the sawpit

Steve Gilliard Will Be Missed

Steve Gilliard, 1966-2007

I only met Steve Gilliard once, at a birthday party for his friend Jen. By way of introduction, she mentioned that Steve was an avid blogger, and I mentioned that I had recently started a blog of my own. At the time, I wasn't familiar with his site, The News Blog. Now, looking back, I see the humor in the situation. He didn't just blog half-assed in his spare time as I did, he was seriously dedicated to his craft. Steve's News Blog was a breath of fresh air on the progressive side of the blogosphere. His pointed humor and punchy analysis helped me get through many a depressing news cycle. He even made an impact on other blogs. When I first found out he was ill, I didn't know what to think. I assumed that he would soon be back in the saddle. After many weeks of hearing bad news from Jen, Steve Gilliard passed away this past Saturday. I offer my deepest sympathies to his family and friends. He will be missed by many people, most of whom have never met him. That's the kind of guy he was.

A Kos for Celebration

When I first started reading political blogs, the site that impressed me most was DailyKos. I found Kos to very feisty, and determined to turn things around in this country. For years DailyKos has been celebrated by liberals and progressives for its inspirational commitment to saving the Democratic party from destructive Republican-Lite politics. On June 22 the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy will host their annual benefit in New York City where they will honor DailyKos founder Markos Moulitsas, and Anna Burger of Change to Win Labor Federation, with the 2006 Drum Major for Justice Award. Tom Watson notes that they are being celebrated for "their commitment to American principles of government, activism, and democracy" and we here at the sawpit agree. The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy's mission is "to bring think tanks out of the ivory tower and into the public discussion where they belong" - and who can argue with that? (Check out their insightful DMI blog.) Tom is asking all progressive bloggers to support this event by spreading the word and, for those of us in the area, coming out to the event to be held at the Lotus bar and restaurant in New York City.

Blogger Co-Chairs:
Steve Gilliard of The News Blog
Ezra Klein
Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake
Lance Mannion
Tom Watson’s My Dirty Life and Times

Please email elevin@drummajorinstitute.org to join the Committee HonoringKos.

Mission Not Yet Accomplished

Last Wednesday at Annapolis, in a stunning admission of failure, President Bush unveiled his "plan for victory" in Iraq which will eventually, at some point in the future, transform that war-torn nation into a stable, friendly democracy. Apparently his previous "mission accomplished" speech of May 2nd 2003 was more than a few years premature. But hey, in all fairness, how could Bush have known that two months later, when he taunted the growing Iraqi resistance to "bring 'em on!", that the insurgents would rise to the challenge? After all, hadn't his phony, macho rhetoric always worked before?

And even as critics of his stay the course policy in Iraq grow louder, Bush vowed that he would not support "artificial timetables set by politicians." This struck me as an odd statement considering that the original advocates and planners of the pre-emptive invasion were mostly politicians and policy makers. But what's wrong with learning from mistakes, even if you don't admit them? Nothing. The good news about the Iraq war, according to John Burns and Dexter Filkins in the December 1st New York Times, is that certain "generals contend the war is winnable, though they do not say so with the tone of certainty that Mr. Bush mustered" in his Annapolis speech. Well, that's what we pay Bush for. Without optimism, you've got nothing but grim realism, and that's no way to win a war!

In Sunday's New York Times Op-Ed page, David Brooks asserts that, previous to this new awakening, the White House "felt compelled to assert a mastery of events they plainly did not possess." But Brooks assures us that the president's Annapolis speech demonstrates that, finally, the "views the president expressed in public resemble the views he holds in private." Brooks describes the current Iraq information coming from administration officials as being "complex and informative" as opposed to the previous "relentlessly positive…to the point of fantasy" statements of the past. But is this true? Has Bush finally pulled his head out of his ass just long enough to make some sense for a change? Has he moved over to the "reality-based" community? Not a chance. On the same Sunday New York Times Op-Ed page, Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. point out what Bush failed to mention in Brooks' "graduate-school level" Annapolis speech:

We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore. We did not hear that it has taken more than 2,000 precious American lives and countless — because we do not count them — Iraqi civilian lives. We did not hear that the struggle has dragged on longer than our involvement in either World War I or the Spanish-American War, or that by next spring it will be even longer than the Korean War.

And we did not hear how or when the president plans to bring our forces back home — no facts, no numbers on America troop withdrawals, no dates, no reference to our dwindling coalition, no reversal of his disdain for the United Nations, whose help he still expects.

It appears that Bush still thinks he can write his own war script with a happy ending. But for David Brooks this is just another example of "liberals spewing anti-Bush slogans." But the fact is that the liberals and conservatives who oppose the war have been the few voices attempting to have nuanced debates. The simple-minded arguments have mainly come from Bush, Cheney, and supporters of this administration's hysterical claims that Iraq posed an imminent threat and that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were indistinguishable.

Sorensen and Schlesinger understand that the burden for an alternative strategy is on the president's shoulders because he was the one person who made the decision to invade Iraq before other alternatives had been exhausted.

The responsibility for devising an exit plan rests primarily not with the war's opponents, but with the president who hastily launched a pre-emptive invasion without enough troops to secure Iraq's borders and arsenals, without enough armor to protect our forces, without enough allied support and without adequate plans for either a secure occupation or a timely exit.

But despite that caveat, they do offer a plan for getting out of Iraq, based on John F. Kennedy's unrealized 1963 plan to withdraw from Vietnam:

Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."

Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel — surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.

Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.

President Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.

Will President Bush ever adopt such a three-part exit strategy? I highly doubt it. It is quite possible that Bush has no exit plan because he intends for the military to stay in Iraq indefinitely. After all, Bush didn't invade Iraq in order to allow the Iraqi people to control their own oil reserves now did he? It makes me want to shout, "No more blood for oil!" But there I go again, Mr. Brooks, spewing my simple-minded anti-Bush slogans. I should be ashamed.

How Low Can They Go?

By Ed Carey

Last Friday morning a coworker dropped by to share what he thought would be a jocular moment by showing me Friday's Daily News front page headline. Little did he know that I'd already seen it and deliberately purchased Newsday instead, specifically because of the stupid and un-newsworthy story the News chose to feature.

The story itself — about an out of town chump who racks up a buxom bill in lap dancing charges at a gentleman's club — is silly and light (unless you're the chump in question, and you've just had your mug displayed on the front of a major newspaper). But for me this was the straw that broke the journalistic camel's back. Granted, the News is a tabloid, but just this week they've printed two important Treasongate stories by Thomas DeFrank. With all that goes on in the city, state, country, and world, they selected Lap Dunce for their cover?

The lowering of journalistic standards takes on a more insidious form elsewhere of course. Judith Miller is Exhibit A. Fox News is Exhibit B. How about Andrea "aka, Mrs. Greenspan" Mitchell, and her constant parroting of the erroneous claim that Joe Wilson stated that he was sent to Niger by Dick Cheney (Wilson never made that claim). There are many more examples. Anyway, this stupid headline prompted me to write the following letter to the Daily News. I urge everyone to similarly call newspapers and television shows to account for slanted reporting and condescension to the reading public. An independent and vigorous media is imperative to the health of our democracy. Too many Americans are complacent about the dreck that is sold to us as news, and it is up to us to remind the mainstream media of its responsibility.

Here's my letter:

10/21/2005

Dear Daily News Editor:

As a regular reader of the New York Daily News I am writing to inform you that you lost at least one sale today because of the frivolous story you selected for your front page. I refer to the story headlined "Lap Dunce," concerning the out-of-town businessman who had incurred exorbitant debts while enjoying big city nightlife (I'm aware of the contours of the story only because I heard a radio report before leaving for work).

My objection is not to the prurient nature of the story. Quite the contrary, this seems like a mildly amusing account of a provincial run amok in the metropolis. My objection is rather to the frivolity of it. I have become increasingly concerned recently about the severe deterioration of journalistic standards. This is most apparent with the scandals at the New York Times, but can also be seen throughout the mainstream media, in newspapers and on television. While the Daily News may be a tabloid and, as such, may not aspire to be the "paper of record," it should still meet some minimum standards of journalistic ethics. You could have chosen a cover story and banner headline from a wide array of truly important events: the passing of a gun industry shield law by Congress; earthquake relief efforts in Pakistan; the mayoral race; Tom Delay's arraignment; or the latest news from Iraq, just to name a few possibilities.

It is sad to see a newspaper that boasts fine columnists such as Juan Gonzalez, Denis Hamill, Andrew Greeley, Mike Lupica, and Errol Louis, and the solid reporting of people like Thomas DeFrank, condescend to its readership like this. By all means, run the "Lap Dunce" story, but place it on page 24 where it belongs. You owe it to your readers to select and prominently feature newsworthy stories. If I want a paper that proudly trumpets "Lap Dunce" on its cover, I could save a quarter and buy the Post.

I have no illusions that the loss of one sale will force a change in your policies. But I will continue to boycott The Daily News when you display frivolous non-news like this, and I will encourage all my friends and associates to do so as well.

Sincerely,

Edward Carey
Brooklyn, New York

Not all scandals are created equal

I consider the controversy surrounding the self-outing of Deep Throat to be predictable. Nixon apologists like Pat Buchanan and G. Gordon Liddy, are angry because a Republican administration was disgraced. Buchanan and Limbaugh have been connecting the downfall of Nixon with the Unites States losing the Vietnam war. These are the same folks who praised Linda Tripp. Buchanan equated Watergate and the Clinton scandal as examples of why liberals are partisan hypocrites for praising W. Mark Felt as a hero, while they continue to condemn Tripp.

"The only reason Mark Felt is a hero now [is because the person he helped] destroy was Richard Milhous Nixon," Buchanan told WABC Radio's John Gambling.

But when it came to President Clinton, he noted, reporters suddenly developed a distaste for whistleblowers.

"I mean, did they make Linda Tripp a hero?" the former Nixon speechwriter asked plaintively. "At least she was public about it."

The problem with Buchanan's argument is basic: Nixon destroyed himself by covering up serious criminal activity waged against his perceived enemies. Clinton's perjury, while offensive, was not a "high crime" by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, Clinton's lie had no impact on the Paula Jones case since her charges were eventually judged as groundless. Nixon was undone by his paranoia and lust for power. And while Clinton was slapped on the wrist for his legal crime, Nixon lived in self-exile for all those years until his "rehabilitation" in the 1990s.

Whose Hands Covered In Blood?

I find the anger directed towards Newsweek to be a little overblown. First of all, we don't really know if the report of Guantanamo Bay interrogators flushing a Koran down a toilet in order to provoke information out of detainees is true or not. But at the time of the report, two separate Defense Department officials did not contradict the account. Well, after last year's prisoner abuse scandals, how could you blame Newsweek for believing the story? Of course they should have been more careful. Of course they should have waited before reporting the story. But the idea that Newsweek is responsible for the 16 deaths in Afghanistan and all the anti-American protests around the world is ridiculous. Why don't I hear these same people screaming about how George W. Bush has almost 2000 dead US soldiers' blood on his hands!

Why are they so angry at us, and why are they so willing to believe the Newsweek account? We have a president who claims that Jesus Christ was his most influential political philosopher, who uses Christian rhetoric in order to galvanize his base of fundamentalists, and whose faith-based initiative blurs the lines between church and state. Many of our soldiers support Bush for those very reasons. What do you expect the even more conservative, radical Muslims in the world to think of all this? Remember that the main reason Osama Bin Laden turned against us after we helped push the Soviet out of Afghanistan was our military establishing bases in Saudi Arabia. We are considered infidels desecrating holy land. So, of course, infidels do things like flush Korans down toilets. Why wouldn't they believe it?

So here we have two major world religions, Christianity and Islam - both with conservative factions at complete odds with one another, and both with no ability to compromise on anything. The millions of Christian folks who bought the "left behind" series of books actually believe that these Muslims are getting tossed into the lake of fire with the rest of us folks who do not submit to Jesus Christ. And these Muslims who are protesting the Newsweek story believe the same about us. The lesson we should learn is that religious zealotry is destructive. It destroys rational debate because it's based on emotional reactions, not reason. More than any other term I can think of, Reason is needed more than ever in the world. But I am afraid it seems to be overshadowed by blind faith and intolerant fools.

Understanding U.S. Newspapers

This handy guide was fowarded to my attention this morning. Thanks Karen, it all makes sense to me now.

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country- - if they could find the time- - and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there Is a country. .. or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy provided, of course, that they are not Republicans.

11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

12. None of these is read by the guy who is running the country into the ground.

The Sophomore Press

I've been reading the New York Press for about seven years now and I still don't know what to make of it. Compared to the Village Voice, its humor is quite sophomoric. The Editorial tone is usually smarmy. Many of the writers engage in hipster navel gazing about shopping and clubs and drugs. Very edgy and angry. And despite Paul Krassner being totally wasted at the NY Press, and the fact that Russ Smith still has his ridiculous pro-Republican column every week, I still enjoy reading it.

The Editorial staff of the NY Press remind me these second year students who joined the Purchase College student newspaper back in 1989. It was my senior year and I had agreed to be the Editor in Chief simply because no one else wanted the job. We had a new section called "The Collective" which had a very open submission policy. There was a spirit of sharing ideas and expressing yourself.

The new group of students changed the title of the section to "The Purgative" and began to transform the section into their little playground, publishing their own pieces and those of their friends. The tone of the writing was always the same: mean spirited, pseudo intellectual, and often vulgar. Eventually they renamed the section "The Invective" so the reader would know right away what they were getting themselves into.

So when I first began to read the NY Press, the tone reminded me of the old Invective guys from those heady Purchase days. After all, "The 50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers" cover story they publish every year is certainly an idea they would have loved. The NY Press consistently publishes the worst front page stories. Last week, for example, they made the case that we shouldn't care about CBGBs closing if someone can turn it into a museum.

So it was not surprising to see that this week's cover has a photo of John Paul II with the headline: "There's Nothing Funny About This Man Dying. Or Is There?". The cover story by Matt Taibbi lists all these little death scenes that are supposed to be humorous. "The 52 Funniest Things About The Upcoming Death of the Pope."

So here's just one hilarious example:

23. Doctors examining the body discover that the Pope was not only a woman, but also Hitler.

I am an agnostic ex-Catholic, and have many problems with the Vatican, but I don't think making fun of someone's imminent death is ever funny. When a joke becomes this vicious for no good reason, it kills the humor for me. I like Matt Taibbi but he's fallen into that Invective camp for me - that group of smug, self important assholes who ridiculed everyone in order to draw attention to themselves. Success is yours Matt. Yea, that no-good Pope had it coming to him.

Uncle Duke Lives

If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.

Hunter S. Thompson

Christopher Hitchens has written an insightful piece on Thompson in Slate. I think he nails it pretty good. This story from the Boston Globe explores the events leading up to his suicide. And then there's Ralph Steadman's take on his passing in The Independent. Oh, and check out the dancing Duke.

No Shotgun Golf with H.S. Thompson

I always thought that Hunter S. Thompson would die from an overdose of alcohol, drugs, and sheer bravado. But it seems that Hunter preferred the Hemingway method since he shot himself in the head last night at his Woody Creek home in Colorado. The strange thing is, I just happened to read his last column on the ESPN website last week in which he called Bill Murray in the middle of the night to discuss his newest brainstorm, Shotgun Golf. I was hoping to read the follow-up story and imagined the two blasting golf balls from the sky while sipping whiskey sours. Alas, it was not to be.

One of the strongest memories I have of Hunter was a guest appearance on David Letterman back in early 1988. For some reason Letterman was broadcasting that week from the Helen Hayes suite at some hotel near Times Square. "I know I have a drinking problem," he slurred as he held up his glass, "I mean, it's right here in front of me". He lamented the Gary Hart scandal that forced him out of the presidential race, and predicted that Teddy Kennedy would be the surprise Democratic presidential nominee that year. Well, Hunter was never known for his prognostications. But I've held Hunter close to my literary heart ever since I read his Hell's Angels back in 1986. That one book inspired me to write my first non-fiction story about a Jerry Garcia Band concert gone awry. I had so much fun writing that story, and without his inspired "gonzo" prose, I don't think I would have finished it. I wonder how Gary Trudeau will deal with the death of Thompson? Uncle Duke is one of my favorite comic strip characters of all time.