I'll be on Larry King to discuss American Jews, Israel and Lebanon tonight.
Today's WSJ front page feature is about MoveOn and the lefty takeover of the Democratic Party, here ($). Similarly, in The Nation, John Nichols quotes the DLC's Marshall Wittman saying of the Lieberman/Lamont primary, "This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party." Here. This echoes David Broder's silly Sunday column, in which he refers to majority positions as "elitist" and virtually everything one reads both in the punditocracy and the blogosphere. This is in part, a consequence of the fact that people who work in and write about politics need to make as big a deal about everything as they can in order to make themselves feel important. Occasionally they're right, but not often. The fact is, the race is taking place in the liberal state of Connecticut, where Bush and the war have virtually no support, and where "Kansas" style politics have no hold. No one of consequence is arguing that Ned Lamont should run there or that anyone in the party should be purged if they do not support the party line--whatever that might be--on every issue in conservative parts of the country. But this is a blue, bluey, bluish state. If Connecticut Democratic Primary voters think Lieberman has been a bad senator and will likely continue to be so, they should vote him out of office. The fact that he continues to believe that invading Iraq was a good idea, that creating a Department of Homeland Security was a good idea, that overruling Terri Schiavo's family was a good idea, that joining in the Republican vendetta against Bill Clinton was a good idea, well, that argues that what you've gotten from the man in the past is likely what you'll get in the future. People like Broder, the Washington Post editorial page, Lani Davis and Al Hunt seem to think there's something unfair in people voting their democratic preferences in their own primary's party. We'll see.
Greg Rodriquez has some interesting things to say about Democrats and religion.
Old News is Not News
One of the problems with the word "news" is that it contains the word "new." If something is not "news" it's "history" and deserves to be ignored until it can be forgotten. All you've got to do if that's in your interest is wait out the news cycle. Better yet, if no news cycle ever emerges. I was reminded all this while working on my book when I came across this story from February 2004 in the Guardian. Titled, "Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us," it tells of a secret, suppressed Pentagon study warning that "warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
"'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'"
What is the Bush Administration doing to protect you from this massive threat predicted by its own Department of Defense?
It's suppressing the news, hoping you don't find out; attacking those who present similar warnings, and, as in almost all cases, abdicating its Constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. Where are the so-called liberal media? You tell me.
Could Mel get a job on Fox?
"The complaint claimed Chillemi, during a department discussion about discrimination in the workplace, said that when choosing between hiring a man or a woman, "of course I'd pick the man. The woman would most likely get pregnant and leave."
In October 2004, Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly settled a sexual harassment suit filed against him by his former producer Andrea Mackris, hours before a scheduled court showdown over audiotapes believed to be at the heart of the case.
What Ben Adler misses in his mild defense of AIPAC here is that the real estate/construction PACs do not target any member who defies them for political destruction, which is why even though they give more money, they are not as politically intimidating as AIPAC. He also misses the irony of quoting Henry Siegman the "the former head of the American Jewish Congress, who disagrees with AIPAC." That word "former" is there for a reason, bubela.... Can you find me any contemporary heads of major Jewish organizations willing to go on record criticizing AIPAC? My guess is that they'd be "former" heads pretty quick as well. And finally, why the false choice? There's lots of people in the press corps. Why not "a greater focus on exposing on combating the emergence of uncompromising Christianist zealotry on Israel" as well as "more pieces 'exposing' the [still-misunderstood] ... influence of groups like AIPAC?" And not of "groups like..." The problem is AIPAC itself.
A linguistic milestone of a headline for MSNBC.com, here.
Frida Berrigan, an expert on the U.S. global arms trade, considers what our world might be like if the top two best-known American exports -- Hollywood's products and the ones the Pentagon peddles -- traded media places. What if, she asks, E! became A! (as in "A! Today in the Arms Trade") and People magazine became Power magazine?
"What if," she wonders, "American girls grew up reading Jane's Defence Weekly instead of (or in addition to) JANE? What if Vince Vaughn and Colin Farrel labored on their craft in virtual obscurity, while Cameron Diaz and Scarlett Johansson did their own laundry after a hard shift on the film set? What if the attention these stars now get went to the arms trade? Then, Jeffrey Kohler and Robert Joseph would be household names, their every move tracked by a voracious media."