dev
“We answer to the name of liberals”
Bruce Ackerman and Todd Gitlin have written a new manifesto for those unashamed of the word “liberal.” It appears in the November print edition of the American Prospect, and it’s online as well. It reflects my current thinking more closely than the Euston Manifesto, the UK version of which I signed earlier this year. Below is the Ackerman-Gitlin text in
They hate us because…
PBS ran an excellent documentary this week on the war photographers’ collective known as “Seven.” This is a smart, experienced group of people with diverse views. One of them, now focused on photographing the American social and political scene, offered his thoughts on Bush’s oft-repeated slogan that terrorists “hate us for our freedom.” I can’t pin down this person’s name
Raimondo shills for Putin
Right-wing paleocon antiwar activist Justin Raimondo, last referenced here, has now penned a hallucinatory defense of Russian president Vladimir Putin — get this — “a capable, no-nonsense, and staunchly nationalist leader.” Raimondo gripes about “elegies praising [brutally murdered journalist Anna] Politkovskaya as a veritable saint.” He works up to this: Those who criticize Putin for supposedly reintroducing authoritarian rule can
Ashcroft on the Daily
Appearing on the Daily Show of Oct. 18, John Ashcroft defended the use of “alternative techniques” — i.e., torture — in prisoner interrogations. Very important, he argued, for interrogators to do more than just ask “would you please” of terror suspects. Must get them to divulge the plans for “the next attack.” The truth about the torture debate is that
Jazz treason
I’ve received an email from the brilliant trumpeter John McNeil, advertising a regular gig with the equally brilliant tenor saxophonist Bill McHenry. At the bottom is this wonderful critical plaudit: “Their treasonous use of pentatonics speaks volumes about their hatred of America. These guys are traitors, pure and simple.” — Ann Coulter Took the words right out of my mouth.
Lancet update
Johann Hari, in an otherwise illuminating interview with Salman Rushdie, repeats the canard: “Just after we meet, it is estimated by the Lancet that 650,000 Iraqis have been killed due to Quiet Americans (and Brits).” The number of deaths from violence, according to the Lancet, is 600,000, not 650,000. And once again, the study does not show that all the
Iraq 2006
It is as I said: Bill Maher, on this week’s “Real Time,” brought up the Lancet report showing that “we’ve killed 600,000 Iraqis.” This is outright misinformation, catching on as conventional wisdom. The issue is not simply the veracity of the number, but the allocation of responsibility for the slaughter. The report shows that the majority of killings can be
The Lancet study
A new study conducted by Johns Hopkins and published in the British medical journal The Lancet posits that Iraqi civilian deaths since the 2003 invasion may top the 600,000 mark. A pdf of the study is here. Doubt has been cast on the study’s accuracy — of course by the Bush administration but also by qualified people in the fields