One more bit of fallout from Chomsky's victory in the recent Prospect magazine poll. Oliver Kamm muses here on Emma Brockes's laudably tough-minded interview with Chomsky in today's Guardian.
It's not news that Chomsky, like some others on the far left, is a Bosnia revisionist, supporting dubious claims that the 1995 Srebrenica massacre was exaggerated. But in this particular interview, Chomsky reveals his shabby intellectual and journalistic standards with heightened shamelessness:
[Chomsky] is asked to lend his name to all sorts of crackpot causes and [his wife] tries to intervene to keep his schedule under control. As some see it, one ill-judged choice of cause was the accusation made by Living Marxism magazine that during the Bosnian war, shots used by ITN of a Serb-run detention camp were faked. The magazine folded after ITN sued, but the controversy flared up again in 2003 when a journalist called Diane Johnstone made similar allegations in a Swedish magazine, Ordfront, taking issue with the official number of victims of the Srebrenica massacre. (She said they were exaggerated.) In the ensuing outcry, Chomsky lent his name to a letter praising Johnstone's "outstanding work". Does he regret signing it?
"No," he says indignantly. "It is outstanding. My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very careful and outstanding work."
How, I wonder, can journalism be wrong and still outstanding?
"Look," says Chomsky, "there was a hysterical fanaticism about Bosnia in western culture which was very much like a passionate religious conviction. It was like old-fashioned Stalinism: if you depart a couple of millimetres from the party line, you're a traitor, you're destroyed. It's totally irrational. And Diane Johnstone, whether you like it or not, has done serious, honest work. And in the case of Living Marxism, for a big corporation to put a small newspaper out of business because they think something they reported was false, is outrageous."
They didn't "think" it was false; it was proven to be so in a court of law.
But Chomsky insists that "LM was probably correct" and that, in any case, it is irrelevant. "It had nothing to do with whether LM or Diane Johnstone were right or wrong." It is a question, he says, of freedom of speech.
In reality, it is a question of trying to delegitimize, by any tawdry means necessary, the West's subsequent use of force in the Balkans. Here is Chomsky, champion of justice, trifling with the deaths of nearly 8000 innocent people—Muslims at that.
**Update: Welcome WW4 readers, friends and foes.
**Update II: One of the commenters at WW4 cites an interview alleging that Clinton and Bosnian prez Izetbegovic made a deal to allow the Srebrenica massacre, in exchange for future NATO bombardment. Uh-huh. Someone named Nick Thompson weighed in with a post titled "Srebrenica a Legitimate Military Target." You can't make this stuff up.
**Update III: Chomsky responded to the Brockes story in a letter to the Guardian: "Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear." Uh-huh. Oliver Kamm has some fun with this here.
**Update IV: Go here for Update IV.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Liberal hawks, continued
Further thoughts... for my previous post go here.
First, an analytically and morally serious critique of liberal hawkism by Stephen Holmes at The Nation. Holmes reviews Paul Berman's Power and the Idealists and David Rieff's At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention. Here he is on Rieff:
Faced with the "appalling and degrading" conditions in postwar Iraq, where things were "worse than anything I was able to write about it," Rieff has felt compelled to reconsider his advocacy of US-led humanitarian intervention. What he discovered on his visits to Iraq was a collapsed state, not a liberated country.... Idealists who trumpeted a purely humanitarian case for invading Iraq should have known that their benevolent motives were not sufficient to trigger the war and were not going to govern the way the war and the occupation unfolded.
Many (but not all) liberal hawks began by supporting the war and ended up doubting it. I, on the other hand, began by opposing the war and ended up bitterly at odds with the antiwar movement—primarily the calls from more radical quarters to support the so-called "resistance." On this issue I am with the hawks one hundred percent. Dexter Filkins, the battle-hardened NY Times reporter, gives us the unvarnished truth about these fascistic death squads and their victims:
[Iraqi liberals] started newspapers, they organized political parties, they called meetings to start a national conversation. Some of them, surveying the psychological ruins that Hussein and his torturers had left behind, formed institutes to teach their countrymen how to think for themselves.
And now, today, many of these Iraqis, if not most of them, are dead. They have been shot, tortured, burned, disfigured, thrown into ditches, disappeared. Thousands of them: editors, lawyers, pamphleteers, men and women. In a remarkable campaign of civic destruction, the Baathists and Islamists who make up the insurgency located the intellectual heart of the nascent Iraqi democracy and, with gruesome precision, cut it out. As much as any single factor, the death of Iraq's political class explains the difficulties of the country's rebirth. The good guys are dead.
Remember this at your next antiwar demonstration. The Iraqi insurgents did this, not the U.S. military. And it's a dodge to shrug your shoulders and say, "It wouldn't have happened if we [the U.S.] weren't there." Because we are there, and it did happen. And some in the antiwar movement (George Galloway and company) continue to praise the insurgency as a "liberation struggle." If you care about the welfare of Iraqis, you condemn this garbage. Period.
That said, the title of Oliver Kamm's forthcoming book, Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left-Wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy, impels me to stress my deep differences with the liberal prowar camp. I've cited Kamm's brilliant attacks on antisemitism and knee-jerk Chomskyism and I'll continue to do so. But I part ways with Kamm, emphatically, in his enthusiasm for Bush-style regime change. Kamm remains single-minded in his campaign against far-left war opponents, but puzzlingly disengaged from the kind of soul-searching that Rieff and Fareed Zakaria have exhibited. Granted, Kamm's book has not been published and one mustn't oversimplify his historically grounded argument, laid out here.
First, an analytically and morally serious critique of liberal hawkism by Stephen Holmes at The Nation. Holmes reviews Paul Berman's Power and the Idealists and David Rieff's At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention. Here he is on Rieff:
Faced with the "appalling and degrading" conditions in postwar Iraq, where things were "worse than anything I was able to write about it," Rieff has felt compelled to reconsider his advocacy of US-led humanitarian intervention. What he discovered on his visits to Iraq was a collapsed state, not a liberated country.... Idealists who trumpeted a purely humanitarian case for invading Iraq should have known that their benevolent motives were not sufficient to trigger the war and were not going to govern the way the war and the occupation unfolded.
Many (but not all) liberal hawks began by supporting the war and ended up doubting it. I, on the other hand, began by opposing the war and ended up bitterly at odds with the antiwar movement—primarily the calls from more radical quarters to support the so-called "resistance." On this issue I am with the hawks one hundred percent. Dexter Filkins, the battle-hardened NY Times reporter, gives us the unvarnished truth about these fascistic death squads and their victims:
[Iraqi liberals] started newspapers, they organized political parties, they called meetings to start a national conversation. Some of them, surveying the psychological ruins that Hussein and his torturers had left behind, formed institutes to teach their countrymen how to think for themselves.
And now, today, many of these Iraqis, if not most of them, are dead. They have been shot, tortured, burned, disfigured, thrown into ditches, disappeared. Thousands of them: editors, lawyers, pamphleteers, men and women. In a remarkable campaign of civic destruction, the Baathists and Islamists who make up the insurgency located the intellectual heart of the nascent Iraqi democracy and, with gruesome precision, cut it out. As much as any single factor, the death of Iraq's political class explains the difficulties of the country's rebirth. The good guys are dead.
Remember this at your next antiwar demonstration. The Iraqi insurgents did this, not the U.S. military. And it's a dodge to shrug your shoulders and say, "It wouldn't have happened if we [the U.S.] weren't there." Because we are there, and it did happen. And some in the antiwar movement (George Galloway and company) continue to praise the insurgency as a "liberation struggle." If you care about the welfare of Iraqis, you condemn this garbage. Period.
That said, the title of Oliver Kamm's forthcoming book, Anti-Totalitarianism: The Left-Wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy, impels me to stress my deep differences with the liberal prowar camp. I've cited Kamm's brilliant attacks on antisemitism and knee-jerk Chomskyism and I'll continue to do so. But I part ways with Kamm, emphatically, in his enthusiasm for Bush-style regime change. Kamm remains single-minded in his campaign against far-left war opponents, but puzzlingly disengaged from the kind of soul-searching that Rieff and Fareed Zakaria have exhibited. Granted, Kamm's book has not been published and one mustn't oversimplify his historically grounded argument, laid out here.
Galloway update
Bad news for Galloway:GEORGE Galloway, the staunchly anti-war British MP, will be investigated by the United States Department of Justice for claims he lied to the Senate over Iraq oil money, The Business can reveal.
The Charities Commission in England and Wales has also requested documents which the US Senate permanent sub-committee for investigations says prove that illegal Iraqi oil money was laundered through a charity of which Galloway was a trustee. A dossier is being sent to Sir Philip Mawer, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who has a far broader remit to protect the reputation of the House of Commons and is expected to look into Galloway’s conduct as an MP.
And here's a comment from Greg Palast, the antiwar journalist whose courageous and principled stand against Galloway I have noted here and here. In a letter to the Workers' Liberty site (replying to this), Palast writes:
As someone who went to jail during the Seventies protesting the criminality of Nixon and Kissinger, I find it embarrassing that anyone calling themselves "Left" could flippantly support Saddam's monstrous Kissinger, Tariq Aziz who, with his Westernized upper-class manners and habits, charms us out of the fact that he was point-man, if not strategist, for murder of Kurds and other Iraqis by the thousands.
Today, American progressives demand Republicans denounce the criminal and immoral behavior of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney -- which I've worked hard to expose. We cannot hope to support our positions if we morally mirror the Right.
(Hat tip and graphic: Harry's)
Saturday, October 29, 2005
An ironclad defense
From Slate comes this:
Seven months after being sued by Ashley Olsen for running the cover headline "Ashley Olsen Caught In A Drug Scandal," the Enquirer has issued the following bogus "Clarification": "The National Enquirer wants to make clear to its readers that, by its cover and headlines, it did not intend to accuse Ms. Olsen of being involved in any drug scandal."
Friday, October 28, 2005
A "technicality"
"I certainly hope that, if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."
--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on Plamegate
"Something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray."
--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on the impeachment of Bill Clinton
Read more at TNR (sub required).
--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on Plamegate
"Something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray."
--Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) on the impeachment of Bill Clinton
Read more at TNR (sub required).
What's in a name...
A friend writes:
I was just going to mention something about your blog, and so I figured I'd find out what "lerter" meant because it sounds like some kind of something. I put it into Google and nothing much doing. Then I went to the language tools to try translating it. I thought maybe it's German, since it sounds kind of German, and tried that. Well, when you translate lerter from German to English, it is apparently "more lerter." So if you were to make your German blog in English, it might be morelerterland.
I was just going to mention something about your blog, and so I figured I'd find out what "lerter" meant because it sounds like some kind of something. I put it into Google and nothing much doing. Then I went to the language tools to try translating it. I thought maybe it's German, since it sounds kind of German, and tried that. Well, when you translate lerter from German to English, it is apparently "more lerter." So if you were to make your German blog in English, it might be morelerterland.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
2,000
Much has been said about this grim milestone: 2,000 U.S. forces dead in Iraq. Much has also been said about the Bushies' innumerable lies and blunders. Andres Kupfer, in the comments to this earlier post of mine, holds that these Americans did not die in vain, and he makes just about the only reasonable case left:
...my take on this is that of a utilitarian: the war was worth it because it liberated the Iraqi people, despite the moral flaws of Bush and Blair and despite their use of a liberation rethoric that made my ears ache at times.
The decision to go to war was of course inspired by self-interest, as most foreign policy is, but that doesn't invalidate the end result: the Iraqi people are not living under a tyrant any longer.
I agree that this outcome is not trivial, and the willingness of Iraqis to brave insurgent threats and go to the polls should still be celebrated. And yet even the hawkish Lawrence Kaplan has described the new Iraqi constitution as "an uninspiring document." It remains to be seen what will replace Baathism in Iraq for the long term. If Shiite ascendancy results in an Iraq/Iran alliance, this could spell trouble in light of Ahmadenijad's disgusting remarks on Israel. A theocratic Iraq, or an Iraq that pumps its revenues straight into Halliburton's coffers, is not much to celebrate. It beats mass graves, but it's a far cry from true and lasting liberation.
Yet I remain troubled by the stance of some in the antiwar movement who choose to view the insurgency as legitimate. In this commentary by Philip Weiss in New York magazine, a Gold Star mother named Tia Steele speaks about the loss of her stepson, David Branning. “David was shot in the throat by someone defending their country,” she said at a recent antiwar demo. I'll readily acknowledge that I have no business telling Steele how to understand her loss, but I will say this: Plunging Iraq deliberately into chaos and slaughtering indiscriminately is a strange way of "defending their country." (As I've noted before, Weiss's piece makes no mention of the nefarious role of ANSWER in today's antiwar movement.)
I think it's clear that U.S. troops need to leave Iraq. But everyone who advocates withdrawal needs to ponder what will follow.
...my take on this is that of a utilitarian: the war was worth it because it liberated the Iraqi people, despite the moral flaws of Bush and Blair and despite their use of a liberation rethoric that made my ears ache at times.
The decision to go to war was of course inspired by self-interest, as most foreign policy is, but that doesn't invalidate the end result: the Iraqi people are not living under a tyrant any longer.
I agree that this outcome is not trivial, and the willingness of Iraqis to brave insurgent threats and go to the polls should still be celebrated. And yet even the hawkish Lawrence Kaplan has described the new Iraqi constitution as "an uninspiring document." It remains to be seen what will replace Baathism in Iraq for the long term. If Shiite ascendancy results in an Iraq/Iran alliance, this could spell trouble in light of Ahmadenijad's disgusting remarks on Israel. A theocratic Iraq, or an Iraq that pumps its revenues straight into Halliburton's coffers, is not much to celebrate. It beats mass graves, but it's a far cry from true and lasting liberation.
Yet I remain troubled by the stance of some in the antiwar movement who choose to view the insurgency as legitimate. In this commentary by Philip Weiss in New York magazine, a Gold Star mother named Tia Steele speaks about the loss of her stepson, David Branning. “David was shot in the throat by someone defending their country,” she said at a recent antiwar demo. I'll readily acknowledge that I have no business telling Steele how to understand her loss, but I will say this: Plunging Iraq deliberately into chaos and slaughtering indiscriminately is a strange way of "defending their country." (As I've noted before, Weiss's piece makes no mention of the nefarious role of ANSWER in today's antiwar movement.)
I think it's clear that U.S. troops need to leave Iraq. But everyone who advocates withdrawal needs to ponder what will follow.
Appeasement on Darfur
Eric Reeves, by far the most diligent reporter on the Darfur genocide, paints a grim picture of U.S. appeasement in TNR (subscription required, but try it; some TNR pieces get through for a short time). It's just unbelievable:
Another sign of appeasement came in July, when the Washington firm C/R International, whose managing director is former State Department official Robert Cabelly, agreed on a contract with the Sudanese government. Because trade and economic sanctions put in place in 1997 by President Clinton remain in effect, the contract required an explicit waiver from the State Department, which it granted.
...
...the contract calls for the firm to "assist the Client in meeting its objectives, specifically regarding public relations, government relations and strategic counsel as they would relate to implementing the North-South peace agreement, cooperating in the war on terrorism, and addressing other issues, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement."
In short, the same vicious cabal in Khartoum that was explicitly declared by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to be responsible for genocide in Darfur has now been allowed to secure the services of a former State Department employee to provide it with p.r. counsel. For a fee of $530,000 per year, the firm's role will essentially be to put a happy face on a genocidal regime.
As is widely known, the U.S. is extremely interested in shoring up the recent peace agreement between Khartoum and the SPLA in the south. But according to Reeves, by appeasing the Sudanese government on Darfur, the Bush administration is actually weakening the North-South agreement as well. And it's making a mockery of Bush's "Not on My Watch" pledge.
Reeves is the man. Read him daily. Again, here's the link to his site.
Another sign of appeasement came in July, when the Washington firm C/R International, whose managing director is former State Department official Robert Cabelly, agreed on a contract with the Sudanese government. Because trade and economic sanctions put in place in 1997 by President Clinton remain in effect, the contract required an explicit waiver from the State Department, which it granted.
...
...the contract calls for the firm to "assist the Client in meeting its objectives, specifically regarding public relations, government relations and strategic counsel as they would relate to implementing the North-South peace agreement, cooperating in the war on terrorism, and addressing other issues, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement."
In short, the same vicious cabal in Khartoum that was explicitly declared by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to be responsible for genocide in Darfur has now been allowed to secure the services of a former State Department employee to provide it with p.r. counsel. For a fee of $530,000 per year, the firm's role will essentially be to put a happy face on a genocidal regime.
As is widely known, the U.S. is extremely interested in shoring up the recent peace agreement between Khartoum and the SPLA in the south. But according to Reeves, by appeasing the Sudanese government on Darfur, the Bush administration is actually weakening the North-South agreement as well. And it's making a mockery of Bush's "Not on My Watch" pledge.
Reeves is the man. Read him daily. Again, here's the link to his site.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
"Wiped off the map"
Staunch opponents of the Israeli occupation and advocates for Palestinian rights--I include myself in both categories--are right to critique the Israeli government when it cynically invokes anti-Semitism and security threats for political cover.
But this doesn't mean the threats aren't real. They are. And anti-Semitism continues to be a huge problem in the Middle East. Here is a post from Norman Geras highlighting repulsive anti-Jewish video clips produced in Syria and airing on Iranian TV.
Al Jazeera reports what Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told attendees at a Tehran conference called "The World Without Zionism":
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
...
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said. "Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
The article goes on to note the radical change in tone from Ahmadinejad's moderate predecessor, Mohammad Khatami. Let's not forget, this regime has nuclear ambitions.
Pro-Palestinian activists who aid and abet the hate ought to be ashamed.
(Hat tip: Harry's Place.)
But this doesn't mean the threats aren't real. They are. And anti-Semitism continues to be a huge problem in the Middle East. Here is a post from Norman Geras highlighting repulsive anti-Jewish video clips produced in Syria and airing on Iranian TV.
Al Jazeera reports what Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told attendees at a Tehran conference called "The World Without Zionism":
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.
...
"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said. "Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."
The article goes on to note the radical change in tone from Ahmadinejad's moderate predecessor, Mohammad Khatami. Let's not forget, this regime has nuclear ambitions.
Pro-Palestinian activists who aid and abet the hate ought to be ashamed.
(Hat tip: Harry's Place.)
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Gorgeous George goes down?
"Torturer in chief"
It takes a brave conservative to wave around a report from the ACLU, but that is what Andrew Sullivan is doing. The details are chilling:
The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.
According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”
The documents released today include 44 autopsies and death reports as well as a summary of autopsy reports of individuals apprehended in Iraq and Afghanistan. The documents show that detainees died during or after interrogations by Navy Seals, Military Intelligence and “OGA” (Other Governmental Agency) -- a term, according to the ACLU, that is commonly used to refer to the CIA.
According to the documents, 21 of the 44 deaths were homicides. Eight of the homicides appear to have resulted from abusive techniques used on detainees, in some instances, by the CIA, Navy Seals and Military Intelligence personnel. The autopsy reports list deaths by “strangulation,” “asphyxiation” and “blunt force injuries.” An overwhelming majority of the so-called “natural deaths” were attributed to “Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.”
Monday, October 24, 2005
When far left meets far right
Via Harry's, a link to a Worker's Liberty tirade against the scarcely believeable "Free Tariq Aziz" petition being circulated by George Galloway. Money quote:
A petition calling for freedom for Saddam Hussein’s right-hand man. Signed by professional anti-Zionists, Holocaust deniers, and representatives of the French New Right — and some people who think they represent the left. That’s what Galloway is sending later this year to “the UN, the British Government, and the American Congress.”
And via Engage, comments from Mark Gardner on Galloway's recent sit-down with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Prison Planet (which I've touched upon in this space). Gardner also links to this by Dave Rich -- a thorough analysis of the far-left/far-right convergence.
A petition calling for freedom for Saddam Hussein’s right-hand man. Signed by professional anti-Zionists, Holocaust deniers, and representatives of the French New Right — and some people who think they represent the left. That’s what Galloway is sending later this year to “the UN, the British Government, and the American Congress.”
And via Engage, comments from Mark Gardner on Galloway's recent sit-down with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Prison Planet (which I've touched upon in this space). Gardner also links to this by Dave Rich -- a thorough analysis of the far-left/far-right convergence.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
The trouble with the "liberal hawks"
"Liberal hawks" like Hitchens, Oliver Kamm and Paul Berman are much derided on the left for supporting the invasion of Iraq. I differ with them on this, but I back them fully in their case against Chomskyism, which tends to portray Islamist terror as an epiphenomenon of Western imperialism rather than a self-motivated totalitarian threat (one that disproportionately victimizes the very non-Westerners the Chomskyites claim to care about).
Here's the problem. The liberal hawks—including the bloggers at Harry's Place whom I admire and link to regularly—argue for a "pro-liberation" foreign policy that replaces Kissingerian "realism" with a more morally grounded interventionist ethic. There's much to be said for this view. But the hawks err in accepting the Bush administration's freedom-and-democracy rhetoric at face value. They fail to see that the current foreign policy is still cynical and "interests"-based, even if couched in the language of idealism. (Ironically, the administration's right-wing "realist" critics don't seem to grasp this either.)
That's not to say that the fall of Saddam shouldn't be applauded. But Hitchens, Kamm, et al., are far too quick to dismiss the antiwar case against Halliburton and the corporate greed and abuse that it represents.
Laura Secor, in her essay "The Giant in the House" (from The Fight is for Democracy, edited by George Packer), gets it right:
If we imagine that the United States is exceptional, that it represents universal interests, behaves altruistically, or commands an unrestrained right to intervene in the affairs of other states, we run the risk of deceiving ourselves, but we are unlikely to deceive anyone else. We may mistake what is at its best enlightened self-interest for an unbounded moral warrant for waging war. Moral authority cannot be arrogated on the basis of might, nor even of good intentions. The U.S. government justifiably declares Saddam Hussein a menace and Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal. But these claims and the equally justifiable ones that no American government will ever make will always be open to political challenge, because they spring from a political source. That does not mean that our government should stop making such claims. But it does mean that as critical observers of our country's foreign policy, we cannot calibrate our moral compasses to that of the Pentagon.
Here's the problem. The liberal hawks—including the bloggers at Harry's Place whom I admire and link to regularly—argue for a "pro-liberation" foreign policy that replaces Kissingerian "realism" with a more morally grounded interventionist ethic. There's much to be said for this view. But the hawks err in accepting the Bush administration's freedom-and-democracy rhetoric at face value. They fail to see that the current foreign policy is still cynical and "interests"-based, even if couched in the language of idealism. (Ironically, the administration's right-wing "realist" critics don't seem to grasp this either.)
That's not to say that the fall of Saddam shouldn't be applauded. But Hitchens, Kamm, et al., are far too quick to dismiss the antiwar case against Halliburton and the corporate greed and abuse that it represents.
Laura Secor, in her essay "The Giant in the House" (from The Fight is for Democracy, edited by George Packer), gets it right:
If we imagine that the United States is exceptional, that it represents universal interests, behaves altruistically, or commands an unrestrained right to intervene in the affairs of other states, we run the risk of deceiving ourselves, but we are unlikely to deceive anyone else. We may mistake what is at its best enlightened self-interest for an unbounded moral warrant for waging war. Moral authority cannot be arrogated on the basis of might, nor even of good intentions. The U.S. government justifiably declares Saddam Hussein a menace and Slobodan Milosevic a war criminal. But these claims and the equally justifiable ones that no American government will ever make will always be open to political challenge, because they spring from a political source. That does not mean that our government should stop making such claims. But it does mean that as critical observers of our country's foreign policy, we cannot calibrate our moral compasses to that of the Pentagon.
Resistance or terror?
Friday, October 21, 2005
An evening with Rzewski
The subject of last night’s “composer portraits” at the Miller Theater (Columbia U.) was Frederic Rzewski (pronounced "jehv-ski"), a Massachusetts-born expatriate now in his late 60s, a pianist as well as a composer. Pointedly political for many years, Rzewski wrote his solo piano tour de force “The People United Will Never Be Defeated” in 1975, and last night the formidable Marilyn Nonken (Ph.D. in musicology) went at this 50-minute theme and variations with extraordinary command. The performance included a new cadenza by Ethan Iverson, the jazz pianist and co-leader of The Bad Plus—a trio I wrote about in February ’05 for The New Republic.
But the evening began with the New York premiere of the 2004 work “Bring Them Home,” for two pianos (Nonken and Ursula Oppens) and two percussionists (Tom Kolor and Dominic Donato). This piece, too, was performed to dazzling effect; it commenced with the piano lids shut, and both pianists tapping percussion on their bodies.
Rzewski is a man to push buttons, and he did so in a pre-concert talk with the writer and composer Kyle Gann. (He also did his damnedest to make the interviewer appear a fool, but Gann came through it OK.) Discussing the 17th-century Irish song “Siuil, A Run” (pronounced shool-a-roon), on which “Bring Them Home” is based, Rzewski touched briefly on the American Revolution and Shays’ Rebellion (1786-87). He spoke of the struggle between King George III and George Washington, but kept referring to the latter as “George W.”—petty, tendentious and unsurprising from an admirer of the overrated Howard Zinn, to whom Rzewski also made a de rigueur reference.
One can look dimly on President Bush and his Iraq debacle and still distrust bumper-sticker slogans like “Bring Them Home.” There was nothing simplistic, however, about Rzewski’s creation. Vibraphone, marimba, glockenspiel, field drum, snare drum, various whirligigs, dense but dynamically varied counterpoint from the pianos, finely honed communication between the four players: The piece was masterful.
“The People United” was a stark spectacle, with Nonken seated at the piano while Sergio Ortega’s “¡El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido!” played over the PA system. After roughly two minutes of this martial minor-key theme, Nonken launched into Rzewski’s 36 rigorously structured variations. Some stuck close to the melody; others sailed to the deepest ocean, with the shoreline of the theme receding into the distance. Nonken was virtuosic, committed, boundlessly expressive. In two places she literally cried out in a pained staccato (a device apparently called for in the score), piercing the air with a dagger of tension. Iverson’s cadenza was seamlessly integrated, a searching and insistent commentary.
The musical victory of “The People United” is total; its political import is more ambiguous. In the crowd chant of the Ortega song, one can hear either the cry of freedom or the sort of populist furor that leads to authoritarianism. The context of the song is resistance to Pinochet and the fight against Latin American fascism in general. Opposition to these evils should be celebrated. But the socialist alternatives have ranged from promising to horrific. There seems to be little introspection on this point among Rzewski and other protest-minded artists, such as Charlie Haden—who, as Iverson reminds us, included his own brief arrangement of “The People United” on the 1982 album Ballad of the Fallen (ECM).
It is bewildering to read Haden, in the liner notes to the Liberation Music Orchestra’s 1969 debut, call for “a world without war and killing” only to lionize Che Guevara on the very same album. Paul Berman has described Che as “an extreme dogmatist, instinctively authoritarian, allergic to any democratic or libertarian impulses, quick to order executions, and quicker still to lead his own comrades to their deaths in doomed guerrilla wars.” Read more here and here.
Like Haden, Rzewski can be not just provocative but exasperating. Musically, however, he has few rivals.
But the evening began with the New York premiere of the 2004 work “Bring Them Home,” for two pianos (Nonken and Ursula Oppens) and two percussionists (Tom Kolor and Dominic Donato). This piece, too, was performed to dazzling effect; it commenced with the piano lids shut, and both pianists tapping percussion on their bodies.
Rzewski is a man to push buttons, and he did so in a pre-concert talk with the writer and composer Kyle Gann. (He also did his damnedest to make the interviewer appear a fool, but Gann came through it OK.) Discussing the 17th-century Irish song “Siuil, A Run” (pronounced shool-a-roon), on which “Bring Them Home” is based, Rzewski touched briefly on the American Revolution and Shays’ Rebellion (1786-87). He spoke of the struggle between King George III and George Washington, but kept referring to the latter as “George W.”—petty, tendentious and unsurprising from an admirer of the overrated Howard Zinn, to whom Rzewski also made a de rigueur reference.
One can look dimly on President Bush and his Iraq debacle and still distrust bumper-sticker slogans like “Bring Them Home.” There was nothing simplistic, however, about Rzewski’s creation. Vibraphone, marimba, glockenspiel, field drum, snare drum, various whirligigs, dense but dynamically varied counterpoint from the pianos, finely honed communication between the four players: The piece was masterful.
“The People United” was a stark spectacle, with Nonken seated at the piano while Sergio Ortega’s “¡El Pueblo Unido Jamás Será Vencido!” played over the PA system. After roughly two minutes of this martial minor-key theme, Nonken launched into Rzewski’s 36 rigorously structured variations. Some stuck close to the melody; others sailed to the deepest ocean, with the shoreline of the theme receding into the distance. Nonken was virtuosic, committed, boundlessly expressive. In two places she literally cried out in a pained staccato (a device apparently called for in the score), piercing the air with a dagger of tension. Iverson’s cadenza was seamlessly integrated, a searching and insistent commentary.
The musical victory of “The People United” is total; its political import is more ambiguous. In the crowd chant of the Ortega song, one can hear either the cry of freedom or the sort of populist furor that leads to authoritarianism. The context of the song is resistance to Pinochet and the fight against Latin American fascism in general. Opposition to these evils should be celebrated. But the socialist alternatives have ranged from promising to horrific. There seems to be little introspection on this point among Rzewski and other protest-minded artists, such as Charlie Haden—who, as Iverson reminds us, included his own brief arrangement of “The People United” on the 1982 album Ballad of the Fallen (ECM).
It is bewildering to read Haden, in the liner notes to the Liberation Music Orchestra’s 1969 debut, call for “a world without war and killing” only to lionize Che Guevara on the very same album. Paul Berman has described Che as “an extreme dogmatist, instinctively authoritarian, allergic to any democratic or libertarian impulses, quick to order executions, and quicker still to lead his own comrades to their deaths in doomed guerrilla wars.” Read more here and here.
Like Haden, Rzewski can be not just provocative but exasperating. Musically, however, he has few rivals.
Tom DeLay's mug shot
Is here. I have to say I'm a little disappointed. They didn't make him hold that ID plaque in front of his chest.
Chomsky's dismal record on the KR
Pursuant to my 10/19 post on Chomsky, there's this from Shalom Lappin, posting on Normblog:
For some reason [Chomsky's] admirers, like [Robin] Blackburn, see no difficulty in recommending him to us as a latter-day oracle, despite his defence of the Khmer Rouge regime in the late 1970's, and his subsequent refusal to address this episode when the facts on the ground rendered his initial views too embarrassing to sustain.
**Update: Here is Oliver Kamm on Chomsky's shameless distortion of a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
For some reason [Chomsky's] admirers, like [Robin] Blackburn, see no difficulty in recommending him to us as a latter-day oracle, despite his defence of the Khmer Rouge regime in the late 1970's, and his subsequent refusal to address this episode when the facts on the ground rendered his initial views too embarrassing to sustain.
**Update: Here is Oliver Kamm on Chomsky's shameless distortion of a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
True Colors (cue Cyndi Lauper)
Syrian President Bashar Assad threatened former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri with "physical harm" last summer if Hariri challenged Assad's dominance over Lebanese political life....
-- Washington Post, March 25, 2005
The United Nations investigation into the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon is focusing on the powerful brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as the main suspect, a diplomat with intimate knowledge of the inquiry said Thursday.
-- New York Times, October 20, 2005
I was very impressed by his knowledge, by his sharpness, by his flexible mind. I was very, very impressed… Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President.
-- George Galloway MP, July 8, 2005
-- Washington Post, March 25, 2005
The United Nations investigation into the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon is focusing on the powerful brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as the main suspect, a diplomat with intimate knowledge of the inquiry said Thursday.
-- New York Times, October 20, 2005
I was very impressed by his knowledge, by his sharpness, by his flexible mind. I was very, very impressed… Syria is lucky to have Bashar al-Assad as her President.
-- George Galloway MP, July 8, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Beheading Buddhists
Via Sullivan, a report on Islamist terror against Buddhists in the south of Thailand. A direct result of the evils of U.S. foreign policy. Not.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Bell Curve
Stephen Metcalf raps Andrew Sullivan for defending the racist pseudo-science of The Bell Curve, still. Sullivan deserves it. He's an incredibly important voice in today's political debate, but he's curiously blind on this, and frankly, an embarrassment.
Chomsky pro and con
The excellent Prospect magazine (not to be confused with American Prospect) conducted a poll on the world's top public intellectuals. Noam Chomsky took top honors. Prospect's November edition includes these pro and con arguments from Robin Blackburn and Oliver Kamm, respectively. I'm with Kamm.
Chomsky's victory, according to Blackburn, "shows that thinking people are still attracted by the critical impulse...." I believe it shows the opposite. If Chomsky's ardent followers are "critical" in spirit, why do they flock to his lectures like sheep and accept his arguments at face value?
As Kamm points out, when the U.S. attacked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in late 2001, Chomsky argued that "plans are being made and programmes implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks…." Instead, the fall of the Taliban led to the largest repatriation of Afghan refugees in 30 years, as Paul Berman notes in his 2003 book Terror and Liberalism.
One can certainly argue that U.S. policy toward Afghanistan merits scathing critique. But the ouster of the Taliban did not lead to the deaths of several million people. So why is Chomsky still taken seriously?
Chomsky's victory, according to Blackburn, "shows that thinking people are still attracted by the critical impulse...." I believe it shows the opposite. If Chomsky's ardent followers are "critical" in spirit, why do they flock to his lectures like sheep and accept his arguments at face value?
As Kamm points out, when the U.S. attacked the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in late 2001, Chomsky argued that "plans are being made and programmes implemented on the assumption that they may lead to the death of several million people in the next couple of weeks…." Instead, the fall of the Taliban led to the largest repatriation of Afghan refugees in 30 years, as Paul Berman notes in his 2003 book Terror and Liberalism.
One can certainly argue that U.S. policy toward Afghanistan merits scathing critique. But the ouster of the Taliban did not lead to the deaths of several million people. So why is Chomsky still taken seriously?
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Not enough aid; racism rears its head
There has been an underwhelming charitable response to the Pakistan/Kashmir/India earthquake. I know it's soon after Katrina but dig in your pockets and give, folks. The UN World Food Program is a good place to start.
At this point I will link to an anti-Hitchens site I don't much care for—I disagree with Hitchens on plenty but "Christopher Hitchens Watch" tends to wallow in reverse O'Reillyism. However, they have rightly called out some of the commenters on Little Green Footballs for making disgusting, bigoted statements about the earthquake victims:
#50 Leper 10/9/2005 04:48PM PDT
The Muslims just had a 7.8 Ramadan celebration from Mother Earth. Hopefully they'll have an 8.5 soon.
#54 whiterasta 10/9/2005 04:50PM PDT
...
Just being a member of the muslim death cult means one has diminished mental abilities.
I truly believe that islam is a manifestation of mental illness.
71 trigger girlie 10/8/2005 06:16PM PDT
Let's see, how much money should I send to the people who want my country annihilated and my people dead?...Oh, wait, NONE!
Call me cold hearted, they are not getting my money. Unfortunately, I have to work with Pakis on a daily basis, and there's nothing good about them.
This needs to be exposed and condemned. Just as anti-Zionists must never grant political legitimacy to anti-Semites who infiltrate their ranks, those of us who share Hitchens's contempt for jihadism and its apologists must vocally denounce the kind of hate speech quoted above.
But actions speak louder than words. Give to earthquake relief.
At this point I will link to an anti-Hitchens site I don't much care for—I disagree with Hitchens on plenty but "Christopher Hitchens Watch" tends to wallow in reverse O'Reillyism. However, they have rightly called out some of the commenters on Little Green Footballs for making disgusting, bigoted statements about the earthquake victims:
#50 Leper 10/9/2005 04:48PM PDT
The Muslims just had a 7.8 Ramadan celebration from Mother Earth. Hopefully they'll have an 8.5 soon.
#54 whiterasta 10/9/2005 04:50PM PDT
...
Just being a member of the muslim death cult means one has diminished mental abilities.
I truly believe that islam is a manifestation of mental illness.
71 trigger girlie 10/8/2005 06:16PM PDT
Let's see, how much money should I send to the people who want my country annihilated and my people dead?...Oh, wait, NONE!
Call me cold hearted, they are not getting my money. Unfortunately, I have to work with Pakis on a daily basis, and there's nothing good about them.
This needs to be exposed and condemned. Just as anti-Zionists must never grant political legitimacy to anti-Semites who infiltrate their ranks, those of us who share Hitchens's contempt for jihadism and its apologists must vocally denounce the kind of hate speech quoted above.
But actions speak louder than words. Give to earthquake relief.
Not rocket science
In this week's New Yorker, George Packer lays out what every Democratic candidate should be saying in the run-up to 2006:
A Democratic manifesto that unites the Party’s own diverse factions would begin as a referendum on the ruling party: the White House and Congress have handed government over to corrupt interests, and, in so doing, the Republicans have betrayed basic American principles of honesty, competence, and fairness. There is no reason for Democrats to be on the defensive about moral values. On issue after issue, government by cronyism and corruption has sacrificed the interests of the middle class to those of the Administration’s wealthy friends. The deepening inequality in American life threatens families and democracy, and it is neither natural nor inevitable.
...
Energy: The Republicans have made America more dependent on foreign oil while gas prices are skyrocketing; the Democrats will push for energy independence. Health care: The Republicans have allowed private companies to eliminate choice while costs go up and millions of Americans lack insurance; the Democrats will enact national coverage that restores choice and holds down costs. Taxes: The Republicans have shifted the burden from the top to the middle; the Democrats will reverse that trend, and will end the Administration’s ruinous fiscal policies. National security: Republican incompetence has squandered our power abroad and failed to make us more secure at home, as the country learned after Katrina; the Democrats will rebuild the armed forces—making it at least possible for the Iraq insurgency to be defeated—and bring competence to homeland security.
A Democratic manifesto that unites the Party’s own diverse factions would begin as a referendum on the ruling party: the White House and Congress have handed government over to corrupt interests, and, in so doing, the Republicans have betrayed basic American principles of honesty, competence, and fairness. There is no reason for Democrats to be on the defensive about moral values. On issue after issue, government by cronyism and corruption has sacrificed the interests of the middle class to those of the Administration’s wealthy friends. The deepening inequality in American life threatens families and democracy, and it is neither natural nor inevitable.
...
Energy: The Republicans have made America more dependent on foreign oil while gas prices are skyrocketing; the Democrats will push for energy independence. Health care: The Republicans have allowed private companies to eliminate choice while costs go up and millions of Americans lack insurance; the Democrats will enact national coverage that restores choice and holds down costs. Taxes: The Republicans have shifted the burden from the top to the middle; the Democrats will reverse that trend, and will end the Administration’s ruinous fiscal policies. National security: Republican incompetence has squandered our power abroad and failed to make us more secure at home, as the country learned after Katrina; the Democrats will rebuild the armed forces—making it at least possible for the Iraq insurgency to be defeated—and bring competence to homeland security.
Jihad and the left
Interesting piece by Steven Erlanger in today's NY Times about the power struggle in post-withdrawal Gaza between clans (or hamullas) and the Palestinian political factions, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah (or the PA). Money quote is the final graf:
Both Fatah and even the leftist parties, like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are reverting to Islamist terminology, said Mr. [Hani] Habib, the political analyst. "The movement is in trouble and now must leave that style of secularism," he said. "The language now is Hamas language. The leftist factions talk it, even if they don't realize it. Even the left is now calling its 'resistance' a 'jihad.' "
The boundary between "secular" and jihadist forces is blurring -- and one could even say the process is being mirrored in far-left circles in the U.S. and the UK (among ANSWER, SWP and Stop the War forces, which have all signed on with the Iraqi "resistance").
Hitchens makes a related point about Iraq under Saddam:
The Saddam Hussein regime was based on a minority of a minority—a Mafia clique based in and around the city of Tikrit—and it stayed in power not by being "secular" or multiethnic but by being sectarian and by playing the card of divide and rule.
There's an antiwar argument that goes like this: The Hussein regime was by definition anti-jihadist because "secular." It's true up to a point. But like the PFLP (see above), Saddam used the rhetoric of jihadism when it suited him politically. Lest we forget, he added the words "Allahu Akbar" to the Iraqi flag prior to the first Gulf War.
**Update: Let me add that "Allahu Akbar" is not in itself "the rhetoric of jihadism," but when added to a national flag by a ruthless dictator, that is exactly what it is.
Both Fatah and even the leftist parties, like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, are reverting to Islamist terminology, said Mr. [Hani] Habib, the political analyst. "The movement is in trouble and now must leave that style of secularism," he said. "The language now is Hamas language. The leftist factions talk it, even if they don't realize it. Even the left is now calling its 'resistance' a 'jihad.' "
The boundary between "secular" and jihadist forces is blurring -- and one could even say the process is being mirrored in far-left circles in the U.S. and the UK (among ANSWER, SWP and Stop the War forces, which have all signed on with the Iraqi "resistance").
Hitchens makes a related point about Iraq under Saddam:
The Saddam Hussein regime was based on a minority of a minority—a Mafia clique based in and around the city of Tikrit—and it stayed in power not by being "secular" or multiethnic but by being sectarian and by playing the card of divide and rule.
There's an antiwar argument that goes like this: The Hussein regime was by definition anti-jihadist because "secular." It's true up to a point. But like the PFLP (see above), Saddam used the rhetoric of jihadism when it suited him politically. Lest we forget, he added the words "Allahu Akbar" to the Iraqi flag prior to the first Gulf War.
**Update: Let me add that "Allahu Akbar" is not in itself "the rhetoric of jihadism," but when added to a national flag by a ruthless dictator, that is exactly what it is.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Mugabe on Hitler/Mugabe as Hitler
Oh, this is rich. Robert Mugabe at a UN meeting in Rome, referring to Bush and Blair:
Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed their unholy alliance, formed an alliance to attack an innocent country?
But what's so bad about Hitler? Here's Mugabe on March 21, 2003:
This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources...if that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times Hitler, that is what we stand for.
(Hat tip: Harry's Place, plus Damian P. in the comments. See also Nat Hentoff in the Voice.)
Must we allow these men, the two unholy men of our millennium, who in the same way as Hitler and Mussolini formed their unholy alliance, formed an alliance to attack an innocent country?
But what's so bad about Hitler? Here's Mugabe on March 21, 2003:
This Hitler has only one objective: justice for his people, sovereignty for his people, recognition of the independence of his people and their rights over their resources...if that is Hitler, then let me be a Hitler tenfold. Ten times Hitler, that is what we stand for.
(Hat tip: Harry's Place, plus Damian P. in the comments. See also Nat Hentoff in the Voice.)
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Where Wings Take Dream
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Ari Hoenig on DVD
We critics and editors should start considering DVDs along with CDs when making our poll choices, monthly best-of lists and whatever else. Now we've got DVDs banished to little box items, maybe two a month, somehow not warranting the kind of attention we give to CDs.
Ari Hoenig's Kinetic Hues (Smalls Records) is fantastically filmed and grippingly performed by the drummer with pianist Jean-Michel Pilc, tenorist Jacques Schwarz-Bart and bassist Matt Penman. (That's Philadelphian, French, part-Jewish French Caribbean and New Zealander.) My TV has iffy audio and still this thing sounds incredible, so if you've got better gear it will bore a hole in your skull (in a good way). Recorded on 9/12/03, this video and this music capture something special about the scene at Fat Cat and this area of Manhattan more generally.
Not to say that all DVDs are good. I was disappointed with the Vinny Golia Large Ensemble 20th Anniversary Concert disc from Nine Winds—music good, filming and editing execrable. Peter Bernstein's Live At Smoke from Mel Bay is much better; the filming doesn't rise to the level of Kinetic Hues but it's solid. I just wish Peter had played more intros (much as I love Larry Goldings's intros). Fresh Sound's DVD companion to the great two-CD The Sound of New York Jazz Underground is interesting for interviews and NY scene footage, but the in-studio music clips have no bass—Fernando Huergo was going direct. Head straight to the CD for the music; on the film it's well ruined.
Did I mention Ari Hoenig's DVD is incredible? So is Bireli Lagrene's Live Jazz A Vienne from Dreyfus. Holidays are coming, folks.
Ari Hoenig's Kinetic Hues (Smalls Records) is fantastically filmed and grippingly performed by the drummer with pianist Jean-Michel Pilc, tenorist Jacques Schwarz-Bart and bassist Matt Penman. (That's Philadelphian, French, part-Jewish French Caribbean and New Zealander.) My TV has iffy audio and still this thing sounds incredible, so if you've got better gear it will bore a hole in your skull (in a good way). Recorded on 9/12/03, this video and this music capture something special about the scene at Fat Cat and this area of Manhattan more generally.
Not to say that all DVDs are good. I was disappointed with the Vinny Golia Large Ensemble 20th Anniversary Concert disc from Nine Winds—music good, filming and editing execrable. Peter Bernstein's Live At Smoke from Mel Bay is much better; the filming doesn't rise to the level of Kinetic Hues but it's solid. I just wish Peter had played more intros (much as I love Larry Goldings's intros). Fresh Sound's DVD companion to the great two-CD The Sound of New York Jazz Underground is interesting for interviews and NY scene footage, but the in-studio music clips have no bass—Fernando Huergo was going direct. Head straight to the CD for the music; on the film it's well ruined.
Did I mention Ari Hoenig's DVD is incredible? So is Bireli Lagrene's Live Jazz A Vienne from Dreyfus. Holidays are coming, folks.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Jazz is dead?
I went to the Canal Room last night, mainly because I have a piece pending in Slate about hip-hop's "hidden" influence on jazz, in which I discuss the work of pianist Robert Glasper. The Canal Room event was in part a 15th anniversary celebration for Giant Step, the underground dance party series turned "internationally respected brand." The Brit superstar DJ Gilles Peterson was on the bill, and so was Glasper.
Peterson did a fantastic DJ set, during which I had the good fortune of being pressed against the booth, practically staring him in the face. Never have I had a closer look at DJing as an art form. At one point, Peterson had people dancing in fast 6/8 time. A master of delayed gratification, he'd create atmospherics and merely hint at the beat for a while, finally unleashing a wave of crushing bass that would send the room into a frenzy.
But here's what happened right after Peterson's set. As his last track played, Gilles took to the front stage and announced Robert Glasper's trio as the track faded out. The segue was immediate: from Peterson's cutting-edge dance music to Glasper's "Jelly's Da Beener," from his new Blue Note disc Canvas. (Vicenter Archer played bass, Damion Reid drums.) The crowd turned to face front, listened attentively and enthusiastically, applauded every solo and even moved their bodies the same way they did to the DJ stuff. Bear in mind, Glasper did not modify his music to cater to this crowd. He was playing exactly what he'll be playing in early November at the Village Vanguard. The second tune, faster and more intense, featured Casey Benjamin on alto sax and Keyon Harrold on trumpet. Same thing: The crowd loved it.
Glasper's trio served as the house band for the night, backing the singers Jasmine Sullivan, Dwele and others. Now, not every jazz musician is this deeply ensconced in the world of hip-hop and R&B, so Giant Step offers someone like Glasper a unique and somewhat anomolous opportunity. But what it shows is that given the chance, jazz musicians can appeal to a broader audience without changing what they do. And audiences deserve a little more credit than we in the jazz world tend to think.
Granted, a sophisticated dance crowd is probably more receptive to jazz than most. But the memory of this event will inspire me for some time. Boundaries disappeared. And the notion that jazz is dead, or stagnating, was decisively refuted.
Peterson did a fantastic DJ set, during which I had the good fortune of being pressed against the booth, practically staring him in the face. Never have I had a closer look at DJing as an art form. At one point, Peterson had people dancing in fast 6/8 time. A master of delayed gratification, he'd create atmospherics and merely hint at the beat for a while, finally unleashing a wave of crushing bass that would send the room into a frenzy.
But here's what happened right after Peterson's set. As his last track played, Gilles took to the front stage and announced Robert Glasper's trio as the track faded out. The segue was immediate: from Peterson's cutting-edge dance music to Glasper's "Jelly's Da Beener," from his new Blue Note disc Canvas. (Vicenter Archer played bass, Damion Reid drums.) The crowd turned to face front, listened attentively and enthusiastically, applauded every solo and even moved their bodies the same way they did to the DJ stuff. Bear in mind, Glasper did not modify his music to cater to this crowd. He was playing exactly what he'll be playing in early November at the Village Vanguard. The second tune, faster and more intense, featured Casey Benjamin on alto sax and Keyon Harrold on trumpet. Same thing: The crowd loved it.
Glasper's trio served as the house band for the night, backing the singers Jasmine Sullivan, Dwele and others. Now, not every jazz musician is this deeply ensconced in the world of hip-hop and R&B, so Giant Step offers someone like Glasper a unique and somewhat anomolous opportunity. But what it shows is that given the chance, jazz musicians can appeal to a broader audience without changing what they do. And audiences deserve a little more credit than we in the jazz world tend to think.
Granted, a sophisticated dance crowd is probably more receptive to jazz than most. But the memory of this event will inspire me for some time. Boundaries disappeared. And the notion that jazz is dead, or stagnating, was decisively refuted.
"No more public scatology"
A curious item on the Harriet Miers/Dubya correspondence from TNR. I'm almost impressed that Bush knows the word "scatology."
Celebs on politics
Jacob Weisberg has a good Slate piece about what happens when celebrities, politicians and corporations get "socially conscious." Money quotes:
If Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, Hollywood is Washington for the lazy.
...
When they have no idea what to do, celebs tell other people to tell other people what to do.
If Washington is Hollywood for ugly people, Hollywood is Washington for the lazy.
...
When they have no idea what to do, celebs tell other people to tell other people what to do.
Sullivan hacked
Some cretin with the tag "revie_perizh" has hacked Andrew Sullivan's website. Clearly we're all in the dark ages when it comes to cyber-security.
Good luck, Andrew. Hope you're able to resolve it soon.
**Update: Resolved. That's a relief.
Good luck, Andrew. Hope you're able to resolve it soon.
**Update: Resolved. That's a relief.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Monday, October 10, 2005
American misdeeds watch
Sullivan makes two important comments today. First, about For God and Country, the new book by James Yee, former U.S. Army chaplain at Gitmo. Falsely accused by the military of colluding with al Qaeda, Yee now tells of routine tactical desecration of the Koran by American interrogators and guards. Sullivan quotes Yee:
I never heard of an incident where a detainee hid anything dangerous in the Koran; doing so would be considered an insult. Yet the guards shook the prisoners’ Korans violently, broke bindings, ripped pages and dropped the book on the floor, all on the pretext of searching them... Translators with the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) also confirmed that some prisoners were forced to prostrate themselves in the centre of a satanic circle lit with candles. Interrogators shouted at them, 'Satan is your God, not Allah! Repeat that after me!'
Then Sullivan adds:
I'm waiting for Michelle Malkin and Heather Mac Donald [sic] to describe all of this - which verifies widespread abuse of the Koran at Gitmo - as enemy propaganda. It isn't. It's true. Yee knew the truth which was partly why he was disgracefully framed and smeared by the Pentagon.
An important corollary to this: Matt Cooper's Newsweek report of several months ago, so roundly condemned by conservatives, was retracted because it was inadequately sourced, not because it was false. On the contrary, now that we have Yee on record, it appears that it was accurate.
In other news, Sullivan reports that the operator of the Iraqi-corpses-for-porn website has been arrested. "The deeper question is: why hasn't the military disciplined those soldiers who violated the Geneva Conventions?" Don't hold your breath.
I never heard of an incident where a detainee hid anything dangerous in the Koran; doing so would be considered an insult. Yet the guards shook the prisoners’ Korans violently, broke bindings, ripped pages and dropped the book on the floor, all on the pretext of searching them... Translators with the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) also confirmed that some prisoners were forced to prostrate themselves in the centre of a satanic circle lit with candles. Interrogators shouted at them, 'Satan is your God, not Allah! Repeat that after me!'
Then Sullivan adds:
I'm waiting for Michelle Malkin and Heather Mac Donald [sic] to describe all of this - which verifies widespread abuse of the Koran at Gitmo - as enemy propaganda. It isn't. It's true. Yee knew the truth which was partly why he was disgracefully framed and smeared by the Pentagon.
An important corollary to this: Matt Cooper's Newsweek report of several months ago, so roundly condemned by conservatives, was retracted because it was inadequately sourced, not because it was false. On the contrary, now that we have Yee on record, it appears that it was accurate.
In other news, Sullivan reports that the operator of the Iraqi-corpses-for-porn website has been arrested. "The deeper question is: why hasn't the military disciplined those soldiers who violated the Geneva Conventions?" Don't hold your breath.
The earthquake
The news from Pakistani Kashmir is unbearable. I have no words. Here is a list of relief resources via the NY Times.
Many of the same nonprofits are probably handling Guatemalan relief efforts as well, in the wake of last week's mudslides. Entire towns have been buried and abandoned as mass graves. Just try to imagine it.
Many of the same nonprofits are probably handling Guatemalan relief efforts as well, in the wake of last week's mudslides. Entire towns have been buried and abandoned as mass graves. Just try to imagine it.
Did you ever notice...
... that hippy-dippy New Age ideas don't make people more sensitive and thoughtful, but rather more flakey and self-involved?
Saturday, October 08, 2005
The far left in focus
Marc Cooper's Oct. 7 post ("Dead Serious") is a must-read.
It's all too easy to laugh off the NYC subway terror threat as convenient right-wing hysteria, Cooper argues. I'm a subway-riding New Yorker (often four times a day) and I couldn't agree more, though I always counsel against the illusion that any sort of warning will precede terror's return to NYC, or that any amount of vigilance can guarantee safety.
Back to Cooper, who proceeds to rip to shreds the far left's facile pronouncements about U.S. foreign policy causing terrorism. His first target is Cindy Sheehan, who spoke with Joshua Frank of Counterpunch (which has become a veritable sewage-pipe of left anti-Semitism—more of that in a moment). Sheehan told Frank:
I think that US foreign policy is totally responsible for 9/11, as well as the recent bombings in London.
Got that? "Totally" responsible. Cooper retorts:
Belief in an extremist religious world view is what produced 9/11. And the London bombings were the work of similar, cold-blooded fanatics -- and not the handiwork of Bush and Blair (however much you might rightfully dislike them).
The last point is crucial: Unlike the American right wing, Cooper and those of us who passionately share his view are not defending Bush. Nor are we bashing Sheehan simply for opposing the war, or "harming the troops," or anything of the sort. We are taking her to task for her party-line, utterly predictable far-left moonbattery.
Cooper also links to this absolutely necessary piece of analysis from Sasha Abramsky at openDemocracy.net. Abramsky bloodies the noses of George Galloway, John Pilger and the rest of the crew that Sheehan dutifully parrots:
They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.
...
Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings.
The arguments of the anti-apologist left are spreading, with ever increasing clarity and force. It is thrilling to see.
Oh, yes, about Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn's disreputable little rag. Visit the homepage and you'll see an ad for Michael Neumann's new book, The Case Against Israel. This is the same Michael Neumann who was mercilessly exposed, by David Hirsh of Engage, as a fellow traveler of the virulently anti-Semitic Jewish Tribal Review (Google it yourself; I will not link to it). In an unctuous e-mail exchange with the racist slime merchants, Neumann wrote: "I know you’re [sic] site and it’s brilliantly done." It gets much, much better from there. Read Hirsh's piece; you'll be glad you did.
How nice to see that Counterpunch is publishing Neumann's reflections in book form. Cockburn also likes to circulate the rants of Gilad Atzmon, the London-based jazz saxophonist and tireless Jew-hater, another of Hirsh's targets and the subject of my guest column in Jazz Times magazine, Oct. '05. Go here to download a pdf.
We've come up against this question before: Is Cindy Sheehan anti-Semitic? She's certainly been accused of it; I've always been skeptical. But that isn't really the point. In all likelihood she's unaware of the bilge that Counterpunch has been publishing of late. But that's where her wrongheaded remarks are appearing. It's distressing that a woman so hugely popular within the antiwar movement, even among mainstream war critics, is lending legitimacy to Cockburn's despicable project.
**Update: Welcome, Engage readers! And thanks for the link.
It's all too easy to laugh off the NYC subway terror threat as convenient right-wing hysteria, Cooper argues. I'm a subway-riding New Yorker (often four times a day) and I couldn't agree more, though I always counsel against the illusion that any sort of warning will precede terror's return to NYC, or that any amount of vigilance can guarantee safety.
Back to Cooper, who proceeds to rip to shreds the far left's facile pronouncements about U.S. foreign policy causing terrorism. His first target is Cindy Sheehan, who spoke with Joshua Frank of Counterpunch (which has become a veritable sewage-pipe of left anti-Semitism—more of that in a moment). Sheehan told Frank:
I think that US foreign policy is totally responsible for 9/11, as well as the recent bombings in London.
Got that? "Totally" responsible. Cooper retorts:
Belief in an extremist religious world view is what produced 9/11. And the London bombings were the work of similar, cold-blooded fanatics -- and not the handiwork of Bush and Blair (however much you might rightfully dislike them).
The last point is crucial: Unlike the American right wing, Cooper and those of us who passionately share his view are not defending Bush. Nor are we bashing Sheehan simply for opposing the war, or "harming the troops," or anything of the sort. We are taking her to task for her party-line, utterly predictable far-left moonbattery.
Cooper also links to this absolutely necessary piece of analysis from Sasha Abramsky at openDemocracy.net. Abramsky bloodies the noses of George Galloway, John Pilger and the rest of the crew that Sheehan dutifully parrots:
They assume that groups like al-Qaida are almost entirely reactive, responding to western policies and actions, rather than being pro-active creatures with a virulent homegrown agenda, one not just of defence but of conquest, destruction of rivals, and, ultimately and at its most megalomaniacal, absolute subjugation.
...
Simply blaming the never quite defined, yet implicitly all-powerful “west” for the ills of the world doesn’t explain why al-Qaida slaughtered thousands of Americans eighteen months before Saddam was overthrown. Nor does it explain the psychopathic joy this death cult takes in mass killings and in ritualistic, snuff-movie-style beheadings.
The arguments of the anti-apologist left are spreading, with ever increasing clarity and force. It is thrilling to see.
Oh, yes, about Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn's disreputable little rag. Visit the homepage and you'll see an ad for Michael Neumann's new book, The Case Against Israel. This is the same Michael Neumann who was mercilessly exposed, by David Hirsh of Engage, as a fellow traveler of the virulently anti-Semitic Jewish Tribal Review (Google it yourself; I will not link to it). In an unctuous e-mail exchange with the racist slime merchants, Neumann wrote: "I know you’re [sic] site and it’s brilliantly done." It gets much, much better from there. Read Hirsh's piece; you'll be glad you did.
How nice to see that Counterpunch is publishing Neumann's reflections in book form. Cockburn also likes to circulate the rants of Gilad Atzmon, the London-based jazz saxophonist and tireless Jew-hater, another of Hirsh's targets and the subject of my guest column in Jazz Times magazine, Oct. '05. Go here to download a pdf.
We've come up against this question before: Is Cindy Sheehan anti-Semitic? She's certainly been accused of it; I've always been skeptical. But that isn't really the point. In all likelihood she's unaware of the bilge that Counterpunch has been publishing of late. But that's where her wrongheaded remarks are appearing. It's distressing that a woman so hugely popular within the antiwar movement, even among mainstream war critics, is lending legitimacy to Cockburn's despicable project.
**Update: Welcome, Engage readers! And thanks for the link.
Friday, October 07, 2005
"Do Dogs Think?"
Answer: No. Jon Katz explains. As a dog owner and lover, I hang on this man's every word. He's got a new book, Katz on Dogs.
Which Palestine?
Nick Cohen tells it like it is in the New Statesman. Money quote:
It's not radical, it's barely political, to turn a blind eye and say you are for the Palestinian cause. Political seriousness lies in stating which Palestine you are for and which Palestinians you support.
It's not radical, it's barely political, to turn a blind eye and say you are for the Palestinian cause. Political seriousness lies in stating which Palestine you are for and which Palestinians you support.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Unite Against Terror
The petition has been updated in the aftermath of the Bali bombings. Lend your support. And note links to the Madrid11 initiative and Open Democracy.
PS: Here's a great Saletan piece on Bill Bennett's remarks.
PS: Here's a great Saletan piece on Bill Bennett's remarks.
"The Pro-Torture Nine"
That's what Sullivan has dubbed the following senators for voting against John McCain's anti-torture amendments:
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
The good news: McCain's amendments passed in a crushing 90-9 vote. That means it's veto-proof, and Bush has vowed to veto. Bear in mind, Bush rarely uses his veto, but he'll do it to thwart the anti-torture measure.
The Senate vote is a triumph for American democracy, but the triumph is provisional -- the House has yet to weigh in. Call and e-mail your representatives.
Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)
The good news: McCain's amendments passed in a crushing 90-9 vote. That means it's veto-proof, and Bush has vowed to veto. Bear in mind, Bush rarely uses his veto, but he'll do it to thwart the anti-torture measure.
The Senate vote is a triumph for American democracy, but the triumph is provisional -- the House has yet to weigh in. Call and e-mail your representatives.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Rosh Hashana 5766...
...brings no pause at all... frantically working while listening to the reissue of Gary Thomas's Overkill (JMT 1995), which I'd always thought was a jazz/hip-hop crossover of some sort, but no — it's pure hip-hop and pretty hardcore for a jazz tenor player.
See how easily I get distracted from Judaism... but in the NY Times Book Review there was a quote from Osip Mandelstam: "As a little musk fills an entire house, so the least influence of Judaism overflows one's life." That's how it's worked for me, though I'm not observant and my agnosticism is a conviction, as odd as that sounds. I'm feeling less than favorable toward religion these days, can't imagine why... but to those who say religion is all delusion and dogma I always respond, tell it to Dr. King.
I started at Judaism, wound up at Christianity. Brain fade. Time for bed.
See how easily I get distracted from Judaism... but in the NY Times Book Review there was a quote from Osip Mandelstam: "As a little musk fills an entire house, so the least influence of Judaism overflows one's life." That's how it's worked for me, though I'm not observant and my agnosticism is a conviction, as odd as that sounds. I'm feeling less than favorable toward religion these days, can't imagine why... but to those who say religion is all delusion and dogma I always respond, tell it to Dr. King.
I started at Judaism, wound up at Christianity. Brain fade. Time for bed.
Voice of conscience
Below is the letter Captain Ian Fishback sent to Senator John McCain. Fishback has come forward with serious allegations of prisoner abuse and torture, and he deserves our praise. Send a message of moral support to supportfishback@aol.com and Andrew Sullivan will see that it reaches the Captain.
Dear Senator McCain:
I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.
Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.
That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.
Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.
Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."
Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.
With the Utmost Respect,
-- Capt. Ian Fishback
1st Battalion,
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,
82nd Airborne Division,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Dear Senator McCain:
I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.
Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.
That is in the past and there is nothing we can do about it now. But, we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that this does not happen again. Take a major step in that direction; eliminate the confusion. My approach for clarification provides clear evidence that confusion over standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. We owe our soldiers better than this. Give them a clear standard that is in accordance with the bedrock principles of our nation.
Some do not see the need for this work. Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.
Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."
Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.
With the Utmost Respect,
-- Capt. Ian Fishback
1st Battalion,
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,
82nd Airborne Division,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Missed this...
Thank you to Bill Weinberg at World War 4 Report for picking up and supporting me on this Galloway business.
The responses in the comments section are instructive. For those taking notes, here's lesson numero uno in Extremism 101: If you're a raving anti-Semite, just make the politically correct noises about Palestine and you'll be given a free pass by a lot of people on the far left.
**Update: Bill's closing remark is worth quoting in full:
Why is it only posts about the Jews that spark these endless exchanges? I write about Nasa Indians in Colombia, Mapuches in Chile, Mayas in Chiapas, Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, Ismailis and Baluchis in Pakistan, Ahmadiyyas in Bangladesh, Mouros in Sri Lanka, Evenks in Siberia, Berbers in Algeria, Hassaniya in Western Sahara, Sardinians in Italy, Houmas in Louisiana—and not a word of reply from anybody. But heaven forbid I come to the defense of the Jews from hateful calumnies, and the whole world comes out of the woodwork to assail me. The only other such example is the Muslims of Bosnia. Why is that, I wonder?
It's because Israeli Jews and Bosnian Muslims are perceived as beneficiaries of American power. Therefore it's politically incorrect to utter anything in their defense. What's more, it's politically correct to impugn them. Kudos to Bill for calling out this nonsense and sticking to principle.
The responses in the comments section are instructive. For those taking notes, here's lesson numero uno in Extremism 101: If you're a raving anti-Semite, just make the politically correct noises about Palestine and you'll be given a free pass by a lot of people on the far left.
**Update: Bill's closing remark is worth quoting in full:
Why is it only posts about the Jews that spark these endless exchanges? I write about Nasa Indians in Colombia, Mapuches in Chile, Mayas in Chiapas, Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, Ismailis and Baluchis in Pakistan, Ahmadiyyas in Bangladesh, Mouros in Sri Lanka, Evenks in Siberia, Berbers in Algeria, Hassaniya in Western Sahara, Sardinians in Italy, Houmas in Louisiana—and not a word of reply from anybody. But heaven forbid I come to the defense of the Jews from hateful calumnies, and the whole world comes out of the woodwork to assail me. The only other such example is the Muslims of Bosnia. Why is that, I wonder?
It's because Israeli Jews and Bosnian Muslims are perceived as beneficiaries of American power. Therefore it's politically incorrect to utter anything in their defense. What's more, it's politically correct to impugn them. Kudos to Bill for calling out this nonsense and sticking to principle.
Levitt on Bennett
Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt defends Bill Bennett up to a point but concludes:
There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways.
Andrew Sullivan adds:
[B]y reflexively relating race to an argument [Bennett] simultaneously rejects, his remarks do indeed have a tinge of racism in their assumptions.
Yup.
There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways.
Andrew Sullivan adds:
[B]y reflexively relating race to an argument [Bennett] simultaneously rejects, his remarks do indeed have a tinge of racism in their assumptions.
Yup.
Mahavishnu, Metheny and me
Never got around to posting these.
(w. McLaughlin Oct. '03; w. Metheny Dec. '04)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
