Important, really important, conversation on journalism. In particular, listen to what Amy says toward the end, on the problem of journalists "being embedded in the establishment."
The full, and very important, interview is here: Bill Moyers talks with alternative media heavyweights Glenn Greenwald and Amy Goodman about what can and can’t be addressed in big corporate media.
Dave Kurtz finds A True TPM Addict
PM Reader FF writes in with a mild (and probably justified) complaint, but that's not why I'm publishing this email:Benen: OBAMA: U.S. 'NOT AT WAR WITH ISLAM'...I think you need a better weekend strategy; a guest blogger, a regular weekend feature (you could have Eric prepare it mid-week) something to satisfy the fix of your regular readers and advertisers ... This weekend I was hanging from a harness on Yosemite's Half Dome, but I had a fair bit of free time belaying and a strong 3G signal (coverage is very good in the valley, the RV/diesel generator crowd would stand for no less) ... it's a new and ugly world.Amazing. The only thing that gives me pause is the thought of my belay partner surfing the web somewhere down below me, with my life in their hands. ...
President Obama addressed the Turkish Parliament in Ankara this morning, making his first appearance a Muslim nation as president. Given his previous assurances that he would speak on U.S. relations with the Muslim world from a Muslim country during his first year in office, today's address fulfills a notable campaipgn promise.DemfromCT (Daily KOS): ABC/WaPo: 65% Trust Obama To Handle Relations With Muslim NationsThe president's message -- the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam" -- was unambiguous.
Urging a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.
"Let me say this as clearly as I can," Obama said. "The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical ... in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject." [...]
"America's relationship with the Muslim world cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaida," the president said. "We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."
"We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country," Obama said.
This morning, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza wrote, "When President Obama addresses the Turkish Parliament later today, the eyes -- and expectations -- of the world will, literally, be upon him." That's probably a bit of an exaggeration, but as Mike Allen added, "Obama's declaration that the U.S. "is not at war with Islam" got immediate and huge play throughout the Arab world, with the Middle Eastern satellite news channels Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya carrying the address live."
(Obama's speech, as prepared, is online here.)
Spencer Ackerman had a good item on this, noting, "Some corners of the right may see this as creeping dhimmitude, and yet it's important to recognize that Obama is interpreting U.S.-Islamic relations the way Muslim leaders worldwide have wanted them interpreted -- not restrained to a narrow counterterrorism issue, but a broadly-construed and enduring partnership of mutual respect.... [T]he Ankara speech shows that there is, in fact, a choice between domination and subservience, between perpetual war and dhimmitude: patient, respectful cooperation, and acting like great civilizations ought to act."
In the most recent ABC/WaPo poll, further published analysis notes some interesting data re Islam and Muslim nations.
81% believe it's important for Obama to try to improve U.S. relations with Muslim nations (46% think it's very important.) One wonders who the 18% who disagree are. Further, 65% think Obama will go just the right distance to do so (22% think he'll go too far.)
And whereas only 45% think they have a "good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam", this represents an improvement from the 34% who said so in 2001. In fact, only 47% of respondents know anyone who is a Muslim (53% do not.)
One disturbing number in the poll: whereas 58% think mainstream Islam is a peaceful religion (virtually unchanged from 2001), the number who think mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims has grown from 14% to 29% (as the number who answer "do not know" shrinks.)
The polling analysis provided by WaPo adds some insight into partisan and religious affiliation:
Nearly half of Republicans said Obama is apt to overreach in his efforts to advance U.S. relations, while large majorities of Democrats and independents alike said they think he'll walk the right line.
Republicans are also more apt than others to hold negative attitudes toward Islam, with six in 10 having unfavorable views, compared with about four in 10 for Democrats and independents. Among conservative Republicans, 65 percent view Islam unfavorably; liberal Democrats, by contrast, are 60 percent positive.
This partisan divide is also apparent on the question of whether mainstream Islam encourages hostility toward non-Muslims, with Republicans about twice as likely as Democrats to say it does. Nearly half of conservative Republicans see centrist Islam as a promoter of violence.
Perceptions of Islam as a peaceful faith are the highest among non-religious Americans, with about two-thirds holding that view. Among Catholics, 60 percent see mainstream Islam as a peaceful faith; it is 55 percent among all Protestants, but drops to 48 percent among white evangelical Protestants.
Conservative Republicans are just... different. They're more likely to get their news from Fox (Pew 2004), and less likely to get their news from network TV, local TV or newspapers (Pew, 2008):
That raises a question in my mind. What kind of perception damage does only watching Fox do to voters? Remember the Michelle-Barack terrorist fist jab?
ct>
The ABC/WaPo poll doesn't get at why "nearly half of conservative Republicans see centrist Islam as a promoter of violence" but I have my suspicions that watching too much Fox isn't good for your reality-based faculties. After all, if you don't know much about the religion, where are you getting your information from? It'd be interesting to see someone follow up on that.
DougJ: Crazier and crazier
Benen on THAT ODD NORTH KOREA POLL....The Washington Post published an incoherent screed against Eric Holder written by a man named Edward Whelan today. Whelan is identified as the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (as well as former deputy in the OLC). What is the Ethics and Public Policy Center?
The Ethics and Public Policy Center was established in 1976 to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy issues.Check out their web page. Undiluted batshit craziness. “Pope was right to expose cult of the condom” (referring to opposition to the use of condoms to slow the spread of AIDs in Africa), “Should the University of Notre Dame honor our most anti-life president?”, an article by Rick Santorum, an article that wonders “If Whole Foods is a culture’s answer to the demise of the Sixth Commandment”.
Amazing what Fred Hiatt will publish.
Rasmussen published a poll yesterday showing 57% of Americans "favor a military response to eliminate North Korea's missile launching capability." I find that hard to believe.The telephone survey was conducted Friday and Saturday, April 3-4, the two days immediately prior to North Korea's launch. The question asked about a military response if North Korea actually did launch a long-range missile.
Support for a military response comes from 66% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 54% of those not affiliated with either major political party. There is no gender gap on the issue as a military response is favored by 57% of men and 57% of women.
Overall, 75% of voters say they've been closely following news stories about the possible launch. That figure includes 40% who've followed the news Very Closely.
I find the notion that three out of four Americans have been "closely" following the news regarding North Korea even harder to believe. (Robert Farley put it this way: "Ahem. If you believe that 75% of the registered voters in the United States were closely following the North Korean missile launch on Friday, then I have a tea party to sell you.")
The key question was worded, "If North Korea launches a long-range missile, should the United States take military action to eliminate North Korea's ability to launch missiles?" In response, according to Rasmussen, 57% said, "Yes."
I can only assume those 57% haven't thought this through. If the U.S. were to "eliminate" North Korea's ability to launch missiles through military action, that would instigate a rather dramatic regional conflict, involving South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. A majority of Americans really prepared to jump into this over a launch that, by some measures, was a failure?
In the meantime, Newt Gingrich believes the Obama administration should launch a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, and use "lasers" to take out the country's missile capabilities. Gingrich added that Obama has a "dangerous ... fantasy foreign policy."
Yes, the guy who wants to shoot frickin' lasers at North Korea believes the president's foreign policy is the stuff of fantasy. Got it.
atrios: Mortgage Mods
Existing programs aren't really working as failure rates are going up. The only way to stem the foreclosure tide is to allow bankruptcy judges to modify loan terms, something the Bayh Dogs keep killing.ChrisinParis (AmBlog): Former GE CEO gives Obama an "A" on leadership
Have fun destroying your state, Evan! You have a few foreclosure problems there I see... Heckuva job!
Not that many Democrats are in alignment with the Republican executive but it's amazing to see such a positive review from a business leader who supported John McCain and every other Republican against Obama. Jack Welch on CNN:"[I] like the way he's expressing a vision, the way he's brought a team together," Welch said. "He's done the vision thing, he's a great communicator and he's got a team-building skill that is really working."
Welch also had high praise for Obama's performance during his trip abroad, calling the president's recent town-hall meeting in Strasbourg, France "masterful."
"He didn't make one misstep — I thought his press conference in Strasbourg was an incredible job. The idea of explaining American exceptionalism in the context of Europe was as masterful a speech as I've ever heard."
- Benen on CLASSIC HANNITY....
Late last week, President Obama spoke in Strasbourg, France, and talked about his commitment to renewing our partnership with America's European allies. He conceded that "we've allowed our alliance to drift" in recent years, and went out of his way to be even-handed about it. The president, for example, acknowledged that the U.S. has, at times, "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" of the European Union.But in the next breath, Obama added that Europe has "an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious," adding that too often, Europeans have been too quick to blame America, while neglecting to recognize "the good that America so often does in the world."
Urging both sides of the Atlantic to begin anew, Obama said, "[T]hese attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth.... So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems."
On Fox News, Sean Hannity aired the first part -- the part in which the president conceded recent U.S. shortcomings -- and pretended the other parts didn't happen. (In an understatement, Howard Kurtz called Hannity's creative editing "not quite fair.") The ensuing tirade was Hannity at his most Hannity-tastic.
"America is arrogant. That's what Mr. Obama said today, doing his best Dixie Chicks impression.... [T]he liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive. But should we really be surprised from a man who sat in Reverend Wright's church, from a man who launched his political career in the home of a man who bombed the Pentagon and is unrepentant. Mrs. Obama may not be proud of her country, but I bet she's proud of her husband tonight. [...]
"Didn't we see all of this in the campaign? And as I was bringing up -- didn't Reverend Wright give us a little insight into his thought process? Didn't, you know, Michelle Obama -- America's a downright mean country? ... I'm thinking, didn't we get some insight? When you sit on a board and give speeches with Bill Ayers -- didn't this -- do you think he harbors deep resentment that he just hides? Because I believe he does."
Election Day 2008 may have been about five months ago, but one gets the sense Hannity thinks just a few more attacks on Obama's patriotism might affect some swing voters in Ohio.
Kevin added, "Sean Hannity is still obsessing over Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright? Jeebus. Can't he come up with some slightly fresher canard to hurl into the insane-o-sphere five nights a week? Like maybe Obama is a golem or something? He's not going to keep this up for eight years, is he?"
Of course he is. Hannity, as part of his ridiculous harangue, complained about the Dixie Chicks. Natalie Maines criticized Bush six years ago, and Hannity is still whining about it.
I can easily imagine Hannity, in 2016, reflecting on Obama's legacy, telling viewers, "Yeah, but don't forget, he launched his political career in the home of a man who bombed the Pentagon...." It's absurd, but then again, so is Sean Hannity.
- atrios on why it's Just Like The Dixie Chicks
While our discourse is still very stupid, it is better than it used to be. Because I think people often forget just what it was which caused the Diane Sawyer-blessed months-long public flogging of the Dixie Chicks, I think it's useful to provide the occasional reminder.
Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.
As conservatives all over the place are calling for revolution, it's worth remembering what got our media all excited in early 2003.- Benen on EASIER THAN THINKING....
Following up on an item from the weekend, President Obama, in a speech in Prague, outlined his vision of reducing nuclear stockpiles as part of the larger goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. The race was on -- who would be the first high-profile mindless conservative to mock the idea? It looks like Joe Scarborough gets the prize.This morning, on "Morning Joe," the former Republican congressman from Florida, with a child-like tone, equated eliminating nuclear arsenals with missiles that "can shoot dandelions," banning "hate," and altering the one-dollar bill to encourage Americans to "turn their frowns upside down." For Scarborough, the very idea of the U.S. launching a global initiative to rid the world of nuclear weapons is so ridiculous, it doesn't even deserve scrutiny. Instead of discussing the idea, the MSNBC personality jumped straight to mockery.
As is usually the case, Scarborough is painfully clueless.
Obama's proposal is very much in line with the bipartisan approach outlined two years ago by George Shultz, secretary of state in the Reagan administration; Henry Kissinger, secretary of state in the Nixon and Ford administrations; William Perry, secretary of defense in the Clinton administration; and Sam Nunn, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
It's also in line with the vision articulated by Ronald Reagan, who called for the abolishment of "all nuclear weapons," which he considered to be "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization."
It would no doubt ruin Scarborough's contempt for a sound policy, but if he'd consider what Obama actually said -- you know, using his television news platform to share information with viewers -- Scarborough might notice that there was nothing naive about the president's vision. Obama conceded that eliminating nuclear arsenals may not happen in his lifetime, but he said we can begin the work with a variety of short- and long-term tasks, including U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a new treaty with Russia on arsenal reduction, a new initiative to secure all vulnerable nuclear material, and the creation of an international fuel bank as part of a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation.
If Scarborough disagrees, and believes this is a bad strategy, fine. He can pretend to be a media professional and explain his concerns.
Or he can be Joe Scarborough, and equate nuclear counter-proliferation with missiles that shoot dandelions.
In the meantime, Newt Gingrich believes the Obama administration should ... use "lasers" to take out the country's missile capabilities.
ReplyDeletewait what
Fabulists all.
ReplyDelete