What's Going To Happen?

You've probably already seen this:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned." He then continued: "US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

I have no idea what's going to happen now. Generally speaking, empires never peacefully retreat from valuable possessions. That goes double for a situation like this, since the idea of a Shiite Iran and a friendly Shiite Iraq controlling much of the world's oil—right next to the Shia sections of Saudi Arabia, which have the rest of it—is the greatest nightmare imaginable for the US foreign policy elite. So I'd always assumed Barack Obama would be our next president and at the end of his two terms we'd still have 100,000 troops occupying giant military bases in Iraq. Moreover, this would all be done at the request of the Iraqi government.

On the other hand, perhaps the world is changing—either slightly or a lot. Certainly in the past we would already have overthrown Maliki and installed a more compliant "democracy." But maybe the combination of the internet, satellite TV and IEDs has made that kind of imperialism more difficult, and when you add America's financial exhaustion it's close to impossible.

I don't know. I still wouldn't bet against us being in Iraq eight years from now, or eighteen years from now. But things are not proceeding according to my expectations.

—Jonathan Schwarz

More On Health Care For America Now

Not everyone thinks the new organization Health Care for America NOW is what we need. Here are some other views:

• David Himmelstein, MD: "A Policy Response to Health Care for America Now"

• Rose Ann DeMoro: "Why is Health Care for America Now giving up on real reform?"

• Jenny Brown: "Health Care for America Now: Which Side Are They On?"

—Jonathan Schwarz

Tom Engelhardt Interview + New TomDispatch

Here's Tom Engelhardt being interviewed by the Real News. (Donate to the Real News here.)

And here's the latest piece from TomDispatch:

The Pentagon and the Hunt for Black Gold
The Oil Deal Nobody Wants to Talk About
by Nick Turse

For years, "oil" and "Iraq" couldn't make it into the same sentence in mainstream coverage of the invasion and occupation of that country. Recently, that's begun to change, but "oil" and "the Pentagon" still seldom make the news together.

Last year, for instance, according to Department of Defense (DoD) documents, the Pentagon paid more than $70 million to Hunt Refining, an oil company whose corporate affiliate, Hunt Oil, undermined U.S. policy in Iraq. Not that anyone would know it. While the hunt for oil in Iraq is now being increasingly well covered in the mainstream, the Pentagon's hunt for oil remains a subject missing in action. Despite the staggering levels at which the Pentagon guzzles fuel, it's a chronic blind spot in media energy coverage.

Let's consider the Hunt Oil story in a little more detail, since it offers a striking example of the larger problem. On July 3, 2008, according to the New York Times, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that Hunt Oil had pursued "an oil deal with the regional Kurdistan government that ran counter to American policy and undercut Iraq's central government." Despite its officially stated policy of warning companies like Hunt Oil "that they incur risks in signing contracts until Iraq passes an oil law," the State Department in some cases actually encouraged a deal between the "Texas oil company with close ties to President Bush" and Kurdistan that "undercut" Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government in Baghdad.

Asked if the White House was aware of Hunt Oil's negotiations with Kurdistan's largely autonomous regional government, President Bush's press secretary Dana Perino replied, "I don't know of anybody who was aware of it."

It turns out that wasn't exactly the truth of the matter....

The rest.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Media Suck Up-ery: A Retrospective

Some people are upset by this example of appalling booklicking by Ron Fournier—then an AP reporter, now head of AP's Washington bureau—discovered in the bowels of a new government report:

Karl Rove exchanged e-mails about Pat Tillman with Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier, under the subject line "H-E-R-O." In response to Mr. Fournier's e-mail, Mr. Rove asked, "How does our country continue to produce men and women like this," to which Mr. Fournier replied, "The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight."

But while that's bad, I'd bet you ONE TRILLION DOLLARS that if you could open up the archives of the Bush administration, you'd find a thousand examples that are worse. Fournier is just the tip of a giant, fetid iceberg. These people do nothing all day long but deliver tonguebaths to the boots of whoever's powerful that day.

For instance, here's Ted Koppel talking by phone to Henry Kissinger in 1976:

KOPPEL: You looked sensational [on TV]. Tanned and well rested... How was your vacation?

KISSINGER: Very pleasant. We missed you. We expect you to show up.

KOPPEL: Normally I don't let you go without me... How is your schedule for the next couple of weeks because we wanted to have you and Nancy over some evening?... In fact, I am not sure we would have anybody else over. Just a quiet evening.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Hip Hop Is Dead

By: Bernard Chazelle

It's tough to start one's music career with an unsurpassable masterpiece, but that's what Nas did with Illmatic. While not reaching the amazing lyrical heights of that album, Hip Hop is Dead is a fine effort by Nas's exacting standards. In it, Nas vents his despair at the state of rap today. Dunno why but the mix of despair and irony reminded me of this blog.

The bigger the cap, the bigger the peelin', Come through, something ill, missin' the ceilin'. What influenced my raps? Stick ups and killings, Kidnappings, project buildings, drug dealings. Criticize that, why is that? Cuz Nas rap is compared to legitimized crap, Cuz we love to talk on nasty chickens. Most intellectuals will only half listen.

It's not the new "southern" rap he is dissing. It's the corporate media.
(Don't miss the fist jab in the video!)

Me, I'm off to enemy territory (Canada) for a few days.

Embedding was disabled by YouTube, so click here.

— Bernard Chazelle

It's All About Race

By: Bernard Chazelle

One of the many flaws of the New Yorker cover is that it misses the point entirely. The right-wing smears that it highlights do not, in fact, question whether Obama is Muslim, whether he hates the American flag, whether he is unpatriotic, or whether his wife is angry or ungrateful. These are all codewords. Here's a translation:

Obama is a Muslim? Yes, Obama is black!

Obama is unpatriotic? Yes, Obama is black!

Angry, uppity wife? Yes, Obama is black!

And that terrorist fist jab? Yes, Obama is black!

Anti-Semites have used this device for centuries: They are unpatriotic? Yes, they are Jews!

You can't say "I don't want a black man in the Oval Office," so you say "I don't want a terrorist in the Oval Office." And the geniuses at the New Yorker fall for it and, with a smug smile on their face, tell you: "OMG, can you believe there are kooks out there who think that Obama is a terrorist?" Thank you, New Yorker! Thanks to you, now I understand the meaning of this poll.

Nearly 60 percent of black respondents said race relations were generally bad, compared with 34 percent of whites.

Now I understand what they mean by "post-racial." Our world is post-racial every bit as much as a blind man's world is post-visual.

Hey, did you know that some Germans in the 30s believed that Jews drank the blood of Christian children? Yes, yes, I swear that's true! Thank God "Der Berliner" had a hilarious cover that debunked that nonsense. Phew... I hate to think what might have happened to the Jews otherwise.

— Bernard Chazelle

29 Years Successfully Wasted

Jimmy Carter delivered his so-called "malaise" speech 29 years ago today. What we wouldn't give today to have done what he advocated (except perhaps for the expanded use of coal):

CARTER: Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never...

Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my presidential authority to set import quotas...

Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel...

I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.

These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay...

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source...

Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board...

Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every state, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.

To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems...

Our nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives...

I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act. We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.

Thanks, America's crazy right wing. We couldn't have ignored our most important problems for three decades and thereby made them much worse without you.

(The speech can be watched here.)

—Jonathan Schwarz

Judging A Book By Its Cover

By: Michael Gerber

I'm taking a break from writing (blogging in particular) for the summer and maybe longer. But there is a controversy afoot, a tiny little tornado in a teacup that, like the ringing of Pavlov's bell, has wrung an inevitable response from me. I'm just as God made me, folks, a simple satirist and ex-magazine person and lover of GOOD magazines, and so must fling out my two cents, asked for or not.

Don't let the glossy intellectualized idiom confuse you: The New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama is bad satire--blurry in intent, flawed in execution, and...well, the kind of clunking, ill-formed thing that rigid hierarchies of smart-but-unfunny people create when they're determined to crack wise. Illustrator Barry Blitt has depicted the putative First Couple in the Oval Office, she dressed as Angela Davis with 'fro and bandolier, he as an turbaned Islamofascist. There's even a portrait of Osama bin Laden over a roaring fire, stoked by an American flag. The pair share a fist-bump in sly solidarity.

Blitt's objective was, I can only assume, to lampoon June's FOX News fantods over "terrorist fist-jabbing," as well as the right-wing's endless whispery smears of the Obamas as somehow unamerican. There's nothing wrong with this goal--the hysteria and smears ARE ridiculous, and legit targets--but there's nothing particularly right with it, either.

First off, it's old news. Six weeks is an eternity for political humor, and there's nothing lamer than an untimely attempt at timely satire. This would have been a fine cover (nothing extraordinary, but fine) if it had appeared within a week or two of FOX's fluttering (June 7, according to YouTube). Running it now makes readers go "Huh?...Oh, I remember that." It is this moment of confusion, followed by vague recollection--a timely joke delivered in a non-timely fashion--that is causing the negative reaction.

Second, the style doesn't match the satirical intent. The intent is to underscore the absurdity of Obamas-as-fifth-column, to show it to be a fever-dream born of rhetoric and paranoia. You can do this either by creating a grotesque fantasy--amping it one way--or going in the other direction, and anchoring it in reality. Blitt's slight, watery, wan style is exactly the wrong treatment. Maybe Blitt came to them with the idea; fair enough, pair him with somebody who can use Photoshop, have the pair of them create a seamless photocollage that takes the right-wing fantasy to its FARTHEST POINT. Make it graphic, make it punchy. Photorealistic or Felliniesque, it doesn't matter, but the finished product should insist upon the opinion you want the reader to take away: "this is absurd."

Whenever The New Yorker does a reasonably decent cover, the ancient Steinberg cover of Manhattan as the center of the world is referenced; but this comparison shows just why Blitt's cover is so structurally weak. To begin with, the Steinberg cover fit the venue; its satirical point was that many Manhattan-dwellers believe that their island is the center of the world. The presence of that idea on the cover of The New Yorker was completely appropriate, and allowed the reader to absorb that idea without having to decode its relationship to the magazine "behind" it.

The viewpoint of Blitt's cover is one diametrically opposed to the one held by your average New Yorker reader; therefore, it's understandable for readers to see it and think, "Why is The New Yorker saying that the Obamas are militants/Islamofascists?...They would never do that...Oh, I get it." Ideas like this--ones that require a second of mental processing--these are weak vehicles for satire, especially in our hyper-visual, hyper-distracted, information-dense era, when none of us have time to process anything very deeply, given the volume of crud that comes at us every minute of every day.

Furthermore, there was a fitness of idea and style in the Steinberg cover that does not exist here. Steinberg's style was cartoonish, idiosyncratic, exaggerated to the point of absurdity--all completely of a piece with the "NYC as center of world" idea he was trying to put across. Like Steinberg, Blitt's style is personal, artistic--but in this case, it confuses the reader; is this Blitt's fantasy, since it comes from his pen? If we remember the old news story, AND know the political stance of TNY, we realize, no, it's not--it's commentary. The idea Steinberg was putting across was a small, amusing one; a harmless affectation held by New Yorkers everywhere, grist for a witty, stylish cartoon. The whisper campaign against the Obamas is not such light-hearted material, and that the editors could not make this distinction shows exactly why they should be kept far away from the funny cabinet. It could potentially make for a great cover, and maybe even a great cartoon cover, but this ain't it. It ain't anywhere close.

Jokes don't get over when you ask the reader to spend too much time "decoding." This is where idea and execution must work together, sharpening and enhancing each other. Blitt's cover is blurry in all three facets, intent, context, or execution. Intent: "Is this pro-Obama or con-? It seems con-, but because I know that The New Yorker is liberal, I guess it's pro-..." Properly sharpened satire, not to mention top-notch magazine covers, do not rely on the reader's prior knowledge of the magazine. They answer this question automatically, unequivocally, viscerally. Laugh or don't, but we WILL kill this dog. Context: Why now? Timely satire must be timely; this cover is the comeback you imagine six weeks later. Yes, I know the mechanics of producing a magazine require a certain time-lag--so don't do timely satire. Execution: The style employed does nothing to aid or refine the satirical point, and unlike Steinberg's style--or the photorealism of the famous NatLamp cover--actually blunts its impact...Which is, of course, completely intentional on the part of The New Yorker.

See, the problem isn't that the cover is blah. The problem is that the cultural turf staked out by TNY means that it cannot produce satire, and lacks either the good grace or self-awareness to abstain. Good satire is almost by definition excessive, and that runs counter to the "timeless intellectual arbiter" brand TNY strives so mightily to maintain (for commercial reasons). The reason that Tina Brown fizzled is because you cannot simultaneously pull stunts in the belief that all publicity is good publicity, while at the same time relentlessly harkening back to the Good Old Days when men wore suits and Shawn despised adverbs (or was it Ross?). One or the other stance always feels false. When Roseanne guest-edits, it feels like they're slumming; when they print this cover, it feels like they're giving authority to ideas that should be ignored. They can't win, so they shouldn't play.

But strange as it may seem the people at The New Yorker envy the people at The Daily Show; they envy them their relevancy, and their reach, and their hipness. Just like the people at The New Yorker in 1975 envied those things about SNL. The difference is, TNY in 1975 knew what it was, and what it was for, and today's New Yorker does not. That's why this cover doesn't work, and also why the pundits are rallying 'round to say that it does, because if they admit that it's just a ham-handed attempt at what things like The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and (yes, even) South Park do regularly--and effortlessly--they'll be forced to see just how many steps behind they really are.

So laugh, or don't, but know that it isn't a big deal--magazines don't matter in America, and haven't for 30 years--and we wouldn't even be discussing it were it not for the media's preference towards stories about itself. But given the poisonousness of the Obama-as-traitor meme--and the skill and persistence with which the right-wing smears Democrats--I personally wouldn't have run it. Unless, of course, it was really fucking funny.

It isn't. Moving on...

PS: When Kate read this post, she suggested that it either be done in a pure tabloid style (to which I replied, you could do it as a sideways spread inside the mag), or if you had to stick with TNY's house style, have McCain in a grocery store checkout line, reading a Weekly World News-type thing that reprinted all the lurid Obama-smearing. (I particularly liked that idea.) Kate also said she'd cancel her subscription, but felt that people who did that over objectionable covers "are asshats."

—Michael Gerber

"WHO is the KING of the RIGHTEOUS RIFF?"

By: Bernard Chazelle

For his movie "Kansas City," Robert Altman assembled some of the biggest names in jazz. This outtake features a Lester Young standard, Tickletoe.

The narrator, Harry Belafonte, refers to "cutting contests." People often think of early jazz players as slackers noodling around blues scales for a living. In fact, their environment was fiercely competitive. Players would compete one-on-one and the loser would be booed off-stage. (Few suffered more from this combative culture than Charlie Parker himself, who was neither a precocious nor a naturally gifted player, but that's a story for another day). The two kings of "the righteous riff" were Lester Young (Prez) and Coleman Hawkins (Bean). In this scene, Joshua Redman plays the part of Prez.

The marvelous pianist Geri Allen opens with the main walking bass line, which she quickly hands over to the formidable Christian McBride, probably the best young bass player today. This sort of "riff-passing" is common in jazz. It's like passing the baton in a relay race: you do it only when the next runner is already in full motion. Or think of a parent running alongside their child on a bicycle to give it a running start. Or think of a food taster: "Hey, I just need to make sure this chorus is not going to poison anyone, so let me take the first bite."

Don Byron and James Carter play the theme chorus, with a Carter in fine form displaying his trademark exuberance, which draws a smile from McBride. Then Joshua Redman takes the first break. Lester Young's 1940 solo (in Count Basie's band) is a jazz classic that only a fool would try to play note for note. Joshua Redman is no fool (in fact, he and James Carter are among the greatest jazz talents today) and he wisely charts his own path. (I have another take by him of that same break, and it is distinctively more modern).

Geri Allen's breaks couldn't be more different from Count Basie's 1940 recording. Allen plays like a full-fledged pianist. Count Basie, on the other hand, used the piano as a percussive instrument. He was a drummer at heart, who only switched to piano because Sonny Greer (an Ellington drummer) cast too wide a shadow. Don't get me wrong: Count Basie was a keyboard master. I have recordings by him on the organ (Fats Waller taught him: No, I am not making that up!)

The other band members are Mark Whitfield on guitar and Victor Lewis on drums. This is a dream team of jazz. I've had the good fortune to hear most of these musicians in concert and meet a few of them in person: they're even more amazing live.

— Bernard Chazelle

The New Yorker Cover

Across the progressive world, the dispute rages: is the Obama cover of this week's New Yorker funny?

Whatever your previous views on the subject, we now have definitive proof that the answer is no:

The New Yorker cover this week is exceedingly funny.

—Jonathan Schwarz

New Tomdispatch

link

The Wedding Crashers
A Short Till-Death-Do-Us-Part History of Bush's Wars
By Tom Engelhardt

It was a tribal affair. Against a picture-perfect sunset, before a beige-colored cross and an altar made of the very Texas limestone that was also used to build her family's "ranch," veil-less in an Oscar de la Renta gown, the 26 year-old bride said her vows. More than 200 members of her extended family and friends were on hand, as well as the 14 women in her "house party," who were dressed "in seven different styles of knee-length dresses in seven different colors that match[ed] the palette of… wildflowers -- blues, greens, lavenders and pinky reds." Afterwards, in a white tent set in a grove of trees and illuminated by strings of lights, the father of the bride, George W. Bush, danced with his daughter to the strains of "You Are So Beautiful." The media was kept at arm's length and the vows were private, but undoubtedly they included the phrase "till death do us part."

That was early May of this year. Less than two months later, halfway across the world, another tribal affair was underway. The age of the bride involved is unknown to us, as is her name. No reporters were clamoring to get to her section of the mountainous backcountry of Afghanistan near the Pakistani border. We know almost nothing about her circumstances, except that she was on her way to a nearby village, evidently early in the morning, among a party 70-90 strong, mostly women, "escorting the bride to meet her groom as local tradition dictates."

It was then that the American plane (or planes) arrived, ensuring that she would never say her vows. "They stopped in a narrow location for rest," said one witness about her house party, according to the BBC. "The plane came and bombed the area." The district governor, Haji Amishah Gul, told the British Times, "So far there are 27 people, including women and children, who have been buried. Another 10 have been wounded. The attack happened at 6.30AM. Just two of the dead are men, the rest are women and children. The bride is among the dead."

The rest.

—Jonathan Schwarz

Obama's Dilemma

By: Bernard Chazelle

These have been tough weeks for McCain. The only bright spot in his campaign has been Phil Gramm's felicitous quip that Americans are a bunch a whiners. When asked what role Gramm might play in a McCain administration, the Maverick replied: "I think I'll make him US ambassador to Belarus, but I'm not sure the people of Minsk will want him." That was good! Let's see Obama cut out Jesse Jackson's nuts and name the capital of Belarus in the same fucking sentence! Five years in the Hanoi Hilton teaches you those skills. But outside this momentary triumph, it's been pretty bleak for McCain.

And so Obama seized the opportunity by planting his flag right in Center Court, the habitat of that electorally cherished breed known as The-Independent-Voter. A little flip-flop on FISA, a reversal on handguns, a pirouette on the death penalty, a U-turn on campaign financing, and voila, Independents-R-Us.

That was the plan, anyway. The reality is that during his little Mary Lou Retton routine Obama lost 14 points among independents. Oh, dear!

The Obama brand has always been that of a transformative politician. That's how he won the nomination. That he is no such thing is irrelevant. That's his brand. If he now turns around and says "I was just kidding," then people will ask Hillary back . He is stuck with that image. Kerry won the nomination by putting everyone to sleep and he lost the election by putting everyone to sleep. The guy was consistent! Obama can't say now, "I am just Kerry with a cool attitude."

But Obama's problem is that, like Kerry, he has no program attached to his name. Nothing. Clinton had welfare reform. Obama has nothing. He arrived at health care only after everyone else did.

Here's my advice to Obama. It's going to be either/or. Either you adopt a cause. Anything. Say, building an underground tunnel to China that goes through the center of the earth. Then stick to it and explain why it will solve every problem in America. Or say nothing. Don't reverse any of your stands (such as they are). Just smile beatifically and answer every simple question with "it's all about change and hope." If the question is more complex, like say "Should subprime lending affect leveraged Forex positions in non-dollar-denominated durable goods?" then answer: "Americans want change in their pockets and in their hearts: It is time to change hope for change into change for hope so that hoping change will change how hope for change changes change."

That's it. It worked for Reagan. It'll work for you. Just remember: vacuous people are not allowed to change their positions.

— Bernard Chazelle