Op-Ed
Maybe we should be careful about making common cause with born-again free speech advocates who never showed any tolerance for it until it became a handy club for bashing Muslims.
Before the furor over the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Muhammad cools into caricature itself - as in, "Remember when all those Muslims went nuts over a bunch of political cartoons?" - and becomes one more convenient example of the cultural superiority of the West, to be pulled out whenever the "clash of civilizations" needs stoking, I'd like to quote Ann Coulter.
I don't do this lightly, but, like Pat Robertson, she's helpful at making hidden agendas grotesquely explicit. I'd also like to note that I found the link to her column on the Web site of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which apparently believes the appropriate reaction to offensive material is to expose, not censor, it. The council also condemned violence and hosted a forum at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., titled "Religious and Political Perspectives on the Cartoon Controversy." Panel discussions on tolerance! How did that fail to make the headlines?
Before the furor over the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Muhammad cools into caricature itself - as in, "Remember when all those Muslims went nuts over a bunch of political cartoons?" - and becomes one more convenient example of the cultural superiority of the West, to be pulled out whenever the "clash of civilizations" needs stoking, I'd like to quote Ann Coulter.
I don't do this lightly, but, like Pat Robertson, she's helpful at making hidden agendas grotesquely explicit. I'd also like to note that I found the link to her column on the Web site of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which apparently believes the appropriate reaction to offensive material is to expose, not censor, it. The council also condemned violence and hosted a forum at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., titled "Religious and Political Perspectives on the Cartoon Controversy." Panel discussions on tolerance! How did that fail to make the headlines?
Death is always in the news. From local car crashes to catastrophes
in faraway places, deadly events are grist for the media mill. The
coverage is ongoing -- and almost always superficial.
It may be unfair to blame journalists for failing to meet standards that commonly elude artists. For centuries, on the subject of death, countless poets have strived to put the ineffable into words. It’s only easy when done badly.
Yet it’s hard to think of any other topic that is covered so frequently and abysmally in news outlets. The reporting on death is apt to be so flat that it might be mistaken for ball scores or a weather report.
Pallid coverage of the dying is especially routine in U.S. news media when a war is underway and the deaths are caused by the U.S. government.
When a news report breaks through cliches to evoke realities of carnage, the result can be memorable. Here’s a passage from an April 1999 story by Robert Fisk, reporting for the London-based daily Independent about a U.S.-led NATO bombing raid on a target in Yugoslavia:
It may be unfair to blame journalists for failing to meet standards that commonly elude artists. For centuries, on the subject of death, countless poets have strived to put the ineffable into words. It’s only easy when done badly.
Yet it’s hard to think of any other topic that is covered so frequently and abysmally in news outlets. The reporting on death is apt to be so flat that it might be mistaken for ball scores or a weather report.
Pallid coverage of the dying is especially routine in U.S. news media when a war is underway and the deaths are caused by the U.S. government.
When a news report breaks through cliches to evoke realities of carnage, the result can be memorable. Here’s a passage from an April 1999 story by Robert Fisk, reporting for the London-based daily Independent about a U.S.-led NATO bombing raid on a target in Yugoslavia:
AUSTIN, Texas -- So, aside from the fact that it's politically idiotic and at least theoretically presents a national security risk, just what is wrong with the Dubai Ports deal?
As President George W. Bush actually said, "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, we'll treat you fairly."
So, what's wrong with that? There's our only president standing up against discrimination and against tarring all Arabs with the same brush and all that good stuff. (The fact that it was Mr. Racial Profiling speaking, the man who has single-handedly created more Arab enemies for this country than anyone else ever dreamed of doing is just one of those ironies we regularly get whacked over the head with.)
As President George W. Bush actually said, "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, we'll treat you fairly."
So, what's wrong with that? There's our only president standing up against discrimination and against tarring all Arabs with the same brush and all that good stuff. (The fact that it was Mr. Racial Profiling speaking, the man who has single-handedly created more Arab enemies for this country than anyone else ever dreamed of doing is just one of those ironies we regularly get whacked over the head with.)
"Levitan the painter and I went out to the woodcock mating area yesterday evening. He fired at a woodcock, and the bird, wounded in the wing, fell in a puddle. I picked it up. It had a long beak, large black eyes, and magnificent plumage. It looked at us in wonder. What were we to do with it? Levitan closed his eyes and begged me, "Please, smash its head in with the rifle." I said I couldn't. Levitan kept twitching his head and begging me. And the woodcock kept looking on in wonder. I had to obey Levitan and kill it. And then two idiots went home and sat down to dinner leaving one less beautiful, adored creature in the world." -- Anton Chekhov in a letter to his friend Suvorin, April 8, 1892.
Perhaps Dick Cheney should have whacked Harry Whittington's skull in as the wounded lawyer looked up at him in wonder, while the covey of bobwhite quail rejoiced at the happy chance of Mr. Whittington's head and upper chest intercepting Vice President Cheney's salvo from his 28-gauge shotgun.
Perhaps Dick Cheney should have whacked Harry Whittington's skull in as the wounded lawyer looked up at him in wonder, while the covey of bobwhite quail rejoiced at the happy chance of Mr. Whittington's head and upper chest intercepting Vice President Cheney's salvo from his 28-gauge shotgun.
AUSTIN, Texas -- Cynics are fond of meditating on the evil done in the name of reform. I'm a great believer in perpetual reform myself, on the theory that political systems, like houses, are always in want of some fixing. However, I have seen some pluperfect doozies passed off as reform in recent years, starting with "Social Security reform."
Conservatives used to oppose reform on principle, correctly regarding it as a vile plot by goo-goo good government forces to snatch away their perks. This once led to a colorful scene in the Texas legislature in which the letters R*E*F*O*R*M appeared on the rear ends of six female members of a baton drill team, who turned and perched their derrieres pertly on the brass rail of the House gallery.
Reform follows scandal as night the day, except in these sorry times when it appears we may not get a nickel's worth of reform out of the entire Jack Abramoff saga. Sickening. A real waste of a splendid scandal. When else do politicians ever get around to fixing huge ethical holes in the roof except when they're caught red-handed? Do not let this mess go to waste! Call now, and demand reform!
Conservatives used to oppose reform on principle, correctly regarding it as a vile plot by goo-goo good government forces to snatch away their perks. This once led to a colorful scene in the Texas legislature in which the letters R*E*F*O*R*M appeared on the rear ends of six female members of a baton drill team, who turned and perched their derrieres pertly on the brass rail of the House gallery.
Reform follows scandal as night the day, except in these sorry times when it appears we may not get a nickel's worth of reform out of the entire Jack Abramoff saga. Sickening. A real waste of a splendid scandal. When else do politicians ever get around to fixing huge ethical holes in the roof except when they're caught red-handed? Do not let this mess go to waste! Call now, and demand reform!
The following are remarks I made last Wednesday night in Santa Cruz, California, at an event held in the Veterans Hall, where the star speaker was Medea Benjamin, and where a group of Raging Grannies with pink aprons and rolling pins belted out anti-Bush songs of their own creation that brought down the house. Medea was tremendous, and I recommend watching the video once they get it online.
I'm honored to have been asked to come and talk in the US town that least needs to hear about why this war is wrong and why its architects need to be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted.
Santa Cruz would have been the first city government to pass a resolution in favor of impeaching Bush earlier this year, if Santa Cruz hadn't also done so, already, three years ago.
People send me reports and photos to post at afterdowningstreet.org from marches and rallies and lobbying efforts, and I get more encouraging news from Sherry Conable and others in Santa Cruz than from anywhere else.
I'm honored to have been asked to come and talk in the US town that least needs to hear about why this war is wrong and why its architects need to be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted.
Santa Cruz would have been the first city government to pass a resolution in favor of impeaching Bush earlier this year, if Santa Cruz hadn't also done so, already, three years ago.
People send me reports and photos to post at afterdowningstreet.org from marches and rallies and lobbying efforts, and I get more encouraging news from Sherry Conable and others in Santa Cruz than from anywhere else.
Remarks prepared for February 18th pro-impeachment rally in colonial dress in Charlottesville, Va., home of Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, and near the home of James Madison.
Impeachment has been part of American culture longer than baseball or apple pie. Only Mom has been around longer than impeachment.
The Scottish take pride in having invented impeachment. The British got it from them, and we got it from the British. Impeachment is in the US Constitution, and was further developed by Thomas Jefferson in the manual of procedural rules that he wrote for the Congress.
The Constitution mentions impeachment six times. It makes clear that impeachment is a power the legislature has over the executive and judicial branches of government. And this power is not an afterthought. It is central to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution created, and which the current administration is well on its way to destroying.
Impeachment has been part of American culture longer than baseball or apple pie. Only Mom has been around longer than impeachment.
The Scottish take pride in having invented impeachment. The British got it from them, and we got it from the British. Impeachment is in the US Constitution, and was further developed by Thomas Jefferson in the manual of procedural rules that he wrote for the Congress.
The Constitution mentions impeachment six times. It makes clear that impeachment is a power the legislature has over the executive and judicial branches of government. And this power is not an afterthought. It is central to the system of checks and balances that the Constitution created, and which the current administration is well on its way to destroying.
In the 2004 election, Karl Rove masterfully used gay marriage as the catalyst to drive normally apathetic voters to the polls and achieve historic turnout. It worked. Republicans of all ages, shapes and sizes who couldn't care less about manufactured WMD intelligence, record deficits and gas/oil prices, CIA leaks and warrantless wiretappings raced to polling places across America just to keep homosexuals from tying the knot.
Well, the Democrats have an even better weapon this year: impeachment. If they're smart, they'll make it the linchpin turnout strategy and the single biggest motivator for liberal voters. To be sure, it'll be hard for individual candidates to make this message the cornerstone of their campaigns. They'll need to run on more than that if they want to be taken seriously. But the impeachment issue could be our Swift Boat weapon. Organizations like MoveOn.org, as well as individuals like billionaire George Soros who heavily back such groups, should pull out all stops and launch a massive campaign. I can hear the 30-second spot now:
Well, the Democrats have an even better weapon this year: impeachment. If they're smart, they'll make it the linchpin turnout strategy and the single biggest motivator for liberal voters. To be sure, it'll be hard for individual candidates to make this message the cornerstone of their campaigns. They'll need to run on more than that if they want to be taken seriously. But the impeachment issue could be our Swift Boat weapon. Organizations like MoveOn.org, as well as individuals like billionaire George Soros who heavily back such groups, should pull out all stops and launch a massive campaign. I can hear the 30-second spot now:
The current flurry of Western diplomacy will probably turn out to be
groundwork for launching missiles at Iran.
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.
Illusion #1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what’s on the horizon is not an invasion -- it’s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion #2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home -- for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs -- that it wouldn’t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 3, “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
Air attacks on targets in Iran are very likely. Yet many antiwar Americans seem eager to believe that won’t happen.
Illusion #1: With the U.S. military bogged down in Iraq, the Pentagon is in no position to take on Iran.
But what’s on the horizon is not an invasion -- it’s a major air assault, which the American military can easily inflict on Iranian sites. (And if the task falls to the Israeli military, it is also well-equipped to bomb Iran.)
Illusion #2: The Bush administration is in so much political trouble at home -- for reasons including its lies about Iraqi WMDs -- that it wouldn’t risk an uproar from an attack on Iran.
But the White House has been gradually preparing the domestic political ground for bombing Iran. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Feb. 3, “in recent polls a surprisingly large number of Americans say they would support U.S. military strikes to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.”
Two ghosts stalk the national Democratic Party in its pitiful, 21st century incarnation. One is George McGovern, who taught them that only Republican values matter in a national election. The other is Ralph Nader, who taught them who the real enemy is.
The present hamstrung state of the party is the result of its abject fear of these ghosts, which has given it a permanent moral stammer. A party that doesn't believe in itself is doomed to lose over and over, even if it represents the majority of the people and even - as Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 - when it gets the most votes.
While the ghost of McGovern, who was mauled by Richard Nixon in 1972, is the most deeply ingrained and enfeebling, seeming to guarantee uncritical Democratic support ("we love America, honest") for every cynical Republican military or civil-liberties outrage concocted in the name of national security, the ghost of Nader is the most life-threatening. Its effect is emetic, causing an immediate discharge of rationality among the party faithful at every hint of a challenge from the party's values base. The Nader Effect causes Democrats to upchuck the very medicine that will save it.
The present hamstrung state of the party is the result of its abject fear of these ghosts, which has given it a permanent moral stammer. A party that doesn't believe in itself is doomed to lose over and over, even if it represents the majority of the people and even - as Al Gore demonstrated in 2000 - when it gets the most votes.
While the ghost of McGovern, who was mauled by Richard Nixon in 1972, is the most deeply ingrained and enfeebling, seeming to guarantee uncritical Democratic support ("we love America, honest") for every cynical Republican military or civil-liberties outrage concocted in the name of national security, the ghost of Nader is the most life-threatening. Its effect is emetic, causing an immediate discharge of rationality among the party faithful at every hint of a challenge from the party's values base. The Nader Effect causes Democrats to upchuck the very medicine that will save it.