The book on Bush
Feb. 26
What did the president know and when did he know it? That’s the subject of a new book by BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast, excerpted on TomPaine.commonsense.
According to Mr. Palast, U.S. intelligence agencies should have known about the plans for the Sept. 11 attacks.
"If U.S. intelligence agencies did not see the attack coming it was because they were told not to look," he writes. "Why? From inside the agencies were obtained statements and documents indicating that the Bush administration blocked key investigations into allegations that top Saudi Arabian royals and some members of the bin Laden family, not just Osama, funded and supported Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations."
Read the excerpt.
Comment on this item.
More astroturf
Feb. 26
I meant to pass this on the other day. I received an e-mail from out in the blogosphere from Betsy Devine, whose blog focuses on, among other things, the astroturfing phenomenon.
For those of you who haven’t heard the term before, astroturf refers to the practice of creating the impression that there is a groundswell of support for a particular issue among the grassroots hence the term astroturf.
Ms. Devine wanted to update me on my friends at the Republican National Committee (See Dispatches, Jan. 30). Here is her e-mail, and a link to a Washington Post story:
Hi Hank
I was reminded of your (excellent) January 30 piece, "Astroturf Stunts Democracy," by a news story today in the online Washington Post: "House GOP Fundraisers Put a Price On Honors"
It looks as though you got off easy they were planning to hook you for a few thousand dollars, in addition to renting your name for their press releases.
Best wishes,
Betsy
Comment on this item.
And then there’s this
Feb. 26
Two news items from The Onion, "America’s Finest News Source."
1. "Orange Alert Sirens to Blow 24 Hours a Day in Major Cities": "Some may find their normal sleep patterns disrupted, but it’s a small price to pay to ensure our collective awareness of the heightened danger," The Onion quotes Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge as saying. "The key to preventing terrorist attacks is to have the threat constantly on your mind but still remain calm and act normal."
2. "Preparing for the Worst."
I offer no comment on either item. I think they say it all.
Comment on this item.
A Grammy post-mortem
Feb. 24
All I can say is that I was right. The Grammys (see my Feb. 20 Dispatches) are a waste of time.
No surprises Norah Jones won a slew of trophies, which fit the profile of recent winners (mainstream and attractive to the adult audience) and the performances were a mixed bag.
Here, as my post mortem, is an e-mail exchange with Steve Feitl, managing editor of the Lawrence Ledger:
Well that was damn near unwatchable. My big problem is the whole elitist aspect of the award shows (which you touched on in your column last week). I hate how certain things are "award worthy" and others are not. For example, can’t a comedy be a great achievement in film? Not, if you watch the Oscars.
Anyway, Bruce was enough to get me to watch and his performance was good. Not the best I’ve seen him do of that song, but still very good. The Clash tribute was great though. Got a real rush out of seeing Dave Grohl (my favorite "new" musician) and Bruce take the stage together. What did you think of it? Are you a big Clash fan? Admittedly, I’m not, but I’m aware enough of their music and their hits to appreciate the tribute.
But my biggest fear was even though I knew Bruce couldn’t care less about the awards and I feel they’re a joke, I didn’t want to sit there and watch this year’s "chosen one" take all the awards. Of course, that’s exactly what happened. I haven’t heard the Norah Jones album, but I have heard the single, and while I think it’s quite good at being a jazzy vocal number, I wouldn’t classify it as the Best Everything for this past year. It was justso annoying… and why did she look constipated at all time?
Steve
You are on the money about the entire travesty that the evening was. Five performances kept it from being a wholly unwatchable mess Bruce, the Clash tribute (amazing), John Mayer, Norah Jones and Eminem. What was striking about these five in particular was that there were no gimmicks attached, no pyrotechnics, no fun costumes, none of the junk usually associated with bands like Nelly.
And what was that horrible thing that passed as a Bee Gees tribute? I admit, I’m not keen on the Bee Gees, but that a cappella nonsense was actually painful. I felt horrible for the entire Gibb family and all the people who once liked them.
The Norah Jones single is, I think, a wonderful song, but it is pretty tame and seemed perfectly calibrated to the voting audience. I have to say I thought it great, though, that Blue Note, a small jazz label, was associated with so many Grammys.
That said, it was not the best song of the year and the album was too soft and monotonous for my tastes. And I love jazz.
The Clash tribute I am a huge Clash fan and was tremendously saddened by Joe Strummer’s death. I have one of his Mescaleros’ discs "Global A-Go-Go" it is great. I loved seeing Bruce and Elvis Costello on the same stage After Bruce, Dylan, the Beatles and Lou Reed, Elvis and the Clash are probably my faves (along with some others). And Dave Grohl did a great job with it.
I was thinking of doing a post-mortem on the show for the weblog, focusing on the performances: Simon and Garfunkle sounded good, but I was in the other room and missed it. I was disappointed in No Doubt the song "Hella Good" is pretty hot and I thought they gave a flat performance (their bass player did a good job backing the Clash tribute, though). Vanessa Carlton flat, horrible can she even sing? John Mayer was good, if a bit goofy. James Taylor I just don’t like him much, though I think he did a fine job with an old chestnut. Nelly silly, waste of time. Dixie Chicks I liked it, like their version of the song and the flavor the bluegrass picking gives it. Sheryl Crow and Kid Rock a major disappointment, her vocals were weak. Ashanti why bother, and what was up with those kids? Bruce was hot and proved you don’t need a gimmick. Eminem was hot, as well, and without gimmicks. I covered the Bee Gees tribute above. Norah Jones I think the performance was better than the studio version. Have I missed anyone?
Hank
BeeGees tribute was totally horrendous. Great, ‘N Sync has good control of their voices. So do high school choirs. It doesn’t make it a great tribute.
I mentioned that I loved the Clash tribute though. It’s ringing through my head all day.
I too like that fact that jazz gets a bit of a rub from Jones and all this. I would love to see jazz becomes a bit more accessible in the main stream. But it’s just her song doesn’t send off bells and whistles. If I was sitting in a nice jazz club, while on vacation, and she took the stage, I would be very pleased. If the song came on the radio, I wouldn’t change the station. If I was asked to name the best music from the past year, I probably wouldn’t even think of her song though. That’s just where I stand. (Seems like you have similar views on it.)
With all that said, I agree that her live performance was better than what I’ve heard previously.
The show was absolutely about the performances (felt like more than the last time I watched the show, which was god knows when).
I thought the Simon and Garfunkel thing was terrible. But the tension between them was kind of fun to watch…
Vanessa Carlton was the absolute pits. Who let her in the building? Was the Nelly thing the part where they kept switching back and forth between songs? If so, all I could think about was how it made it far too clear that they could’ve just Milli Vanillied the entire performance.
Steve
The Nelly thing with the sparks and the two songs I couldn’t tell if he had trouble making up his mind or what. All in all, it was the pits.
Hank
And I think that sums up this year’s Grammys. Can’t wait for next year.
Comment on this item.
More reasons to oppose war
Feb. 22
I’ve fallen a little behind in my reading these days, but I wanted to alert readers of this weblog to the current issue ofThe Nation magazine, which features some very good work on the pending war.
Jonathan Schell, who is probably the most eloquent writer out there focusing on issues of nuclear weapons, offers a pointed and well-reasoned explanation for why this war will not accomplish the administration’s stated goals of disarmament. What this administration is interested in, he says, is not disarmament but empire. Mr. Schell offers some historical perspective, saying that nations truly interested in nonproliferation of weapons would act first on their own arsenals. Without that action, he says, other nations North Korea, Iran will feel the need to join the nuclear club.
He outlines the hypocrisy that the major nuclear players work under, the notion that only they have the right to develop these weapons and that the smaller nations see this as a threat and feel it to be imperative that they join the club as well.
Also, a "Letter from Iraq" by Jeremy Scahill, correspondent for the nationally syndicated radio program "Democracy Now!" and coordinator of "Iraq Journal", an online forum that will offer independent coverage of the war from inside the country. Check out his piece and the Web site.
Comment on this item.
Dispatches
Feb. 20
Check out this week’s Dispatches on the sad state of music and the Grammy awards.
Comment on this item.
Difference of opinion
Feb. 19
The best way to get a sense of the distance that separates the Israelis and the Arab world is to read the news generated from both camps.
From Arabia.com comes this dispatch about Israel’s attempt to "annex vast areas of Palestinian land near a holy site sacred to both Muslims and Jews in Bethlehem to build a wall that would in effect isolate these areas from the southern West Bank city."
More dramatic is the difference in interpretation of yesterday’s assault on Gaza, which Arabia.com describes as an "brutal incursion" and the Israeli settler movement described as an "anti-terror action."
The fact is, language sets the tone of debate and if the two sides cannot even agree on how to view what is happening, how can they agree on how to end it. What we need to do is to get past the general name-calling and move ahead.
Comment on this item.
A funny liberal
Feb. 19
"Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins is the rarest of political animals: a smart liberal who can make you laugh," opens an inciteful interview on the Texas columnist on Salon.
Ms. Ivins, who writes a syndicated column and contributes to The Progressive, The Progressive Populist (for whom I also am a regular contributor) and other publications, is exactly as advertised. She is funny. She is readable. She makes sense.
Check out the interview and read her column. There’s nothing else like it out there.
Comment on this item.
Protests abound
Feb. 16
Millions around the world marched on Saturday, hoping to convince President George W. Bush and other leaders that going to war in Iraq will be a huge mistake.
Here is a run-down of some of the better coverage:
Jimmy Breslin offers this look from inside the New York rally. Newsday also offered this general news piece on the marches.
The L.A. Times offered this story and this from The Washington Post on the marches.
Most of the editorial writers seem to back what can only be called pragmatic approaches set a date, avoid irrelevance that play into the Bush administration’s own approach. Forgotten is the notion that disarmament is a long process and that, despite the current rhetoric, this process began with the United States calling for a war for regime change.
Essentially, what is being argued now is this: We’ve threatened war so we must fight a war. The merits or drawbacks that of this looming war are no longer being discussed.
No wonder millions are marching to make their voices known.
Comment on this item.
Dispatches
Jan. 30
Check out this week’s Dispatches on astroturfing.
Darwin returns
Jan. 30
Bob Herbert gives a nice little capsule description of the Bush administration’s Darwinian and dangerous approach to government in today’s New York Times:
"The Bush administration is changing the nation in fundamental ways. However one feels about a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, over the long term a bullying, go-it-alone foreign policy wedded to a military doctrine of pre-emption is a recipe for destabilization and paranoia around the world.
"And despite its professed commitment to compassionate policies at home, the administration’s obsession with tax cuts is proving destructive on two fronts: It is draining the nation’s coffers of money for social programs (including Medicare and Social Security), and blocking any real attempt to invest in a range of programs and infrastructure initiatives that are crucial to the nation’s long-term future."
Human touch
Jan. 30
Jimmy Breslin earlier this week in Newsday wrote a nice column that put the upcoming war in Iraq into perspective, lending it a human face.
He reminds us that there will be a human cost to any military action and laments the lack of discussion in the media of the potential casualties both American and Iraqi.
Read it.
What a state
Jan. 30
To follow up on yesterday’s critique of the State of the Union, there is this from Robert Scheer in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday.
Mr. Scheer answers a question that President George W. Bush failed to address: Exactly what is the state of the union, anyway? Answer: Lousy.
He writes:
"The White House uses bombast to portray our nation as being merely a step away from peace and prosperity. All it needs is another feed-the-rich tax break and a war for oil. All the while, the administration is willfully ignoring some harsh realities: The Dow fell below 8,000 on Monday, Osama bin Laden is still on the lam and we are pursuing a foreign policy increasingly based on the discredited credo of might-makes-right colonialism.
"With more of the working poor slipping each day into the ranks of the food bank poor and with Bush’s promised corporate reform a grim joke for a middle class swindled out of its savings, states from Maine to Oregon are facing historic budget crises. But unlike the feds, who under Bush gleefully produce red ink like it’s vintage wine, the states can’t run a deficit. "
And so it goes.
Mr. Scheer’s column also can be found at his Web site.
On bended knees, again
Jan. 30
Apparently, the European press is a bit surprised at the passivity shown by the American media toward President George W. Bush. An excellent piece by Matthew Engle in the World Press Review (originally published in the Guardian of London) asks what happened.
Mr. Engle compares today’s coverage of President Bush to the harsh coverage of President Richard M. Nixon and finds the current crew in Washington to be failing.
"Now there is a new Republican president, elected even more controversially and pursuing a far more divisive agenda," he wrote. "Where are the pointy-head liberals now? The change can be summed up in Woodward’s own career. As the Watergate investigator, he not merely protected his sources, he glamorized them. Now, still on the Post staff, he functions as a semi-official court stenographer to the Bush White House. And it is notable that those who talk to him such as the president himself always play the heroic role in his stories."
An on the mark review. Reminds me of Mark Hertsgaard’s book on press coverage of the Reagan administration, "On Bended Knee."
A grave danger to humanity
Jan. 30
Think Saddam Hussein is dangerous? Check out this from The Onion, America’s finest news source.
State of the Union
Jan. 29
President George W. Bush’s State of the Union speech last night was, to put it mildly, a scam.
The president as all politicians tend to do dressed up his mix of useless and dangerous policy proposals in rosy language that hit played right into the wants and fears of his listeners without actually telling them what he plans to do.
His comments on health care are a case in point. The president criticized the rising costs of medicine in the United States and said our goal should be "a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need." Sounds good but only because it is really nothing more than a vague platitude, public relations mumbo jumbo designed to lend cover to his actual plan, the continued privatization of health care in the United States.
"Instead of bureaucrats and trial lawyers and HMOs, we must put doctors and nurses and patients back in charge of American medicine," he said to applause. And this starts with Medicare, he said. "And just like you, the members of Congress, and your staffs and other federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs."
But as E.J. Dionne pointed out in Tuesday’s Washington Post, opening Medicare to competition, to the imperatives of profit, will do nothing but create a more complicated, bureaucracy-laden system. Rather than take real money and fund the existing system the way it should be funded which would go a long way to addressing issues of payments to doctors and prescription drug coverage President Bush wants to farm out a chunk of Medicare to the insurance companies that already are driving costs up and limiting coverage.
But he never says that. Instead, the president offers platitudes on health care, on energy and conservation, on missile defense, on AIDS, the homeless, etc., on North Korea, on Iran but not on Iraq.
On Iraq, he puts it pretty bluntly: America will be going to war. How else to read his comments that Saddam is evil, that a full quarter of his speech ended up focusing on Iraq, that he unveiled "evidence," that he announced that we will do whatever it is we have to do and so on.
The issue central to the discussion of Iraq, however, the notion of pre-emptive strikes, of attacking a country because it may have weapons, may use them in some vague future, of attacking without direct knowledge that we are under attack or are very likely to be attacked, is off the table, dealt with in a dismissive couple of words:
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" he aked.
"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."
Commentators are already hailing the speech, saying the president hit a home run, tossed the long touchdown pass, put the puck in the net, and all the other dopey sports phrases they could muster. Few have bothered to look at President Bush’s actual words, to read what he had to say, to explain what is really there.
And what was really important Tuesday night was not the words he used, not what he said, but what he left out, what he didn’t say the real facts of the Bush program.
For a real solid explanation of the Bush speech, turn to David Corn’s Capital Games weblog at The Nation.
Also in The Nation, check out The Online Beat by John Nichols, which focuses on the rather weak Democratic response to the speech.
William Saletan in his This Just In column on Slate said President Bush painted a rosy picture of the nation Tuesday night one that is at odds with reality.
He said the president offered "a few words about his record on the economy, education, corporate responsibility, and homeland security" and then "spent the rest of the hour outlining plans and promises."
"It was the kind of speech a president gives when he’s been in office two weeks, not two years," he writes.
"Why didn’t Bush talk about the state of the union? Because the state of the union is nothing to talk about. The stock market is in the toilet. The economy is going nowhere. Unemployment is up. The deficit is out of control."
The president treated the speech as another political opportunity, a chance to craft some fancy promises for the future without acknowledging the present which is not what the State of the Union is intended for.
"The state of the union isn’t a process," Mr. Saletan wrote. "It’s a result."
And the results have not been so good two years into the Bush presidency.
Medicare in danger
Jan. 28
E.J. Dionne in today’s Washington Post points up the problems with the Republican push to privatize prescription drug plans under Medicare:
"The push to "modernize" Medicare along free-market lines misses the whole reason why Medicare got created in the first place. The free market is very good at providing goods and services where a profit can be made, and inequalities among those goods and services are usually not morally troublesome. It doesn’t bother me if I drive a Saturn and you drive a Porsche. Both of us can get to where we need to go.
"But inequalities in basic health coverage are morally objectionable because they literally affect the right to life. So it does bother me that while my family might have decent prescription drug coverage, my elderly neighbor does not."
Knicks management fails (Ar)test
Jan. 28
You don’t have to look much farther than Indianapolis to understand the kinds of bad decisions New York Knick management has made over the years to dig itself into its current mess.
The Knicks are six games under .500 which is remarkable for a team that combines the worst of all possible NBA traits. It is short, slow and unimaginative.
Write now the New York papers are full of the kind of nonsense, however, that is likely to prolong Knick fans’ misery: They are focusing on the slight possibility that this team will sneak into the playoffs, ignoring its very real and deadly long-term flaws.
Which brings me to Indiana and its defensive dynamo, Ron Artest. Fans of New York basketball know the 6-foot, 5-inch swingman well he is a product of New York who played his college ball at St. John’s University.
When he came out of school after his sophomore season, the Knicks passed on the local star and instead opted for Frederic Weis of France, a 7-footer management hoped would replace the great Patrick Ewing someday. Artest, management said, played the same position as the Knicks’ two best players.
Weis proved to be a soft, 7-foot stiff, while Artest has become, perhaps, the best pure defender in the league and an offensive presence to boot.
As for the Knicks too best players Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston the Knicks should have moved one two or three years ago when that was still possible for some draft picks or a point guard. Instead, the team has decided to ride out the string with the pair, a decision that brings us back to the dark ages of New York basketball.
On war with Iraq
Jan. 28
A good piece by Fred Kaplan in Slate on the recent comments to the United Security Council about weapons inspections in Iraq by Inspector Hans Blix.
Mr. Blix said Monday morning that "Iraq appears not to have come to an acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." He said Iraq had not answered questions raised its Dec. 7 weapons declaration, which he said did not offer the required full disclosure of the country’s weapons stockpiles and facilities.
The piece a short one outlines the two basic responses: Doves want to go slow and say the comments indicate the need to let inspections work while hawks, notably the Bush administration, say the comments offer cause for war.
Except that they don’t. The basic issue here is that Iraq may have violated a U.N. resolution, but that has rarely been used in the past as a pretext for military action (ask Israel).
Mr. Kaplan closes with this comment which is as good a statement of the issue as I’ve seen recently:
"This has been said before, but Blix’s testimony today makes the point more valid and urgent, not less so: If President Bush has information that substantively justifies going to war against Iraq (and he may, he may), then it’s time to come out with it."
Dispatches
Jan. 23
Check out this week’s Dispatches on the Bush tax cuts and class warfare I’m for it (class warfare, that is).
Accounting for hypocrisy
Jan. 23
You have to like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
With all the scandals plaguing corporate America and the accounting industry which has made conflicts of interest a normal part of its business strategy the commission it has decided that some of its reforms are just a little to complicated to impose. (The Washington Post)
It has watered down a proposed ban on accounting firms creating tax shelters for audit clients that, as the Post points out, "could have cost the firms millions of dollars in lost revenue." The unanimous vote by the commissioners three Republicans and two Democrats, appointed by President Bush allows those services to continue.
Republican commissioner Paul S. Atkins called it a "complex issue that needs further consideration, perhaps by Congress," according to the Post.
"What we really need is tax reform," he said.
Yes we need tax reform. But we also need to prevent the kind of relationships between audit firms and major corporations in that kill the audit firms independence.
"Passing watered-down rules does nothing to restore investor confidence," New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi said through a spokesman, according to the Post.
War crimes double standard
Jan. 22
A friend of mine offers this on-the-money assessment of President George W. Bush’s announcement that he plans to charge Iraqi military officers with war crimes if they use weapons of mass destruction. It’s as good a comment and succinct as I’ve come across:
Hank,
I know I’m no foreign policy expert, but W’s at it again. He stated in a speech today that if Iraq used "weapons of mass destruction" he would hold Iraqi commanders responsible in an international war crimes tribunal.
I would think (1) That any country that is attacked has the right to use whatever means at its disposal to repel attackers. Does this include nukes? If so, should we round up those U.S. officers and State Department people that decided to bomb Japan? (2) Wasn’t this the administration that declined to join the international war crimes tribunal, because of fears that U.S. soldiers would be charged? How can we decry the creation of an institution and yet threaten to use it on others? That would drag the tribunal down to the level of the U.N.!
Bill
You go, Bill.
No privacy
Jan. 21
Big Brother is watching you.
That’s what a new ACLU report called Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society contends. The report offers an "overview of the many ways in which we are drifting toward a surveillance society, and what we need to do about it," according to the ACLU.
The report identified two basic trends that are working together to limit our privacy new technology (databases, computers, cameras, sensors, wireless networks, implantable microchips, GPS, biometrics, etc.) and looser regulations on government surveillance.
The report identifies four main goals we need to strive for to reverse this trend: Change the terms of debate so that security is not achieved at the expense of privacy; enact comprehensive laws protecting privacy; pass new laws to cover new technologies; and revive the Fourth Amendment, which the ACLU calls the "primary Constitutional bulwark against government invasion of our privacy."
Also check out Katha Pollit’s column, Subject to Debate, in the current issue of The Nation. It discusses the increase in spying by police on citizens.
Defending humanity
Jan. 21
A quote from the novelist Walter Mosely I the Jan. 27 issue of The Nation that sums up why I am opposed to war and to the death penalty:
"Not only are those who plot against us the enemy, but any assassin, any murderer is our enemy. We represent civilization and sophistication, while they stand for chaos. We cannot say that murder is wrong only within our borders or if committed against our citizens. If some Peruvian woman or Nigerian child is assassinated by political zealots, then that assassin is also our foe. He has to be because once we accept, condone or excuse the wrongful death of any human being, we have negated our own right to expect justice and respect. This is why there was an executive order that America cannot participate in the assassination of foreign leaders. If we can kill them, then they have the right to kill us.
"Our enemies are the lawless dregs of a world gone half-mad. It doesn’t matter if they feel in their hearts that the crimes they commit are somehow justified. It doesn’t matter if they are exonerated by their peers or religious leaders or by the moral interpretation of some government official. Murder in our realm is wrong, and anyone committing this crime is The Enemy of mankind—no exceptions allowed.
"The Enemy is the same to all people, all nations. He is not a soldier, a law unto himself, or, sadly, unknown among our own number. He lives here among us and over there with them. He is a man, or woman, who has denied the common morality accepted by people everywhere in the world. He is not just my enemy, but The Enemy of everyone, everywhere."
The full essay, "An African-American Appeal for Peace" can be found at The Nation’s Web site.
Stirring opinions
Jan. 20
Today’s editorial in the New York Times came as a bit of a surprise.
The so-called "paper of record" seemed prepared to listen to the anti-war marchers who gathered in Washington and elsewhere Saturday and it wanted the governing elite to listen, as well.
"Mr. Bush and his war cabinet would be wise to see the demonstrators as a clear sign that noticeable numbers of Americans no longer feel obliged to salute the administration’s plans because of the shock of Sept. 11 and that many harbor serious doubts about his march toward war," the paper wrote. "The protesters are raising some nuanced questions in the name of patriotism about the premises, cost and aftermath of the war the president is contemplating. Millions of Americans who did not march share the concerns and have yet to hear Mr. Bush make a persuasive case that combat operations are the only way to respond to Saddam Hussein."
All I can say is, it’s about time.
Human rights and wrongs
Jan. 20
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune offered a scathing critique of the Bush Administration’s assault on the constitution and the notion of human rights Saturday in an editorial.
The editorial blasts the administration for placing "America’s image as freedom’s citadel … under siege."
The detention of noncitizens as "enemy combatants" without guarantee of release, without charge or trial, "merely on government say-so" is "the stuff of dictatorships, not democracies," the paper says.
And not only does our policy of detention violate the basic notions of fairness and equality on which our nation was founded, it is counterproductive in our war against terror.
"When the United States shrugs off freedom and human rights, other nations properly wonder what sort of war they’re being asked to join," the paper says. "Fighting terrorism, after all, only makes sense if there’s something better on offer."
America used to offer that alternative, the paper says, but is entering a dangerous thicket in which safety has become more important than freedom. And "Human freedom is not a commodity to be traded. Not for anything. Not ever."
Ideal pol?
Jan. 17
A good piece in Slate on the moral and ethical quagmire that was the governorship of George Ryan in Illinois.
Gov. Ryan was the man who emptied the state’s death row because of his doubts that the death penalty could be imposed fairly and he is a hero for that.
But he also is the man who has been dogged by scandal for his four years as governor and, according to Slate, could be indicted in the coming months.
Definitely worth a read.
First amendment
Jan. 17
Howard Kurtz writes in the Washington Post that the American public would support censorship of press coverage of a war with Iraq a pretty scary notion, given the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy.
We in the press need to work a lot harder to explain our role as watchdog and the dangers of giving the government at any level the unfettered ability to keep things from the American public.
Idiocy of the week
Jan. 16
Here is an example of why I despise Andrew Sullivan, a conservative columnist for Salon.
He is an intellectual lightweight and a bully not a flattering combination.
Mr. Sullivan, in his "Idiocy of the Week" column, offers his take on the T-shirt worn by Sheryl Crow at the American Music Awards the other night and uses it as an opportunity to bash her anti-war views and to take off against celebrity anti-warriors generally.
Of course, he probably doesn’t have issues with neanderthal celebs like country singer Toby Keith (who Ms. Crow introduced at the award show see Tuesday’s entry) screaming let’s hang them from the highest tree or America should kick em in the arse.
I won’t defend Ms. Crow, whose music I like, as an intellectual, but this attack has more to do with Mr. Sullivan disagreeing with her peacenikism than her brain power.
Dispatches
Jan. 16
Check out this week’s Dispatches on the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and our editorial calling for abolition of the death penalty.
An inside look
Jan. 15
A good piece by Christopher Hanson in the Columbia Journalism Review on the ethical issues that reporters face when getting ready to scoop the competition.
The piece focuses on the issues reporters faced while covering the Maryland sniper case. Mr. Hansen, who was a print reporter for 20 years, teaches journalism ethics at the University of Maryland.
In the piece, he outlines how the Washington Post created an ethical lapse because it did not recognize that it was dealing with competing ethical principles when it printed an anonymous report that the teen charged in the case had admitted to being the gunmen in several of the shootings.
By doing so, the Post became part of the story and then found itself interviewing police investigators that were investigating the paper’s reporters.
Also, check out the story by Lynnell Hancock on the Central Park jogger case in New York in the same issue.
All-star madness
Jan. 15
I was going to whine about how baseball Commissioner Bud Selig was prepared to damage the World Series the single-most exciting sporting event in the world, as far as I’m concerned when I came across these pieces by ESPN.com columnists Jim Caple and Jayson Stark.
Mr. Caple sees the Selig idea as a good one that can re-invest meaning into a meaningless exhibition.
Mr. Stark knows better, and he skewers the commissioner (and Mr. Caple) with one of the most sarcastic and biting sports columns you’ll ever want to read.
In any event, I just want to remind all about Ray Fosse, an all-star catcher whose career was destroyed when Pete Rose barreled into him at home plate at the 1970 All-Star Game and busted him up pretty bad. He had 16 home runs at the All-Star break that year and had put together a 23-game hitting streak in the first half of the season. It was only his second year in the major leagues and he appeared destined to be one of the great catchers of his generation.
The collision blew out his shoulder, among other things, and he tried to come back too fast. He never hit more than 12 homers again and never hit better than .276, holding on for parts of nine more seasons, all because of what is really nothing more than a meaningless exhibition.
I wonder if Bud Selig has talked to Ray Fosse about his proposal.
The mad world
Jan. 15
Good piece in the London Times by the British novelist John LeCarre on the madness of war with Iraq, our collective passivity and willingness to let the Bush Administration do just about anything in our name following 9/11 and Britain’s willingness to follow blindly. Read it.
Death debates
Jan. 14
Outgoing Illinois Gov. George Ryan followed up on the death penalty moratorium he imposed three years ago by commuting the sentences of 157 inmates on his state’s death row Saturday.
The action comes at the end of his four-year term an action critics say was designed to preserve his legacy as governor and to overshadow questions about his ethics.
As The Washington Post noted in its coverage of the Ryan announcement, his administration "has been mired in controversy" and scandal.
But Gov. Ryan’s commitment to reform of capital punishment appears sincere. He enacted the moratorium, appointed a blue-ribbon panel to review the state’s death penalty apparatus and ordered clemency hearings for all 157 inmates before finally commuting their sentences and removing them from death row.
"Our systemic case-by-case review has found more cases of innocent men wrongfully sentenced to death row," he told law students at Northwestern as he announced his decision Saturday. "Because our three-year study has found only more questions about the fairness of the sentencing; because of the spectacular failure to reform the system; because we have seen justice delayed for countless death row inmates with potentially meritorious claims; because the Illinois death penalty system is arbitrary and capricious and therefore immoral I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death."
He added that the state’s "capital system is haunted by the demon of error error in determining guilt, and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die."
And that is why he commuted the sentence of everyone on the state’s death row and it is among the most compelling reasons why capital punishment should be abolished. (Click here for the full text of Gov. Ryan’s speech.)
Irony in full
Jan. 14
You have to love the irony of having Sheryl Crow introduce Toby Keith and Willie Nelson at last night’s American Music Awards show.
Ms. Crow, wearing a t-shirt that said "War is no the answer," offered a plea for peace and encouraged activism to prevent an impending war with Iraq. She then introduced Mr. Nelson and Mr. Keith whose big single last year was "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)." The song is an anger-filled rant that tells terrorists they’ll "get a boot in their ass, it’s the American way."
The pair then sang a song about lawmen "Beer for My Horses" who hunt down "modern day gangsters like cowboys, then drink to their accomplishments," as the All Music Guide describes it.
A very surreal situation.
Pickering nomination
Jan. 9
He’s baaaack.
President George W. Bush has renominated conservative jurist Charles W. Pickering Sr. of Mississippi for a seat on the federal appellate court. At best the judge has a questionable record on civil rights and is pretty far to the right in his views.
And his nomination indicates that the president is ready to appease the right-wing of his party with nominees who are hostile to abortion and civil rights.
Democrats are planning a filibuster see this story in "http://www.washingtonpost.com/"The Washington Post which indicates that maybe, just maybe, they’ve found their backbone.
On pre-emption
Jan. 9
A good piece from Christopher Hitchens on Slate today.
Mr. Hitchens, a former columnist for The Nation who left the left-leaning magazine after a rift over his support for the military action in Afghanistan, details the difficult distinctions that must be made to support a "pre-emptive" war.
He supports regime change in Iraq, even militarily. However, the pre-emptive argument cannot hold.
"In the present case of Iraq, a pre-emptive war is justified by its advocates on the grounds of past Iraqi aggressions and the logical presumption of future oneswhich would make it partly retaliatory and partly preventive," he writes. "This is fraught with the danger of casuistry since if no sinister weaponry is found before the war begins, then the war is re-justified on the grounds that it prevented such weapons from being developed. (And if the weapons are found, as one suspects they will be, after the intervention has taken place, then they could be retrospectively justified as needful for defense against an attack that was obviously coming.)"
Ultimately, he says, "tautology lurks at every corner, and the distinction between ‘pre-emptive’ and ‘preventive’ becomes a distinction without a difference, and only hindsight really works (and not always even then)."
Carter makes it
Jan. 7
Finally. They got it right. Gary Carter, the best overall catcher of his era, gets the call to the Hall of Fame.
The former Mets backstop ranks near the top in every offensive category among catchers and yet he had to wait six years to get in. The reason is that the Hall’s emphasis on hitting obscures the fact that certain positions catcher, shortstop, secondbase have traditionally not been offensive positions.
The best players at those positions generally have numbers that pale in comparison to even mediocre outfielders and firstbasemen.
(That’s why Ryne Sandberg, one of the best secondbasement of all time, faired so badly this year.)
For an appreciation on Gary Carter, check out this ESPN article by Tim Kurkjian.
Forgotten Elvis
Jan. 7
Last week, I offered an alphabetical listing of my favorite rock-and-rollers.
It was a simple list, tossed off pretty quickly, though I thought it was fairly comprehensive. Or so I thought.
I forgot Elvis Presley. Elvis needs little comment and obviously deserves a place on my list if only for "That’s All Right, Mama" and "Jailhouse Rock." (I still prefer the Pretenders and Tom Petty, but that is just a personal quirk.)
Thanks to some readers for bringing it to my attention.
And for a great piece on Elvis, read "Elvis Again" by Greil Marcus in the winter edition of The Three Penny Review.
Civil liberties
Jan. 7
The December/January issue of The Boston Review features an interesting forum on civil liberties, featuring a lead essay by David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University. Definitely worth checking out.
The human equation in Iraq
Jan. 6
A good piece on opposition to war with Iraq in the January issue of The Progressive magazine by Joe Stork, Washington director of the Middle East/North Africa division of Human Rights Watch.
The piece analyzes the concept of solidarity with the Iraqi people and is one of the few from the anti-war perspective that has been willing to attack the Iraqi leadership and call for Saddam Hussein to be removed from power. His contention is that an American invasion, with its concurrent costs in human life and animosity around the globe, is the wrong way to address the issue.
Also in The Progressive, an interesting take on Eminem’s cultural significance (or lack thereof). The piece asks whether Eminem’s current cultural cache has more to do with a "type of cultural affirmative action for white men." He is no doubt talented, William Jelani Cobb writes, perhaps the most talented white rapper out there now, but he is no groundbreaker though he has recorded some flat-out hot tracks.
Dispatches
Jan. 2
Read this week’s Dispatches online. A musical year in review.
Son of Bush
Jan. 2
I had to share this one-off joke from Will Durst in The Progressive. (The column is not online, but some other good pieces from the December issue are still available, including a great interview with the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of "The Taliban" and "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia," both available from Yale University Press.)
The Durst line comes from "Frequently asked questions about our imminent attack on Iraq":
"Q. The economy sucks, Bush is President, and we’re going to war with Iraq. This seems a bit of a familiar road?
"A. I think Sherman set the Wayback Machine to 1991. Hope this doesn’t mean we’ll also have to live through another whole spate of Pauly Shore star vehicles."
Any column that can reference the first George Bush, Pauly Shore and Jay Ward’s "Peabody’s Improbable History" deserves all the props it gets.
Rock and politics
Jan. 2
This week’s double issue of The Nation offers a great overview of what its editors call the "contradictions, tensions and political and artistic ferment that persist in today’s popular music scene." It features a roundtable discussion featuring Tom Morello of Audioslave (formerly of Rage Against the Machine), Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam and hip-hop artist Boots Riley; a profile of Punk Planet, the Chicago underground magazine; and other issues. Check it out. (Some of it is available on the Web.)
Rock and roll ABC
Jan. 2
What follows grows from my obsession with rock music and is, perhaps, an example of someone who has too much time on his hands. I tried to find one band for each letter of the alphabet the band being a huge favorite of mine. Once I started, however, I realized that I couldn’t limit it. We’ll call this a rock and roll ABC.
A. Ryan Adams. This one seemed fairly simple. "Gold" was one of my favorite discs of 2001.
B. The Beatles. This needs no explanation (I wear a Beatles watch). Some other Bs the Band, Chuck Berry, David Bowie, the Byrds, Blondie, Beck, the Beastie Boys, the Black Crowes, James Brown, Jackson Browne, David Byrne.
C. Elvis Costello, by a nose over the Clash and Johnny Cash. This was probably the toughest to pick from. Others: Credence Clearwater Revival, Jimmy Cliff, Cypress Hill, Eric Clapton, Sheryl Crow, Cake.
D. Bob Dylan. Again, anyone who knows me expected this. Dylan is one of the big four (Dylan, the Beatles, Bruce Springsteen and Lou Reed). Others of note: the Dead Kennedys, Dire Straits, De La Soul.
E. I’m going with Steve Earle, though this was a tough one. There are only a handful of E bands I’m into Earth, Wind and Fire, Everclear and Dave Edmunds.
F. Aretha Franklin. Again, not so much to choose from. Others considered: John Fogerty, the Faces with Rod Stewart, the Feelies, the Fugees, the Foo Fighters. (The Feelies and the Fugees are both from New Jersey.)
G. Marvin Gaye. This was pretty easy. Also considered: Gang of Four, Peter Gabriel, Macy Gray, Al Green and the Gun Club. And no, I don’t like the Grateful Dead.
H. George Harrison, Buddy Holly, Jimi Hendrix and Richard Hell and the Voidoids. It was a three-way tie. The late-Beatle produced one of the three great albums by ex-Beatles ("All Things Must Pass"; the other two were Paul McCartney’s "Band on the Run" and John Lennon’s "Plastic Ono Band"). Holly, Hendrix and Richard Hell are just great rockers. Also considered: Lauren Hill, PJ Harvey and the Hives.
I. India.arie. I decided to include her under I just to have something here. A great voice and great songwriter.
J. Janis Joplin. One of the two or three greatest female voices in rock history (along with Chrissie Hynde and Aretha). Also considered: Joe Jackson, Billy Joel, the Jayhawks, Mick Jagger, Elton John.
K. The Kinks. When people talk of the most important British rockers, they tend to talk about the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin and the Who. Why the Kinks fail to make this list I could never figure out. (Personally, I think the Who are overrated, but that’s for another time.) Also considered: Mark Knopfler.
L. John Lennon. Enough said. Also, Led Zeppelin, Los Lobos and Lyle Lovett.
M. Bob Marley. Simply the best reggae has had to offer and one of the true rock immortals. Also, Paul McCartney, the MC5, John Mellencamp, Madonna, the Mekons, Natalie Merchant and Van Morrison.
N. New York Dolls. Punk before punk, influenced the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. Also, Nirvana and the North Mississippi All-Stars.
O. Roy Orbison. What a voice. Also, the Old 97s.
P. The Pretenders, the Police and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. This was a tough choice. Also considered: Iggy Pop, Graham Parker, Graham Parsons, Pearl Jam, the Pixies, Public Enemy, Pavement and Prince.
Q. Queen. Freddy Mercury’s voice set against heavy-metal guitars. Also, Queens of the Stone Age and Queen Latifah.
R. Lou Reed. A charter member of big four. The Rolling Stones and REM (Elvis Costello, the Clash, The Pretenders, the Police, Tom Petty, Bob Marley, the Kinks, Marvin Gaye and Neil Young) are next in line. Also: Smokey Robinson, the Replacements, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Run DMC, Otis Redding and the Ramones.
S. Bruce Springsteen. I’ve traveled to Albany and Syracuse to see him. Also, Squeeze, the Supremes, the Small Faces, the Strokes, the Sex Pistols, Santana, Paul Simon, Sonic Youth.
T. Television. A great New York punk/new wave band led by the dueling guitars of Tom Verlaine and Richard Lloyd. Also, the Temptations, Pete Townsend, Peter Tosh, Tears for Fears, Richard Thompson, They Might Be Giants, 10,000 Maniacs, Johnny Thunders.
U. U2. I’ve been listening to their ’90s retrospective ("Best of 1990-2000") and think the electronica stuff is far better than I remember. Plus, they recorded two of the best discs of the last decade "Achtung Baby" and "All That You Can’t Leave Behind." Also, Uncle Tueplo.
V. The Velvet Underground. Punk before the New York Dolls. Grunge before Nirvana. Underground-hipster-street amazing stuff. Also, Stevie Ray Vauhgn, the Vines.
W. Wilco. The best of the alt-country bands. Also, the White Stripes, Lucinda Williams, Rufus Wainwright, the Who, Gillian Welch (more a country singer, really), Stevie Wonder, Tom Waits, Barry White.
X. XTC and X. A great English punk/new wave band and the great Los Angeles punkers.
Y. Neil Young. A great body of work that unfortunately has its low lights ("Trans," "This Note’s For You," "Landing on Water") and some dopey and simplistic politics. Still, only a handful of rockers can boast his range or the true classics he’s released over the years. Pete Yorn and Yo La Tengo are distant runners-up.
Z. Warren Zevon. A great ironist who has produced a great body of work. Ailing

