If you've ever wondered why conservative evangelical Christians seem so concerned about the dangers of government intervention in our lives, read a recent New Hampshire family court ruling that 10-year-old Amanda -- who has been home-schooled by her religiously conservative mother since first grade -- must now attend public school.
The plaintiff (Amanda's father -- the couple divorced shortly after Amanda was born) "believes that exposure to other points of view will decrease Amanda's rigid adherence to her mother's religious beliefs, and increase her ability to get along with others and to function in a world which requires some element of independent thinking and tolerance for different points of view," family court Justice Lucinda Sadler explained.
The court agreed that Amanda "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith . . . Amanda's relationship with her father suffers to some degree by her belief that his refusal to adopt her religious beliefs and his choice instead to spend eternity away from her proves that he does not love her as much as he says he does."
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Bad Cases Make Bad Law
I honestly don't know what to think about this:
Saturday Rock Show
Ten years ago, during a break in Dream Theater's touring and recording schedule, Mike Varney of Magna Carta records contacted drummer Mike Portnoy and asked him if he'd front a project. Gather four musicians he wanted to work with and put out a recording of instrumental pieces. The first pick, the bassist was easy - Tony Levin of Peter Gabriel's band, King Crimson, a side-man with Anderson, Bruford, Wakeman, and Howe, and many other projects. On keyboards, he got Jordan Rudess (before he joined DT). The guitar role was harder to fill. Portnoy wanted either Dimebag from Pantera or Trvero Rabin from Yes; neither one could or would do it. Running out of time because the studio time had already been reserved, he ended up asking DT guitarist John Petrucci. The results - Liquid Tension Experiment, the biggest selling recording in the history of Magna Carta. Indeed, it was such a hit, they managed to get together and do a second recording, which was made more difficult by Petrucci's absence during primary recording because of the birth of his daughter (he would dub the guitar parts a couple weeks after the basic tracks were laid down).
Last year, the four of them did a tenth anniversary mini-tour (gotta find it!) and here's one sample - "Paradigm Shift".
Last year, the four of them did a tenth anniversary mini-tour (gotta find it!) and here's one sample - "Paradigm Shift".
Friday, September 11, 2009
One Last Bit Of Good News
Via Think Progress, and all I can say is what took 'em so damn long:
Next week, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler (NY), Tammy Baldwin (WI), and Jared Polis (CO) will be introducinglegislation to repeal the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which “defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman for purposes of all federal laws.”
Not Exactly A Surprise, But Still
Remembering the quite public muttering after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the impending reunification of Germany (not to mention the very real potential conflicts in many other collapsed communist states), the fact that Maggie and George actively sought to prevent the end of communism in Central Europe isn't exactly news.
What should be a source of disgust, and even outrage, is the very public discovery of what many of us believed all along - that the entire Cold War was bullshit from start to finish. Far too many human beings, whole countries in fact, were decimated by leaders who pledged adherence to a political ideology and practical policies they not only didn't believe in, but sought to undermine just as the goal of those policies was about to bear fruit.
One note: Mitterand was a socialist, not a right-winger.
Thatcher met with Gorbachev and personally begged him to do whatever he could to prevent East Germany from merging with West Germany, guaranteed protection for Communist rule in Soviet-bloc nations, and offered a unilateral non-aggression pledge to the Soviet Union itself. George Bush and Francois Mitterand, right-wingers who also presided over noisy anti-communist parties in their countries, backed her assurances to the Communist leader and pledged themselves to prevent German re-unification in any way they could, including with military alliances with the USSR against their official ally West Germany.
What should be a source of disgust, and even outrage, is the very public discovery of what many of us believed all along - that the entire Cold War was bullshit from start to finish. Far too many human beings, whole countries in fact, were decimated by leaders who pledged adherence to a political ideology and practical policies they not only didn't believe in, but sought to undermine just as the goal of those policies was about to bear fruit.
One note: Mitterand was a socialist, not a right-winger.
Wrong
All I can say about this story is I'm glad it wasn't one of my kids, because I would be after this guy's job.
That the Superintendent sees nothing wrong with this is even worse. So, I guess that would be two professional scalps I would be after.
A high school football coach in Kentucky used a school bus to take 20 of his players on a "voluntary" trip to his church's Wednesday night worship service where eight of his players were baptized.
The mother of one of the players who went on the trip and was baptized said both happened without her consent or knowledge.
--skip--
Coach Scott Mooney declined to comment about the field trip, but Breckinridge County (Ky.) Supt. Janet Meeks -- who as a member of the same church was at the service -- defended the trip by saying it was voluntary and another coach paid for the gas. "None of the players were rewarded for going and none were punished for not going," Meeks said.
That the Superintendent sees nothing wrong with this is even worse. So, I guess that would be two professional scalps I would be after.
Remembering UPDATED
The one moment at the Dream Theater show a couple weeks back that took me out of celebration and into mourning was when they played this song, with a video similar to this one.
I have written of my experiences of that day before. I am interested, today, in listening. If you would like, in comments, leave your memories of that day, and how you feel now, eight years later.
UPDATE: I would invite you to read this.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
A Remarkable Insight
One of the reasons I reread Christopher Lasch every few years is I find new insights I hadn't even noticed previously. Precisely because his point of view and critique are so spot on - in the case of The Culture of Narcissism even after 30 years - one sees even more clearly the outline of what ails us in new ways; lights go on in corners far too dark before.
I have reached the end of Narcissism and am about to begin its sequel, The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times, but before I do, I want to quote from the "Afterword", Lasch's reflection on the continued relevance of his work, written in 1990. It concerns the on-going phenomenon of the odd juxtaposition of fundamentalist religion, in a variety of forms, coexisting with an almost religious zeal for technological and scientific rescue from our current social and political troubles. From page 248:
One of the more annoying features of right-wing critics of left-wing politics and policy preferences is this idea that by introducing an acceptance and understanding of limits on human action, we are somehow being unpatriotic, as if recognizing that we human beings are not masters of the universe is unAmerican. Whether it's limitations placed on economic growth out of a deference for saving our world environment, or limitations placed on our sovereignty in order to ensure a more stable and just world, it seems to me these are small prices to pay so that my children and grandchildren can live in a world that is at least as good as ours. Recognizing the reality that ours is a world power in decline, and the need to decline with grace rather than dragging the whole thing down around us - like Sampson in the Philistine temple - is a far more socially and politically mature reaction than insisting that, at all costs, our status as a great power must be maintained at all costs.
I do not fear my own death; I do fear the murder, however, not of myself or a family member, but my country and my planet by those who are so frightened and enraged by the thought of their own existential annihilation that they would rather tear it all down (since, of course, the universe will wink out at the moment of their death), of all that centuries and generations have built. We must not succumb to fear and rage. My hope is we will not, but we should all work together to make sure it doesn't happen.
I have reached the end of Narcissism and am about to begin its sequel, The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times, but before I do, I want to quote from the "Afterword", Lasch's reflection on the continued relevance of his work, written in 1990. It concerns the on-going phenomenon of the odd juxtaposition of fundamentalist religion, in a variety of forms, coexisting with an almost religious zeal for technological and scientific rescue from our current social and political troubles. From page 248:
More than anything else, it is this coexistence of hyper-rationality and a widespread revolt against rationality that justifies the characterization of our twentieth-century way of life as a culture of narcissism. These contradictory sensibilities have a common source. Both take root in the feelings of homelessness and displacement that afflict so many men and women today, in their heightened vulnerability to pain and deprivation, and in the contradiction between the promise that they can "have it all" and the reality of their limitations.
One of the more annoying features of right-wing critics of left-wing politics and policy preferences is this idea that by introducing an acceptance and understanding of limits on human action, we are somehow being unpatriotic, as if recognizing that we human beings are not masters of the universe is unAmerican. Whether it's limitations placed on economic growth out of a deference for saving our world environment, or limitations placed on our sovereignty in order to ensure a more stable and just world, it seems to me these are small prices to pay so that my children and grandchildren can live in a world that is at least as good as ours. Recognizing the reality that ours is a world power in decline, and the need to decline with grace rather than dragging the whole thing down around us - like Sampson in the Philistine temple - is a far more socially and politically mature reaction than insisting that, at all costs, our status as a great power must be maintained at all costs.
I do not fear my own death; I do fear the murder, however, not of myself or a family member, but my country and my planet by those who are so frightened and enraged by the thought of their own existential annihilation that they would rather tear it all down (since, of course, the universe will wink out at the moment of their death), of all that centuries and generations have built. We must not succumb to fear and rage. My hope is we will not, but we should all work together to make sure it doesn't happen.
We Are Family
I'm going to break from my usual habit, and write a bit about my recent trip to Dayton to see various and sundry family members. First, it was good to see my parents, my sister and her husband, and many of my cousins, and my Uncle David. I was reminded, again, that coming from a large family has blessings as well as burdens. When the Johnston side of the family gets together there is always - ALWAYS - so much laughter at the end of the day one's stomach hurts.
I had occasion to go visit the gravesites of my grandparents, great-grandparents, uncles, an aunt, and my Uncle Eugene's step-daughter who died from leukemia in 1957. This was important for me, because it established my sense of rootedness. Prior to this, my sense of my Johnston-family relations was a little less grounded. The two Clark County, Ohio cemeteries were a reminder that this was a place that has my roots as much as rural Bradford County, Pennsylvania. For some reason that was and is important for me, especially as I live far from both areas, and am a bit less rooted in my life.
One thing I feel a need to comment upon is the fact that so much of our laughter seems to come at the expense of other relatives, which bothers my mother no end. She managed to say something to me about it, and it's a long-running commentary of hers. Of course, she was indignant over the fact that everyone in my father's family had nicknames, which she considered a form of belittlement. Part of our generation's laughter at the eccentricities of our uncles, aunts, and even one another comes from the reality that they are, indeed, eccentricities. The signs of deeper issues we pass over in silence. Instances of just plain oddity we share out of wonder, exasperation, and as a coping mechanism; at least to my mind, we aren't belittling their lives, their persons, or the fact that they loved us and cared for us. But, to be honest - to give an example - my Uncle David was a very large man in many ways, and I'm not surprised that my cousin Tom was a bit intimidated when he was suddenly grabbed by David, held close on David's lap, and had David bellow in his ear, "Tom, Tom, the piper's son!" Since David - and most of the rest of my mother's siblings - had only two volumes (loud and REALLY loud), I can imagine this as being both a bit frightening and a source of amusement later (especially as Tom tells it . . .).
The best thing of all for me about this trip was realizing that our generation of Johnstons, to whom a torch has been passed for loud, exuberant, and extremely enjoyable family gatherings has been passed, succeeded admirably in a first attempt (albeit truncated, as two of my sisters and my brother weren't present; we did well though, with my mother having replaced Aunt Lydia as the elderly matriarch overseeing it all). I look forward to future visits, so my cousins can get to know my wife and kids, in the near future.
In the meantime, Claudia, I'm going to teach myself Welsh.
I had occasion to go visit the gravesites of my grandparents, great-grandparents, uncles, an aunt, and my Uncle Eugene's step-daughter who died from leukemia in 1957. This was important for me, because it established my sense of rootedness. Prior to this, my sense of my Johnston-family relations was a little less grounded. The two Clark County, Ohio cemeteries were a reminder that this was a place that has my roots as much as rural Bradford County, Pennsylvania. For some reason that was and is important for me, especially as I live far from both areas, and am a bit less rooted in my life.
One thing I feel a need to comment upon is the fact that so much of our laughter seems to come at the expense of other relatives, which bothers my mother no end. She managed to say something to me about it, and it's a long-running commentary of hers. Of course, she was indignant over the fact that everyone in my father's family had nicknames, which she considered a form of belittlement. Part of our generation's laughter at the eccentricities of our uncles, aunts, and even one another comes from the reality that they are, indeed, eccentricities. The signs of deeper issues we pass over in silence. Instances of just plain oddity we share out of wonder, exasperation, and as a coping mechanism; at least to my mind, we aren't belittling their lives, their persons, or the fact that they loved us and cared for us. But, to be honest - to give an example - my Uncle David was a very large man in many ways, and I'm not surprised that my cousin Tom was a bit intimidated when he was suddenly grabbed by David, held close on David's lap, and had David bellow in his ear, "Tom, Tom, the piper's son!" Since David - and most of the rest of my mother's siblings - had only two volumes (loud and REALLY loud), I can imagine this as being both a bit frightening and a source of amusement later (especially as Tom tells it . . .).
The best thing of all for me about this trip was realizing that our generation of Johnstons, to whom a torch has been passed for loud, exuberant, and extremely enjoyable family gatherings has been passed, succeeded admirably in a first attempt (albeit truncated, as two of my sisters and my brother weren't present; we did well though, with my mother having replaced Aunt Lydia as the elderly matriarch overseeing it all). I look forward to future visits, so my cousins can get to know my wife and kids, in the near future.
In the meantime, Claudia, I'm going to teach myself Welsh.
Why Should The President Give These People Anything?
I am continually amazed at the President's willingness to believe the Republicans will act in good faith. More from Milbank.
As far as screwing progressives go, I'll have to read the speech (I just woke up, sue me). It seems to me, however, that the Republicans, having embraced the insanity of the fringe of their party - really all they have left - have disqualified themselves to a person as equal partners in what is left of this debate. I realize that the speech is over, and I tend to dislike Monday-morning quarterbacking in both sports and politics, but Obama should have given the Republicans, as politely and surreptitiously as possible, the finger and told them he would enjoy watching them throw a tantrum while the Democrats crafted a bill to the public's taste - a bill that would include the public option front and center.
With Sarah Palin spouting off in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about "death panels" (yes, the reference to that bit of crazy is in there), the Republican Party has demonstrated it is quite simply unfit to govern. Let them whine and moan, carry on about death panels and rationing, and let the Democrats actually legislate and run the show.
The irony was that Obama had used his speech to offer a significant concession to Republicans and to break with liberals in his own party. There was a cool silence in the chamber as the president told "my progressive friends" that the "public option" they treasure as part of health-care reform could be sacrificed in favor of other ideas.
And, in truth, there were provocations from the Democratic side. Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), sitting on the Republican side, insisted on making a victory sign with his hand and waving it at Obama. Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), also on the GOP side of the aisle, felt the need to pound his fist in the air and make what looked, awkwardly, like a fascist salute.
Scolding Republicans for scoring "short-term political points," Obama wasn't subtle in his effort to make his foes look cruel. The White House stocked the first lady's box at the speech with a virtual medical ward: a woman with sarcoidosis, a colon cancer patient, a recurrent cancer survivor, a double amputee, two women with breast tumors, a woman with eye problems, a man with high cholesterol, two brain tumor survivors, the son of a brain cancer victim and the fathers of children who have seizures and hemophilia.
But while the majority of both parties' lawmakers behaved as adults, the insolence by House Republicans stole the show. There was derisive laughter on that side of the chamber when Obama noted that "there remain some significant details to be ironed out." They applauded as he spoke of "all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months." They laughed again when he said that "many Americans have grown nervous about reform."
When Obama addressed the charge that he plans "panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens," someone on the GOP side shouted out "shame!" The president went on: "Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical." "Read the bill!" someone shouted back. Obama mentioned those who accuse him of a government takeover of health care. "It's true," someone shouted back.
As far as screwing progressives go, I'll have to read the speech (I just woke up, sue me). It seems to me, however, that the Republicans, having embraced the insanity of the fringe of their party - really all they have left - have disqualified themselves to a person as equal partners in what is left of this debate. I realize that the speech is over, and I tend to dislike Monday-morning quarterbacking in both sports and politics, but Obama should have given the Republicans, as politely and surreptitiously as possible, the finger and told them he would enjoy watching them throw a tantrum while the Democrats crafted a bill to the public's taste - a bill that would include the public option front and center.
With Sarah Palin spouting off in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about "death panels" (yes, the reference to that bit of crazy is in there), the Republican Party has demonstrated it is quite simply unfit to govern. Let them whine and moan, carry on about death panels and rationing, and let the Democrats actually legislate and run the show.
Wow
Having arrived home after five days away last evening, I had better things to do than listen to the President's speech. Perusing initial reactions, it seems the Republicans didn't disappoint on one level, at least.
The worst thing my mother could say about anyone is they had no class.
Enough said.
As President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, the nation's rapidly deteriorating discourse hit yet another low.
It happened at 8:40 pm, just after the president vowed to lawmakers that his health-care reform proposals would not provide benefits to illegal immigrants. As millions of Americans watched from home, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted at the president from his fifth-row seat: "You lie!"
Murmurs of "ooh" filled the stunned chamber. Nancy Pelosi's chin dropped. Obama moved on to the next sentence in his speech, about how no federal money would be used to fund abortion. "Not true!" came another shout.
The worst thing my mother could say about anyone is they had no class.
Enough said.
Saturday, September 05, 2009
History Of The World, Part II
I was perusing National Geographic magazine's latest issue, and there is a sidebar article on a project to trace human migrations all the way back to the first ones across, then out of, Africa. The article in question talks about a July, 2008 instance where 163 individuals from Astoria in Queens, NY were sampled, and offers four examples from that sample as showing the various treks human populations have made.
With a trip to see family looming, and the issue of immigration legal and otherwise still simmering, I got to wondering what secrets might be locked in my own Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. There is a link here, if you will bear with me.
My parents are from different parts of the country; my father from the northeast, my mother from the midwest. Their five children all married and bore children to individuals from outside our hometown area, with different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Two of my sisters married men from Massachusetts, one of French ancestry, the other Yankee. My oldest sister married someone of Italian ancestry from Poughkeepsie, NY. My brother married an African-American woman from Frederick, MD. My wife is the great-grandchild of German immigrants from the prairie. The confusion of information in the genetic markers of our children might very well be as diverse as that from the sample in Astoria!
Since the beginning of the species, human beings have moved around, sometimes due to environmental pressures, sometimes in the search for better hunting and foraging grounds, sometimes due to political pressures (the various "barbarian tribes" that started swelling the border regions of Roman Empire were refugees from the rise of various Empires in Eastern Europe and western and even central Asia). While the legal and political issues surrounding the migration of human communities are vastly different today than at other times in our history, the reality of human population movement remains a constant. The results, in the various microscopical evidence in our DNA, gives the lie to the rhetoric of race, ethnicity, and their links to culture. We are, all of us (except, as the article points out, to some isolated groups, in particular a group called the Khoisan in southeastern Africa whose DNA shows the least divergence from the initial population 100,000 years ago) a glorious admixture of the human race in all its differences. This is something to celebrate.
I find it fascinating, a source of wonder really, that locked within the cells of each and every one of us is a map of the movements of our species. Each of us, and all of us collectively, show the links and ties that bind the human species together.
With a trip to see family looming, and the issue of immigration legal and otherwise still simmering, I got to wondering what secrets might be locked in my own Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. There is a link here, if you will bear with me.
My parents are from different parts of the country; my father from the northeast, my mother from the midwest. Their five children all married and bore children to individuals from outside our hometown area, with different ethnic and racial backgrounds. Two of my sisters married men from Massachusetts, one of French ancestry, the other Yankee. My oldest sister married someone of Italian ancestry from Poughkeepsie, NY. My brother married an African-American woman from Frederick, MD. My wife is the great-grandchild of German immigrants from the prairie. The confusion of information in the genetic markers of our children might very well be as diverse as that from the sample in Astoria!
Since the beginning of the species, human beings have moved around, sometimes due to environmental pressures, sometimes in the search for better hunting and foraging grounds, sometimes due to political pressures (the various "barbarian tribes" that started swelling the border regions of Roman Empire were refugees from the rise of various Empires in Eastern Europe and western and even central Asia). While the legal and political issues surrounding the migration of human communities are vastly different today than at other times in our history, the reality of human population movement remains a constant. The results, in the various microscopical evidence in our DNA, gives the lie to the rhetoric of race, ethnicity, and their links to culture. We are, all of us (except, as the article points out, to some isolated groups, in particular a group called the Khoisan in southeastern Africa whose DNA shows the least divergence from the initial population 100,000 years ago) a glorious admixture of the human race in all its differences. This is something to celebrate.
I find it fascinating, a source of wonder really, that locked within the cells of each and every one of us is a map of the movements of our species. Each of us, and all of us collectively, show the links and ties that bind the human species together.
Saturday Rock Show
I'm going away for a few days vacation. I've got all sorts of directions to all sorts of places. No doubt I'll get confused at times, but I hope I don't get lost. On Wednesday, I hope I don't get lost . . .
Friday, September 04, 2009
Young Men Die In War; We Need To See It
Sorry, Secretary Gates, but you are wrong.
What offends common decency is that Lance Corporal Bernard was put in the position of having to die this way. What is appalling is the utter lack of information from the battlefield for eight years; thousands of our brave young men and women are injured and killed, and we can't even see images of their final return via Dover AFB. What is horrible is that Sec. Gates thinks a picture of the horror and final truth of war - young men dying horrible deaths - is someone more indecent than the act itself.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”
The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.
The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway because it “conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.”
The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP.
What offends common decency is that Lance Corporal Bernard was put in the position of having to die this way. What is appalling is the utter lack of information from the battlefield for eight years; thousands of our brave young men and women are injured and killed, and we can't even see images of their final return via Dover AFB. What is horrible is that Sec. Gates thinks a picture of the horror and final truth of war - young men dying horrible deaths - is someone more indecent than the act itself.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Absurd, Ridiculous, Stupid
I have reached the point where the latest right-wing ragegasm (h/t Tbogg for the term) is only of interest as a barometer of how truly crazy they all are. I honestly couldn't care less to read their opinions on how horrible President Obama is, or what a threat he poses to the American way of life.
Afghanistan - Beginning, Middle, Stuck
After the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, it was clear that the al-Qaeda safe havens in Afghanistan had to be removed. Initially, the United States used special operations troops, but their first significant combat experience ended in almost total disaster. When the decision was made - and when the emphasis shifted from al-Qaeda to overthrowing the Taliban as part of the larger effort to chase the terrorists from their hidey-holes, I'm not quite sure - that it was necessary to topple the government of Afghanistan, it ended up being relatively easy, if for no other reason than "central government" has never been a strong suit in Afghanistan. US forces, moving quickly from supporting various factions to end Taliban rule to chasing down al Qaeda, essentially had them cornered in mountainous regions in the eastern region of the country. What has become known as the Battle of Tora Bora ensued with the happy result that the single individual most responsible for the attacks upon the United States managed to get away, his whereabouts still unknown.
Since that time, the US military has stayed behind in Afghanistan, using a shifting rationale that always seems to end up with "Al Qaeda is still out there," which, while true, is far more an admission of failure than a rational determinant of policy.
The American body count in Afghanistan has been on the rise recently as the Obama Administration has pushed a Marine-led offensive against the Taliban in an effort at political and military stabilization. This decision was made without a whole lot of fanfare, public discussion, or comment, and came after the election of a President by a public one of whose over-riding concerns was the unending, open-ended wars. Rather than seek a draw-down, Obama has pushed a troop increase in Afghanistan and the single biggest military effort since the actual invasion and anti-Taliban conflict eight years ago.
I would offer an historical parallel - the French war in Algeria. The on-going war against groups in Algeria that were seeking independence ended up draining various French governments of legitimacy until, for one last go-round, Charles DeGaulle insisted that only he could (a) end the war; and (b) do so in a way that saved France's honor and democracy. After taking office, he did (a) in a counter-intuitive way. He increased French military and police presence and began a systematic operation that included assassination, counterintelligence in a way unprecedented at any time previous, torture, indefinite detention, and other details that should sound familiar. The process was effective to the extent that the Algerian independence movement was rid of various terrorist elements, and French forces and civilians had a much easier time.
After an intense period where the conflict existed far below the radar of the French public, DeGaulle indeed pulled the French out of Algeria. The cost to the Algerians was quite high; the cost to French prestige and "honor" was also quite low, although it should have been far higher.
Something similar is happening in Afghanistan, with the added bonus of a military offensive led by an entire division of the best troops the United States possesses. While the initial action against al Qaeda was certainly justifiable, the ever-growing list of "must"'s that accompanied our initial action has become a living thing, existing independently of any human effort to create rational justifications for it. Whatever costs, whether political, military, fiscal, our diplomatic, always seem to be at stake when questions arise as to our presence in Afghanistan.
I have no clue as to how to get "unstuck" from our current position of "stuck" in Afghanistan; I only recognize that we are, indeed, stuck, and I see certain parallels between our own effort to stabilize the country, keep the Taliban from regaining power (which would be an open invitation to al Qaeda, it seems to me), and the French effort to tamp down the terrorist campaign the Algerian rebels waged both in Algeria and in France. Sometimes, reality leaves us with nothing but bad choices, and it would be wise to recognize that.
Since that time, the US military has stayed behind in Afghanistan, using a shifting rationale that always seems to end up with "Al Qaeda is still out there," which, while true, is far more an admission of failure than a rational determinant of policy.
The American body count in Afghanistan has been on the rise recently as the Obama Administration has pushed a Marine-led offensive against the Taliban in an effort at political and military stabilization. This decision was made without a whole lot of fanfare, public discussion, or comment, and came after the election of a President by a public one of whose over-riding concerns was the unending, open-ended wars. Rather than seek a draw-down, Obama has pushed a troop increase in Afghanistan and the single biggest military effort since the actual invasion and anti-Taliban conflict eight years ago.
I would offer an historical parallel - the French war in Algeria. The on-going war against groups in Algeria that were seeking independence ended up draining various French governments of legitimacy until, for one last go-round, Charles DeGaulle insisted that only he could (a) end the war; and (b) do so in a way that saved France's honor and democracy. After taking office, he did (a) in a counter-intuitive way. He increased French military and police presence and began a systematic operation that included assassination, counterintelligence in a way unprecedented at any time previous, torture, indefinite detention, and other details that should sound familiar. The process was effective to the extent that the Algerian independence movement was rid of various terrorist elements, and French forces and civilians had a much easier time.
After an intense period where the conflict existed far below the radar of the French public, DeGaulle indeed pulled the French out of Algeria. The cost to the Algerians was quite high; the cost to French prestige and "honor" was also quite low, although it should have been far higher.
Something similar is happening in Afghanistan, with the added bonus of a military offensive led by an entire division of the best troops the United States possesses. While the initial action against al Qaeda was certainly justifiable, the ever-growing list of "must"'s that accompanied our initial action has become a living thing, existing independently of any human effort to create rational justifications for it. Whatever costs, whether political, military, fiscal, our diplomatic, always seem to be at stake when questions arise as to our presence in Afghanistan.
I have no clue as to how to get "unstuck" from our current position of "stuck" in Afghanistan; I only recognize that we are, indeed, stuck, and I see certain parallels between our own effort to stabilize the country, keep the Taliban from regaining power (which would be an open invitation to al Qaeda, it seems to me), and the French effort to tamp down the terrorist campaign the Algerian rebels waged both in Algeria and in France. Sometimes, reality leaves us with nothing but bad choices, and it would be wise to recognize that.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Book Lists
There are always lists of books purporting to be what one should read. There are also books readers love. A friend of mine sent me along a link that puts them side by side.
The asterisks are books I have read, trying not to duplicate books on both lists.
What is up wit the reader list having all that L. Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand garbage on it? Adding, there are books I should read that I haven't read yet. Well, I'm still breathing so there's time . . .
1. ULYSSES by James Joyce*
2. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald*
3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce*
4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov*
5. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
6. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner*
7. CATCH-22
8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
9. SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence*
10. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck*
11. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
13. 1984 by George Orwell*
14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser*
17. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
18. SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
19. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison*
20. NATIVE SON by Richard Wright*
21. HENDERSON THE RAIN KING by Saul Bellow
22. APPOINTMENT IN SAMARRA by John O'Hara
23. U.S.A. (trilogy) by John Dos Passos
24. WINESBURG, OHIO by Sherwood Anderson*
25. A PASSAGE TO INDIA by E.M. Forster
26. THE WINGS OF THE DOVE by Henry James
27. THE AMBASSADORS by Henry James
28. TENDER IS THE NIGHT by F. Scott Fitzgerald
29. THE STUDS LONIGAN TRILOGY by James T. Farrell
30. THE GOOD SOLDIER by Ford Madox Ford
31. ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell*
32. THE GOLDEN BOWL by Henry James
33. SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser*
34. A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh
35. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner*
36. ALL THE KING'S MEN by Robert Penn Warren
37. THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY by Thornton Wilder*
38. HOWARDS END by E.M. Forster
39. GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin*
40. THE HEART OF THE MATTER by Graham Greene
41. LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding*
42. DELIVERANCE by James Dickey
43. A DANCE TO THE MUSIC OF TIME (series) by Anthony Powell
44. POINT COUNTER POINT by Aldous Huxley
45. THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway*
46. THE SECRET AGENT by Joseph Conrad
47. NOSTROMO by Joseph Conrad
48. THE RAINBOW by D.H. Lawrence
49. WOMEN IN LOVE by D.H. Lawrence*
50. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
51. THE NAKED AND THE DEAD by Norman Mailer
52. PORTNOY'S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth*
53. PALE FIRE by Vladimir Nabokov
54. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner*
55. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac*
56. THE MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett
57. PARADE'S END by Ford Madox Ford
58. THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton
59. ZULEIKA DOBSON by Max Beerbohm
60. THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
61. DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather
62. FROM HERE TO ETERNITY by James Jones
63. THE WAPSHOT CHRONICLES by John Cheever
64. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger*
65. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
66. OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham
67. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad*
68. MAIN STREET by Sinclair Lewis
69. THE HOUSE OF MIRTH by Edith Wharton
70. THE ALEXANDRIA QUARTET by Lawrence Durell
71. A HIGH WIND IN JAMAICA by Richard Hughes
72. A HOUSE FOR MR BISWAS by V.S. Naipaul
73. THE DAY OF THE LOCUST by Nathanael West
74. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway*
75. SCOOP by Evelyn Waugh
76. THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by Muriel Spark
77. FINNEGANS WAKE by James Joyce (attempted)
78. KIM by Rudyard Kipling*
79. A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster
80. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
81. THE ADVENTURES OF AUGIE MARCH by Saul Bellow
82. ANGLE OF REPOSE by Wallace Stegner
83. A BEND IN THE RIVER by V.S. Naipaul
84. THE DEATH OF THE HEART by Elizabeth Bowen
85. LORD JIM by Joseph Conrad
86. RAGTIME by E.L. Doctorow*
87. THE OLD WIVES' TALE by Arnold Bennett
88. THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London*
89. LOVING by Henry Green
90. MIDNIGHT'S CHILDREN by Salman Rushdie
91. TOBACCO ROAD by Erskine Caldwell (appeared in a college theatrical production)
92. IRONWEED by William Kennedy
93. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
94. WIDE SARGASSO SEA by Jean Rhys
95. UNDER THE NET by Iris Murdoch
96. SOPHIE'S CHOICE by William Styron*
97. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
98. THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE by James M. Cain
99. THE GINGER MAN by J.P. Donleavy
100. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS by Booth Tarkington
1. ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand
2. THE FOUNTAINHEAD by Ayn Rand
3. BATTLEFIELD EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
4. THE LORD OF THE RINGS by J.R.R. Tolkien*
5. TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD by Harper Lee*
6. 1984 by George Orwell*
7. ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
8. WE THE LIVING by Ayn Rand
9. MISSION EARTH by L. Ron Hubbard
10. FEAR by L. Ron Hubbard
11. ULYSSES by James Joyce
12. CATCH-22 by Joseph Heller*
13. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
14. DUNE by Frank Herbert*
15. THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS by Robert Heinlein
16. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert Heinlein*
17. A TOWN LIKE ALICE by Nevil Shute
18. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
19. THE CATCHER IN THE RYE by J.D. Salinger
20. ANIMAL FARM by George Orwell
21. GRAVITY'S RAINBOW by Thomas Pynchon
22. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck*
23. SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
24. GONE WITH THE WIND by Margaret Mitchell
25. LORD OF THE FLIES by William Golding
26. SHANE by Jack Schaefer
27. TRUSTEE FROM THE TOOLROOM by Nevil Shute
28. A PRAYER FOR OWEN MEANY by John Irving
29. THE STAND by Stephen King*
30. THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN by John Fowles*
31. BELOVED by Toni Morrison*
32. THE WORM OUROBOROS by E.R. Eddison
33. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
34. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
35. MOONHEART by Charles de Lint
36. ABSALOM, ABSALOM! by William Faulkner*
37. OF HUMAN BONDAGE by W. Somerset Maugham*
38. WISE BLOOD by Flannery O'Connor
39. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
40. FIFTH BUSINESS by Robertson Davies
41. SOMEPLACE TO BE FLYING by Charles de Lint
42. ON THE ROAD by Jack Kerouac
43. HEART OF DARKNESS by Joseph Conrad
44. YARROW by Charles de Lint
45. AT THE MOUNTAINS OF MADNESS by H.P. Lovecraft*
46. ONE LONELY NIGHT by Mickey Spillane
47. MEMORY AND DREAM by Charles de Lint
48. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
49. THE MOVIEGOER by Walker Percy
50. TRADER by Charles de Lint
51. THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY by Douglas Adams*
52. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
53. THE HANDMAID'S TALE by Margaret Atwood
54. BLOOD MERIDIAN by Cormac McCarthy
55. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE by Anthony Burgess
56. ON THE BEACH by Nevil Shute
57. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
58. GREENMANTLE by Charles de Lint
59. ENDER'S GAME by Orson Scott Card
60. THE LITTLE COUNTRY by Charles de Lint
61. THE RECOGNITIONS by William Gaddis
62. STARSHIP TROOPERS by Robert Heinlein
63. THE SUN ALSO RISES by Ernest Hemingway
64. THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP by John Irving*
65. SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury*
66. THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE by Shirley Jackson*
67. AS I LAY DYING by William Faulkner
68. TROPIC OF CANCER by Henry Miller
69. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
70. THE WOOD WIFE by Terri Windling
71. THE MAGUS by John Fowles
72. THE DOOR INTO SUMMER by Robert Heinlein
73. ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE by Robert Pirsig
74. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
75. THE CALL OF THE WILD by Jack London
76. AT SWIM-TWO-BIRDS by Flann O'Brien
77. FARENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury
78. ARROWSMITH by Sinclair Lewis
79. WATERSHIP DOWN by Richard Adams*
80. NAKED LUNCH by William S. Burroughs
81. THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER by Tom Clancy*
82. GUILTY PLEASURES by Laurell K. Hamilton
83. THE PUPPET MASTERS by Robert Heinlein
84. IT by Stephen King*
85. V. by Thomas Pynchon
86. DOUBLE STAR by Robert Heinlein
87. CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY by Robert Heinlein
88. BRIDESHEAD REVISITED by Evelyn Waugh
89. LIGHT IN AUGUST by William Faulkner*
90. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST by Ken Kesey*
91. A FAREWELL TO ARMS by Ernest Hemingway
92. THE SHELTERING SKY by Paul Bowles
93. SOMETIMES A GREAT NOTION by Ken Kesey
94. MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather
95. MULENGRO by Charles de Lint
96. SUTTREE by Cormac McCarthy
97. MYTHAGO WOOD by Robert Holdstock
98. ILLUSIONS by Richard Bach
99. THE CUNNING MAN by Robertson Davies
100. THE SATANIC VERSES by Salman Rushdie*
The asterisks are books I have read, trying not to duplicate books on both lists.
What is up wit the reader list having all that L. Ron Hubbard and Ayn Rand garbage on it? Adding, there are books I should read that I haven't read yet. Well, I'm still breathing so there's time . . .
The First Great American Novel
Matt Yglesias has been pimping Moby Dick as a great American novel that explains much about our national character. He takes issue in the linked post with Kevin Drum's dismissal of Melville's whale of a tale, but I have to admit that I think Yglesias is wrong. I am firmly in Hemingway's camp on this one; the first great American novel is Huckleberry Finn, as long as you take in to account that a long piece of fiction writing is not necessarily a novel. Long fiction is probably as old as the art of story-telling. The "novel" is a particular type of fiction, one that seeks to illustrate not just the events it chronicles, but the entire zeitgeist through character, setting, dialogue, plot, and so forth. By this set of criteria, Moby Dick for all its many virtues is not a novel; Huckleberry Finn is.
For that matter, in the manner of 20th century American novels, I would think that An American Tragedy or Sister Carrie, for all that Dreiser wasn't a master story-teller, are far more in the way of "novels" than The Great Gatsby. Similarly, Faulkner's tales of southern families in decline are much less novels than his contemporary, Steinbeck. In particular East of Eden and The Grapes of Wrath are better representatives of the novel than The Sound and the Fury (the first section of which is nearly unreadable) or As I Lay Dying.
Furthermore, I would offer this radical notion (and I know that Feodor is going to huff and puff about what follows): among our post-war fiction authors, few can match three novels by Stephen King for capturing not just the spirit of the age, but tossing our fears about these times back in our faces, forcing us to confront our own inner demons. 'Salem's Lot, The Stand, and It each in their own way are far more than, in turn, a pulp-style "vampires comes to small-town America", "Armageddon times 2", and "Killing a monster at a class reunion". The first is as much a sociological treatise on the American small town in an age of decline, which offers a glimpse of why a creature such as Barlow would have so much ease at taking it over. The Stand, while bearing a similarity to the fiction of destruction so prevalent of the late-1970's, was borne out of an attempt by King to write a novel about the 1960's. His struggles ended when he decided to write a novel about the 1970's instead, but in the process managed to present the degradation the United States had suffered in that decade. In It, we have the fictionalized account of how the children who lived in the shadow of our Cold War insecurities managed to conquer those fears, even at great cost. It is a very different novel than The Stand precisely because it is far more optimistic about our national character. Written and published during the years of High Reaganism, it offers the opportunity, I think for King to picture his generation doing what he believed they could have done, and perhaps should have done, rather than, as he wrote much later, trading in changing the world for the Home Shopping Network.
In any event, literary criticism is a bit like music criticism, much more a reflection on the prejudices and limitations of the critic than any inherent merits or demerits of the subject under criticism.
Moby Dick is a great read (even though the various chapters on whales and whaling should have been included in an appendix or something), and it does have quite a bit to say about our national character, or at least Yankee character, it isn't a "novel" in the way Huckleberry Finn is a novel.
For that matter, in the manner of 20th century American novels, I would think that An American Tragedy or Sister Carrie, for all that Dreiser wasn't a master story-teller, are far more in the way of "novels" than The Great Gatsby. Similarly, Faulkner's tales of southern families in decline are much less novels than his contemporary, Steinbeck. In particular East of Eden and The Grapes of Wrath are better representatives of the novel than The Sound and the Fury (the first section of which is nearly unreadable) or As I Lay Dying.
Furthermore, I would offer this radical notion (and I know that Feodor is going to huff and puff about what follows): among our post-war fiction authors, few can match three novels by Stephen King for capturing not just the spirit of the age, but tossing our fears about these times back in our faces, forcing us to confront our own inner demons. 'Salem's Lot, The Stand, and It each in their own way are far more than, in turn, a pulp-style "vampires comes to small-town America", "Armageddon times 2", and "Killing a monster at a class reunion". The first is as much a sociological treatise on the American small town in an age of decline, which offers a glimpse of why a creature such as Barlow would have so much ease at taking it over. The Stand, while bearing a similarity to the fiction of destruction so prevalent of the late-1970's, was borne out of an attempt by King to write a novel about the 1960's. His struggles ended when he decided to write a novel about the 1970's instead, but in the process managed to present the degradation the United States had suffered in that decade. In It, we have the fictionalized account of how the children who lived in the shadow of our Cold War insecurities managed to conquer those fears, even at great cost. It is a very different novel than The Stand precisely because it is far more optimistic about our national character. Written and published during the years of High Reaganism, it offers the opportunity, I think for King to picture his generation doing what he believed they could have done, and perhaps should have done, rather than, as he wrote much later, trading in changing the world for the Home Shopping Network.
In any event, literary criticism is a bit like music criticism, much more a reflection on the prejudices and limitations of the critic than any inherent merits or demerits of the subject under criticism.
Moby Dick is a great read (even though the various chapters on whales and whaling should have been included in an appendix or something), and it does have quite a bit to say about our national character, or at least Yankee character, it isn't a "novel" in the way Huckleberry Finn is a novel.
Tactics, Strategy, & Healthcare Reform
The announcement that Pres. Obama will speak before a Joint Session of Congress tomorrow is "In Change of Tactics, Obama To Lay Out Must-Haves for Healthcare Plan". A change in tactics would assume, first, that up to this point, it was never his plan to lay before Congress exactly what he wanted. It would also assume, it seems to me, an understanding of Obama's tactical plan on getting healthcare reform passed, something I doubt anyone but the President understood. At the same time, changing tactics is usually a sign of flexibility in seeking a strategic goal. The goal is getting healthcare reform passed. How that gets done shouldn't be set in stone.
I admired the way the President got his stimulus bill through Congress, even as the House added billions of dollars, the Senate cut billions of dollars, and then in conference the President got pretty much what he wanted. Considering the massive size of the stimulus plan, that is no minor achievement. He seemed to read the situation pretty well, understood the way it was going to run, and when push came to shove, got his way. While we have borne witness to an explosion of right-wing crazy-talk over the past month, the result of it all is the hardening of the Democratic majority in favor of serious reform, and the sidelining of once-major players including Charles Grassley of Iowa (he of dead-granny fame). It seems pretty clear that the August shakedown has resulted in more clarity, rather than less. With the President appearing before Congress tomorrow - and despite various headlines as to what, exactly, will be said and not said, where the various lines in the sand will be drawn - it seems to me the end-game will be clear before the last applause has died and the President is escorted out of the House Chamber.
More to the point, I still place my bets with the President. As a close observer of how he plays the game, I have decided I wouldn't want to play chess with the man. He probably would have the game figured out and won after seeing my first or second move. Unlike Bill Clinton, he doesn't display his political acumen for all to see; he does what he does quietly; the conventional wisdom that he has lost his mojo is a bit premature. When healthcare reform is passed, my guess is all the hand-wringing will be forgotten.
I admired the way the President got his stimulus bill through Congress, even as the House added billions of dollars, the Senate cut billions of dollars, and then in conference the President got pretty much what he wanted. Considering the massive size of the stimulus plan, that is no minor achievement. He seemed to read the situation pretty well, understood the way it was going to run, and when push came to shove, got his way. While we have borne witness to an explosion of right-wing crazy-talk over the past month, the result of it all is the hardening of the Democratic majority in favor of serious reform, and the sidelining of once-major players including Charles Grassley of Iowa (he of dead-granny fame). It seems pretty clear that the August shakedown has resulted in more clarity, rather than less. With the President appearing before Congress tomorrow - and despite various headlines as to what, exactly, will be said and not said, where the various lines in the sand will be drawn - it seems to me the end-game will be clear before the last applause has died and the President is escorted out of the House Chamber.
More to the point, I still place my bets with the President. As a close observer of how he plays the game, I have decided I wouldn't want to play chess with the man. He probably would have the game figured out and won after seeing my first or second move. Unlike Bill Clinton, he doesn't display his political acumen for all to see; he does what he does quietly; the conventional wisdom that he has lost his mojo is a bit premature. When healthcare reform is passed, my guess is all the hand-wringing will be forgotten.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Credibility Versus Truth: A Case Study Comes To My Attention
I wrote yesterday concerning Christopher Lasch's view of mass media in an age of diminishing expectations. My last sentence in that blog post I find is pertinent to a little dust-up between a couple bloggers and journalist Joe Klein.
The links provide the substance of the conflict, and the commentary, particularly by the granddaughter of independent journalist I. F. Stone, is insightful (even more, I think than Greenwald's) on part of the issue at hand.
Two points here. First, the whole insider/outsider business is actually quite amusing, albeit sad. In Klein's world, indeed in the world of most of our elites in politics and its related professions (not including prostitution, I think), the techonocratic insistence that our politics is far too complex for the great unwashed to understand and therefore comment on properly (bloggers don't have editors!!) might have made me ask Joe, had I been there, "So, Joe, if no one but you experts understand this shit, why do you have the job you do? Who do you write for, or are you just jerking off?"
Second, the mythical line between "journalism" and "editorializing" exists only in the heads of people like Klein and others like him. Editorial judgments effect every part of a newspaper, from what stories are reported to how sources are evaluated to the final copy. Everyone knows it.
I find it amusing that Klein is revealed, yet again, as having extremely thin skin.
The central criticism Greenwald leveled at Klein originally was the revelation by Klein that he had not actually read a piece of legislation he was insisting said something it did not in fact say. When Greenwald called him out, not only on his intellectual dishonesty but his professional laziness as well, Klein tried to backpedal, while refusing to grant Greenwald's main point, i.e., that by misrepresenting the bill in question, and refusing to acknowledge that he, Klein, had not read the bill and should therefore be disqualified from commenting on it in the guise of an expert. The entire dust-up was amusing, and Klein has now revealed himself as a bitter, grudge-holding small-minded, thin-skinned child.
Yet, there is more at stake here than an argument among a few folks over journalistic ethics. In a world where people were serious about the question of whether information was true or false, Klein's many, many errors of both fact and judgment would have disqualified him years ago from consideration as a serious commenter, far less serious than Glenn Greenwald (whom, I should note, I also criticized yesterday) or even a "nobody" blogger.
Yet, Klein maintains his position not because of class or even his insider status. For reasons that have far more to do with what the currency of our current journalistic and political culture than anything else, Klein maintains "credibility" in the absence of any question regarding consistency (his output over the years actually follows a pretty predictable pattern of fawning obeisance followed by harsh criticism of the former object of his political affection, with occasional outbursts of sanity interspersed with a dedication to whatever passes for momentary conventional wisdom) or even attention to something as trivial as factual accuracy, let alone non-trivial as the truth. While class status and his professional status as an insider - a player of the game - certainly contribute to his on-going presence in our public discourse, after nearly two decades of his abuse of our patience, one would think he would currently be editing obituaries somewhere, rather than playing a game in which he pretends to talk about stuff he doesn't understand, and we don't get to ask him how he understands it.
Greenwald's original sin - and the subsequent rant at the barbecue on the Cape - was not to call Klein's factual accuracy in to question. Not at all. The whole incident is enlightening precisely because it threatens his credibility, the only real currency inside players in our national politics consider of worth. Far worse than being called out as intellectually dishonest, or mocked for his thin skin, Klein is outraged that people are questioning his credibility. It's one thing to be called a liar; it's another all together to be laughed at because one is shallow and professionally incompetent.
This entire incident shows that it might just be a test of our culture if we continue to tolerate the Joe Kleins of the world.
The source of the problem lies in our willingness to tolerate "credibility" as a test of worthiness.
The links provide the substance of the conflict, and the commentary, particularly by the granddaughter of independent journalist I. F. Stone, is insightful (even more, I think than Greenwald's) on part of the issue at hand.
the main thing I took away from the discussion is that for journalists like Klein the world is divided into practitioners/insiders and totally ignorant outsiders. He was surprised that I brought up the Solomon story, or that I took seriously the Judy Miller issue, because in his world that's really inside baseball. In fact when I pointed out how abysmal the Washington Post's editorial page had been, under Fred Hiatt's tenure, he and another Journalist standing nearby assured me that Fred is an “editorialist” so the ordinary rules don't apply and I don't need to tar the whole paper with his sins. Its as thought they imagine that each story is a stand alone piece and that there's a hard and fast line between opinion and “fact” when every day, and every way, we've seen any pretense to that distinction run right into the ground. Has any adult person thought that since Media Whores Online (of sainted memory?).
Two points here. First, the whole insider/outsider business is actually quite amusing, albeit sad. In Klein's world, indeed in the world of most of our elites in politics and its related professions (not including prostitution, I think), the techonocratic insistence that our politics is far too complex for the great unwashed to understand and therefore comment on properly (bloggers don't have editors!!) might have made me ask Joe, had I been there, "So, Joe, if no one but you experts understand this shit, why do you have the job you do? Who do you write for, or are you just jerking off?"
Second, the mythical line between "journalism" and "editorializing" exists only in the heads of people like Klein and others like him. Editorial judgments effect every part of a newspaper, from what stories are reported to how sources are evaluated to the final copy. Everyone knows it.
I find it amusing that Klein is revealed, yet again, as having extremely thin skin.
For the past several years, Greenwald has conducted a persistent, malicious campaign to distort who I am and where I stand. He is a mean-spirited, graceless bully. During that time, I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military, which has transformed itself dramatically for the better since Rumsfeld's departure (indeed, he ridiculed me when I reported that the situation in Anbar Province was turning around in 2007). I have never seen him acknowledge that the work of the clandestine service—performed disgracefully by the CIA during the early Bush years—is an absolute necessity in a world where terrorists have the capability to attack us at any time, in almost any place. Nor have I seen [him] acknowledge that such a threat exists, nor make a single positive suggestion about how to confront that threat in ways that might conform to his views. Therefore, I have seen no evidence that he cares one whit about the national security of the United States. It is not hyperbole, it is a fact.
The central criticism Greenwald leveled at Klein originally was the revelation by Klein that he had not actually read a piece of legislation he was insisting said something it did not in fact say. When Greenwald called him out, not only on his intellectual dishonesty but his professional laziness as well, Klein tried to backpedal, while refusing to grant Greenwald's main point, i.e., that by misrepresenting the bill in question, and refusing to acknowledge that he, Klein, had not read the bill and should therefore be disqualified from commenting on it in the guise of an expert. The entire dust-up was amusing, and Klein has now revealed himself as a bitter, grudge-holding small-minded, thin-skinned child.
Yet, there is more at stake here than an argument among a few folks over journalistic ethics. In a world where people were serious about the question of whether information was true or false, Klein's many, many errors of both fact and judgment would have disqualified him years ago from consideration as a serious commenter, far less serious than Glenn Greenwald (whom, I should note, I also criticized yesterday) or even a "nobody" blogger.
Yet, Klein maintains his position not because of class or even his insider status. For reasons that have far more to do with what the currency of our current journalistic and political culture than anything else, Klein maintains "credibility" in the absence of any question regarding consistency (his output over the years actually follows a pretty predictable pattern of fawning obeisance followed by harsh criticism of the former object of his political affection, with occasional outbursts of sanity interspersed with a dedication to whatever passes for momentary conventional wisdom) or even attention to something as trivial as factual accuracy, let alone non-trivial as the truth. While class status and his professional status as an insider - a player of the game - certainly contribute to his on-going presence in our public discourse, after nearly two decades of his abuse of our patience, one would think he would currently be editing obituaries somewhere, rather than playing a game in which he pretends to talk about stuff he doesn't understand, and we don't get to ask him how he understands it.
Greenwald's original sin - and the subsequent rant at the barbecue on the Cape - was not to call Klein's factual accuracy in to question. Not at all. The whole incident is enlightening precisely because it threatens his credibility, the only real currency inside players in our national politics consider of worth. Far worse than being called out as intellectually dishonest, or mocked for his thin skin, Klein is outraged that people are questioning his credibility. It's one thing to be called a liar; it's another all together to be laughed at because one is shallow and professionally incompetent.
This entire incident shows that it might just be a test of our culture if we continue to tolerate the Joe Kleins of the world.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Virtual Tin Cup
