvre we’d never tried to push through before, the usual crowds thinned by the wintry weather and early spring date. The Egyptian wing. The Louis XVI room with its gilded ceiling painted by Delacroix.

We visited old friends – Renoir, Manet, Gaughin, Cezanne, Degas -- in the Musee D’Orsay and marveled at the eight panels of water lilies painted by Monet himself in two rooms of the Orangerie.

And then the rain stopped and the sun broke through as we strolled past the stately apartments of the Ile Saint-Louis, past the booksellers along the Seine and the narrow and newly restored streets of the Marais district , where on the Rue Du Point, we found a shop selling instruments of ancient music (1650 on), next to Melodies Graphiques, with its collection of quill pens, and across the street from Monastica, selling products made by French monks.

Behind St. Sulpice, of Da Vinci Code notoriety, we squeezed into a restaurant so cozy that the waitress moved the coat rack, not once but twice, to squeeze in a few more diners. We stumbled upon a Brazilian jazz quartet on Arbucci in the 6th arrondisement that had us pulsing in our place for two glorious sets for no more than the price of a glass of wine. We caught the boat trip, unplanned, around Notre Dame and past the Eiffel Tower by night just because the concert in the cold church happened to end when it did and because our footsteps led us onto the Pont Neuf, and we remembered reveling on the same night boat ride four years ago.

Incroyable.

But this is Paris, where, it seems, good things always happen. Like the desk clerk who let me practice French although she could easily have insisted on English. Like the street performer who enlisted Kathy as his sidekick, leaving us in stitches and Kathy with a red heart balloon (“Bravo, Kathrin,” a mother said out of the blue as we left the bridge of his act. We presented her daughter with the heart.) Like a spontaneous late lunch amidst the gargoyles on Notre Dame’s tower, again with time to dawdle because no summer crowds pushed us through.

We left Paris at the midpoint of this most remarkable five-month sojourn in France. We left with a smile, and the memory that in that cold church, on the day the soloist didn’t show up and the string quartet played whatever it wished, the audience jumped to its feet as one in a standing ovation.

Yes, it was Paris.

Along the French Riviera

2007-03-19T04:35:00.000-07:00

March 13, 2007

I think we’ve found our way through the Looking Glass into the postcards of southern France. No medieval knights with bloodied swords have crossed our paths yet, thank goodness, but I’m still highly suspicious that this is all real.

Today, after 10 weeks in Aix-en-Provence, we've headed southeast to the French Riviera, the Cote D'Azur. We're bathing in the soft March sun, in shirtsleeves, a mile from the Italian border in a park facing the port city of Menton, set dramatically beneath the cliffs that define this stretch of Mediterranean Coastline.

Kathy and I are in delicate negotiations over four days planned soon in Paris (“I’ll trade you a boat trip on the Seine for two hours in the Louvre … That sort of thing.) The nostalgic melody of an accordion carries across the water as we pass an uncorked bottle of white back and forth, high-class winos sharing cheese and baguette on another absolutely perfect day.

Life is slow here, as it should be on a beautiful, quiet March Tuesday. Sun bathers in swim suits lie on the beach, in front of the speckled, aquamarine sea. A mother pushes her toddler in a stroller. An older couple walks painfully past, pointing to our makeshift lunch and nodding approvingly. We face the yellowed houses of the old city, set against a steep hill with the black, onion-domed spires of the cathedral near the top.

“I can’t believe we’re here,” Kathy says, just back from two weeks work in Boston. “Of course, you never went away. If you did, you’d appreciate it much more.”

Not really. This is life, for a change, without a goal, without a destination, without the beating of a clock. It is what makes southern France in the off season of winter so wonderful.

“I’m taking my nap,” Kathy says. “Wake me when you want to go.”

Evening, March 13, 2007

Our little Nissan Micra Must corners well as we hug the side of the road, snaking high above the Mediterranean, the waves lapping the shore hundreds of feet below. We zip above the cluttered, multistoried casinos of Monte Carlo, then past gated, rose-walled villas with red tile roofs. Suddenly before us is the medieval fortress of Eze, a village we’ve never even noticed in the guidebooks. We make a quick U-turn and decide to explore, an hour of serendipity in a day already filled with sunshine and scintillating views.

The Moors, it turns out, attacked this fortification in 900 AD, so we figure it qualifies as “charming” in Realtors’ lexicon. A bit more recently a wealthy American bought the whole place and now the castle is lined with tres chichi boutiques, leading to a very exclusive 10-room hotel, where the son of a Swedish king used to winter in the middle of the last century. Chateau Eza is the name and it boasts of having received Conde Nast’s Johansens Travel Award as the “most excellent European Waterside location.” Not surprising. Set some 1,200 feet above the sea, its views rival those of the Ventana Inn, an exclusive resort high above the Big Sur coastline. But we paid $250 for a night’s room there 15 years ago and, until April 1, you can get a room here for a tad less. (Of course you can also get a suite for more than $1,000 a night.) Maybe someday.

March 14, 2007

The Welcome Hotel in Ville-Franche-sur-Mer is a single room wide and freshly painted orange. The dancer Isadore Duncan stayed here. So did the artist Jean Cocteau, who painted the L’Eglise S’Pierre, the little church across the street and below our sun-drenched balcony. Behind the church, the harbor of Villefranche-sur-Mer sparkles in the morning sunlight. To my right are three outdoor cafes, painted in orange and pink and yellow. And just past them are the turreted walls of the town’s citadel.

A teacher in Kathy’s school told us to come here, and it’s lovely, just beyond the reach of traffic madness that seems perennial in the bigger French Riviera towns of Cannes and Nice. Here the morning is quiet; the car is parked for 36 hours.

I think I may have found my next job doing PR translations for Welcome Hotel, the chain that owns this place. It described one hotel in the mountains as a place "for thirsty eaters of poetry, devourers of pure morning air, climbers on the Milky Way, skiers on the infinite.

Mais oui. But I actually consider myself a hungry drinker of literature.

In high season the cheapest room at Welcome Hotel goes for 149 euros, about $198. But this is March and we are paying 93 euros, about $121 complete with balcony, panoramic view and a desk clerk so charming and helpful that she color-coded a map of the peninsula Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, where we spent the day poking around. I plan to tell her boss to promote her. She speaks English far better than we do French but she’s stayed with her native tongue since I made clear that I am trying to learn it. In case we ever return in higher season, we walked above the town and found a lovely two star, Hotel Provencal with a garden under a palm tree and a price tag about a third lower.

Evening, March 14

Oh, to bottle this stay. Let’s start with this: cloudless skies, low 70s, low humidity, a gentle breeze, 48 hours. Add an 8 or 9 mile walk past chateaus and villas extraordinaire and then along a trail, closed, unbeknownst to us, and thus deserted. It winds along the rocky shores of Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, not a person in sight. We escape by crawling under a gate that blocks the trail while workers are at lunch (rather than retracing our steps).

This walk is Carmel’s 17-mile drive on foot, without entrance fee. It’s Point Lobos State Park south of Carmel without the seals and sea otters. It’s France, where momma shades her spaniel from the sun under an umbrella, where the bathers of both sexes lie topless, where the villas are set in lush gardens of wild flowers and bougainvillea, beneath palms and cypress, facing the sea. A glass of wine at 2. A nap on the beach at 3.

Who cares about 4?

March 15

Savor each bite. This is the food France is famous for. Flavorful red rice from the Camargue. zucchini and pepper, red and yellow, diced and spiced to perfection. And a pink cream sauce, liberally doused in wine and poured thick over des loups (sea bass, not wolf, in this case). Le desert? Chocolat mousse, bien sur. Le Ruban Bleu, the blue ribbon, sits on the boardwalk at Juan-les-Pines, another Mediterranean village, and it’s packed for lunch on this Thursday. We saw the crowd and wandered in. Good call.

This is a village where Picasso lived. Down the beach, the handprints of musicians – Gilberto Gil, Shirley Horn, Little Richard, Junior Wells and just plain Fats, to name a few – stretch a block in front of the clearing where the boules players toss their metal balls toward the cochonnet (literally, the little pig), the plastic ball they score points by coming closest to. After all the players have tossed, they stand in tight circles and argue awhile, making their case, with body English for emphasis, of who has come closest. Up the beach from the boules field is the 4-star Hotel Plage with its Piano Bar Fitzgerald and restaurant gastronomique under the supervision of one Frederic Buzet. I can imagine this neighborhood in the ‘20s, its heyday, with the likes of the Great Gatsby frequenting its sprawling villas. But if it’s quieter now its elegance hasn’t exactly faded.

Once again we wander, Kathy, as always, armed with maps, leading the way. We find a path to a botanical garden with fields of wild flowers and foreign flora such as the eucalyptus, an old friend from the California Coast. And then we climb some more to the Chapelle de Notre Dame, pausing, as is the French way, for a discreet bathroom break in the woods. (Public facilities are not plentiful, one reason we’ve increased our coffee consumption on our home turf in Aix.)

After visiting the chapelle, packed with what I can only call memorabilia of the region’s history – replicas of ships, faded announcements, and a mishmash of more religious artifacts – we head down a rocky path toward the town of Antibes. Here, between the 6th and 7th station of the cross, we stumble across another gathering of boules players. My challenge in April and May will be to write about this national pastime – a cross between sport, social gathering, and debate society. I’ve sold the article. Now to report it, in French? Oo-la-la. But I discreetly snap some photos, including one of the peg used to keep score.

Our three days on the French Riviera are just about over so we celebrate on a beach in Antibes with one more crème chantilly – you can loosely call it a creampuff, if you like, but I swear this whip cream is so light it has no calories. This side of Antibes, a handicapped accessible beach next to the Club Nautiques with sailing, diving and kayaking lessons and across from just one hotel seems reserved for the people who actually live, rather than summer, here, people who live in apartments and small houses on adjoining streets rather than the grand hotels and mansions on the other side of town. A few more snapshots, pitiful attempts really to record three perfect days, and we head back to the car and our hillside home among the birds.

.

As the planet burns, it's no time to fiddle

2007-02-03T05:28:00.000-08:00

02/03/07

AIX-EN-PROVENCE, France -- As soon as we arrived in this city of sunshine and natural beauty --and weeks before international climate scientists met in Paris to issue dire warnings about the state of global warming -- the topic began to crop up frequently in daily conversation.

At our international language school, IS Aix-en-Provence, a Dutch classmate told us that when she was a child in Amsterdam, she skated each winter on the city's ice-covered canals. For the last seven years, those canals have never frozen enough to allow skating, she said.

In the French alps, about 20 miles northwest of Briancon, near the Italian border, an international French businessman we know took us to a mountain village with a stunning view of a still substantial glacier. "Each year it gets smaller," he lamented.

And at IS, which draws adult students from around the world, our teachers several times introduced environmental topics into the daily lesson as we struggled to simply make ourselves understood. The school's director of curriculum, a slight, thoughtful man with a perpetually furrowed brow and the hint of a goatee, handed us the transcript of a radio show about "the challenge for the earth," TV commentator Nicolas Hulot's call for action, personal and communal, to reduce global warming (in French, known as rechauffement de planetaire).

Are you an "ecocitoyen (a citizen of the environment)?" our teacher asked us each.

Though our experience has fallen far short of a scientific sample, Europeans, it seems, take quite seriously an issue that despite Al Gore’s best efforts, too many Americans have treated as if it’s a boutique item on the shelves of political policy-making.

Granted, after Gore’s Academy Award nominated movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," and, now, after scientists meeting in France this week announced in overwhelming consensus that human activity has not only caused the warming of the planet but will continue to do so for centuries, global warming seems to remain truly esoteric only to some diehards in the Bush Administration.

To members of the U.S. and international scientific communities, the only questions are how dramatically and how fast the climate will change, not whether it will. Still, in a country other than the U.S., the energy secretary likely would be met with cries of outrage if he said what the International Herald Tribune reported U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman did. His answer to the international report issued in Paris was a shrug – and a lie.

"We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world," Bodman said of U.S. contributions to greenhouse gases. In fact, the United States, according to the World Resources Institute, remains the world's largest consumer of combined fossil fuels, the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions, consuming more, for example, than all member nations of the European Union combined.

On this issue, however, Bush Administration bashing is too easy; there's plenty of blame to go around. Too many American journalists and politicians alike seem to consider global warming a far less newsworthy or important topic than Iraq or Iran or bird flu or, for that matter, endless speculation about who just might be leading the race for a presidential election that is still two years away. (In sports terms, this is a little like starting to worry who will win game seven of the World Series during spring training when your team has no first basemen and two starters with bum arms.)

Though the French are far from perfect on the issue themselves -- the British and Germans, for example, have reduced their emissions over the last 14 years by more than 10 percent while French emissions are down a mere 1 percent, the Associated Press reports -- their growing awareness can be measured in the importance of global warming in this year's French presidential race. Both leading candidates, Nicolas Sarkozy and his socialist rival Segolene Royal have joined 500,000 countrymen in signing Hulot's pact for the environment, according to the AP. And both have pledged to make global warming their top environmental priority.

Certainly the French drive smaller cars than Americans (though a friend told us in the mountains that the numbers of SUV's are growing along with the arrogance of their drivers). They also are more conscious of running water or wasting resources; our landlady, for example, only heats our water from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., forcing us to conserve if we expect to draw even warm water from the tap for the dinner dishes. But in other ways, French environmental laws seem behind the curve. The smell and smoke of fires often greet us as we walk the two miles to town each morning as workmen at construction sites burn wood and garbage in open fires, something long banned in the United States.

Judging from the grim report issued in Paris this week, it's time for all of us -- French, Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, and others -- to do better, to take seriously, personally and as citizens, the challenges of global warming. The price of a shrug is too high, not only for future generations but for all of those today living along coastlines or in areas vulnerable to floods or storms expected to worsen as the planet heats up.

Another way of putting it, is that today, good environmental policy is once again proving to be good business policy as well – most certainly, for the insurance industry and the tourist industry but ultimately for any industry interested in some level of predictability and protection from climate extremes.

This isn't a time to fiddle while not just Rome -- but the entire planet --slowly burns.

That's something both the Bush Administration. and his Democratic Party detractors alike need to hear loud and clear. Hear, and then act on.

Spring secluded -- a poem

2007-01-08T07:26:00.000-08:00

Life's not much fun in a single bed
I awake at night and all is still but the breeze
No elbows jostle, no hands turn me when I snore
No arms embrace me from behind on a cool spring morn

I miss your smile at sunrise, defined by the lines of time
Soft lines
Warm lines
Lines of love

Today I missed the touch of your hand
A violinist serenaded with sweeping bow
He played the sweet sounds of Greensleeves,
touching a buried chord of childhood memory

Alone, I rubbed a damp eye,
quickly, slipped on glasses
watched,
and watched others stare back.

What is life without someone to share it?
It passes fast, too fast to be marked alone
What is experience without companionship,
without love?

Opportunity, it is said, sometimes brings separation
May I never again seek it willingly
You see, life's not much fun in a single bed
Oh, but could I share yours tomorrow

Stop escalating the language -- and troop levels

2007-01-05T05:45:00.000-08:00

I published this first on OpEd News.com

01/10/07

They don't like me much at Starbucks. And I can't blame them.

Those oh-so-nice, skinny, smiling, make-my-day servers are well-versed in the language of "venti, non-fat lattes." (Hold the coffee, cream and sugar, thank you.) But the word "small," uttered in Starbucks' otherwise warm and embracing confines, is enough to put a chill in the caffeinated air.

No matter. I rather enjoy my exchanges with whoever is behind the counter.

"Hi. I'd like a small coffee, please."

"Excuse me."

"A small coffee, please."

"One TALL coffee, coming up."

I mean no one comes out and says, "Hey Buster, can't you read the sign? We don't sell SMALL coffee here. We sell big, bigger and biggest."

That would be rude. But the message is clear: "Get with our program, guy."

Perhaps it's my training as a journalist that won't allow me to do this. I was schooled to say someone died, not that they passed away. That fires kill people, not that they "claim" lives. That wars do, too.

I'm curious, however, whether today's journalists are getting the same lectures about excising euphemism from their lives – and copy. Judging from the news I read, I'd guess a fair number of them order a tall -- and not a small -- when they go to Starbucks.

I base this hunch on how regularly and eagerly some journalists adopt the language so carefully gift-wrapped by the White House. Examples abound, but today I'll stick with the latest, The Surge.

If you've been anywhere near any news media for the last three weeks you'll have heard all about The Surge. It's not a tsunami, not even a powerful wave machine. It refers, of course, to all those troops we're going to add to American forces in Baghdad to finally bring peace, stability and justice to Iraq.

The Surge:It sounds strong and just and American.

In truth, it is ludicrous and destructive and ultimately cynical, a plan to send another 20,000 or so U.S. troops to a country where roughly 135,000 American military personnel already are hunkered down in their Humvees, trying to stay alive while Iraqis slaughter each other and everyone else in a lawless Lord of the Flies society we helped create.

But the Bush Administration's new language, effortlessly picked up by many in the news media, makes this new "strategy" (another misnomer) seem manly and cool. It sounds sort of like a new season of that vintage TV show, Hawaii Five-0. (Get out your surf boards and get ready for the Big Wave.)

It's not. And it's way past time for reporters to stop peddling the war in language specially crafted for them by Karl Rove and company.

Perhaps a trial run at Starbucks can help them out of this wilderness of spin. And so, my fellow journalists, let me make a modest New Year's proposal. Be bold. Take the heat. Order a small at Starbucks. You'll feel better for trying. And, with practice, perhaps you'll stop writing The Surge as a euphemism for putting a bunch more soldiers in harm's way for no good reason.

The 5th anniversary of a phantom bill

2006-12-12T07:15:00.000-08:00

012/12/06

Dear Sprint:

Merry Christmas. How are things in Shawnee Mission, Kansas, this holiday season?

I am writing to you in the hope of clearing up a phantom bill that has followed me for five years. That's right -- five years.

I haven't paid it for a simple reason. You see, I have never been a customer of Sprint. Not now. Not ever. Nonetheless, on 10/12/2001, according to your customer service department, someone -- an errant computer perhaps? -- seems to have set up an account in my name. The bill came to $27.15. I understand that 7 cents of that was for a late fee. Seems reasonable.

But in my defense, I don't believe I even got this bill until 2005. Then it went to a collection agency and then it went back to you.

I'm hoping this Christmas that Santa will make it go away. You see, I'm 57 years old. I have stellar crediting rating. I always pay my bills. And I've never been your customer. But I believe I said that already.

Would you consider in the spirit of the holiday tearing up this ghost of Christmas past? That would be great.

Oh. And Happy New Year.

It's time to stop shopping and start shouting

2006-12-08T04:43:00.000-08:00

12/07/06

OK, my fellow citizens. We delivered an election message with ringing clarity. Then we waited for diplomacy, the report of the Iraq Study Group, loaded with seasoned, big players from both parties. It called the situation in Iraq "grave and deteriorating," urged a broadening of diplomacy and offered cover for the president to gradually pull the troops out.

And the result? George W. Bush won't have any of it. He still appears to want to stay the course. He still wants nothing less than victory. He still lives in a dreamland.

The Congress, Republicans but Democrats, too, wrings its hands. What to do, what to do, what to do? Well, I think we, the American people, instinctively know what to do: Get the hell out.

It is time to make our voices heard. Unless we do, I'm afraid this war is going to go on for a long, long time. Remember Vietnam? Remember that Richard M. Nixon got elected as the peace candidate in 1968, the man with a plan to end the war? Well that war dragged on for six more years and tens of thousands more American boys were killed. For what? We left and Saigon tumbled. But other dominoes did not fall. Asia did not turn into a huge red swath of communism. The rationale for all that killing, all that mayhem, proved to be nothing.

Now we hear that Iraq is different. In Vietnam, the wise men say, the communists who replaced the tattered government in the south were united and able to impose order. In Iraq, they continue, no one is in charge. If U.S. troops leave, the violence will get worse. Neighboring countries will be sucked in. The Middle East will implode.

I see. And we've made things better so far?

The Iraqi people do not want us in Iraq. They've said so with guns and they've said so in polls. The American people do not want us in Iraq. The electorate sent an unmistakenly clear message on that, too. And just what makes our leaders think, after exhibiting the stupidity of invading Iraq in the first place, that they have the intelligence, the wherewithal, the skill to solve the utter mess they've created? Our diplomats there can't even speak Arabic. If we can't speak the Iraqi's language, just how are we going to understand Iraqi culture?

But you know all this. I'm preaching to the choir. So let's get off our sofas. Let's stop sitting stupified in front of our TV sets, stop soaking in the latest breathless saga of Britney Spears. Let's end our silence about what really matters.

It is time to organize a trip to a different kind of Mall -- one known as a center of American passion, protest and democracy, not a center of Barbie dolls, digital gadgets and Play Station insanity. It is time for a million men and women and children to march on Washington's Mall, in the dead of winter, in the cold. Their message should be clear, simple and blunt: Enough.

Enough.

Yell it loudly and repeatedly and even those deaf old men on Capitol Hill will have to hear.

Last Night I had the Strangest Dream

2006-11-22T18:36:00.000-08:00

11/23/06

Living in these United States, the most affluent and powerful country in the world, we have much to be thankful for.

But what a weird country this has become. Where O.J. Simpson is reportedly paid $3.5 million advance to write a book about how he would have killed his wife (if, of course, he'd actually done so). Where the character Borat is applauded at a real rodeo somewhere in the South as he whips the crowd into a frenzy with his mock patriotic call to kill the men, women and children of Iraq (presumably leaving only dogs and chickens to appreciate its much vaunted democracy). Where we celebrate a holiday of giving and thanks by lining up at malls the following morning for a trampling frenzy of -- what else -- buying ("Oh beautiful for spacious skies, for mall aisles filled with stuff ..."). Where young adults at times seem more invested in reality TV than in reality itself.

In its way, of course, Thanksgiving as a holiday is a bit weird itself. We recognize and celebrate the sharing and kinship of the Pilgrims and Native Americans they found here, those same Native Americans who in the 250 years that followed were systematically annihilated by the descendents of those same Pilgrims and other European immigrants. Oh dear.

But suspect or not, Thanksgiving remains a wonderful holiday. It's a chance to eat all day, to share stories and laughter with friends or extended family, to remember loved ones who are gone and renew ties with old friends who've drifted away.

I just hope as we sit down this Thanksgiving that we do more than feel thankful for what we have, do more than say thanks for those who've come before us, do more than bask in the warmth of the company and the taste of good food and wine.

For this has been an exceptionally ugly year on a globe always riven by some war or another.
Whether in Iraq or Sudan, Lebanon or Afghanistan, the world remains waist deep in violence and suffering. What would happen, I wonder, if each of us this year pledged to do one small thing to alleviate suffering, took one small action to end wars? What if?

As I drove to the store yesterday to buy a few last minute groceries, the voice of Joan Baez on folk radio reminded me that idealism never completely vanishes from the political landscape, not even in an age of cynicism. She was singing a song I remember from childhood, a song with a message at least as urgent today as it was then. You'll know the words:

"Last night I had the strangest dream I'd ever dreamed before. I dreamed the world had all agreed to put an end to war."

I can't say I have a lot of faith in putting an end to war anytime soon. But perhaps we can find some small solace, give thanks if you will, to the fact that the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Fox News and its nauseating celebration of O.J. Simpson forced the network, and the publisher it owns, to cancel both the Simpson two-part interview and the book for which he was paid.

Take note Borat.

The 2006 Elections: First Take

2006-11-10T02:48:00.000-08:00

11/10/06

Maybe it's the hangover from four hours of sleep Tuesday night. But America's new political landscape is just beginning to come into focus. Please pinch me if I'm dreaming.

Hyperbole is always a big part of politics. Still, for me, and a lot of people I know, this really was the most important election of a lifetime. I was bracing, I confess, for the worst -- not on the basis of polls or logic but because I was half-convinced someone really would tamper with those untraceable electronic voting machines ending American Democracy as we've known it.

Instead, fragile and imperfect as it may be, the system worked. It will be my most enduring take on the elections of 2006. As much of a blood sport as Karl Rove and company have made campaigning, as bad as their dirty tricks from fake mailers to fraudulent programmed phone calls proved to be, as calculatingly as Republicans gerrymandered congressional districts to skew the vote, the American public won. Mad as hell, they threw the bums out.

Mind you, it took some doing. In this election, nearly 54 percent of the American public voted for Democrats. That's close to an 8 point spread over the Republicans, a blowout in the world of political realities. And yet a lot of the races won and lost by the Democrats Tuesday were real squeakers. In other words, the voters, and Democrats, needed every one of those points to have a chance, to take a step toward righting the equilibrium of a country that's tilted precipitously to the right.

Don't expect the Republicans to disappear any time soon. But it's as if this morning the bullied woke up and the bullies had vacated the block. Likely they've just gone inside to plan their next assault. But they've given the Democrats a chance -- to regroup, to speak up, to lead.

None of it will be easy. Democrats ultimately will need a plan and a voice. But for now at least, I feel secure in this: The rubber stamp Congress has dried up for any of the swaggering, tone-deaf, corrupt or idiotic ideas that wander with regularlity from the White House.

For a few days at least, I feel safe enjoying the parade. For me, its top acts include:

1. The election of Deval Patrick as governor of my home state, Massachusetts. He's the first Democrat in 16 years, the first African-American governor ever. No one really knows how he'll lead. But he's set a magnificent, positive tone and gave a compelling and embracing victory speech, reaching out across divisions of class, race, age and region.

2. The defeat of Rick Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate and a combative, gay-bashing right winger. He got thumped -- positively pulverized. How do I feel about Rick? He's the guy at every office party you love to see leave early and cross the room to avoid. Bye-bye Rick.

3. The departure of .. guess who. Maybe there actually are two guys you love to see leave that office party. Maybe Rummy should rent a room in retirement at Guantanamo and, while contemplating his next job, take one for the team by acting as a guinea pig for Dick Cheney's theory that a good dunking is a "no brainer." Or maybe Dick could join him and they could take underwater swimming classes together. Bye-bye Rummy.

4. The arrival of the new, bipartisan George W. Bush. Did you catch W's press conference the other day? He did fine with the prepared remarks. But when the questions came, I thought maybe I'd stumbled into a central casting audition for Nixon Redux. Or perhaps the film will be titled George Unglued. Mind you the President has never been a smooth speaker. But his perseverating and dissembling on Wednesday would have been funny if it weren't scary.

5. The arrival of Jim Webb -- the warrior anti-war senator from Virginia, a gun-toting novelist, a Reagan Republican turned Democrat. He's short, positively untelegenic and not terribly articulate. But the guy burns. It's sort of like watching Marlon Brando leading the Wild Ones on motorcycles into Washington. Webb should be interesting to watch.

6. The "Nancy Pelosi comes to lunch" picture in this morning's newspapers. There she sat smiling next the president, who smiles back. And there sat Dick Cheney, looking as though he'd swallowed a really slimy live guppy.

It's OK, Dick. Pelosi isn't an agent of Osama bin Laden, despite Karl's campaign propaganda. She's not even a terrorist sympathizer, though, come to think of it, you may have something to be terrified about. Call them oversight hearings.

In the meantime, my guess is Pelosi will work effectively even with the fellow she once called an idiot. You know, the other guy in that big White House.

Jerry Lanson teaches journalism at Emerson College in Boston. He can be reached at jerry_lanson@emerson.edu.

19 Days and Counting

2006-10-17T05:45:00.000-07:00

A version of this piece appeared on OpedNews.com

10/19/06

Doctor, please help me.

I’ve stopped reading books, cast aside my guitar, stuffed my gym shorts, unused, in my bedroom chest of drawers.

I’ve missed most of the baseball playoffs, muffed scheduled meetings at school, mistaken the Internet for my best friend.

My back is sore, my eyes watery from bending over my computer screen, scrolling through articles from the Cleveland Plain-Dealer to the Kalamazoo Gazette, perusing poll after poll for some deep, hidden meaning.

Did you know that in Tennessee, Harold Ford leads his Republican rival for Senate by a .8 percent aggregate? Is that statistically significant? Oh-oh. The latest Rasmussen poll in Missouri shows Democrat Claire McCaskill has fallen behind. Surely another poll is on the way. I’ll check back -- at 10:11, 2:09, 4:27, 8:36 and right before bed.

Bed. I have a wife, I think. She said something about a hug the other night.

“Be right there, sweetie. Just have to check the political landscape.”

I should be done in 19 days. Nov. 7.

Election day. Another chance for euphoria … or more misery. Maybe, just maybe, this year will be different. Maybe the Democrats, our lovable wishy-washy Democrats, will actually win something. The pundits are saying so. Even Republican pundits are saying so. Which is exactly why I am so worried.

Could it really be that the American heartland will see beyond the unprecedented – and, of course, entirely coincidental -- drop in prices at the gas pump? Could it be they kind of, sort of realize that the world is a mess? That North Korea just tested the big one. That Iraq has come unglued. That Afghanistan is blowing up. No, probably not I’d imagine, if they’re listening only to George. Because George, by George, is gonna stay the course, spread Democracy, hang tough and true to our friends.

Stay the course. Does that mean more 700-mile walls along the 2,000-mile Mexican border (help me with math here, please)? A better missile defense system that keeps the bad guys’ bombs out? More laws to torture and lock up terror suspects without any legal recourse? I guess if none of it works, we can always try a little bit of faith-based prayer in the classroom.

Doctor, can you prescribe a vacation? How about 20 days in Togo or anyplace without technology. I’ve heard the Amazon jungle is swell this time of year. I'll come back Nov. 8.

The other night, I woke at 4 a.m. and peeked at the computer. Oh, oh. Democrat Bob Casey’s lead had slipped in the Pennsylvania Senate race, a new poll shows. And he’s running against a certified Neanderthal: Rick Santorum, third-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate leadership, a man who has publicly compared homosexuality to bestiality.

But wait, was that a Brookings Institute scholar I just heard say on NPR that the Democrats could gain more than the 30 House seats? (Will it be partly sunny tomorrow?) Ouch.

Did you read the New York Times article today, the one that says some people STILL love Darth Vader. (“Cheney Hits Heartland, and He Can Feel the Love.”) So what does that mean? I guess it’s only in Kansas, doctor. I’ve heard it’s a last bastion for girls named Dorothy, witches, right-wing Republicans, and state police who make you drive 55 over every 2,432 miles of flatland. The heck with Kansas. It’s big. But it’s boring.

Tell me, though. Do you think it’s possible Nebraskans like him, too?

When Democracy Fails Us

2006-09-29T05:39:00.000-07:00

Published on CommonDreams.org

09/29/06

On Thursday night, the U.S. Congress tore up large swaths of the Constitution.

Egged on by President Bush and a variety of pre-November election insecurities, the United States Senate joined the House in making a mockery of the principles on which this nation was founded.

While America slept, the Congress passed a law that allows the government to round up any green-card carrying immigrants and hold them in jail indefinitely on mere suspicion that they might have something to do with supporting terrorism.

While America slept, lulled by news reports that focused almost exclusively on a Republican side squabble over the bill, the Congress denied all non-citizens rounded up in future anti-terror dragnets the right to appeal their status to the courts.

While America slept, reassured by the silence of a Democratic Party too fearful to filibuster, too weak to oppose forcefully, the Congress invited our president to be the judge of what forms of interrogation are authorized under the Geneva Conventions.

The fox, in other words, is now the hen house’s only guard. And that hen house, roof crumbling, may prove to be American democracy itself.

For starters, George Bush will decide -- in secret if he chooses -- what methods of interrogation he considers to be abusive, a New York Times editorial reported. This, of course, is the same man who already has authorized secret prisons overseas and whose underlings already have subjected suspected terrorists to forms of abuse ranging from simulated drowning to being stripped naked and left standing for days in “stress positions.” And that was before anyone passed a law giving him permission.

This law gives permission at wholesale prices. The law, Times reported, also:
-- Allows coerced evidence, if deemed “reliable” by a judge.
-- Limits the definition of torture so severely that it “would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.”
-- Could subject legal U.S. residents and foreigners living in their own countries to arrest and “indefinite detention.”

In short, both the law’s sweep and its speed of passage are mindbending.

Consider.

Even a moderate Republican, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, said before the final vote that denying prisoners habeas corpus, the right to seek redress in court, “would .. take our civilization back 900 years.” That little speech didn’t keep him from supporting his president along with all but one Republican after his amendment to restore habeas corpus was defeated.

Even those who have fought proudly in Iraq and Afghanistan and fully support all aspects of what President Bush calls America’s War on Terror say that tinkering with the Geneva Conventions could open the floodgates of torture everywhere, endangering any American soldier unlucky enough to be captured by an enemy.

Even those who make their livings as interrogators are sharply divided over whether information elicited through the techniques of torture ever serves a useful purpose. Under the worst forms of abuse, they acknowledge, human beings confess to anything.

OK, you’re thinking. “That's too bad. But it couldn’t possibly affect me, right?”

Let’s see now. Friday’s Washington Post reports: “The (law) empowers the executive branch to detain indefinitely anyone (emphasis added) it determines to have ‘purposefully and materially’ supported anti-U.S. hostilities.”

Hmmm. Could anyone mean – well -- anyone? After all, it is the executive branch under this law that is entitled to pull people off the street. And with no trial required and no need to file charges, who is to say whether that executive branch would have good cause or any cause for doing so? How would we, the public, find out? There are no checks, no balances, no legal processes to be followed. We seem to have a bit of a Catch 22 here.

This much is clear. Our country stands poised to fall backwards some 65 years, when we rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans and interred them in camps simply on the basis of their heritage. More than five decades later, a chastened U.S. government paid largely symbolic reparations to those Americans in an apology for one of this country’s most shameful acts. Yet now we are setting the stage to do it again -- another round-up, more camps, perhaps this time with special interrogation chambers. A remote possibility? Not if there’s another terrorist attack on our soil.

In his book, “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning,” former war correspondent Chris Hedges warns of how unending warfare corrupts societies and distorts the priorities of those who live within them.

“We often become as deaf and dumb,” he writes, “as those we condemn.”

The Congress’ actions Thursday show how deaf and dumb, how complacent and disengaged, this country has become since Sept. 11, 2001, how far its citizens and representatives have been manipulated by a culture of fear cultivated to an art form by this president and his party.

Today George Bush is right when he tells us, “Be afraid.” We need to listen.

We need to be afraid of our own representatives of both parties and their willingness to dismantle democracy as they jockey for political edge and stretch for a few more votes in a moral vacuum. We need to be afraid of the economic fallout that might occur if tens of thousands of American immigrants, in this country legally, start to leave out of the fear that they can now be arrested with no evidence and held by a jailer who, accountable to no one, can throw away the key. We need to be afraid that some day soon, any American who speaks out could hear that late-night knock on the door emblematic of every totalitarian state where people are forced to lower their voices to a whisper.

Far-fetched, you say? After Thursday's vote in the U.S. Senate, I’m not so sure.

Raising Their Voices in Outrage

2006-09-22T04:07:00.000-07:00

09/22/06

After sitting in a week-long stupor while Republicans debated how much torture would be permissable under U.S. law, Democratic members of Congress aroused yesterday to express their outrage -- at the mean things that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is saying about their president.

"You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district and criticize my president," Harlem Democrat Charles Rangel told reporters.

Speaking before the United Nations, Chavez called President Bush "the devil" and the "genocide president" among other things. He repeated his devil remark the next day on a visit to Rangel's district.

Rangel was not alone among Democrats in sticking up for the president. Not to be outdone, Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called Chavez "an everyday thug" who had ``demeaned himself, and he demeaned Venezuela.''

I appreciate that Chavez may have offended the Democrats' sensibilities with his rude remarks. But why then are the same Democrats not offended by the much ruder actions applied repeatedly by George W. Bush's CIA, actions he now wants them to codify into law?

If the Democrats are unable to take a stand against the codification in law of the immoral actions of torture -- actions by the way that have never been proven to produce any of the essential intelligence the president insists it does -- what are they willing to take a stand on?

Oh yes, I forgot: Hugo Chavez. He is a very mean man.

Will the Democrats Get Off the Mat?

2006-09-19T07:09:00.000-07:00

Published on CommonDreams.org

09/19/06

There is one thing worse than a U.S. president who illegally attacks another country, wiretaps his own citizens without court order and tortures prisoners of war. That is a Congress that gives bipartisan support to these activities, further legitimizing them in the eyes of the American public.

Thus far, of course, only the first, the war against Iraq, has gotten the Congress’ full stamp of approval. The authorization vote for that war is one that haunts many Democrats, who have tried to duck out of their initial support of the war by noting, correctly, that the administration cooked the intelligence and then beat the war drums with the help of an all too eager and gullible press.

If, however, the Democrats sit idly or quietly by while Congress puts its imprint on wiretapping and torture, they will have no one to blame but themselves. And to date, they are showing signs of doing just that.

Granted: As a new warrantless wiretapping bill wends its way through Congress, Democrats did as a bloc vote "no" in committee. But they did so without showing or sustaining the outrage needed to catapult the issue back into the national consciousness. They seem determined not to let Republicans paint them as soft on terror by being measured -- make that muted -- in their response to what’s being billed as anti-terror legislation.

Then along came that all-American “torture with impunity” bill. President Bush wants to monkey with the Geneva Conventions, which for decades have set standards internationally for the humane treatment of prisoners of war. He also says we can’t possibly allow those charged with heinous acts against the United States to know the evidence against them, even when brought to trial, because, he says, that would jeopardize national security. Forget the notion of innocent until proven guilty. In Bush’s new world order, proof needs no more than the prosecutor’s word.

Before a few gritty Senate Republicans offered spirited resistance to some relatively narrow aspects of the president’s bill, it had sailed through the House Armed Services Committee on a bipartisan vote of 52-8.

In the Senate, meanwhile, Democrats have sat by largely in silence while Senators McCain, Warner and Graham, Republicans all, said no to that portion of the president’s bill that would tinker with the Geneva Conventions.

What neither of these senators nor most of the news media have said much about are those broad areas of legal protection that both bills would circumvent. From my admittedly unscientific sampling of elite media offerings, only The Boston Globe and Newsday has covered this part of the issue closely. On Sept. 15, Globe reporters Farah Stockman and Rick Klein wrote:

“President Bush's plan for handling Guantanamo Bay detainees, and a rival bill in
Congress, would both strip prisoners of the right to challenge their detention in federal court, throwing out hundreds of pending claims that are the only recourse for inmates being held indefinitely without charges.

Groups of defense lawyers, nine retired judges, and three retired military lawyers sent letters to Congress this week opposing Bush's proposal and the Senate plan, saying both would sharply curtail the rights of most detainees.”

Though the news media have glossed over much of this issue in salivating over the Republican senators’ stand, these three Republicans do deserve credit for breaking ranks with the president on principle. That’s more than can be said of most Democrats. On a day that Sen. Charles Schumer told The Globe that this year Republicans won’t bully Democrats (“every time they go after us, we stand up and fight back."), Democratic senators maintained their studied silence on the signature bill on torture being debated in their chamber and in the media.

As Walter Mondale once said to presidential opponent Gary Hart, “Where’s the beef, senator?”

Or, as The New York Times put it in a Sept. 15 editorial: “Senators Warner, McCain and Graham have come up with a serious alternative, and they deserve enormous credit for standing up to Mr. Bush's fearmongering -- something many Democrats seem too frightened to do.”

I am not suggesting that voters are without a choice this fall or that they should return a Republican-controlled Congress. Heaven forbid.

I am suggesting, however, that the public’s choice at this point isn’t a very good one. And unless the Democrats shed their timidity and emerge from hiding, I don’t believe their party is likely to pick up either house of Congress come November. As long as the Democratic Party stands for little, it will gain little.

Silence is not a policy. Leadership is defined by taking a stand and voicing the reasons for it, not by hiding in the tall grass and hoping a disgusted public will hurl stones at the bully in the presidential pulpit.

Unless the Democrats start to exert some leadership, both the wiretapping and torture bills will sail through Congress with little public notice. This country will continue to tumble further toward totalitarianism and further solidify its status in the truly democratic world as a rogue roughneck.

In an elegant essay in this week’s Boston Globe, columnist James Carroll put it this way:

“Justice is measured in every society by how the worst malefactors are treated -- the worst not only in culpability, but in capacity for general harm. The best way to combat terrorism is to wrap accused terrorists in the cloth of the law they would rip asunder. More important, to legalize the abuse of a class of prisoners is to prepare for the abuse of all.”

Democratic members of Congress and the voting public have a choice. They can prepare for the abuse of all in silence – and rest assured, it will come. Or they can act to change the conditions that allow it. But that will require a voice – and the courage to use it.

The Meaning of Justice

2006-09-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

09/18/06

The quote below was drawn from a column by James Carroll in this morning's Boston Globe.
While he didn't say it directly, Carroll implies that a society without justice and due process for all, even the most heinous, is a society one step away from totalitarian rule.

Here are his words:

"Justice is measured in every society by how the worst malefactors are treated -- the worst not only in culpability, but in capacity for general harm. The best way to combat terrorism is to wrap accused terrorists in the cloth of the law they would rip asunder. More important, to legalize the abuse of a class of prisoners is to prepare for the abuse of all."

Tomorrow's headlines

2006-09-14T03:02:00.001-07:00

Published on CommonDreams.org

09/14/07

It is time to tap the growth industry of future news.

As they say at the Oscars, I'd like to give special thanks to George W. Bush for liberating me from the journalistic constraints of present news. I figure since he and his cronies let neither facts nor reality get in the way -- with great success, I might add -- I don't need to either.

I mean Dick Cheney figured this out years ago -- make something up, say it, say it again and again and again -- and again. Get some earnest Democrat to question you publicly and then slam him so the press can jump into the fray. ("Do you Democrats love the terrorists more than you love America?") It makes great conflict TV and America and the media love great conflict TV.

The truth is, I wish I were more like W. and Dick. But my sense of fair play still forces me to turn to someone else to make things up. Then I can quote them.

This someone is something special, though. Not Dick or W., not even Rummy or Harry Reid pleading for decency (or is it mercy). No, Jimmy the Freak is what we in the media call a "fresh face."

Jimmy was slow coming to the American Dream, though he did build a resume of sorts back in the '60s: Woodstock, Altamont, Aspen and a whole lot of acid. But he got tired of chanting and living on brown rice in the foothills, and, after making megabucks selling breathtaking homes to a bunch of faux liberals, he made his way to Vegas for some action nearly 25 years ago. Never left. Today he's truly a god among bookies. The best. So I figured, who better to lend a little gravitas to future news.

I got right to the point.

"So Jimmy," I asked. "Conspiracy theorists are having a field day talking about The Fix in future elections. What with Diebold manufacturing those voting machines with no paper trails and sending bushels of their profits to the Republican Party. What do you think?"

I knew I was off to a bad start when Jimmy folded his wraparounds and locked me in his "get-real" gaze. "Wag the Dog, man. Wag the Dog," he said. "The Republicans don't need to steal shit. They just have to send in some new plays."

"New plays?"

"Yeah, man. Stuff that freaks out America. Gets people scared and teary eyed and patriotic. Pumps up the anthem, man. Gets 'em spying on their neighbors. It's easy, man."

Wow, I figured. This future news stuff was promising. "So Jimmy, how about some possibilities. Go out on a limb. Give America the odds."

He'd knocked back a few Coors Lites by then so he took pity and gave it a shot.

1. What are the odds that the Repbulicans will offer up at least one orange Homeland Security alert in the two weeks leading up to the election?

"No brainer, man. Kids stuff. That's in the 90 percent certainty range."

2. What are the odds that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will round up a bunch of punks in LA the week before the election, call them Al Qaeda, and arrest them in connection with a plot to drive Smart cars packed with explosives into the main terminal at Los Angeles International Airport?

"50-50. But they might be driving Hummers, man. This is LA."

3. What are the odds that W. will pump up the decibels about Iran's nuclear threat past the painful level, convincing Americans to bomb the heck out of Tehran if for no other reason than the chance to return in peace and quiet and get back to important stories, like Britney Spears new baby?

"Hey, man. I thought you journalists were supposed to ask tough questions? I'll give you
3 to 1 it gets loud, really loud, and 5 to 1 the Republicans in Congress form a conga line behind the prez. I mean these dudes are good. If they'd been around selling real estate when I did, I'd still be eating brown rice."

"So do you think we'll actually bomb Tehran a week or two before the mid-term election, Jimmy?

"That's not what I said, man. Things in Iraq would really have to be in the tank for that to happen. Hyping the Iran nuke threat alone should get enough people juiced to vote GOP. And, you know man, our smart bombs actually are pretty stupid. I don't thinkW. would want to risk a lot of pictures of dead babies the Monday before elections. The whole thing is to control and invent news. Wars get messy. So I think he'll give 'em the sizzle but wait with the steak."

I thanked Jimmy profusely.

"That a relief about Iran," I told him. "I mean we're already over our heads in two wars."

He winked. "Man, you were asking me about the weeks BEFORE the election. I didn't say we weren't going in. Think about it. W. still has two more years to divert us from reality. He'll have a few more wars up his sleeve. Trust me."

Trust me?

I wandered into the casino to pull a few one-armed bandits.

Know Nothing News

2006-09-06T04:47:00.000-07:00

Published on CommonDreams.org

O9/06/06

It's time for news media organizations to have the guts to turn down George Bush’s megaphone, not amp it up. On some days recently, that megaphone has resonated so loudly in the world of instantly breaking broadcast news and web site headlines that any Democratic response has quickly been drowned out. Which, of course, is just what Karl Rove wants.

No matter how outrageous Bush's assertions, no matter how they fly in the face of the reality of what even his Pentagon is saying about Iraq, the news media dutifully trot after the president, giving him lead play on the news in speech after speech. Whether he’s howling about “cut and run” Democrats or asserting, yet again, that the mire of Iraq is a central battlefield in his War Against Terror (read War Without End), the format of news is predictable: Amplify the president's dire predictions, let him brainwash the public a little bit more, then dutifully -- for the sake of balance, of course -- give the opposition a quick soundbite or a few lines to disagree.

I realize, like it or not, that George Bush is the president. And, as a former reporter and editor, I know the norms of news: As the holder of the nation’s highest office, the president has the luxury of setting the agenda. Fair enough. But saying the same things over and over is not really setting an agenda. It is running a political campaign, one of the few things this president has ever done effectively.

The news media have no responsibility to help him campaign. To the contrary. Once it's clear what the president's game is, the news media should walk away, shut off the megaphone. News has always had to be selective. On the air and in print, time and space are finite. News also has some standards. It should be based on verifiable fact. It should emphasize what is new. It should place today's speeches in the context of yesterday's promises and actions.

When the president says the same thing day after day -- "be afraid," he tells us earnestly -- the news media do not have to cover each utterance as if it is a revelation.

Give the president his shot. On the first day of what appears will be a monthlong 9/11 anniversary campaign, the news media were right to give good play to the newest version of his same old "we've got to win" speech. Day one, however, was several days ago. On day two, news organizations should have either (a) analyzed his words in the context of history, recent and past and/or (b) given the Democratic Party's perspective at the top of the news in rebuttal. And on days three, four, five and so forth, especially given the unabashed (and unattributed) Republican acknowledgement that the president and his minions will be giving the same speech all month, the news media should have moved on.

Journalists with a "nose for news" know their job is to ignore anything that is not new. There's plenty out there in the real world that is. And if the White House press corps needs something to do, sometimes what's new can be found in the contradictions between the administration's words and its record.

One small example of this kind of reporting appeared on the opinion page of my Boston Globe the other day. Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador, wrote about the contact that key members of the current Bush administration had with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when the Reagan Administration sought to improve its relationship with Saddam despite the fact that he had already begun using banned nerve gas.

Noted Galbraith: "In 2003, Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld all cited Hussein's use of chemical weapons 15 years before as a rationale for war. But at the time Hussein was actually doing the gassing -- including of his own people -- they considered his use of chemical weapons a second-tier issue."

Now that was interesting news. But yet again it appeared in views, on the back page of my newspaper's first section. In the meantime, big-time journalists reprint and rebroadcast ad nauseum the White House's version of the same-old, same-old.

Need evidence?Look no further than Wednesday night's CBS Evening News. There was Katie Couric on the second night of her $15-million-a-year job as CBS news anchor, proving in an "exclusive" interview with President George W. Bush that she should also be awarded a second new title: The First Booster.

Just how tough was she on W? You be the judge. "You have said we can't cut-and-run on more than one occasion," she asks the president in a clip posted on the CBS News website "... Otherwise we'll be fighting the terrorists here on our own streets. What do you mean by that Mr. President?"

What do you mean by that Mr. President! There was no real follow-up to the president's self-serving answer. But then the question itself, with such Republican-powered perversions of language as "cut-and-run" and "fighting the terrorists here on our own streets" made clear whose script Couric was reading even before Bush even bothered to answer.

The CBS news web site trumpeted the interview this way: "As President Bush appeals to the American people to support him in the global war on terror, he insisted to Katie Couric that it cannot be won without succeeding in Iraq."

We all know that this is not news. There is nothing new about it. It's September's broken record, the one Bush and the Republicans intend to play over and over again, without an iota of evidence that any of it is true. They know that few television reporters ask for evidence these days -- just good sound bites.

It really wouldn't take much effort to inform the White House's "news" with a little historical context. Remember Vietnam? Remember the Domino Theory that got us there ("if Vietnam falls to the Reds, country after country will fall like dominoes until those Reds are knocking on our doors")? Apparently George Bush doesn't (given his National Guard record, why would he). It took a decade of heartbreak and dead GIs, more than 50,000, before we extricated ourselves from that war, leaving millions of Vietnamese corpses behind.

Nor does the new CBS News seem to remember that it was the old CBS News, with Walter Cronkite reporting in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, that finally set America on the excruciatingly slow path of extricating itself from Vietnam. And what happened after we pulled out? Nothing. No Red masses marched on our borders -- just as no "islamo-fascist" masses would march on our borders today.

Today the new CBS News seems to be falling over itself to join most of the other broadcast media as a public relations arm of the White House. And Katie Couric, America's sweetheart, the pioneer trumpeted for breaking the gender barrier as prime-time network TV's first solo female anchor, is quickly proving herself to be just another shill.

Sadly, neither contextual facts of history nor the president's words and actions from a year or two ago regularly inform what passes for news in this 24-7 world. It is the loudest megaphone of the day that increasingly draws reporters, drowning out the whispers in the well of past records that could put news in perspective. And since the president will always hold that loudest megaphone, the news media, in direct proportion to how much they gravitate toward the megaphone's amplified noise, risk becoming little more than the most powerful campaign ad available to the Republican Party. (I can see it now. It's late October. And Couric's "exclusive" is replayed across the country in paid Republican campaign ads. Implication: "Katie likes us. Why don't you?")

Ultimately, whether the media's role in promulgating Republican PR is inadvertent or not doesn't much matter. It's a potentially dangerous role -- and, especially at the network of Murrow, Cronkite and Sevareid, it's a sad one, too.

Reflections in a Dangerous Time

2006-07-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

This essay was written for CommonDreams.org.

07/23/06

LEXINGTON, Mass. -- As bombs daily turn considerable swaths of civilization to rubble, this has been a month of landmark celebrations in my family.

On Monday, Kathy and I celebrated our 35th wedding anniversary on a sultry, sunny day, taking a ferry to and from Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod, biking eight miles through the National Seashore’s big dunes, stopping for beer and lobster before the boat cut through the waves back toward Boston and the sun set, blood red, through the gathering dusk. It was a day to share memories of more carefree times, especially of that day in the Rocky Mountains when a girl with freckles, a big smile and speckled eyes came up to an Eastern dude desk clerk at Grand Lake Lodge in Colorado to ask for the simple pleasures of hot water and a bar of some sort to hang across the closet in her pine cabin to hold her clothes. The desk clerk -- that was me -- solved the second problem; I cut a hanger rod from a tree branch. And therein began the illusion of competency that carried me through the first few years of what’s been a mostly rock-solid, but occasionally bemusing, lifelong affair of opposites attracting.

On Tuesday, I scalped a pair of sweet Red Sox tickets to share my brother Dennis’ 60th birthday with him. We watched the Sox’s first one-hitter in some time from 15 rows behind the home team dugout, keeping movement to a minimum in the evening’s 95-degree heat.
“I feel like a kid again,” Dennis said as we entered the ball park. And, indeed, baseball and beaches have held the greatest constancy in our decades of often intense and embracing times together. The beach part came on Saturday, when I took Dennis on Birthday, Part 2, a kayaking trip through the morning fog and mist near his home on Cape Ann, a gentle journey that in reality was also a diversion to keep him away while the guests arrived from as far away as Los Angeles for a surprise party to mark his six decades of life.

In the midst of this all, Kathy and I struggled all week with what should be the last day for our beloved golden retriever, Casey, a California-born dog whom we bought a few months before moving East again in 1994 after seven fond years on that other coast and who, now 12, has a menacing tumor growing beneath his ribs. There is no good time, no good day, to say goodbye to a dear friend. Nature forces that call.

So it’s been a week of passages, of reflection on time and loss, of memories, most sweet, some bittersweet. These passages have been respite from a world seemingly gone mad. Last month, I read a book called Saturday by Ian McEwan, a post-9/11 novel that follows one day in the life of London neurosurgeon. It begins in the pre-dawn hours as the insomniac doctor watches a plane, its wing on fire, head toward Heathrow Airport. He fiddles with the television news and speculates whether a terrorist is in the cockpit. Only the routine and competency of work and the love of family bring periods of peace to Dr. Henry Perowne. The underlying edge of life in a world always on the verge of something cataclysmic is never far away.

The book has stayed with me in a month that began when ceiling tiles in Boston’s Big Dig tunnel collapsed, killing a woman, but sparing her beloved husband, as the two headed to Logan Airport at night to pick up a relative. The same day seven bombs (I believe an eighth was defused) exploded in the crowded commuter trains of Mumbai, India), leaving a bloody trail of carnage and more minutes of silence in yet another major global city to mark the lives of the innocent and random dead. (“Some world we live in,” I said to Kathy that night. “If you drive your car, the tunnel wall collapses on you. If you opt for the train, a bomb goes off.”)

The killing seems to have grown more wholesale as the month progresses. A United Nations report says more than 100 Iraqis a day now are dying in brutal acts of sectarian violence. Thousands more are fleeing their homes in the country to which America brought gunboat “democracy,” shifting the balance of power in the Middle East sharply toward Iran and various Islamist extremist groups who are anything but concerned about freedom and liberty. The blood and bombs of Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah still fly.

What to make of this world, especially when the United States careens under the leadership of a man quite unable to grasp its dimensions and one prone to listening to the neo-con crazies whose friends on Fox News keep predicting, almost gleefully, that we are at the start of World War III?

I have few answers to this world landscape. Too often, it leaves me numb. Perhaps my brother Dennis is on to something. He has turned to a film form of myth-like documentary, "In Search of the 36," as he records the lives of people whose contributions fit the bill of those wise men of Jewish tradition who selflessly make things well through their good deeds.

I think he's on the right track. It’s an old and idealistic concept. but for the moment I can think of no better. What if we all find a way each day to reach out to those we love and those we don’t know, to consciously make one small gesture to bring kindness and acceptance to a world evicerated by violence.

Pass it on, as the movie by that name said. If ours is to become a better place to live, we all must reclaim it, one small act at a time.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

2006-07-04T08:52:00.000-07:00

07/04/06

The nation's 230th birthday should be a day all Americans celebrate what’s made this country great – freedom of speech, of thought, of religion; equality; diversity of perspective, race, ethnicity, interest. But if you keep your ear tuned to the speeches of Republican politicians today, I bet you'll hear the national holiday used as a soapbox for bashing the less patriotic among us (read -- anyone but them).

The last few week’s news offers these clues:

The Republicans ridiculed the “cut and run” Democrats on the House and Senate floor.
Select Republicans in both houses branded the press, and particularly The New York Times, as “treasonous” for writing what the president in so many words had already said: The United States is monitoring global financial transactions in the hope of catching terrorists.
Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the Democrats (and by extension the Supreme Court itself) were for extending “special privileges for terrorists” by applauding the court’s ruling that the administration could not try suspected terrorists any way the president saw fit.

Now, I hate an unfair fight. So I thought I'd use Independence Day to prep the Democrats for their fall campaign against George's minions.Democratic candidates, it's time to punch back, take a stand. It can even be fun. Just find your slogan ("we're nicer" won't cut it) and ride it until November.

This is American politics. Five words are ample. I'd recommend "The Emperor has no clothes." Once more, now: "the Emperor has no clothes." If used daily – at least two-dozen times a day -- it's a surefire winner. Repetition is key. Karl Rove and the Republicans have built a mirage of toughness by talking tough – and repeating the same lines as frequently as a parrot on speed.

So try it out for yourselves, Democrats, maybe with a bit of inflection …. “The em-purr-roar has nooo clothes.” And follow that with … “and my opponent and his/her fellow Republican tailors have no thread.”

Think about it: This slogan has promise. “The emperor” opens Front 1. This is the guy who has ignored the Constitution’s separation of powers. He doesn’t believe in The First Amendment: When anyone delivers bad news he either scowls, clears brush, or has his minions shout treason and threaten prosecution. He doesn’t believe in the Fourth Amendment. (“Remember those phone records, my fellow Americans, you thought were private? What else is he looking to spy on – your garage sale receipts?”)

Next, candidates, let your voices rise – subtly, of course.

“And speaking of an Inconvenient Truth, this is the man who has flouted international law and agreement repeatedly. He’s ignored Kyoto and continues to fiddle while the world burns. He’s ignored the most basic of international agreements – the Geneva Conventions -- forged over the two great wars that left millions dead. He’s dispensed endless favors through no-bid contracts to friends, flouting the law. And when Congress passes new laws, he doesn't bother vetoing those he disagrees with. He just ignores them. Is that the mark of a president in a democracy?

It’s time for front 2 – the “neck-ed” part, as W. might say.

“The emperor's party is one of no clothes and imaginary thread. Look closely at his policies and you’ll see that our emperor stands naked as a jaybird – even as all those Republican tailors in Congress tout the beauty of his plummage. The emperor promised to reduce the national debt and then ran up our current version to the ga-trillions, making America the greatest debtor nation in world history. It's your children and grandchildren who will be left with the insurmountable bills."

(Audience chants: The Emperor has no clothes)

"The emperor said we’d capture Osama 'dead or alive' bin Laden. But he forgot to mention he meant capture bin Laden on weekly audio tapes. Then he invaded the wrong country, Iraq, and promptly forgot about this Osama guy all together."

(Audience … you get the picture)

"The emperor vaulted onto a carrier deck off San Diego to declare 'Mission Accomplished.' That was three years ago. Then, with slight variations, he declared it again and again – when we killed Saddam’s sons, when we captured Saddam, when Iraqis elected a Parliament, when the Parliament chose a Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister nailed down his cabinet, when we killed al-Zarqawi. That’s at least six times the mission has been accomplished, but if you glance at the daily headlines, that mission is still hemorrhaging blood. It seems the only rockets going off in Baghdad this July 4th are bringing death, not independence. This is the daily death of dozens of women and children whose only sin is shopping or being born into the wrong sectarian group. It is the death of our men and women, still coming back in body bags that the president and his party would hide from sight."

"The emperor said we were ready for Katrina and then stood by paralyzed as hundreds of Americans died in their homes and thousands more wilted in the heat, waiting for rescue.The emperor has promised us a more secure America and then cut its Homeland Security allocation to vulnerable cities.Is this a man – and a party – that meets its promises? Does this administration really make you feel safe? Is this the guy to whom you want to write another blank check to by electing another Republican Congress – a whole passel of tailors with no thread, a gang of yes-men whose only accomplishment is spinning George W. Bush’s yarn?"

You're out of time, reader? And I’m just getting warmed up. I'm working on the rhyming bit (essential in all campaigns).

“He spends on his friends.”

“He screws up, you queue up”

"He’s fluff but acts tough."

OK I’ll stick to my day job. But can’t the Democrats please pay someone else to do this better?

The Party of Bash and Bush Flexes for the Next Election

2006-06-27T07:51:00.000-07:00

06/27/06

It's a playbook that's worked time and time again. So with Karl “I dodged an indictment” Rove back to his typical pre-election shenanigans, it's hardly surprising to see the Republican attack dogs unleashed and snarling.

First came the carefully staged, post-Zarqawi, Congressional debate. The Republicans used their power in both chambers to manipulate news coverage as they pilloried the "cut and run" Democrats for deserting the cause and our troops in Iraq. (Forgotten, it seemed, was just who got the troops there to start with. Ignored, a week later, was the distinct similarity between Gen. George W. Casey’s phased withdrawal plan and the one the majority of Democrats had supported.)

Next the Republicans ratcheted up their efforts to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning (a truly pressing national issue in that .... in that .... huh?). Stay tuned. The vote will be close and, whichever way it goes, every Democrat against tinkering with the Constitution over this utterly vacuous issue will be bashed mercilessly in the next election.

Then, this Monday, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney issued choreographed attacks against -- you got it -- the news media (and especially that evil New York Times) for having the audacity to report on yet another of their domestic "monitoring" programs -- this one to track financial transactions of terrorists (but, mind you, only terrorists).

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it is of great harm to the United States," W. said, reportedly jabbing a finger for emphasis. "We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America .. What we're doing was the right thing."

Republican business as usual, you say. Perhaps. But I believe one way or another, this time around could prove a turning point in the steady erosion of civil and open debate over policy in this country. Things could get better – or, they could get a whole lot worse. The answer, ultimately, lies with the hard-working, heavily-spun, and too-often scared men and women of America – unless the election process is already so corrupted, as some have charged, that public political campaigning in this country is just a distraction.

Let’s assume for a moment that the outcome is not preordained. Will the public this November tolerate the same attack and terrify tactics it has fallen for time and time again? Or will voters pick a new tune to replace that long-running Republican hit, "There is a reason: fear, fear, fear?"

Only this is no joke. Just listen to U.S. Rep. Peter King, Republican of New York and yesterday's hit man for his party.

"We're at war, and for The Times to release information about secret operations and methods in treasonous," he told the Associated Press.

For the record: (1) The Wall Street Journal, that much-reviled left-wing rag, ran the same story and (2) this is not the first time in recent months that the Republicans have not merely bad-mouthed the media but implicitly or explicitly threatened news organizations or reporters with prosecution.

It's not surprising. The Republicans control Congress. They're getting close to controlling the highest court (seven of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents). And they’ve done their part to try to bludgeon the “liberal” press into self-censorship. So as we pursue liberty and justice and freedom in our unending war against terror around the globe, why not dispatch a few sorted scribes behind bars? Would anyone mind? And, if not, will anyone, in fact, notice when our own democracy is that in name only?

As much or more than the end game in Iraq, these questions should be on the minds of citizens as they prepare to vote in November’s midterm elections. Whether voters will, in fact, notice the erosion of First Amendment rights is tough to gauge. It hasn’t been part of the pollster’s repertoire. New polls, however, do show some signs that the "hit and run over" tactics of the Republicans may be wearing thin.

Even in the shadow of the orchestrated Congressional debate on Iraq, a USA Today/Gallup Poll taken last weekend found Bush’s approval rating had plateaued at 37 percent after rising in recent weeks. It also round that a majority of Americans support a resolution outlining a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and that 50 percent of those surveyed would like all U.S. forces out within 12 months (Sen. John Kerry’s amendment to do just that managed to get 13 votes in the U.S. Senate).

In the end, of course, polls this week, next month and Nov. 1 won’t matter a whit come election day. I just hope the same can’t be said years from now by historians studying the story of ballots actually cast Nov. 7.

In an opinion piece the Boston Globe ran this Monday, the authors of the book, “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?” again raised a question that has never been answered to my satisfaction: Just how could a 25-question exit poll survey of 114,559 voters that November day have been so wrong as to predict a Kerry victory by a margin of 51 to 48 percent?

Noted the authors, Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss, “In that election, 64 percent of Americans voted on direct recorded electronic voting machines or optical scan systems, both of which are vulnerable to hacking or programming fraud.”

Without an audit, they continue, and without any means of verifying the official count, “a reasonable person could … argue that a well-conducted exit poll that confirmed the official count would be about the only reason we would have to believe the results.”

Let’s hope someone conducts such a poll this November – and that the media pay attention if it doesn’t reflect the recorded vote. If not, it won’t be long before a newly molded system of American justice begins to heed Rep. King’s calls for action against the “treasonous” press.

When Will the Mainstream Media Get It Right?

2006-06-16T07:41:00.000-07:00

This blog appeared on www.commondreams.org

06/16/06 -- My New York Times today paints a pretty grim picture of life in Iraq three-plus years into W's war of choice.

A graphic compares a variety of statistics this May (2006) to the last three. Other than a slight drop in U.S. military deaths from 77 last May to 68 this May, the graphic's stats comparing this year to last are awfully disheartening:

-- Monthly incidents of sectarian violence -- up from 20 to 250

-- Daily insurgent attacks -- up from 70 to 90

-- Multi-fatality bombings -- up from 36 to 56

-- Iraqi civilian deaths -- up from 1,000 to 1,500

-- Number of insurgents -- up from 16,000 to 20,000

And so on.

Unfortunately this news appears in views, on Page A27, the opinion page, in a graphic compiled by a senior Brookings Institute fellow and his senior research assistant. The lead news story on Page 1 in my New York Times today is about an entirely different war -- the public relations war of the Republican Party aimed at obliterating any sense of reality among voters of what's really going on in Iraq. The Times reports the Republican offensive without comment, which is appropriate on the news pages. But it also reports this offensive with very little context, which is not appropriate.

WASHINGTON, June 15 -- The House and the Senate engaged in angry, intensely partisan debate on Thursday over the war in Iraq, as Republicans sought to rally support for the Bush administration's policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war.

It was one of the sharpest legislative clashes yet over the three-year-old conflict, and it came after three days in which President Bush and his aides had sought to portray Iraq as moving gradually toward a stable, functioning democracy, and to portray Democrats as lacking the will to see the conflict through to victory.

In the House, lawmakers moved toward a vote on a Republican resolution promising to "complete the mission" in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any "arbitrary date for withdrawal...."

And what do the facts say in support of this Republican offensive? Well the story doesn't offer any. There is no evidence that proves or disproves the Republican's assertion that Iraq is moving toward a stable, functioning democracy. In its 6th paragraph, however, the article does prominently quote Republican House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who says of Iraq, "It is a battle we must endure and one in which we can and will be victorious. The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores." (Emphasis added.)

Back to our shores?

But wait. Doesn't The Times remember that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with either Al Qaeda or the bombing of the World Trade Center, according to U.S. intelligence? Doesn't it recollect that this mythical connection is one Republicans have insinuated for years through often-unchallenged quotes such as Hastert's? Has it forgotten that even before the war began, those opposing the war warned repeatedly that it would turn Iraq into the very breeding ground of terrorism that the United States was trying to eradicate?

The Times lead article mentions none of this context. Nor does it include any of the statistical context found on Page 27 of the same edition.

Given The Times stature in the American press, this kind of omission leads me to wonder just how mainstream media today are defining their role in delivering the news. More than 50 years ago, the press for a long time failed to challenge the anti-communist hysteria spread by Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin -- hysteria based on the thinnest of facts or none at all. McCarthy knew that if he attacked someone as a communist sympathizer, that person's denial would mean little. The news media rarely bothered to look at his evidence. Recognizing, somewhat ashamed, in the years that followed that they had failed to serve the public, news organizations and journalism schools spoke of the need for "fairness" instead of "objectivity," for reporting that was based on verifiable fact rather than “he said-she said” fencing. Has that recognition of a need for a better model of reporting simply been forgotten?

The Bush Administration and its Republican allies in Congress today regularly eviscerate all opponents of the war as weak on terror if not anti-American. Shouldn’t the news media accounts of such attacks review the evidence of how the war is going? Or is it enough to merely print the attacks and the denials and move on?

I believe the media should be providing the context of the Iraq war during the current congressional debate -- unless the press is willing to accept that its job has morphed into serving as a conduit of propaganda meted out, to be fair, by both sides.

I haven't read a transcript of the full House debate. But The Times itself makes clear that at least one Democrat referenced the context of the war. His comment can be found, for the truly dogged reader, in paragraph 21 of today's lead story, the second to last paragraph of the article. There, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts say -- or asserts as The Times chooses to put it -- that "the war in Afghanistan was the response to the terrorist attacks" -- not the war in Iraq.

Wait a minute. Frank asserts? Is it not verifiable fact that Osama bin Laden operated out of Afghanistan with the support of its Taliban leadership? Is it not verifiable fact that the World Trade Center terrorists were overwhelming Saudi Arabian and that there wasn't an Iraqi among them. Remember? We ostensibly went to war there to keep Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction, which -- oops -- it turned out he didn't have.

Facts have never gotten in the way of the Bush Administration. Too often, it lives and dies by the big lie, repeated over and over again. Reporters call this “spin,” because the word "lie" makes them uncomfortable. But whatever name they give it, they should always provide evidence (call it verifiable fact or context) that measures the spin against what is known. Providing this contrast, after all, is the news media's job.

What’s happening in Washington this week is clear. After weeks of utter chaos on the ground in Baghdad -- kidnappings, sectarian mass murders, bombs and the flight of the middle class to neighboring countries -- the Iraqi government filled its Cabinet and U.S. troops killed a very evil guy, Musab al-Zarqawi. It is good news and it does provide an inkling of hope. But now the Bush Administration wants to cash in politically by renewing its historical assault on Democrats as wimps and defeatists and by making the news of Zarqawi’s death partisan.

The problem with this spin is that most of the facts don't support either the Administration’s vision of reality in Iraq or its renewed efforts to tie Iraq to the broader war on terror (and, by extension, 9/11). That information, too, is part of the news – an important part if the American public is to make sense of what’s really going on.

Jerry Lanson is a professor of journalism at Emerson College in Boston. He can be reached by email at jerry_lanson@emerson.edu.

Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Peace Sign

2006-06-12T05:19:00.000-07:00

06/11/06

Driving throught the artistic Cape Ann, Mass., community of Rockport last weekend, I saw a minivan with two yellow "support the troops" ribbons and a peace sign. My first thought was, "This guy is confused." But then maybe it's the rest of us who are.

White and bellicose America, the anti-immigrant and anti-gay marriage brigades, has long usurped the symbols of pride and patriotism. The yellow ribbon is one example. The flag another. I count the pro-Bushie Republicans in my neighborhood by looking for houses that fly their flags every day. And it ticks me off. My parents were New Yorkers, liberal, inclusive and very much pro-American. My dad, a German refugee of Jewish descent, came to this country by hiking over the Alps into Czechoslovakia with enough money in his shoes to live until he could learn a new language and get a job. He served three years in the U.S. Army in World War II, leaving as a staff sergeant. He loved parades, flew a flag on every holiday and sang the Star Spangled Banner at baseball games, loudly and badly.

But he'd have been even louder in denouncing an administration that tramples on the law, spies on Americans in their homes, leads by division and marginalization, and flexes its muscles at any opportunity.

Pomp should not be a circumstance restricted to the right. Perhaps that was the minivan driver's message. We should all support our troops. Not that they're always squeaky clean.
But they're dying and losing their legs and minds in a country and for a cause we barely notice.
Each day they awaken in a country so indiscriminately violent (although we only seem to see blood in the news when a top-gun terrorist gets killed) that even our best-trained fighting force, the Marines, faces allegations that some among its number went nuts in a town called Haditha last November and over a period of hours assassinated 24 civilians, including women and children.

There's no excuse for slaughter. But there may be even less excuse for leaving our troops as targets in a shooting gallery. We did that once in my lifetime, in Vietnam, feinting and faking a "peace treaty" withdrawal for a half dozen years while more than 25,000 more of our troops died.

Mr. President, this is your chance to avoid a replay. Musab al-Zarqawi is dead. That's given you mileage and cover. This is your perfect opportunity to declare victory, pull out our troops and wave more flags. If you're lucky Iraq will stay glued together through the 2006 midterm elections, and most Americans won't much care anyway.

Those who do might consider the minivan driver's counterattack: Go out and buy a yellow ribbon and mount it with a peace sign.

Scary Times for the Press; Scarier Yet Without It

2006-05-31T12:34:00.000-07:00

05/31/06

On Memorial Day I stayed with a college friend, a professor at George Mason University in Virginia who has always been keenly attuned to the news. I've known Peter for nearly 40 years, and when Kathy and I visit, we often sit around the breakfast table, reading and discussing the news. But this time something had changed. Peter has cancelled his subscription to the Washington Post. He reads online. So does my cousin Stephanie, who recently cancelled her subscription to The Boston Globe.

I asked both how they think news organizations will be able to provide them with news if no one is willing to pay for it any more. News web sites, I pointed out, lose money. While traditional news organizations have built these sites to maintain their branding, their bottom line gets a little worse each time a paper subscriber cancels and starts reading online. Judging from the free fall in newspaper circulation in this country, neither my friend, my cousin, nor thousands of other Americans are terribly worried about it.

They should be. These are scary times for a free press in America. Not only has the news industry been weakened by declining readership, but its advertising base -- particularly classified ads -- has shiftly sharply to the Web. Some papers are holding on by their finger nails. For example, my old newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News in California, has been taken over by a new publisher known to slash news budgets to increase profits. The Mercury News was part of a Knight Ridder newspaper chain much respected throughout the second half of the 20th century for its investment in quality news. No longer. As of July 1, it will have sold its holdings to the highest bidder (and there weren't many).

With the decline in profits has come a decline in trust (a measure of declining quality perhaps?). A 2005 Pew Research Center poll reported that just 54 percent of Americans in 2004 believed most of what they read, down from 84 percent two decades earlier. Meanwhile, bloggers on right and left attack the traditional news media as too biased, too cautious, or both.

And if the weakened American press doesn't have enough to worry about, the Bush administration is making noise about possibly prosecuting reporters who publish classified information. So far the story is speculative; it hasn't cracked Page 1. But if and when it happens, will anyone care?

I can only hope so. Because whatever their faults -- and there are many -- the news media in this country, and newspapers in particular, currently offer the best hope of sustaining a robust democracy. We have a president who adheres to the law when it suits him. (And often it doesn't, which is obvious in everything from domestic spying by the National Security Agency to the rewriting of the codes of military conduct as they apply to prisoners of war.) We have a Congress, dominated by the president's party, that seems to find its voice only when the FBI raids its Capitol Hill offices. We have a Supreme Court -- a new Supreme Court -- that just yesterday ruled that whistle blowers in public offices are out of luck if their bosses discipline or demote them for making public the failures of their own agencies.

For all its shortcomings, the American news media -- and especially the newspapers that still invest in independent reporting -- are the best ally the public has. I don't mean to be pollyanish. But I think it's time for more Americans -- particularly those concerned about our eroding civil liberties -- to rally around the press instead of throwing spitballs at it while it fades away. By all means, make the news better. Scream and holler when reporters get things wrong. Hold them accountable. But to do that, you've got to read what they write, not just read the kvetchings of bloggers who complain much more than they report.

For my part, I'm going to keep working on my friend Peter and my cousin Stephanie to renew their subscriptions. If you don't buy a newspaper, start doing so. And tell your friends they should, too. Maybe some day soon, news organizations will figure out a way to make money off the Internet. But they haven't yet. And democracy is too valuable to give away for the savings of 50 cents a day.

The Wonders of Technology

2006-05-25T05:57:00.000-07:00

05/25/06

I started this blog two months ago. Then I pushed a button, and it vanished. This morning I rediscovered it somewhere in cyberspace, like a note wrapped and sealed in a bottle aimlessly adrift just offshore. Strange, this word of bits and bytes, the stored detritus of billions of lives.

And so I guess I'll have to get back to blogging. It beats muttering to myself or screaming at the television. It's cheaper than therapy (you know, for muttering to myself or screaming at the television). It's a measure of one more life in one more year of America's metamorphisis to ... who knows? And I wouldn't want to miss out on being spied on by the National Security Agency.

So I'll hold down my new space with a quote I enjoyed from the Introduction to "The Best American Essays 2004."

Writing is a window. It opens onto vanished feelings and vanished worlds. Often it is the only window there is, the only access we will every have to those things. it is more than a mere record, like a photograph, because it is also a sensibility, a point of view, a voice. It is the place where, fifty or a hundred years from now, people will go to see -- or to hear -- what it was like to be alive when we were alive.
-- Louis Menand

Back to Blogging, I Guess

2006-05-25T05:51:00.000-07:00

This blog will reflect on news, views and the manipulation of both in this century of spin.

03/20/06

I started into this blogging business last January, primarily as a way of forcing myself to write more often. My blog then was Musing on America.blogspot.com. And after a year of weekly posts I ran out of time and out of steam.

But too much is changing in the world around me and the news business to sit idly on the sidelines. And so I thought I'd once more add my voice to the chattering masses in the hope something good can come from all this noise that is blogging.

The traditional news business is in big trouble these days. Last week my old newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News, was sold -- along with all other Knight-Ridder newspapers -- because the chain's profit margin was "only" 16.6 percent and one big stockholder wanted bigger returns.

Just who ends up owning the Merc and Knight-Ridder's other top newspapers remains cloudy.
But the American newspaper landscape once again has gotten smaller -- the voice of American journalism that much more homogenous.

I'll reserve this space over the next year or few to commentary about the news, how it's being reported and how it's being distorted. I'll write less frequently but I hope as personally and professionally. As always, I'd love to see whether anyone out there in the wilderness finds me. If so, stop in for a digital cup-of-coffee. There's nothing I love better than a warm fire and a few sparks.

Jerry Lanson

1 Comments:

Jeffrey Seglin said...: Jerry,

Good to see you back blogging.

A lot of noise has been made about Knight-Ridder's decision when going public to offer only one class of stock. By doing this it allowed Wall Street to put pressure on the newspapers to perform better and better each quarter. If two classes of stock had been issued as other newspaper chains did when going public, it might have eased some of that pressure. Or that's how the current thinking goes.

What I'm wondering is whether you see the current sell off as a sign that the fading health of newspapers in the U.S. or as more of an indication of what can go wrong when Wall Street is allowed to step in and put profit pressure on newspapers to perform better financial quarter after quarter so the stock price improves. Does it suggest that issuing only one class of stock gives over too much control to investors who know little about the business and are driven solely by a desire to see their stock price rise?

This quarter-to-quarter short-term thinking is part of what I think caused some of the companies caught up in the corporate scandals of the past four years to go astray.

So I'm wondering if you think this recent sell off of the Knight Ridder papers is a sign of newspaper health fading or more a sign of the myopic behavior of corporate investors to look for short-term returns that could wreak havoc on the long-term health of a company.; 7:32 AM