Altercation

• August 13, 2004 | 11:59 AM ET

Slacker Friday
I’ve got my August Nation column here.  It’s about PBS’s decision to fund and distribute a show featuring the views of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. 

“Gore is a liar and Bush is a dope.”  Well, that was stupid but it worked, for Bush, owing to a great deal of lazy reporting, as I discuss in great detail, here.  The new, stupid conventional wisdom is that Kerry is the “flip-flopper” and Bush the man of steel.  This is nonsense as this document clearly demonstrates with 25 instances, and counting of Bush flip-floppery.

Meanwhile, let’s see if the lazy press corps picks up on the silly, “sensitive” terror war issue.  Guess who made a big deal of fighting terror “sensitively?”  Clue:  It wasn’t John Kerry.

Now here’s the Man. He’s very good today.

Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA
Hey Doc:
Well, nobody promised Barack Obama a rose garden.  (Not until '12, at least.)  Not a month after Obama gave his big speech in Boston, he now has to contend with former presidential candidate Ba**hit J. Crazee for three months before Barack gets to go to the Senate. Welcome to the NFL, rook.

And major Ups to David Halberstam for writing the definitive chickenhawk takedown in this month's Vanity Fair.

Generally, I stay away from depositing scorn upon the First Ladies of the land.  What happened with Hillary Clinton is proof enough that it can make you nuttier than a fox squirrel.  In addition, the incumbent FL seemed inconsequential enough to make being critical rather a waste of time.

Until this week, when they rolled her out to talk about stem cells, and she unctuously explained to the country that, maybe, the benefits of stem-cells were being "oversold."  I watched her, all creamy certitude, and for the first time since 2000, wondered: "Where in the hell do you get off, lady?"

We all recall that Hitlery tried to sneak the Russian Red Army into the country under the guise of reforming the health-care system, but shouldn't we be a bit alarmed as well that a back-country librarian from Level Crossing, Texas is out there explaining cutting-edge science to the nation?  Where in hell is the President's Council On Bioethics?  (Probably either bleeding people with leeches or booking tours to Lourdes.)  I mean, would I ask Gregor Mendel where the biography section is?

Look, it is entirely possible that stem-cell research will not be the panacea that its proponents say it will be.  Sadly, that may well be the case with Alzheimer's, which is my particularly nasty-ass dog in this fight.

But, what eludes Laura, her husband, and whoever reads "My Friend, The Genome" to him is that's what f***king research is FOR!  (I'm shouting now.)  You do the research to find out IF the little critters will perform as advertised.

What you don't do is choke off the inquiry because something MIGHT not work out, and might get Jesus pissed in the bargain.  And you damned sure don't send your wife, the librarian, out to run the ball on the issue for you.  God, it was insufferable.  All those devastated families, like mine, having our little heads patted, and being warned not to get our tiny hopes up, all the while being talked down to out of a family of failures, spoiled children, and international sex tourists.

If there's a god in heaven, Laura Bush will get caught in a Green Room one day with Nancy Reagan.

Name: Stupid
Hometown: Chicago
Hey Eric, it's Stupid to mark your calendar for August 25, 2004: A more substantial (I hope!) Sudan protest day than my previous effort.  You'll be able to tell your kids that at least you did something...

I've got a couple of concerns about the campaign.  The first is a Dem tin ear for its African-American base.  I read a report about the Tina Brown/Hillary Clinton event at the convention.  The president of BET, Deborah Lee, asked about Kerry and African-Americans.  Tina Brown reportedly joked that Kerry won't be another Bill Clinton, while Hillary lamely responded that Dubya's presidency has hurt the entire nation.  I realize that these two aren't part of the Kerry campaign, but it tells me that the talking points haven't exactly made the rounds.  Around the same time I read that Kerry likes to go on the Don Imus radio show.  If you don't think that has blow-up-in-your-face potential, recall his comments about Ifill and William Rhoden, or Imus' betrayal of one-time regular guest Clarence Page.  This is not a good sign for a campaign lacking much visible African-American presence (Barack Obama's keynote speaker slot and John Edwards' natural skills only take you so far). 

I'm sure that Kerry has some good positions/talking points (voting rights is a no-brainer), but a quick search of his Web site only turned up some vague comments made for the anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. 

A second concern is that Kerry is not dramatically identified with an issue of his own.  He's sort of done that with stem cell research, but he needs something bigger.  Fill in the blank: "Because this is so vital to our nation, I vow that I will ----- or I will not seek reelection in 2008." (Provide health insurance for catastrophic injury to all Americans?  Cut our oil consumption by the amount we purchase oil from the Middle East?  Create x number of jobs?)  Hey, something similar worked for Dubya's dad in 1988 against the last candidate from Massachusetts.

Name: Eric Rauchway
Hometown: Davis, CA
I am a little slow and so I do not understand people who are upset about the concerts "for change."  First of all, did they really think Bruce Springsteen might be a Republican?  I mean, this is a guy who sang about Tom Joad -- and, mind you, sang about him not in the hard times of 1975 or 1980 but in the boom years of the 1990s.  Springsteen's got as much Woody Guthrie in him as any living person who's not Arlo.  Some smart feller who analyzed his whole oeuvre pegged him as "a New Deal social democrat."  For heaven's sake, the man sings about unemployment almost as much as he sings about cars.  I'm guessing he wasn't doodling the Laffer curve on his set lists for the Stone Pony.

Second of all, so what?  Library of America just issued a new volume of Ezra Pound, whose politics were definitely, let's say, beyond the pale.  (Yes, even more outre than "New Deal social democrat.")  I'm guessing the folks at LoA know all about Pound's fascist propaganda.  But the poetry is widely thought to be pretty good anyway, and even wholesome in moderate doses for anti-fascists, be they Democrat or Republican.

Salman Rushdie and George Orwell both explained that you can get something out of Rudyard Kipling even if you don't think "the wogs begin at Calais."  Anthony Lane is only the most recent (and possibly most guarded) defender of P. G. Wodehouse, despite the morally stunted stint as "guest" of the Third Reich.  Call me crazy, but I view support of a legitimate political opponent within an established constitutional system a lesser political offense than, say, supporting Mussolini or the Raj, let alone the Nazis.  Are you really gonna cut off your Bruce to spite your face, just because he (along with quite a few other people) wants the other guy to win the election?

Hey, if Al Gore could listen to Frank Zappa even after he appeared on the Tipper list of potty-mouthed threats to America's youth, I think we can let the "change" people go ahead and rock the vote without burning their CD's in the agora -- but like I said, I'm slow.  So maybe I'm missing something.

Name: Barry Ritholtz
Hometown: The Big Picture
Hey Doc,
The stock market is getting shellacked because Kerry's polls are going higher.

At least, that's the way some economists see it.  I continue to be amazed by how many otherwise intelligent business journos still get suckered by this phony line of reasoning.  While I expect to see this in the editorial pages of the WSJ (where it appeared Wednesday), it has no place in any objective reading of the markets.

Here's a brief riff on why the line of reasoning fails so badly...

Election Year Cycles (mirror)

Nearly everybody continues to confuse cause and effect when it comes to the markets and politics.  A look at the history of the Dow in election years reveals, however, that far from the market obsessing about who will win the presidential election in November, instead, it is telling you that it is discounting the increasing possibility of an incumbent defeat.

In particular, consider what markets look like on average when the incumbent party (either Republican or Democrat) loses the election: They do poorly until after the election; Once "da bums have been thrown out," the Dow tends to start a recovery.

Eric Engen's Op-Ed in Wednesday's WSJ -- Kerry Up, Markets Down -- put forth a similar absurd notion. There were simply too many errors and outright misstatements to Fisk the entire piece, but we can at least look at the flawed logic involved.

A quick glimpse at the chart in the article appears to show an inverse correlation -- especially since March 2004.  Correlation, however, is not the same as a causal relationship; The Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal was breaking about that time  -- ironically, the WSJ was one of the most aggressive investigators of that debacle.  As this political embarrassment unfolded in the media, it had scared the Hell out of a lot of investors.  They simply moved out of the markets to the sidelines until the dust settled.  This was rather reminiscent of the pre-Iraq War period, first quarter of 2003.  It also, not coincidentally, had the effect of a) lowering the incumbent's approval ratings; and b) improving the challenger's chances.

In making this rather slipshod analysis, Mr. Engen, makes a classic causative error:  He confuses a correlation in time with a causal relationship.  Instead, he should have recognized that the same underlying factors led to BOTH EVENTS: Kerry's rise, and the markets fall.

Additionally, if we take a slightly more detailed glimpse at the author's prime data source, we see how foolish his methodology actually is:  Engen relies in large part on the Iowa Futures markets to support his assertion that as Kerry’s chances for election improves, the markets then weaken.

Put this into context: The total dollar amount invested in this market (according to one of the founder's of the markets I spoke with) is at present a grand total of $15,800.

Fifteen thousand, eight hundred dollars being played with primarily by a group of under-graduate and graduate students at Iowa University.  From this “prediction market," the author deduces the outcome of the $7 trillion capital markets in the United States.

Back on July 24, 2004, we asked “Is the market reacting to the incumbent's chances?”  Even a brief review of a detailed chart, fails to convince an objective viewer of any true cause and effect relationship between the two.

If you want additional insight about the prognosticating acumen of the prediction markets, consider this last detail: The Iowa Futures had predicted a Howard Dean landslide in the Iowa primary. You may recall that he got clobbered.

Any other questions?

Name: Barbara Noble
Hometown: New York, New York
Dear Dr. A.:
Re: protesting the RNC in Central Park.

In your lede yesterday (8/11), you floated the idea that it might be best to forego protests against Bush and the Republican National Convention, both to protect Central Park and to prevent a replay of Chicago, 1968.

It's a prudent suggestion, and I believe prudence in the pursuit of defeating Bush is no vice.  But...

I have become increasingly put off by the Bloomberg administration's policy of placing itself -- including the NYPD and the Parks Department -- at the service of the RNC.  Months ago, when the Rs announced that they would come to New York at the closest proximity they could manage to 9/11 without actually usurping it, I thought, how craven, how grotesque, how...well...Lee Atwater.  Still, I was willing to be friendly to all those R. delegates, who would probably feel more comfortable if People Like Us on the Upper West Side were trucked off to concentration camps.  I thought Michael Bloomberg, the accidental Republican, would maintain a cosmopolitan neutrality and make sure that the city would not be simply a week-long stage set for a Republican pageant.

Silly, rational, naively liberal me.  The Mayor's Office and the NYPD have been utterly intractable with respect to protest (beginning, inexplicably, with the anti-war protests last winter).  The initial stand against using the Great Lawn for large-scale protest might have seemed reasonable, unless you happened to be up on the news.  Clearly, there is passionate, mass opposition to Bush in New York, and clearly the decision to hold the RNC in New York has come to be viewed as something of a taunt.  What is needed is a weeklong protest-Bush stage set equivalent to Madison Square Garden.  Let me suggest that it's not the West Side Highway.  It's inevitably, unavoidably Central Park.

We learned from the anti-war demonstrations in the winter that having huge concentrations of people on commercial streets is quite dangerous, especially when the police, for whatever reason, have decided to behave like Cossacks.  You raise the issue yourself: the groups planning protests (not only United for Peace and Justice) are now headed for chaos and confrontations with the police.  A half-dozen groups are planning demonstrations in the Park, permitted or otherwise.  The question is, do we want a quarter of a million hot, thirsty, pissed-off people on the West Side Highway, where the escape route is the Hudson River, or a big, possibly unruly, but more-or-less friendly happening in Central Park, which has many methods of egress?

On a gorgeous day last spring, the girls' softball team I coach played on a meticulously tended ball field on the Great Lawn.  I remember coughing up dust and sidestepping rodent detritus during events in the park in the 80s and early 90s, so I truly appreciate the job the NYC Parks Dept. and Central Park Conservancy have done in bringing the lawn back to life.  I don't want harm to come to the Park.  But I want protesters AND police to have some breathing room. 

The fact is, no one really knows how many people are coming to New York to protest the RNC.  Many of the [generic, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving freakish] liberals I know were planning to be out of town or temporarily hors de combat because of possible violence.  But what if hundreds of thousands of people turn up?  Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD cannot contain them by being legalistic and trying to suppress or marginalize dissent.  The safest course is to let people gravitate to the Park, one of the few open spaces in Manhattan that can accommodate mass gatherings.  The grass will grow back.

Mayor Bloomberg, meanwhile  needs to tell his puppet masters at the RNC to shove off and to start being a mayor to all the people of New York.  Let Mike be Mike!

Barbara Noble
Manhattan

Name: Phil Kaplan
Hometown: Norwalk, CT
Eric,
This woman has more guts than all the spineless spokespeople the DNC sends onto the mindless evening talk shows combined.  I just sent her some money, and I'd suggest all your readers do so too.

Eric replies: My weekend with Granny D, here.

• August 12, 2004 | 12:30 PM ET

Kerry: Wrong on the war, Wrong on the Constitution, Wrong on the Politics
John Kerry’s nuanced position on the war and his vote to give the president the authority to go war—aside from being wrong on the merits--is clearly not working.  I had a longish talk with one of Kerry’s top foreign policy advisers earlier this summer at a party and he explained to me that the campaign’s polling supported the position.  The country was not anti-war; rather it was the anti-the way the war had been sold and was being conducted.

I thought that behind-the-times then and I think it even more so now.  Well more than a majority of the country thinks the war a mistake and a near majority believes Bush misled them on purpose.  But just as important, Kerry’s position is pretty close to inexplicable, impossible to understand, and worst of all, contributes to Republican (and Nader/Republican) attacks that this is a man who cannot take a consistent position and stick to it.  (It is also wrong on the merits.  Kerry says he would have voted the same way today because he thinks a president “should have that authority.”  But the Constitution specifically gives Congress the authority to declare war.  Congress gives it to the president only when war is considered to be necessary.  Clearly in the case of Iraq, that wasn’t the case.  They had no significant weapons, no ties to terrorists and no nuclear program. The war was sold on the backs of lies. So why override clear Constitutional strictures against the abuse of presidential power?)

Anyway, you want a clear consistent position.  Here’s one:

1. President Bush misled the country and the Congress into war and has conducted it incompetently.
2. The war also turns out to have been a dangerous diversion in the war against terrorism.
3. Even though we were misled, and even though we would be better off working with our (former?) allies to conduct a truly effective global war against terrorism, in Afghanistan and at home, we have no choice but to try to clean up this mess we’ve created.
4. But we should try and do so as quickly, inexpensively and painlessly as possible, so we can begin to repair some of the damage that’s been done to our nation’s reputation and get on with the business of defending the nation with the help and cooperation of our allies, as well as freeing up the resources we need to protect our homeland.

What’s so hard about that?

Mr. Conflict of Interest has a piece in which Washington Post editors explain how it was that they screwed up their pre-war coverage so badly.  I’ll write more about this when/if I get a chance, but I don’t see anything in this article that indicates anything will be any different the next time it happens.

Meanwhile, did the June 28 handover of sovereignty change much in Iraq?  The press seems to think so.

Jon Carroll, on youth of a kind.

And since we’re back in the sixties, George W. Bush sucker-punches an opponent.

Alter-reviews:  Sal on Three Great Elvis Costello re-releases:

It's interesting to see three of Elvis Costello’s weakest catalogue releases turn into three of the best reissues in the ongoing Rhino Records campaign.  Upon their initial release, Almost Blue, Goodbye Cruel World and Kojack Variety were underwhelming to say the least.  Each of course, had some material worth listening to.  I mean, it is Elvis Costello for Pete's sake.  But coming off of 1980's "Trust” and “Almost Blue,” an album of country and western covers, wasn't exactly what EC fans were waiting for- a way of life that EC fans are still trying to adapt to 24 years later.  Now, all three releases have been given the Rhino upgrade and each includes an additional CD featuring a staggering amount of bonus tracks, Some highlights include the lost b-side "Tomorrow's Just Another Day" recorded with Madness, covers of Ben E. King's "Young Boy Blues," Bruce teen's "Brilliant Disguise,"  Paul Simon's "Congratulations," and John Hiatt's "She Loves The Jerk,"  "We Oughta Be Ashamed," a duet with Johnny Cash, and a plethora of live tracks recorded at various venues for each of the respective tours.

These records have all been given new life.  And, while listening to the alternate versions and rarities on the bonus discs, you will see that given a little time, the original records were a helluva lot better than what we all thought back then.  Plus, at $15.99, even if you didn't care for these records at all, it's a bargain just for the 60+ minute bonus CDs.  You can read all about them here.

Sal Nunziato
NYCD

Correspondents Corner:

Name: David Glazer
Hometown: Park Ridge, NJ
Dear Dr. A:
I noticed the absence of a Nader fraud link in the last couple of days and thought you might like one from the Guardian.  Here it is.

Name: David Seldin
Hometown: Washington, D.C.
Hey Eric -- Here's a candidate for underplayed story of the week.

The AP reports Clarence Thomas' biographer saying that Thomas has already been interviewed by the White House about being elevated to Chief Justice.  No denial from either the justice or the Bushies.  What do the NY Times, Washington Post, Wall St. Journal and USA Today do with it?  Run nothing at all, of course.

Oh, there's also this story.  Apparently, in the book Scalia describes Thomas as more radical than himself. 

Why isn't this more a story for the big mainstream press?

David Seldin
Communications Director - NARAL Pro-Choice America

Name: Jeff Mark
Hometown: Alameda, CA
The response by Brian Gygi and responses thereto by Messrs. Scott and Carter were quite educational.  But not so much in the sense that one would learn a technique of statistical analysis, and not so much in the disagreement about how best to interpret the polls.  Any of these three statistically superficial interpretations is still more sophisticated than what we usually get from the "margin of error" number.  Todd Gitlin was not the only one to make that error; Neal Gabler on "Fox NewsWatch" made the same mistake. The thing we've learned is how little one can evince from the "margin of error."

I have long held the view that reporting on public opinion polling falls victim to three fatal or near-fatal fallacies:

1. Most political reporters do not understand the mathematics of public opinion research.  As a result, reporting on public opinion research depends excessively on over-averaged aggregate statistics and pseudo-meaures of accuracy, e.g., "the margin of error."  The ignorance of the reporter feeds the ignorance of the viewer/reader, who then unknowingly reinforces the reporter's impression that some useful information is being communicated.  (That "margin of error" baloney only appeared in the 80's as I recall.)
   
   
2. The questions of most public opinion polls are extraordinarily poorly designed, especially when you consider how much money people spend on the damn things.  Sometimes the questions are simply worded in such a way as to presuppose the response, frequently they're just plain stupid.  (My all-time favorite stupid question came from -- no surprise here -- Fox News' "Opinion Dynamics" c. 1998, "Would you want Bill Clinton to babysit your daughter?").
   
   
3. Last but not least, the line between "public opinion research" and "marketing research" has become increasingly blurred by the likes of Frank Luntz.  While the two disciplines use similar techniques and lingo, they are not the same thing, as they answer two different types of questions.  One asks, "What do people think about a particular issue?" The other asks, "How can we get people to change their minds about a particular issue?" Speaking as a participant in many focus groups, the idea that focus groups can tell you anything about marketing, let alone public policy opinion, seems ludicrous.

In any case, one thing a (say) 48%/45% poll with a 4% "margin of error" is NOT, is a "statistical tie."

Thanks for listening...

Name: Brian Gygi
Hometown: Oakland, CA
Both A. Carter's and James Scott's criticisms of my analysis of the Kerry-Bush poll numbers are valid.  I greatly oversimplified it to make the point that given a certain margin of error, not all outcomes are equally likely, despite what James Scott seems to be saying.  If a "...statement about the long-run frequency of results we'd expect from the methodology employed by the pollsters" is "...not at all a claim about the probability that these specific results fall between two numbers," then what use is it?

Name: Steven Blowney
Hometown: Philadelphia (Land of the Cheesesteak)
Yo! Doctor, I found your observations about right-wing operatives infiltrating left-wing protests interesting.  I thought of Trotsky, Lenin, and Mao.  Funny how the Right is using the Left's tactics.  What's next?  Sit-ins for defense programs?  See, the Marxists won the Cold War anyway.

Name: J. R. Taylor
Hometown: Washington, D.C.
From: Lawrence Lessig, "Copyrighting the President," Wired, August 2004

In August, Robert Greenwald will release an updated version of his award-winning film, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War.  Greenwald has added a clip of President George W. Bush's February interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, NBC's Sunday morning talk show.  In the clip, the president defends his decision to go to war - astonishingly unconvincingly.

Greenwald asked NBC for permission to run the one-minute clip - offering to pay for the right, as he had done for every other clip that appears in the film.  NBC said no.  The network explained to his agent that the clip is "not very flattering to the president."  Greenwald included it anyway.

• August 11, 2004 | 1:03 PM ET

The Politics of Protest
Naturally I am sympathetic to those who would protest George W. Bush and the Republican National Convention, but more and more, I don’t like the idea. In the first place, with so many people, it can easily get out of hand or be exploited for nefarious purposes by those on the far-left or far-right—and in the far-right I include the president and people working for his re-election.

Anarchists and idiots ruined the Seattle protests and the media—loving conflict and hating context—will eat any violence and property destruction, even bad language, to smear not only the protesters but also anyone and everyone who opposes Bush. Chicago ’68 unquestionably helped elect Nixon. (I’ve read the polling data.)

And the same thing could happen here. Second, as with Johnson, Nixon and Reagan, it hardly requires an act of imagination to prepare for the possibility that Republican conservative spies and thugs will infiltrate these protests and cause the violence themselves, with the knowledge that it will be blamed on the protesters and their cause.

I would be surprised if they don’t do this, but of course, it will be years if not decades before we ever found out that those crazies who wanted to start fires and break windows were actually right-wing operatives. The media will treat this possibility as beyond the pale, just as they did when the CIA and FBI did it to the anti-war movement under both Johnson and Nixon, and when the FBI did it to the anti-intervention in Central America movement under Reagan.

Second, the protesters themselves are pissing me off. As I said, I support the cause—as well as the cause of free speech -- but that does not mean I want to sacrifice the well-being of Central Park for the cause. I imagine millions of New Yorkers feel the same way. They made a deal for the West Side Highway and they should stick to it. Perhaps the deal was unfair, but now they seem to be brewing a potion for pure chaos, that will rebound the Republicans’ benefit and also screw up the Park.

Had it been up to me, I would have told them to go down to Ground Zero and reclaim that open, empty space. Now they are just going to screw up everything, prove themselves to be untrustworthy, trample our city’s most precious natural resource, and again—vastly increase the likelihood of disaster.

With enemies like these Bush doesn’t need friends.

Goss Violations:  As David Sirota of the Center for American Progress notes, there are plenty of reasons this Goss nomination could turnout to boomerang into Bush’s face. Among them are these:

• Goss Blocked Efforts to Investigate Abu Ghraib: As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Goss led a party-line vote to reject an amendment that would have "Increased oversight and investigated alleged prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/17/04]
  
  
• Goss blocked efforts to investigate Ahmed Chalabi:  As chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Goss led a party-line vote to reject an amendment that would have authorized an investigation into "U.S. dealings with Iraqi exile leader Ahmed Chalabi." Even after allegations that Chalabi has leaked U.S. military secrets to Iran, Goss said, "I would say that the oversight has worked well in matters relating to Mr. Chalabi." (Congressional Quarterly, 6/17/04) 
  
  
• Goss mocks suggestion to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame:  "Rep. Porter Goss said Thursday that the uproar over allegations that White House officials purposely identified a covert CIA agent...doesn't yet merit an investigation by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, which he chairs...'Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation.'"

That last one is the important one, from the CIA’s standpoint.  It was the agency that pushed the Plame investigation because they were so furious at the unpatriotic acts of Novak and whoever was his informant.  Now they’re getting a guy who is clearly willing to play the same kind of politics.  Methinks we have not heard the end of anti-Goss leaks and will give the Democrats all the ammo they can use—if they have the nerve to use it.

In the mean time, why doesn’t Kerry nominate his own CIA Director-in-Waiting, just to let people know the difference between the two kinds of administrations we’re likely to see?  My pick for the post would be Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Meanwhile, Sirota also notes that the Bush campaign has removed some of Goss's most partisan statements from its Web site.  His statement attacking Kerry used to be here.  Now, its gone. The cached version is here.

They Said It:

For the past 10 days, temporary workers hired by Norway Hill Associates, a Hancock firm headed up by a well-known GOP consultant, have been collecting signatures for Nader around the state. Last Friday, about a dozen workers buttonholed Bush supporters in the parking lot outside a Stratham farm where the president was speaking. They were armed with talking points instructing them to remind reluctant Republicans that "without Nader, Bush would not be president."

Wall Street Editing:  I have a letter in the Wall Street Journal today. It was originally ignored until I buttonholed Paul Gigot in the press section of the Democratic convention. The letter as published, reads:

Regarding Steven Zeitchik’s article on the July 13 panel sponsored by the Center for American Progress and World Policy Institute on media concentration, I wish he had paid a bit more attention. I did not make the statement Mr. Zeitchik attributes to me about trying to get a conservative on the panel. The comment was made by someone else, as I had little to do with the panel's composition.

As for Nick Lemann being the only member of the panel to distinguish between media concentration and the rise of Fox being one and the same, I believe I spoke to this very point when I pointed out that in the case of Sinclair Broadcasting attempting to censor Ted Koppel's "Nightline" on the occasion of its reminding Americans of the cost in lives of the Iraq war, by reading the names of fallen soldiers, it was the "little guy" who was performing in a Fox-like fashion, while big, bad ABC/Disney was seeking to uphold the standards of decent journalism.

Eric Alterman
New York, N.Y.

Here’s the original:

FR: Eric Alterman
July 16 2004

I don’t doubt that Steven Zeitchik did attend the panel on media concentration that preceded the screening of “Outfoxed” sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the World Policy Institute on July 13, but I do wish that he had paid a bit more attention. In the second paragraph, for instance, where I am mentioned twice, both descriptions of my actions are wrong. I did not “introduce” the panelists (or “left-wing all-stars” as Zeitchik calls them.) There were no introductions, since time was short and a hand-out given to the members of the audience took care of that problem. Nor did I make the statement Zeitchik attributes to me about trying to get a conservative on the panel. (Though the screaming of the word “fu**ing” from the audience did lead me to wonder aloud if perhaps Vice-President Cheney was in the house.) The comment was made by someone else and I had little to do with the panel’s composition.

As for Dean Lemann— a “left-wing all-star?”-- being the only member of the panel to distinguish between media concentration and the rise of Fox being one and the same, I believe I spoke to this very point when I pointed out that in the case of Sinclair Broadcasting attempting to censor Ted Koppel’s “Nightline” on the occasion of its reminding Americans of the cost in lives of the Iraq war, by reading the names of fallen soldiers, it was the “little guy” who was performing in a Fox-like fashion, while big, bad ABC/Disney was seeking to uphold the standards of decent journalism.

Given that Mr. Zeitchik is not a regular member of your pages, I will assume that these were honest, rather than ideologically driven, mistakes—though they sure do creep in a great deal whenever my name gets mentioned there.

Sincerely

(Note that there is no, and will be no correcting of the record.  It is policy on the Journal editorial page to publish letters rather than issue corrections, thus frequently leaving the reader with the impression that there is a simple disagreement rather than a mistake.)

Correspondents’ corner:

Name: A. Carter
Hometown: Santa Barbara, CA
Mr. Gygi of Oakland, CA, wrote in complaining about the statistics presented by Todd Gitlin. Then presents what I believe is a very flawed analysis.

In my opinion, the best way to results in these horse race sorts of polls is to give a confidence interval for the difference.  Thus a plus or minus 4% CI for Kerry at 48% and Bush at 43% means that Kerry is ahead by 5% plus or minus about 8%.

If Kerry and Bush are really tied at 45.5%, then the probability of one candidate or the other having a 5% lead in a poll is about 20%. (The variance of the difference is 2p/n giving you an approximate standard normal score of 1.28) Not the sort of odds I would want if I were Bush, but in just one poll, not something you want to bet the ranch on.

Now, if there are a series of polls, all showing Kerry 3 or 4 points ahead. Then there might just be something going on.

Mr. Gygi's "joint probabilities" assume independence which is clearly not true.

Name: James Scott
Hometown: Austin, TX
Brian Gygi's e-mail shows that, alas, plenty of statistics teachers don't understand polls, either.  Here's the crux of the fallacy: "So the Times pollsters are 95% certain that Kerry's actual figure is between 44% and 52%, while Bush's 95% likely to be between 39% and 47%." This simply isn't true.  The confidence intervals calculated from polls do not have such a straightforward interpretation, and using the word "probability" when referring to them is deeply misleading.

Here is the correct interpretation of the poll results.  Imagine that pollsters were to conduct a large number of polls under the same circumstances, each time drawing a different sample of respondents from the population.  Then in 95% of these samples, Kerry's number would be between 44 and 52, and Bush's number would be between 39 and 47.  In other words, the quoted margin of error is a statement about the long-run frequency of results we'd expect from the methodology employed by the pollsters.  It is not at all a claim about the probability that these specific results fall between two numbers. In fact, any statistician would tell you that, under the methodology employed by political pollsters (which is known as "classical" or "frequentist" statistics), such a claim would be mathematically meaningless.

The back-of-the-envelope calculations Mr. Gygi uses to debunk media horserace coverage are thus incoherent, because they incorrectly treat these numbers as if they're taken from probability distributions on Kerry's and Bush's support numbers.  (The calculations are also wrong on their own flawed terms, but that's a different matter altogether.)

Name: Bob Cawley
Hometown: Ballston, NY
Eric,
Are there any reporters or editors out there who understand that the resolution that passed in October of 2002 was not a vote “for the War [in Iraq]?”  The vote was not a declaration of war against Iraq.  It did not direct the President to use force against Iraq.  It authorized, “the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” under the specific condition that Iraq was found to be a threat to our national security.  The resolution also supported diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation. (Although that portion of it is astonishingly missing from the subtitle.) It is in no way inconsistent or “flip-flopping” to argue in support of giving the President the authority to do something but maintain that he misused or "unabashedly abused" that authority.

Still, it was a stupid and “in most cases" cowardly political decision by Democrats who voted in favor of abdicating Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war.  It was clear at the time that Bush had every intention of attacking Iraq if he possibly could.  Anyone who voted for the resolution but sincerely hoped that the war was avoidable was either “misunderestimating” Bush’s ability to follow through with an attack, misoverestimating Colin Powell’s ability to frustrate the chickenhawks or severely deluded in the belief that Saddam would (or could) comply in a manner that would derail Bush’s war train.

Let’s be honest: The vast majority of them voted for it because they were afraid of being painted as soft on defense/terror in the mid-term elections being held the following month. Of course, this is exactly what Karl Rove was counting on when the Administration forced this vote.  It was a no-lose proposition for them, politically.  If the Democrats voted against or managed to defeat the resolution, the Republicans could beat them over the head with it in the campaign. If the Democrats voted for it, George Bush got a blank check and, more importantly, cover in case anything went wrong.  (I would also suggest this bald cowardice infuriated a portion of the Democratic base and, ironically, may have been a factor in their failure to realize anticipated gains in the House and Senate.)

Although Kerry was up for re-election to the Senate in 2002, that outcome was never in doubt so he either had an almost incomprehensible faith in George Bush to act responsibly or he cast his vote with an eye toward the 2004 Presidential Election.  So, while I support Kerry’s position that it is entirely possible to have voted for H.J.R. 114 and think it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq, I have to conclude that his vote, like those of most of his colleagues, was a purely political decision cast with, at best, a Pollyannic regard for the chance of a peaceful resolution or, at worst, utter disregard for the all too predictable consequences.

But, given the choice between an Administration that refused to be restrained from entering into an unnecessary, preemptive war at a cost of almost 1,000 American lives (and counting), hundreds of billions of dollars (and counting) and our credibility and prestige throughout the world and a candidate that failed “because of political ambition - to stand against it" there is no choice.  Putting Iraq aside for the moment, this administration has gutted environmental regulations, mugged the middle and lower classes while creating a massive financial burden for future generations and relentlessly worked to turn our economic, security and environmental future over to Big Oil.  I can only hope that President Kerry “and there must be a President Kerry in January 2005” will demonstrate more political courage than did Senator Kerry in October of 2002. Unfortunately, Kerry’s recent statement that he would have voted for the resolution even if he knew Iraq possessed no WMD inspires little confidence that his political courage has rebounded.  Without WMD, the resolution’s already feeble case for authorizing force against Iraq completely evaporates.

You might want to take a moment to (re)read H. J. RES. 114[Report No. 107-721. It was a ludicrous statement then and is unequivocally no less so now.  As has become abundantly clear to anyone susceptible to even accidental bouts of critical thought, there never really was any evidence Iraq had any intention or capability to attack the United States.  Even though we all know Saddam is a megalomaniacal madman - like Qaddafi used to be (The difference, I guess, being that, although Qaddafi blatantly and directly sponsored terrorism for a prolonged period, he was willing to give up his practically non-existent nuclear weapons program.) he must have understood that, given the Bush Administration’s clear intentions, actually attacking America would only serve to ensure military action and almost certainly bring about his demise. The “threat” posed by Iraq was pure fiction and demonstrably so. In fact, assuming Iraq did have at least some WMD “which I admittedly did assume” about the only scenario in which it made sense for Saddam to use them against the US was if he was first attacked by the U.S.

It is also interesting to note that in exercising the authority granted him in H.J. Res. 114, the President was to submit his determination that diplomatic or peaceful means were not sufficient to protect the national security of the United States and that:

“(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Any more questions about why so much of the American public is confused about Iraq’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks?  If Bush now says he never believed Iraq was behind 9/11, he knowingly lied to Congress in submitting the determination required by the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq.

Name: Chris Choate
Hometown: Austin, TX
Hello Good Doctor,
I, too, am having trouble with Kerry's stand on his Gulf War II vote.  On one hand, looking at his words, according to your linked article (you can never be too sure what anyone really said these days), he based his vote on his belief that "it's the right authority for a PRESIDENT to have," (emphasis mine) which in itself is debatable.  Clearly, the founding fathers didn't really want the President to traipse off to war without a Congressional declaration of war.  (I have a Seminar paper I wrote on this subject if you would like to see it, in which I look at some of the etymological history of the drafting of the Constitution.) On the other hand, Supreme Court precedence has loosened the standard quite a bit in the superseding centuries, so now we do have an Executive Branch with considerable war-making power.

In other words, as a trained lawyer, Kerry could simply be saying, "Well, damned if you do, or damned if you don't."  On one hand, Kerry may not trust Bush to carry out the plans at all, but on the other hand, seeing as how he would want those powers, or even believe himself legally entitled to them, if he were President, so he feels compelled to vote on precedent rather than conscience.  But it is one more of those damned nuanced views Kerry is famous for, and it drives everyone nuts.  Were I in Kerry's position, I would have voted no to Bush (WMD or no) and let history explain how my positions are not inconsistent: Congress has the authority to deny unilateral war-making abilities to a madman.

Name: Rich Gallagher
Hometown: Fishkill, NY
Dear Eric,
Re: the Swift Boat Veterans be sure to check out Novak's column yesterday.  He rather incredibly tells his readers that John O'Neill's motivations are personal, not political, never mentioning that O'Neill's ties to the Republicans go back to 1971, when he was recruited by Watergate felon Charles Colson to counter Kerry's anti-war efforts.  Novak also describes O'Neill's co-author, Jerome Corsi, as "a writer and expert on the Vietnam antiwar movement."  In fact, Corsi is a real piece of work, as has been exposed by the good folks at Media Matters for America.

Name: David Runion
Hometown: Iowa City, IA
I try to like John McCain. I really do.  He's patterned himself a straight-talking sort of guy, and we've certainly seen how forgiving and easygoing he is.  But through the years I've seen him pandering to both sides of the aisle, trying to have it both ways.  Take this latest issue, the Swift Vets ad -- he admonished their tactics as dishonest, asked the Bush camp to do the same, and yet his words have no force of threat behind them.  He'll happily trot out with Bush the next day as if nothing has happened, and heaven forbid they talk about the ad and what it means in a public fashion.  Of course Bush wouldn't want this, and McCain submits again.  John Stewart can only sigh comedically at this man so many times before it loses its freshness.  McCain has been so critical of his party, but his words now mean nothing to me.  It's sad to write off a man who seems so nice, but that's exactly what I've had to do

Name: Edward Furey
Eric,
McCain's difficulties in standing by his guns with respect to the Kerry Swift Boat smears recall Truman's falling out with Eisenhower.  Truman broke with Ike less because he was Republican than because Ike went wimpy on McCarthy, in particular the McCarthy smear of George C. Marshall, whom Truman regarded as the greatest American of his day.

He knew that Marshall had played a vital role in Ike's career, putting him down for key promotions, including those that would lead to Ike getting the job Marshall wanted above everything -- commanding the Normandy landings and liberation of France. Truman thought Marshall's name didn't belong in the mouth of scum like McCarthy and thought Ike's for his silence smacked of both cowardice and ingratitude.

• August 10, 2004 | 1:03 PM ET

“Hero” McCain swallows hard, again.
President Bush is in northwest Florida, one of the most reliably Republican parts of the state, with Senator John McCain today.  I like a lot of things about McCain, but let’s face it, when the rubber hits the road, he wimps out.  He did not call the Bush campaign to account for their campaign to smear him (in a racist fashion) as the father of a black out-of-wedlock child in South Carolina in 2000.  He did not defend fellow vet Max Cleland when his party smeared the legless veteran as an ally of Osama bin Laden in the election of 2002.  Now, even though he’s called upon the White House to renounce the dishonest smears of the Swift Boaters campaign against Kerry—and they won’t because, after all, this is what they do—McCain buckles and appears with Bush.  Why?  Because he wants to be president some day more than he wants to be the man people like to think he is.  It’s a choice I can understand, but let’s be honest about it.  McCain is no hero.  He may have been one once, but no longer.  Here is Jim Rassmann’s Wall Street Journal column, “Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush.” (non-subscription here)
  
Shame on McCain, too.

I’m obviously unhappy with John Kerry’s inability to admit his mistake in voting for the war in Iraq.  I think this is both a political error—since it opens up the door to Nader’s misguided supporters who somehow think helping Bush get elected is going to further their goals—but also because it is wrong, pure and simple.  Kerry was wrong to trust Bush no matter what he said his goals were and now that it’s clear that Bush and company will mislead the country on absolutely anything, and fail, for reasons of both ideology and incompetence, to plan for the occupation, that vote was clearly a major error.  This tendency could be a major problem should Kerry become president.

Still Mickey Kaus is being purposely dumb when he terms Kerry’s record “erratic” because he writes of:

Kerry's erratic positions (against Gulf War I, for military action in Kosovo, Haiti, and Liberia) are almost purely tactical--designed to help him run for President--rather than sincerely thought-out.

Here.

Hello?  These were different situations.  Of the deployments Kaus lists I strongly supported interventions in Haiti and Liberia, which unfortunately, never really happened.  I would have supported Rwanda too.  I couldn’t make up my mind about Kosovo, but think it turned out to be quite a good idea in retrospect.  I opposed both Gulf wars and would have opposed the $87 billion as a means of forcing the administration to come clean about its plans for the occupation and spend whatever funds necessary in a wiser fashion. 

There is nothing “erratic” about making decisions on the basis of their merits, rather than—as Mickey and so much of the mass media seem to prefer—a desire to get lots of people killed in order to prove one’s toughness no matter what the circumstances.  Mickey is too smart not to know this so I attribute it to laziness, but it’s the kind of laziness that reinforces some of the worst tendencies in our political discourse—and national behavior.

Matt Cooper appears willing to go to jail to protect his sources.  Tim Russert may have cooperated and so perhaps, did Robert Novak, though neither one appears willing to talk about it.  Otherwise why are they not being threatened with jail as well?  Do these journalistic pooh-bahs, each of whom earns many times what a mere Time scribe does-- really have the right to refuse answers about their public behavior to their fellow journalists—if that be the word--when their entire professional careers depends on demanding answers from others?  Should their employers allow them to ditch these questions and stay on the job?

Alter reviews:  It’s come to my attention recently that a lot of people are unfamiliar with the Irish American band, Black 47.  Led by Larry Kirwan, they share some of the Clash’s intelligence, passion and political commitment.  They are not as powerful musically—who is?—but their lyrics connect to class issues and history in a way that’s all too rare.  I saw them perform not long ago at the Stephen Talkhouse in Amagansett in an extremely strong performance, and have been listening to their newest album New York Town, whose theme is the different neighborhoods of New York City, and features my faves Suzzy Roche, Rosanne Cash and David Johansen doing guest vocal spots.  What’s not to like?

I’ve also been spending time with a new collection called “Beautiful Dreamer: The Songs of Stephen Foster.”  I know you know he wrote, “Oh Susanna,” and maybe “Camptown Racers,” but he also wrote a bunch of other terrific songs.  A feller named Dylan once said, “Anyone who wants to be a songwriter should listen to as much folk music as they can, study the form and structure of stuff that has been around for 100 years.  I go back to Stephen Foster.”
This collection features Alison Krauss with Yo Yo Ma, Edgar Meyer and Mark O’Connor doing “Slumber My Darling,” John Prine doing “My Old Kentucky Home, Goodnight” and great stuff from Suzy Boguss, Roger McGuinn, Ollabelle, Mavis Staples, and BRS 49.

All of the proceeds from the record go to American Roots Publishing, the nonprofit organization formed in 2002.  It is dedicated to preserving American regional culture through literature and art.  Goals are accomplished by supporting artists who honor regional culture through their work and by linking them with communities in focused educational programs.  Take a look at AmericanRootsPublishing.org.

Correspondents’ Corner

Name: Brian Gygi
Hometown: Oakland, CA
Todd Gitlin's statement that given the +/-4 % margin of error in the Time poll, Bush and Kerry could be in a virtual tie, shows how little the concept is understood even by media literate folks.  Margin of error is another term for 'confidence limits' which are the bounds that one is 95% certain (the most common benchmark) that the estimated value lies.  So the Times pollsters are 95% certain that Kerry's actual figure is between 44% and 52%, while Bush's 95% likely to be between 39% and 47%. 

This is similar to an exercise I used to give to my statistics class:  given these figures, what is the probability that the two men are tied?  You need a table of z scores to solve this, but in this case +/-4% implies a z-score of 1.65, so there is a SD of 2.42%.  So for Kerry and Bush to be tied at say 45.5% (halfway between the two) that would be equivalent to a z-score of 1.03 for each, which corresponds to a probability (in the tails) for EACH man of 0.152 (15%). 

Now, of course joint probabilities are multiplicative (still with me?) so the probability that Bush and Kerry are tied at 45.5% is 0.023 (2.3%).  And that's actually the best case scenario for Bush.  The probability that they are both tied at either 44% (worst Kerry scenario) or 47% (best Bush scenario) is 0.016 (1.6%).  Now you know why most people in the media never bother to discuss this (because most don't understand it), and instead pretend that there still could be a horse race.

Name: Bob Mangino
Hometown: Seattle
Dr. A,
Another interesting item regarding the approval chart you linked us to is which polls are where:  ABC/Post, Gallup, and Fox (surprise!) are consistently at or near the top, with Zogby, AmResGp, and Ipsos-Reid consistently near the bottom.  It helps to know that they appear to have some internal bias (whether it's poll design or the respondents they tend to contact) when you hear their numbers over the coming months.  Also good to know that the terror alerts may serve to divert attention, but do not generally boost approval.  In fact the more we get, human nature being what it is ("Jeez, they interrupted football for this!"), they may well not divert attention and be a drag on Bush's approval.  Hey, they gives me an idea.

Name: Janet Ward
Hometown: Atlanta, Georgia
Eric,
The Republicans also have Gene Simmons.  I say let's do a Battle of the Bands for leadership of the country.  They can have Ted Nugent and Gene Simmons, and we get Springsteen and John Fogarty. Works for me.

• August 9, 2004 | 2:07 PM ET

'Wolf,' Continued
Take a look at this chart.  What does it tell you?  According to this new Time poll, 45 percent of Americans say they think it’s likely or at least possible that the Bush administration would manipulate a terrorist warning for political purposes.  Count me among their number.  Is it not unarguable that the Bush administration manipulated the 9/11 attacks for the purposes of their long-planned attack on Iraq?  Does anyone think that blowing the cover of a Pakistani spy inside Al-Qaeda for the purposes of cutting off Kerry’s good press from the Democratic convention was done in the interests of U.S. national security?  (Juan Cole has more) What is forgotten by many is that this has been their modus operandi.

• George W. Bush on expanding his trade authority: “The terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and we will defeat them by expanding and encouraging world trade.”
  
  
• George W. Bush on drilling for oil in Alaska: "I urge the Senate to listen to the will of the senators and move a bill," the president told reporters after a cabinet meeting in the White House. "The less dependent we are on foreign sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home."
  
  
• George W. Bush on the need for agriculture subsidies: “It's in our national security interests that we be able to feed ourselves."
  
  
• George W. Bush on taxes and spending: “The terrorists want us to stop flying, stop buying, but this great nation will not be intimidated by the evildoers."

A Doonesbury cartoon caught the atmosphere perfectly: It showed Ari Fleischer making the following announcement to the assembled members of the White House press corps:

Before we start today I have an announcement to make.  I’m sure that all of you appreciate that national security is at the heart of all public policy.  Therefore starting today and continuing through next year’s election, the answer to any question posed to the White House will be ‘9/11.’  Whether the question is on foreign policy, the economy, tax cuts, energy, the environment, whatever, the answer will always be the same—‘9/11.

The above, by the way, is drawn from The Book on Bush,  which was just published in paperback (and much to my chagrin, appears to be outselling What Liberal Media?  (I’ve never noticed the reviews of TBOB on the Amazon page before. Thanks reviewers.)

Back to the Time Poll.  The plus or minus 4 points makes it kinda hard to read.  I sent it to Todd Gitlin pointing out that if you give Kerry three of every four Nader votes, he would destroy Bush in massive landslide.  Todd came back to me saying that with the margin of error, it could also be read as virtual tie.  Then again, if the errors go in the opposite direction, it already is a massive landslide for Kerry.  Either way, the only thing that can win this thing for Bush these days, with the economy tanking and Iraq boiling and an equal number of people saying a terrorist attack will inspire them to vote for Kerry as Bush, is Ralph Nader.  His desperation to give Bush his first genuine victory has grown so all-consuming that not only is he taking massive amounts of Republican dollars but he is ripping off homeless people.

The Note reports,

Michael Currie Schaffer of the of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes that Democrats plan to file a legal challenge in Commonwealth Court today to block independent candidate off the state's general election ballot.  They say as many as 90 percent of the petitions circulated by Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in Philadelphia are invalid due to forgeries and other improprieties.  Campaign spokesman, Kevin Zeese, say the conducted its own review finding there were enough valid signatures to pass muster.  "They announced they were going to find problems even before they looked at the signatures, so it's not surprising that they found problems."

Separately, a Philadelphia lawyer plans to file a lawsuit against Nader this morning "on behalf of dozens of petition circulators, many of them homeless, who he said had not been paid for their work." (Link)

I gave the wrong URL last week for my Atlantic article on Hollywood and politics.  It’s here.  It’s gotten more relevant as of late, methinks.

Alter-review:
Sal likes the new official Velvet’s boot a lot better than I do.

THE VELVET UNDERGROUND LIVE AT HIRAM'S CRABCAKE PAVILLION!
OH WAIT, IT'S "LIVE AT MAX'S KANSAS CITY"...

Possibly the first rock bootleg ever given an official release by a major label, "The Velvet Underground Live At Max's Kansas City" documented their final show before Lou Reed quit the band in 1970.  Recorded on a hand-held cassette player from the audience, "Live At Max's" was always a fascinating document, but the crappy sound quality made for rough listening.  Now, 34 years after the show and 32 years after it was first released, the good folks at Rhino have given "Live At Max's Kansas City" a sonic makeover.  It still doesn't sound like "Kiss Alive II," but fantastic remastering has made it more than just a piece of history -- it's now a great record, too.  Featuring material from "Loaded," their swan song, as well as earlier classics like "White Light White Heat" and "Femme Fatale," "Live At Max's" now includes six previously unreleased tracks from the same show.  Even without Nico or John Cale, this album is the proof of the Velvet Underground's greatness. More here.

Sal Nunziato
NYCD

Correspondents Corner:

Name: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA
Hey Doc:

Because every day, even the third anniversary of the fourth day on which the White House ignored a certain PDB, is Slacker Friday, Part The XXXIV.

What do this and this have in common?  (And thanks, in advance, to the redoubtable Digby for fleshing out the latter. Go to his blog for some real fun!)

Give up.

They are two great stories which didn't get an eighth-as-much play on this weekend's shows as did the surrogate crapola from Swift Boat Veterans For Anybody Who'll Write Us A Check.  The whole bias debate is beside the point here -- and, after all, wasn't it settled in somebody's book a few years back anyway?  Left or right, it doesn't matter.  These are great stories -- American doctors possibly wiping their feet on the Hippocratic Oath?  Naked, howling hypocrisy from a U.S. senator, and on a matter of vital national security at that?  Back when stories mattered in journalism, important reporters would be tearing at these kind of stories until it looked like some National Geographic special on polar bears and migratory seals.  My craft has so lost the ability to tell stories that it hardly recognizes them any more.  (And, no, the tinpot Gotcha carny act doesn't count.)  We can't see the narrative in front of us -- it winds around too much, as life will -- so we invent a simpler one to tell.

The ascendance of Tim Russert to the head of the class is all you need to know.  It's all about finding quotes that don't line up, and asking the person why they don't.  Here's a hint: Probably for the same reasons that I still own all four Iron Butterfly albums.  Because people f**cking change, Ace.  If you knew how to tell a story, you'd know that's not journalism.  It's collating.  I don't know what kicked off this rant, except that we seem to be headed down a cheap and ugly path again in this election, and elite journalism seems as incapable this year as it was in 2000 to turn away from it, and, to borrow a line from The West Wing, I don't think there's ever been a more important time to be better at what we do.

Name: Randy Cauthen
Hometown: Bloomsburg, PA
Dr. A -
Your readers might be interested to know that the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) is sponsoring The 1984 + 20 Project, a nationwide reading and discussion of Orwell's 1984 this October.  We hope that libraries, schools at all levels, local organizations, and book discussion groups can use the book to think about and prepare for the presidential election.  NCTE and Rhetoricians for Peace (a group of teachers, students and writers which is cosponsoring the project) have developed a large number of resources about the project and 1984's relationship to contemporary America.  Anyone who's interested in learning more can check out here or here.

Thanks.

MORE FROM COMMUNITY

Community Section Front

The Week in Political Cartoons Clicked: One day at a time Cosmic Log: Give us geeky gift ideas Daily Nightly: Read the latest entries ZeitGeist: Michael Jackson's face in ultrasound? First Read: The day in politics News Hole: The blog of Countdown Daryl Cagle's Political Cartoon Weblog House OKs bill to let judges rewrite mortgages Critics see understaffed, overwhelmed Treasury Community Section Front   Add Community headlines to your news reader: