Cynthia Cotts and Dan Kennedy
Toxic Politics
By Dan Kennedy
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2000, at 10:31 AM ETGood morning, Cynthia--
I'll dispense the castor oil as quickly as Big Media dispensed with the shootings at the National Zoo. Here we are, on Day Two, and already the New York Times has this urban horror story below the front-page fold. The Washington Post, naturally, led with two big stories on the shootings, but as the hometown paper it doesn't count. Not much on the cable shows last night, either. Larry King had movie stars, for chrissakes. This after weeks of Elián Fever. The Post's Paul Richard today explains the disparity with depressing insight. In an essay on what the next big O.J./Monica/JonBenet/Elián-type story will be, he writes, look for four qualities: beauty, familiarity, irrelevance, and "the monomyth," i.e., how deeply a story is rooted in basic human myths. The National Zoo shootings have none of those things; just plain old boring tragedy.
Now, on to the completely frivolous: national politics. Salon's Jake Tapper, whom I once peremptorily dismissed as a "wiseass wanna-be," has a terrific story today on a toxic incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, that Al Gore promised to clean up during the 1992 campaign and that he's pretty much ignored ever since. The East Liverpool story isn't new--Tapper credits a 1993 Mother Jones
investigation for breaking it--but the details are grotesque. Elevated cancer rates. Two little boys who had to have their eyes removed because of retinal tumors. And, of course, sleazy money and official indifference. It's all reminiscent of the years I spent covering the toxic-waste tragedy in Woburn, Mass.
What really struck me, though, was the familiar theme of activists' being co-opted by their unfaithful allies. Tapper quotes the pro-Gore Sierra Club's Carl Pope as saying, "Al Gore is not John Muir, I mean, let's be honest. But he's running against George W. Bush, after all." Well, yes. And I don't mean to suggest that the Sierra Club should flush its influence down the toilet by endorsing, say, Ralph Nader, or Jello Biafra. But it's no wonder that most people are completely turned off by advocacy groups, and rightly see them as part of the money-and-politics "iron triangle" that John McCain railed against (and has often been a part of) during his presidential campaign.
I suppose I should clarify and amend the record with regard to my remarks about Jim Cramer. When I wrote about his "raving ... incoherently," I was referring mainly to his seat-of-the-pants commentaries in TheStreet.com. Here's a line from April 14, the day of the big Nasdaq crash: "We have to buy because it hurts like a red hot rusty poker through our underbellies." Yum! I would describe his magazine pieces, on the other hand, as coherent raving. (By the way, I see that the Fox News Channel is now upset with Cramer for using its airwaves--cablewaves?--to flog TheStreet.com's flagging stock.) My problem with Cramer is that he encourages the kind of short-term, panicky thinking that hurts the ordinary folks who've been lured into the market in the past few years. I never understood Cramer until I got the secret decoder ring. When he says "long-term investing," he means "hold until two o'clock this afternoon." Once you get that, everything else falls into place.
Later,
Dan
Toxic Politics
By Dan Kennedy
Posted Wednesday, April 26, 2000, at 10:31 AM ETCynthia Cotts writes the "Press Clips" column for the Village Voice. Dan Kennedy is the senior writer and media criticfor the Boston Phoenix. Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What It Will Cost You To Deny Illegal Immigrants Health Insurance
Stupid Drug Story of the Week: NBC's Today Show Discovers Huffing
Can the Government Call God Jesus? What About Allah?
How Twilight Made Goth Fashion Mainstream
Is Disney's The Suite Life Making Your Child Into an Evil Lothario?
The Blind Side: Illegal Use of Sandra Bullock
Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
All wars are horrible, but they are also each individually different. The situation in Colombia is different from Cambodia and also from Vietnam [Thursday's entry]. You would have more chance of convincing me that intervention in Colombia is wrong (I am 3/4 of the way there already so it's worth your time) if you actually have a reason based upon the situation in Colombia, not a facile, over-used and cheapened parallel.
And, never make the mistake of thinking that just because you were "brave" enough to burn a useless draft card while under the influence of pot, and the other one of you was insulated from ever being called to service by your gender, you have any moral superiority over the millions who, in the U.S., in South Vietnam and in North Vietnam answered the call of their countries and laid down their lives, by choice, by necessity or by sheer love for their patrimony.
Your exchange seems to put your actions and opinions on some pedestal of superior morality. You both seemed to distrust and look down upon the U.S. military. What have you done in your adult lives, as you shuttle around the East Side, dine at Nobu and read all the papers, to actually stop genocide, promote peace, distribute food to famine victims, rescue flood victims, prevent cholera, alleviate some increment of suffering at home or abroad?
You come walk in my boots with me, you come to Kosovo, not just on a breezy 3-day VIP tour, but you really come and do some good, then you can write about what you think about war and who are war criminals and who aren't. Go sit in on the tribunals in The Hague. You come look a real war criminal in the eyes, and then you can talk about Henry Kissinger and Bill Clinton. Then you will know the intellectual dishonesty you are perpetrating when you toss those terms around.
I regret I cannot sign with my rank and name, but I have given up certain of my freedoms in order to serve. Would you? Am I somehow less than you, morally, intellectually, or spiritually, because I have? I don't think so. I volunteered for the Balkans because it is the right thing to do. I try every day to put my money where my mouth is and to live by my ideals. Can you say the same? And, by the way, I am a woman. Men do not have a monopoly on the army, honor, or service to the country.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
As an oncologist I can assure you that if, indeed, Rudy Giuliani's cancer was discovered by routine PSA testing in an early stage [Thursday], prostate cancer is usually curable with surgery or radiation therapy. The patient is incapacitated for several weeks at the most. (Of course, the medical "truth" in these cases is not often shared with the press.)
I see no reason why he can't run. Remember that Dole ran for president with a history of prostate cancer. On the other hand, I can't help but think that Bill Bradley's atrial fibrillation gave many voters pause in buying his image of an in-shape kinda guy.
--S.R.Lemkin, MD
(To reply, click here.)
There are certainly legitimate arguments to be made against the seizure of Elian from the household of Lazaro Gonzalez, but Kennedy doesn't make them [Tuesday's entry]. Instead, he salutes those who think his way, insults those who don't, and throws around inaccurate terminology about the events themselves. And that's only one paragraph.
--Howard Litwak
(To reply, click here.)
Now that Elian is with his father, the Miami relatives look like a particularly loathsome bunch of opportunists who are refusing to accept their own irrelevance. Their continued struggle reminds me of that old Simpsons episode where the quack lawyer comes out and says, "Your honor, I would like to cite the case of Finders versus Keepers."
Meanwhile: Has anyone noticed that the names of everyone in the Elian saga sound oddly fictionalized, as if they were all in a particularly bad symbolic novel? Donato Dalrymple (why didn't Agatha Christie think of that?), Elian, Marisleysis--and this is the kicker--the uncle that presumably "revived" Elian is named Lazaro. The whole thing sounds like a metadrama where the characters suddenly step off the stage and become real people. I bet Dickens is turning over in his grave right now.
--Dola
(To reply, click here.)
How high do you think the approval ratings for Clinton and Reno will rise after the latest GOP witchhunt? During Monica-gate, Clinton's approval rating went to something like 70 percent. Now in these latest hearings, after the sanctimonious Connie Mack or Arlen Specter tear into Janet Reno, who will be sitting there calmly, her arm shaking from MS, and then telling these hypocritical morons that the Miami family had no legal right to hold the child when his father was in the country wanting him back, explaining that law enforcement officers sometimes, gasp, carry guns, and break down doors in a hostile situation--well, I think it will go over 70 percent. As a Democrat, I say, "Thank you GOP for your continuing tin ear and disregard for the wishes of the American public."
--J. B. Kelly
(To reply, click here.)
I suggest the writers and the readers try to refrain from talking about Elian and discuss something else--maybe the two Koreas, maybe the National Zoo shooting, the 20% fall of the Euro since its inception, or the crisis in Zimbabwe--will it affect your vacation plans this summer? More coverage of the topic, on either side, is just making it worse.
--L
(To reply, click here.)
Re: Political campaigning and young people, Wednesday's entry. My students have heard the message of the Democrats and Republicans loud and clear. The Democrats say the Republicans are crooks. The Republicans say the Democrats are crooks. My students believe both of these messages implicitly, and ask the very reasonable question, "Why should I vote when all politicians are crooks?" It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. If only one party goes for negative campaigning, they win. If both parties go for negative campaigning, democracy goes down the tubes. But Al Gore and George W. Bush need to wake up and realize that among people 35 and younger, by far the most respected politician in the country is Jessie Ventura. How does it feel to be viewed as less honest than a professional wrestler?
--Rick Norwood
(To reply, click here.)
(4/28)
Re: Jim Cramer, Monday's entry. "Incoherent raving"? "End-of-the-world diatribes"? I don't know what articles you read (if you did), but it couldn't have been the two you cited in your rather gratuitous swipe at Cramer. These articles don't say anything different from what he has consistently said for the past 2 years. He has provided an excellent view of what he sees as a day-to-day trader, and I have found his information to be accurate and valuable. Yes, he is opinionated, and can be downright obnoxious at times, but on the several occasions when I have exchanged email with him (yes, he does answer his email!) he has never told me anything but the unvarnished truth.
--Sid Wade
(To reply, click here.)
[Dan Kennedy clarified his remarks in Wednesday's entry.]
(4/25)