Fast Food News Flash!

Oh wow! Did you hear the big news? McDonald's is putting children's gyms in some of their restaurants--amazing isn't it! Gosh, and Dunkin Donuts which has just the greatest coffee in the world is trying to make inroads into the south! Holy smokes, and if you were lucky enough to live near the Outer Banks of North Carolina, you could have stocked up on FREE Doritos that washed ashore from a cargo container that fell off a ship--imagine that! Golly, who knew that news from Morning Edition could be so yummy and have corporate appeal too! I'm lovin it!

Colorful Bolton

So Bolton is finally going to be out of the UN. And after his lowly performance there, here's what NPR's Jackie Northam offers us: "John Bolton’s short tenure as ambassador to the UN was contentious, controversial, and thanks to his gift for pithy statements, colorful."

This is a pretty sad way to describe a figure like Bolton. Even a mainstream publication like MSNBC/Newsweek gives a far more informative and unflattering portrait of Bolton's shortcomings. Pithy statements? Colorful? Maybe Northam was thinking of the Bolton of July 2006 -- when his words had a distinctly blood-spattered tinge to them? Or perhaps pithy was how she interpreted the occasion mentioned in the MSNBC/Newsweek piece when he called a close ally of the US at the UN an "international civil servant" because the man dared to offer Bolton some helpful criticism?

Glib and shallow pieces like this stand in such stark contrast to what NPR is capable of offering - as in Daniel Zwerdling's rich, substantive, and humane piece on the mental health struggles of Iraq war veterans.

The Occupation is Over!

Reporting on Abdelaziz al-Hakim's chat with Bush in the White House today, Michele Kelemen let it be known that the cleric and head of the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, was a proponent of the war to topple Saddam Hussein and a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council when the US was occupying Iraq…"

Good Lord, I can remember the occupation of Iraq just like it was yesterday, or this morning, or....

Open Thread - Monday

NPR related comments welcomed.

Why Can't They All Just Be Moderates

If you listen to NPR's coverage of Venezuela you'd have a pretty skewed idea of what's happening there. Today Julie McCarthy tells of of the "self-styled" revolutionary Chavez as opposed to the opposition candidate Manuel Rosales who has "offered a moderate course, that would limit the government’s grip on the economy and pull Venezuela out from any orbit of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, a close ally of Chavez…"

It's telling that a candidate who -- as the BBC states, "rose through the ranks of Accion Democratica (Democratic Action), one of the two parties that dominated Venezuelan politics" and were seen as corrupt and squandering the oil revenues of Venezuela -- is described as "moderate." What makes him "moderate?" Is is that he favors closer ties with the US the country that immediately jumped on board with the coup leaders against Chavez in 2002 and had detailed plans of the coup ahead of time? Is it that he wants to subject Venezuelans to the predations of multinational corporations under the rubric of "free trade?"

I long for the day when I get to hear NPR talk about the Pentagon's "grip" on our economy and how the US government is in the orbit of multinational corporations. Or when people like Bush are described as religious extremists and the Ralph Naders and Bernie Sanders of the world are called moderates!

Bizarre Is a Relative Term

Reporting on the contentious swearing in of Mexico's formal president, Calderon, Lourdes Garcia-Navarro describes the scene as follows:

"Like some bizarre cheerleader’s duel, congressmen then cried out to each other in the ensuing hours. On one side of the hall leftist legislators shouted 'Obrador!' over and over…on the other, members of Calderon’s party responded 'Mexico! Mexico!'..."

If only we could have some bizarre cheerleading in our airtight system. Instead we have Al Gore's 2001 gavel-pounding performance (sounds eerily like nails being driven into a coffin) which proved to David Wellna that Gore was "a good sport" who "came off very well."

Introducing Dahr Jamail

On ATC yesterday, Michelle Norris speaks to independent journalist Dahr Jamail about the state of health care in Iraq. Holy smokes! could there be hope that NPR will mix it up a bit more and include more alternative and unembedded journalists? I hope so.

Norris introduces him as working for "Inter Press Service, a nonprofit news organization focusing on developing countries." If you haven't seen them before, be sure to check out the websites for Inter Press News Service and Dahr Jamail.

Technical Difficulties

Apologies for any sloppy formatting. Formatting options have disappeared from the editor menu, so I'm having to rely old html formatting.

Manufacturing Stature

John Ydstie this morning informs us that in light of Republican defeats in the midterm elections,"observers at home and abroad are watching closely to see whether the setback would affect Mr. Bush’s stature and behavior on the world stage." Is Ydstie thinking of Bush's stature on the world stage in 2003,early in 2004or later that year after his reelection, or perhaps just before last month's elections?

Next, Don Gonyea comes on to tell us that Bush, at recent meetings in Asia, was not the same Bush who "dominated these summits in the past." Dominated? (Was that with wit, intelligence, or his grasp of the issues?) But don't fear, after a sound bite of Bush recently saying, "we’re gonna stay in Iraq to get the job done" Gonyea says, "That felt like the old President Bush talking..." And then in keeping with NPR's current past-Presidents obsession, he tells us that "the last two American Presidents who served two terms in office – Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan – each overcame big political troubles at home to score notable victories overseas in their final two years in office.... President Bush could find a similar opportunity in the current chaos in Iraq or in ending the nuclear threat from North Korea or Iran..."

See, there just might be a silver lining in this chaos in Iraq: the chance for Bush to score a notable victory overseas - just like Reagan and Clinton.

Least Common Denominator Sort of Thinking

I have to swallow my pride and thank Michael O'Hanlon (click on the O'Hanlon label at the bottom of this post for more) for the title to this post! It well describes the range of coverage offered on ATC Thursday regarding the Iraq Study Group's anticipated call for some type of withdrawal of some US forces from Iraq.

Let's just look at some of the individuals and think tanks that NPR seeks out to "educate" us. In a piece from Jackie Northam we hear from the following:

• Michael Vickers, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. (His profile at CSBA states "Mr. Vickers is currently a senior adviser to the Secretary of Defense for the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review. From 1973 to 1986, Mr. Vickers served as an Army Special Forces Officer and CIA Operations Officer, with extensive operational and combat experience in Central America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and Central Asia.")
• Retired Army Major General Robert Scales
• Anthony Cordesman with the Center for Strategic and International Studies

Not a single source from outside the pro-military, pro-US foreign policy establishment.

As if this were not enough, NPR finishes its bludgeoning by having Robert Siegel host an analysis from "American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht and Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow in foreign policy studies at Brookings Institution.

Needless to say, except for the title of this post, there was nothing in these two features that significantly questioned or challenged overall US goals and strategies in Iraq - instead there was only narrow debate about tactics and operations.

Idealism and Moral Imperatives

What is an informed, humane listener supposed to think when a news interview begins with the following statement: "In a new book, two scholars say America's strategy, not just in those countries [Afghanistan and Iraq], but overall has failed because it's based on idealism and moral imperatives?"

NPR introduces these "scholars" as a conservative and liberal who "find common ground in a world view that goes back to the 1940s and 50s. Then, as Anatol Lieven explains, Presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower tried to contain Soviet expansion."

The two "scholars," Anton Lieven and John Hulsman, admire the "tough resistance to Soviet expansionism" and the "tough minded strategy" of containment during the Cold War.

I just couldn't help wonder if they admire the quarter-of-a-million toughness of Guatemalan or East Timorese containment, or the multimillion corpse containment of Korea and Vietnam. Yes, those were the days of ethical realism - not like today's saintly approach to Iraq and Afghanistan based on nothing but oil idealism and moral imperatives.

Where's Jimmy?

I waited several days before posting this because I thought surely NPR news would interview former President Carter about his new book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid. I'm not one to gush over Carter (I've never gotten over his support of government by death squad in El Salvador), but his remarks on Palestine are truly breathtaking. They reveal how hollow, stupid and and rabidly pro-Zionist the usual Newspeak on the Israel/Palestine issue is (think Gradstein and Westervelt for example). If you missed him on PBS' Newshour, it's worth watching, listening to, or reading here.

There's no excuse for NPR news not to host Carter for an extended interview as soon as possible (Fresh Air picked him up recently, after all). And in light of NPR's recent enthusiasm for ex-presidents (see posts below), what are they waiting for? It's sad that anytime Bush opens his mouth to bumble through a canned speech, NPR is there to rehash and repeat it, but when a former President, winner of a Nobel Prize, and strong critic of current US policy in Israel/Palestine speaks out with intelligence and conscience on such a vital issue, it is treated as a non-story.

The Russian Mirror

There is something about the subject of Russia that causes NPR to create unintended mirror images of our own corrupt government and slovenly mainstream media. On Morning Edition today Renee Montagne interviews David Remnick of the New Yorker about Putin's rollback of democracy in Russia - especially his muzzling of the Russian press. (Oddly, the archived audio link to this story omits quite a bit of what was actually broadcast.)

In the broadcast Remnick tells us, "You can pick up newspapers that seemingly are very lively and are filled all kinds of differing points of views. That's fine, but those newspapers now have minimal circulation, and similar reporting is not allowed on the medium that everyone sees and everybody listens to, and that's television...." The question never raised is, "So how is that different from the US?" Yes, there are very good alternative, lively news sources here in the US, but on the "medium that everyone sees" (or hears in the case of NPR) where are the challenges to the premises of defense spending, military intervention, unrestricted corporatism, etc?

Remnick also says that Russia "..doesn't permit political opposition or real politics. Anytime real politics begins to form, it's snuffed, and it's done rather easily, and all in the interest of stability...." Couldn't the same be said of third parties in the US, or of the manufactured issue of "bipartisanship" within the limited two party system? Such an obvious comment is never raised.

This strange echo of Russian despotism was especially poignant given the other story on Morning Edition about "Benjamin Tupper...an Army National Guard captain embedded with the Afghan National Army." Of Afghanistan, Cpt. Tupper tells us "the installation we call home is built upon the ruins of an old Russian airforce base." Ah yes, the Russian nightmare of Afghanistan, seems like just yesterday, and the soul of the Russian despot seems awfully familiar--ghosts and reflections.

Open Thread - Wednesday

NPR related comments welcomed.

A Tough Spot

Iraq is a disaster, a failure, a tragedy, a catastrophe. Even the Poodle has admitted it. It is a daily horror show that has been going on for several years. Yes, most of Congress, the loyal media (NPR included), and many citizens are to blame, but the person ultimately responsible for the war is George W. Bush. Only a fool or a scoundrel would allow him to distort the history of this sordid war and to try and weasel his way out of responsibility by blaming it on someone else (especially the main victims, the Iraqis.)

But Robert Siegel opens tonight's report on Bush's trip to Latvia telling us that Bush "insisted that the surge in sectarian violence is only part of a wave of violence that began back in February." A quick glance back at Juan Cole's Informed Comment from a full year before last February belies such nonsense.

Then David Greene dutifully becomes the uncritical spokesperson for Bush's attempt to pass off blame:

• "Mr. Bush blamed al-Qaeda. He said the terrorist group was determined to set off this sectarian warfare and they succeeded…"
• "The other striking thing we heard from him was a message today to Prime Minister al-Maliki of Iraq that it is up to him to figure out how to end the violence..."

Then Robert Siegel asks a good question, "Why is the US stressing Iraq’s autonomy right now?"

A thinking, rational person would respond, "Well, Robert, given how horribly this war is going, Mr. Bush is clearly looking for somewhere to put the blame before the scale of this disaster becomes fully apparent to everyone and people start demanding accountability." Instead David Greene, White House reporter, states, "You know the President really does seem like he’s in a tough spot diplomatically right now; he wants to express confidence in the new Iraqi government, give them responsibility, but in the same breath he and his advisors say the new government just isn’t able to do the job yet and secure the country…" A tough spot diplomatically? NO, he's being confronted with the reality of a war in which hundreds of thousands of civilians and nearly 3000 of our country's soldiers have died - a war of agression launched with "fixed" intelligence, lies, and a desire to control Middle East oil and to make a killing off of privatizing Iraq's economy.

The Pageant of History

Is this Presidents' Week, or is NPR just in an Orwellian mood to rewrite a few chapters of the sordid history of our nation's highest office (see Sunday's post)? This morning David Greene presents his "reporter's notebook" on second- term presidents, which is a feeble attempt to reassure us that the future may prove that the current Bush administration is not the train wreck that we all know it to be.

Greene's battle against reality follows a twofold strategy. First, he treats US Presidents and their policies as if all that ultimately counts are approval ratings and the judgment of some historians. Thus we get Truman, father of our National Security State, presented as the hero "who did set forces in motion that did eventually end the cold war." We hear Truman's 1947 Truman Doctrine speech (spliced together with one from G.W. Bush!) with no mention given that the assistance to Greece and Turkey that Truman was calling for helped preserve two repressive, far right regimes and set a pattern for fostering torture and dictatorship throughout the Cold War. Instead all that matters is that Truman was unpopular toward the end of his presidency, but now is revered by loyal historians and pundits alike. Similarly, President Reagan's sordid and violent Presidency is recalled because - in spite of scandals - "Reagan left office with nearly 6 in 10 Americans approving of his performance."

The second front in Greene's war on truth is to trivialize Presidential assaults on Constitutional safeguards and law by treating them as nothing more than scandals that overtake passive Presidents. In this way Reagan's secret arms-hostage trading with Iran to support his illegal war on Nicaragua is nothing but "the Iran-Contra scandal which engulfed Ronald Reagan’s White House." And what matters is that "Reagan reenergized his administration with some new faces and he made himself a prominent player on the world stage with trips like this to Berlin" (we hear wild cheering as Reagan makes his "Mr. Gobachev, tear down this wall" speech). So Bush can relax, knowing that his disastrous Iraq War, his torture policies, his secret prisons, his unauthorized eavesdropping, etc. won't stand in the way of the eventual popularity that history or unforeseen events will bestow on him.

If you are angry, disturbed, disgusted by the actions of the Bush administration, calm down! Remember that the "march of freedom" doesn't follow a straight path, and as David Greene says, "President Bush himself talks about leading freedom’s march; that march has taken him today to a moment of political uncertainty."

Of Guns and Presidents - The Presidents

NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday chose to highlight two books for its show today. One on the AK-47 and one on the lives of ex-Presidents. Both are telling as much for what is said as what is not said.

OF PRESIDENTS

NPR interviews Mark Updegrove, author of the book, Second Acts: Presidential Lives and Legacies After the White House. Now, I don't know about you, but my memory of Reagan's post presidency is how shamelessly he turned his status to a mulitmillion dollar cash machine in Japan. My recollection of George H. W. Bush (41) is that he also used his government experience and influence to cash-in - especially with the nasty Carlyle group. As for Nixon, who unfortunately was pardoned by his appointed Vice President Ford, he "rehabilitated" himself with just this kind of "feel good" media assistance. Now Carter, at least, does seem to put his name and status to some decent use in the world (e.g. the Carter Center).

Notice how Carter stands out from this crew. But here is what Andrea Seabrook says, "it seems like Carter, Bush, to some extent Reagan – although of course he battled Alzheimers in his post presidency - and now Bill Clinton - they all sort of center on human rights issues, poverty, health care. Is that the theme that seems to be rolling out?"

Human rights? Poverty? Health care? Reagan, Nixon, Bush?

All right, well maybe it's just that Seabrook is just profoundly ignorant and the author will gently set the record straight. So how does Updegrove respond? "You’re right, that is a common theme." So much for history.

Of Guns and Presidents - The Guns

NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday chose to highlight two books for its show today. One on the AK-47 and one on the lives of ex-Presidents. Both are telling as much for what is said as what is not said.

OF GUNS

NPR interviews Larry Kahaner, the author of the book about the AK-47 assault rifle. Andrea Seabrook asks Kahaner how the AK-47 has "changed the face of modern warfare" - which seems to be his central theme. He responds by talking about "asymetric warfare" and then says of the AK-47, "...anyone can have them, anyone can own them, and that’s what’s changed warfare is that anybody can be a soldier. Now the US has the best disciplined, best trained soldiers in the world – I believe – but you can put anybody in a Toyota pickup truck and give them AK 47s and they can go out and give US soldiers a hard time.”

Seabrook doesn't bring up any of the obvious questions such as. "Doesn't the US military allow each Iraqi family to own an AK-47?" or "How many US casualties can actually be attributed to AK-47s? Aren't more deaths due to IEDs, car bombs, RPGs, and sniper rifles?"

What is most sad, is that the real victims of the ubiquitous AK-47s are usually civilians in poor countries wracked by conflict. Furthermore, the worlds largest supplier of arms to conflict zones is--guess who?--the United States. And perhaps most disturbing of all, is that there is one nation that is doing more to impede global cooperation to end small arms proliferation - again the United States! None of this comes up; it's as if Kahaner and NPR are looking in the wrong end of the telescope asking How is this one weapon harming US soldiers? and not How is US foreign policy harming all the peoples of the world including US soldiers who often face enemies armed with weapons from the US arms trade flood?

Scandal My #$+*%!

NPR does have perseverance. They have found yet another angle for trying to bury the voter's revolt of the 2006 midterms (see earlier post). This morning they turn to Lanny Davis, former Clinton advisor, who has written a book about scandal in American politics. Davis tells us that during the last decade "there was vitriol on the left and the right unlike anything seen in America for many years. I saw a revolt of the center and I think we’ve seen the great center of American politics coming back together again." And later, "in the last election the American people are starting to say we need to do it differently."

There are several starkly obvious questions that a decent journalist might ask Mr. Davis:

• What polling data do you base your conclusions on?
• What "left" in American politics are you talking about--or do you mean the center right Clinton administration that you were a part of?
• Are you suggesting that a scandal of sexual harassment between a President and an adult intern and his lies before a grand jury about it is equivalent to the scandals of "fixing intelligence" for launching a war, eavesdropping on Americans without court approval, issuing torture guideline memos, and setting up clandestine prisons?

Of course that is exactly what Davis and the NPR reporters are suggesting. For whatever reason NPR is working hard to create the lie that the midterm elections were a call for "bipartisanship" and not the call for the end to the occupation of Iraq and CORRUPTION in politics that polls have shown.

It's as if NPR has launched it's own preemptive strikes against any movement to quickly end the occupation of Iraq and to investigate the Bush administration and hold it accountable for behaviors that clearly fit the "high crimes and misdemeanor" standards for impeachment written into our Constitution.

A Better Report

NPR deserves some credit for interviewing Fawaz Gerges today on Weekend Edition Saturday. It was really refreshing to hear someone talk about the complexities of the Lebanese situation, and to respond to questions with nuanced answers. Scott Simon asks him, "Who gains and who loses from Mr. Geymayel’s death?" and he replies, "Well I think it's too early to say definitely who wins and who loses. In the short term however, the main loser is the Syrian-Iranian alliance led by Hezbollah..." He later spells out that regional the regional alliances Syria-Iran and US-Israel both use Lebanon in their own geopolitical conflicts.

Notice that Gerges doesn't make accusations, but simply tries to suggest the several directions to which history and evidence point. We listeners have to draw our own--possibly even differing--conclusions. How refreshing!

Of course it is this kind of inquisitiveness and willingness to consider the US as one of several less-than-idealistic players in the region that earns people like Gerges the honor of being attacked by McCarthyite Campus Watch/National Review by the McCarthyite thought police.

Come on NPR. Let's have some more.