Christmas is wonderful, inspiring hope and faith. Now - it's New Year’s Eve - how about we have a little less faith and exercise lots more skepticism? (Until Christmas 2004, that is.)
Happy New Year!
I follow what Tom Friedman of the New York Times, Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post and Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek write. All three are very intelligent, educated in foreign policy and politically moderate to liberal. All three supported the US preemptive war on Iraq. All three still do.
However, as a Hoagland column in today’s Albuquerque Journal reminds me, none of them objects to the lack of democracy in the formulation of the Iraq policy.
Hoagland writes, "Americans went to war in Iraq and then engaged in a retroactive argument about the wisdom and justification of what they had done as the unexpected costs of occupation and the flaw’s in the Administration’s original calculations about weapons of mass destruction became apparent."
Wow! No suggestion that the White House misled the Congress and the public in the buildup to war. No mention of White House reliance on faulty intelligence regarding WMD. Not a hint that the White House pursued this war by way of a conscious strategy of linking Iraq to alQaeda and 9/11/01. (President Bush continued to conflate Iraq and the 9/11/01 crime in his recent ABC-TV interview.)
Hoagland isn’t bothered by the possibility Americans were lied into a war. Nor does he wonder why the costs of occupation" were "unexpected."
He goes on to say,"Freeing Iraqis from a horrible tyranny that was a major force in destabilizing the Middle East was an appropriate use of American power…"
Talk about begging the question! If the aim was "freeing Iraqis," why not say so? In the beginning. (Actually, Hoagland has himself written that the war wasn’t so simple, but part of a complex, geo-political scheme.) Secondly, was Hussein’s tyranny "a major force in destabilizing the Middle East"? As major or moreso than the Saudi, Iranian, Syrian and Pakistani tyrannies? Prove it.
Thirdly, if that regime change was "an appropriate use" of our power, which regime is next?
But my concern here is how we make foreign policy, undemocratically.
In fairness, American history is all about that. The White House, State Department and corporate interests traditionally call the shots. Think "Spanish Civil War." Think "Panama Canal." Think "World War I." Think "Vietnam." (Would we have intervened in Indochina if JFK, LBJ or Nixon had asked the American people, "Should we put our young soldiers in harm’s way in order to shoulder France’s colonial burden"?)
Fact is that in our democracy, we leave the war decisions – and the death of trusting young Americans as well as innocent foreign civilians - to the Establishment.
You’d think Tom Friedman, Jim Hoagland and Fareed Zakaria might write about that. But unless I have missed something, you’d be wrong.
Life is getting in the way of this web log.
I lost yesterday afternoon. All of it.
The idea was to replace the bald front tires on my car with new tires. But I never figured it would take three hours! Here's one vote against the Sears Automotive operation at Coronado.
PS While they are not swift, I must concede that they charge a lot, too.
On a happier note, let me recommend that you go to the library if you missed the Albuquerque Tribune'special section Monday on the efforts of an aspiring fire fighter to qualify for the city fire department.
Let me say up front that Carrie Seidman, who wrote it, is a friend. That said, the story was very informative, beautifully written and suspenseful.
I will get back to President Bush's softness on terrorism soon.
I promise.
So there I was early this morning, reading the front page of the Albuquerque Journal into a computer.
(Thus, users of the Newsline for the Blind can dial up the news on a touchtone phone hear it.)
And I was stumbling all around.
Partly my fault; I am genetically a stumble bum. But the reporters and editors who insist on destroying fine stories by inserting "He said" or "according to Police Chief Jane Austen" deserve some of the blame, too.
They attribute without rhyme or reason, all over the page.
Mike Santullo, who runs Newsline for the State Commission for the Blind, understood perfectly when I started jumping up and down in frustration.
The journalism biz likes "attribution."
I know two good reasons why. One is to make clear who is saying what.
The other is to protect against lawsuits. It's better to hide behind the Police Chief than not.
But I frequently read stories with sentences like this:
"The sun rose this morning," according to Senator Domenici.
Puhleeze!
Sprinkling stories with "according to" and "she said" isn't just silly. It gets in the way of reading comprehension.
We ought to write stories fluently, the way people like to read them.
Mind you, I am not saying newspapers should write for the ear, the way radio and TV do. Readers use eyes.
But what's wrong with offering a narrative un - interrupted by useless attribution?
For example:
"Police Chief Austen described what happened at the corner of Central and University this way:"
(The following paragraph then requires no, zero, nada attribution.)
More on this tomorrow. As well as the promised followup to President Bush is Soft on Terrorism.
AA
Obviously, George W. Bush is soft on terrorism.
It is true that, immediately following the outrage of 9/11/01, he properly counter- attacked the criminals - alQaeda - and those who harbored them, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
And then he took his eye off the (terrorist) ball to pursue a geo-political strategy.
In retrospect, we can see why. There was a pre-existing desire and plan to attack Iraq created and promoted by a small group of very cold warriors - including but not limited to Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. They believed a victorious American war on Iraq might change the political dynamics of the Middle East, permitting (among other things) a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. They may also have wished to promote democracy in the Middle East (Wilsonian idealism?) and gain control of Iraqi oil (capitalist realism?)
And they saw 9/11/01 as an opportunity to promote the Iraqi project.
(This is on the record in "Bush at War", the book Bob Woodward did, based on NSC transcripts and interviews with the major White House players.
Wolfowitz may be heard, on page 83, seizing the opportunity to push for an attack on Iraq.
Powell argues, on 87, that nobody could look at Iraq and say it was responsible for September 11. But he does not close the door. "Keep the Iraq options open if you get the linkages," he says.)
Having decided to embark on the Iraqi track, the White House gave two big reasons.
1) Saddam Hussein helped alQaeda.
Maybe, but not likely. The enmity between Muslim terrorists like bin Laden and secular tyrants like Saddam is on the historical record. And the Administration hasn't offered anything resembling proof for their contention that the Baathists and alQaeda cooperated.
(The White House always conflates the two with frequent references to its "war on terror." Separately, the President admitted in a news conference that there's no proven tie. Result? More than 50% of Americans tell pollsters they think Iraq was involved.
2) Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
He once did, of course. But it now seems he got rid of them.
(Wolfowitz has conceded, in any case, that WMD was a pretext for the preemptive action, not the real reason.)
To return to the premise - as the US warred on Iraq, we neglected the pursuit of the terrorists and their protectors, the Taliban.
Not to mention, post-Taliban Afghanistan. As I write, the Karzai government has a shaky hold on the capital city and no hold on most of the country. We are fighting medium-scale engagements, again, with the Taliban. And bin Laden remains at large.
Perhaps most seriously, we worry that our attack on Iraq has strengthened alQaeda and other anti-Western elements throughout the Muslim world. Or at least Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has that concern; it was in the leaked memo that made headlines a few months ago.
Why did George W. Bush turn away from the terrorists and go the Iraqi route? Did it have anything to do with Saudi Arabia's support for bin Laden?
Tomorrow, I will try to continue this exploration of the President's softness on terrorism.
A.A.
PS It's Sunday afternoon. NFL time.
A week ago, Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich asked the FDA for an exemption from federal law so the state could buy prescription drugs from Canada. He figured on saving $90.7 million a year.
The FDA said "No." It seems it could not guarantee the safety of the drugs.
You should be pleased that the FDA is vigilant, unlike Canadian authorities who allowed so many of their citizens to die from bad pills. You didn't know about that? That liberal press is at it again.
Seriously, this caring FDA is the very same agency that has approved umpteen US drugs in the last few years that killed patients, only to recall them after-the- death.
In fact, what we have here is the old story of a regulatory agency doing the bidding of the industry it's supposed to regulate. In this case, the industry - pharmaceutical manufacturing - is the most profitable in the nation. And extraordinary in its power, arrogance and duplicity.
(That last adjective refers to Big Pharma's habit of paying front groups to convey its message, including so-called "senior" organizations like USA, the United Seniors Organization. USA is one of several products from the shop of Richard Viguerie, the direct mail guy who specializes in fund-raising for right wing causes.)
But you cannot say the pharmaceutical industry is impotent.
Keeping its own "price control" in the US market while selling the same drugs for less overseas is just one of its victories. The new Medicare "reform" law is another.
I wrote about that in my last "New Wrinkles in Aging" column for the Albuquerque Tribune Dec. 18.
In case you missed it:
(Headline: I'm Steamed AARP Executives Sold Out)
Having pulled out the cards, plastic and paper, in my back pocket, I shuffle them. Ah, here it is – the rectangular AARP card. "Member since 1986," it says, and "Expiration November 2004." Wonder if I can get a refund.
I’m thinking of tearing it up, you see, or mailing it with a bitter message to AARP honchos in Washington, D.C., the guys who put the AARP stamp of approval on an awful Medicare "reform" bill that’s now law.
Though, to be fair, the law responded to a lot of sincere requests.
The pharmaceutical industry, for example, asked Washington to preserve its control of prices. Done. The law makes it illegal for Medicare to bargain for volume discounts. Guess that’s why the drug makers spend millions yearly to enhance the lives of our elected representatives.
Insurance companies wanted new federal subsidies. Done. They will be rolling in dough, my dough and yours. Yes, we are going to provide welfare to these corporations so they can make money in the senior health market. Confused? Hey, it makes sense to them.
Oh, and Republicans expressed the desire to wrest the Medicare issue from the opposition. Done. Several suicidal Democrats cooperated. (Yes, I know "suicidal Democrat" is redundant.)
But Medicare recipients struggling to pay for expensive pills will get help, right? Some, probably, but nobody knows for sure. Our compassionate politicians decided to postpone the "help" to 2006. (Gosh, I respect Scrooge. He never pretended to care.)
And the cost! They’re guessing $400 billion, which frightened some conservatives. Frightens me, too.
In backing this noxious brew of corporate welfare and privatization, AARP betrayed me. But my disgust with that organization is not universal, as I learned chatting with three New Mexicans who have dedicated years to it.
Lovola Burgess, who served on the national board for 10 years and was National President in 1992-94, admits only to "disappointment." AARP should have educated members and let them speak for themselves, she says.
Ida Smelser, a volunteer for 25 years, shares Lovola’s disappointment and characterizes AARP’s action as "partisan."
After 17 years of service, Pat Johnson’s reaction is stronger, "a step beyond" disappointment. Policy should rise from the grassroots, she believes, not top-down. AARP’s decision was "business-oriented, not human-oriented."
But none of the three will burn her card.
Oh, they dislike the law, but they see another side of AARP, particularly at the state level. They say New Mexico’s paid AARP staffers do great work.
And it’s true that New Mexico staff and volunteers recently helped pass legislation to protect seniors from predatory mortgage and home repair lenders. True, too, that AARP folks here reach out to new widows and widowers, older drivers, the tax form-befuddled and grandparents raising grandchildren.
Impressive. Still, why belong to a "senior lobby" that sells me out to drug and insurance companies ? It will cost me my AARP life insurance, but I want to join the exodus. (About 20,000 have already quit.) Or do I stay and fight?
Tough decision, so for now I’ll follow in Jack Benny’s footsteps. You remember the robber who put a gun to Benny’s back, saying "Your money or your life." Silence. More silence. Then the robber, losing patience, barked, "Well"?
"I’m thinking," said an annoyed Benny. "I’m thinking."
Alpert welcomes your thoughts at ArthurAlpert@swcp.com
That's the column. It appears in the Neighborhood Tribune
the third Thursday of the month.
A few weeks ago, I drove past the Highland Theater, where ACLOA resides, and the marquee promised a revival of "South Pacific."
I love the show, the music in particular, and headed for the Public Library to find a script. I couldn't remember if there was a small role I might play. Yes, there was - Capt. Brackett, who says he's "over 50."
I sure meet that qualification, but I had to read the play to see if I could impersonate him. And what struck me was its treatment of race. So innocent, so sweet. Were we ever that naive? Guess so.
PS I auditioned and got the part.
Music lovers will be pleased to know that it's a non-singing role.
PPS I know it's no longer ACLOA, but that name conjures up history. Musical Theater Southwest? Plastic, from a marketing person, no doubt. Inaccurate, too.
PPPS Dites-moi, pourquoi, la vie est belle....
and Joyeux Noel to you.
This morning's New York Times says Lenny Bruce was 40 when he died, not 37 as I wrote. So be it.
The Times story also quotes Tom Smothers:
"You can say the dirty words now, but there is no content - political satire is limited to small podiums and little soap boxes."
Well, there is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (Comedy Central, 9 PM Mountain). It's very intelligent if not uproariously funny. But that's all I can think of in the way of political satire.
Hmmm.
Governor Pataki of New York State just pardoned Lenny Bruce on an obscenity conviction going back to 1964, says an AP report in today's Albuquerque Tribune.
Bruce was convicted then of giving "an obscene performance."
Two years later, he died of a drug overdose. He was 37.
In the early 60s, I was reviewing Off-Broadway plays and nightclub shows for the New York World-Telegram & Sun. I don't remember where I went to see Lenny Bruce; it may have been the Village Vanguard.
Going in, I was on his side. He was a counter-culture hero, having scandalized many people. I assumed that was because he was bold and irreverent.
I was ready to laugh and applaud.
Probably I got to Lenny Bruce too late. For that night he wasn't the least bit funny.
He was preaching. It was intelligent argument, but just that - argument. No reason to laugh.
I still remember his closing routine about a comedian at the London Palladium who is bombing and who, to save himself, whips out the flag and flag-waving songs. Patriotism, the last resort....
Fascinating, just not funny.
So I wrote a review that said Lenny Bruce wasn't funny. That he preached too much to be funny.
I also said he was not Public Enemy #1, but rather a moralist. That he used dirty words to make the point that sex was good, but many of our rules and attitudes disgusting.
Some co-workers said they liked the review, but my editors were not amused.
Not much later, I was assigned to call funeral homes and families for the information needed to write obituaries.
This inspired me to resign and move into local TV news. It was 1962.
That's my Lenny Bruce story.
I got a flu shot a few weeks ago, without charge, courtesy of my HMO.
Now I read that the vaccine - concocted before it was clear what strain of flu was headed our way - may not protect me against this year's bug.
I am not in a panic. Nor do I wish to throw thunderbolts against the HMO.
But I have a question.
Assuming that the HMO knew the vaccine wasn't likely to be on target, as I do, why didn't somebody tell me?
Hmmm?
"A conservative,' said the NPR reporter this morning, "Smith supported the Iraq war."
It wasn't Smith; I forget the name. But no matter. My point is the connection between"conservative" and supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Many conservatives do, in fact, support the war. So do many liberals.
But the policy is not conservative. Nor is it liberal.
Its origins may be found in the eras of McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, all of whom jettisoned what had been traditional American policy - stay far from foreign conflicts - to involve the nation overseas. Early in the process, the US took posssession of colonies. Later, with Wilsonian "idealism" trumping "real politique," we helped build the post World War I world.
All that is complex. The straight line, however, is simple. So journalists hop to it. They see it horizontal, with conservatives a little to the right of the middle and liberals a little to the left. Also, on the far right there are Nazis and on the far left, Commie pinkos.
And the game is shaping, squeezing, forcing complex reality into the mind-box of the horizontal line.
Simple? Yes. Ignorant? You bet.
But - the Columbia Journalism Review aside - nobody still believes journalism is supposed to help citizens think clearly. It's about careers and selling papers and ratings, right?
Late yesterday, Sunday, I read half of Robert Harris’s historical novel, Pompeii (Random House, 2003). It is such a fine, suspenseful yarn about people living in towns on the Bay of Naples below Vesuvius, that at 10 PM, when my eyes kept closing, I put it down grudgingly.
I was busy this morning, so it wasn’t until two hours ago that I got back to the story. Now, at 4 PM, having finished it, I am satisfied.
Knowing how the hero and his lady fared is a big part of that, but not all. The deeper reward comes from the reminder that our lives and sorrows are short, while history is long. That we are small, too, and Nature great.
In short, it consoles.
George Will spends most of the year fronting for the Right and corporate government, but with Christmas coming, he's remembered conservatism. Even fairness.
Will writes (Newsweek, 12/22):
"The war with Iraq went well, aside from the detail that the reason for it - weapons of mass destruction - has been elusive."
I guess he figures it's not too late to persuade Santa that he is a truthful boy.
An adult would have added that Paul Wolfowitz, a leading author of the Iraq scenario, has said the WMD story was useful but not the reason we initiated the war.
We also know Will's holiday truth-telling has limits. He makes no mention of the other fabrication used to justify the war - one that many Americans believe - that Hussein was in cahoots with alQaeda.
Well, maybe George is so full of Christmas love he'd rather not deal with too many of the prevarications out of the White House and Pentagon.
For at the end of that exploration lies horror and guilt. So many young American soldiers dead or maimed. So many innocent Iraqis, too. Sacrified to serve what? Wilsonian idealism? Re-election? Oil reserves? Contracts for friends of W?
I don't suppose it matters to the dead.
o Give Mayor Marty credit. He’s saying we should find ways to help the mentally ill homeless. For their good and for public safety. That’s leadership.
o I got a call at dinnertime from a union wanting to know who I support in the upcoming Democratic caucus. Which reminded me that, since they passed "Do Not Call," I rarely get calls from telemarketers. Hooray for government!
PS I told the caller I am undecided.
• The FCC just said, "OK" to Rupert Murdoch's purchase of Direct TV. As News Corp's empire grows, I am reminded that only small business loves competition; the big guys prefer to control markets.
It’s been a thousand years since I last attended a political party session, so when I dropped in at the Bernalillo County Democrats’ forum for Congressional candidates last night, I was emotionally open.
And I was touched. I still feel warm and hopeful (and afraid) when I see Americans participate in the democratic process at these low levels. Close to 200 of them - not the 100 cited in the Albuquerque Journal this AM- came to UNM Law School. Of course, there were a couple of sharp young lawyers looking for signatures; the Sammy Glicks will always be with us. But most looked like regular folks, the majority middle-aged or elderly, with a sprinkling of twenty-somethings.
Eli Chavez, ex-DEA, spoke first. He showed energy and a sense of humor, but said little on the issues. I wondered why he was in the race. Somebody out there hoping to clip Richard Romero’s wings?
Miles Nelson, an emergency room physician from Santa Fe, devoted a lot of his opening remarks to health care. He knows his subject. Dr. Nelson said our system is "broken" and advocated fixing it by way of universal health insurance. (Big applause.) Competition? That, he said, should reign on the level of doctors and other providers.
He touched on energy, too, urging the promotion of "new, clean" technologies to get us to energy independence.
Nelson was assertive, a strong liberal. Sharp edged, too. Young.
When it was Richard Romero’s turn, the State Senator and former educator was easy. He tied Heather Wilson to the Bush economy, as in "three million jobs lost" and turning the Clinton surplus into a huge deficit through "Charge and Spend."
Romero criticized how the war has played out but slipped in a quiet endorsement of the attack on Iraq. Innoculating himself against a Wilson attack?
Romero’s post-mortem on his first attempt to unseat her included a late start and a failure to get out traditional Democratic voters. He said he’d do better this time.
After Romero talked about raising money, Eli Chavez kidded him about his ability to get big dollars. Chavez said there was too much money in elections. And the audience applauded loudly.
I thought, "He’s right. They’re right. And all that is irrelevant."
The money is there. Rep. Wilson will outspend the Democratic candidate by far. Big Pharma will back her again, this time maybe coming out from behind its front groups. As will other corporate interests.
The applause from assembled Democrats for single-payer health insurance and reducing the role of money in electoral politics bothered me. Wishing upon a star won’t make it so.
I left early in the Q&A session, worrying that Democrats do not understand that electoral politics no longer tolerates well-meaning amateurism. It’s about what the folks in the White House did to John McCain in South Carolina and Max Cleland in Georgia. Two war heroes cut down by lies. And oodles of money.
PS Speaking of lies, I just read "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who tell Them,’ by comedian Al Franken. He spends a lot of pages rebutting folks I don’t know - Bill O’Reilly and Hannity and Colmes and other Fox entertainers.
But there’s solid journalism in his chapter on the Clinton record on terrorism and how the Bushies turned their back on what Clinton’s national security people left behind. Also, on Karl Rove and the "Religious Right."
I just don’t think Franken is very funny.
PPS Ah, politics. Where you want to know about the game and the players, I'm a poor choice. Joe Monahan is the pro.
See the link to his "New Mexico Politics" below.
A.A.
Herewith, the first installment of "Radical Wild Ideas," a regular feature, perhaps, of this web log:
The cost of medical malpractice insurance weighs on doctors and, ultimately, those of us who need them. Therefore, I propose a solution.
Let's reduce the incidence of medical malpractice.
(Doctors can do this by disciplining incompetents, taking away their licenses and telling us who they are.)
Yes, I know. Too radical, too wild.
Gosh. The national debate is almost as confusing as the Democratic Party's internal conflict. So here's some clarity, offered with no strings and at no cost.
Seriously, the nation has three basic issues.
One, was the Iraq war part of a counter-attack on the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11/01? Or was it a diversion from (even subversion of) that effort?
(Notice I do not refer to the "war on terrorism." That slogan, comparable to our ongoing "war on drugs," is not a policy – after all, neither "war" can ever be won. It serves only to rally the troops and make it easier to subsidize favored interests, the military-industrial complex in one case, police/prison industries/social worker complex in the other.)
Two, shall our nation be governed by and for corporate power or shall it retain some elements of democracy?
Three, shall fear propel the U.S. toward narrowing, even abolishing, rights incorporated in that part of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.
Clear?
CATO Policy Report (November/December 2003) notes that two of its analysts disagree with Sen. John McCain's view that broadcasters should provide free time to candidates. Not only do the analysts "question the conventional wisdom" that rising campaign expenditures and negative ads are evil, but - get this - "they contend that the nonparticipation of many Americans in the electoral process is a choice that should be respected."
Yes, you read it right. It would be disrespectful to ask them why they're staying home.
Wonderful. CATO analysts - subsidized by corporate America - don't even wonder if people aren't voting because corporate America calls the shots for both parties.
Perhaps they also think it's best that we leave elections to the elite.
Laughter is good for the soul, isn't it?
As a regular feature, we intend to blow a whistle whenever we find evidence of the liberal media conspiracy.
Example: From Rory McClannahan, West Side Business Editor, Albuquerque Journal, Dec. 11, 2003:
"Usually, when Republicans and Democrats in Congress agree on something, it means it's going to cost us something."
Oh. Sorry. That's not liberal. That's anti-government, maybe Libertarian, rhetoric.
Never mind.
I'm fascinated by the content of politics. Joe Monahan loves the game itself. Joe's new blog on New Mexico politics is so full of facts and fun that the daily newspapers are borrowing from him.
This explains why I've put a link to: joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com, on this page. (Look to the lower left.)
Read Joe and enjoy.
I was slow getting to the remote last night, so the local news came on. And the lead was? The flu. No, not crime.
After picking myself up off the floor, I fell to thinking. Local TV news - the daily drumbeat of fear - is little more than the police blotter. Illustrated.
Given that and given the never-ending promotion of their newscasts by our local stations, I have a modest proposal.
Why not dress the anchors in police uniforms? Dick Knipfing, with his gray hair, would look distinguished in blue. And Carla Aragon - think a tight man's shirt - sexier.
I cannot imagine how or why Albuquerque's TV marketing people have neglected this opportunity.
Hey, it might raise ratings.
I grew up thinking sadness was part of life. Over the years I have noticed that another view is growing in popularity - sadness is a signal something’s wrong and ought to be changed. Worth thinking about, though I am not yet persuaded.
I thought, too, in youth that work is hard. Actually, it was an unexamined assumption that experience made me look at and modify. Work I enjoy isn’t difficult at all.
All this by way of introducing a book that requires effort on the reader’s part. I am working my way, joylessly, through Walter Karp’s The Politics of War, first published in 1979 and just re-issued by Franklin Square Press. This is a fact-filled and dense history of America in the Spanish-American War and World War I. (An off-beat interpretation, I’d guess.) Karp describes the coincidence of imperialism abroad, corporate dominance and repression at home. Sound familiar?
There is a reward for plowing through this work, namely the good news that those periods ended. For a time, at least.
PS Karp’s history is particularly relevant as we celebrate the capture of Saddam Hussein. Judging from newspapers and TV, the Administration will use this happy event to reinforce the largely inaccurate story that the US warred on Iraq in response to alQaeda’s terrorism. (See Bob Woodward’s Bush at War (Simon & Schuster, 2002), widely considered friendly to the President, for indications the White House saw 9/11/01 as a chance to move ahead on an existing geo-political scheme involving preemptive war on Iraq.)
I’m Arthur Alpert. This web log is my attempt to understand what’s happening in politics and culture and to tell you what I conclude. That’s my "truth." Note that "truth" is lower-case.
Please expect:
Dissent
Complexity
(In "The Importance of Being Earnest," Algernon asks for the truth "pure and simple." His friend responds; "The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Right on, Oscar.)
Media Criticism
(Having spent years in journalism, I find its decline sad. Unfortunately, I will have no difficulty finding evidence of that to pass along.)
I hope you find some stimulation here and entertainment, too. Perhaps you will return the favor by letting me know what you think. Thank you.
A.A.
Welcome to Arthur Alpert's Truth.