Press Action

Thursday, December 02, 2004

The Nation Magazine Cruise: Puuuke!

By Glorious Revolutionary Federation

Read full article...

Posted 12/02 |

Add a Comment

Comments:

You must register to comment.

A few years back, Alterman wrote a piece that was actually quite funny, that he made fun of National Review and Buckley et. al, for having a cruise. Now his own magazine is doing so. Still, it isn’t the worst way to raise funds...I admire most of the people, save Corn and Alterman. Navasky is an excellent editor, bringing together as he does the left and liberals, in a manner that offends more liberals than leftists. If they need to bring a bunch of old folks an a cruise, so be it. Better than selling advertising to tobacco corporations.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/02 at 11:39 AM

Thank you, Glorious Revolutionary Federation, for elucidating a sentiment many of us share.

Ever since, as a kid, we bon voyaged my grandmother off on her Cunard line cruises, like the Rotterdam, I’ve considered cruises as a little too luxurious. They’ve since grown to be the epitome of profligacy and the first time I saw an ad for one in the Nation (to which, yes, I subscribe), I thought, major political-correctness faux pas. Then when their latest cruise was announced, I thought they’d really outdone themselves this time with enough political heavyweights to make the boat ride low in the water.

I wrote them a letter, which of course they didn’t publish, to the effect that I wondered if the Nation knew something we didn’t know. Because the roster struck me as stocking an ark, its inhabitants the intelligentsia to repopulate a new enlightened world. Complete with the image, which I didn’t mention, of the likes of Alterman and Corn fighting for the dominant-male right to impregnate Katrina van den Heuvel.

It bothered me, too, that a personal hero of mine, Jonathan Schell, took part.

Posted by Russ Wellen from Sleepy Hollow, New York on 12/02 at 03:25 PM

Hi. Thanks for perfectly expressing the super-sectarian bitter and self-destructive hyper-leftism I grew up around here in Berkeley. Always good to remember that the Right has no monopoloy on self-righteous bullshit.

FYI, though, the reason my name is on the book “The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq” is because I was the lead writer. As for giving the Democrats a free pass on Iraq, I guess you must have missed the live debate my father and I had with Kerry advisor Mark Green in NYC broadcast on Democracy Now! early in 2004 about how Kerry had fucked up on the war and was going to #### up his campaign by not coming to grips with it.

As for giving Democrats a pass: The book was predominantly about Bush and the neocons because it was their energy and power that made the war a reality, not because lots of liberals weren’t sucked into this “humanitarian war” jive and outdated WMD data that Scott Ritter and even the CIA had long since debunked.

Finally, I’d like to add that I’m betting whoever wrote this drivel here couldn’t hold the jock of most of the older lefties who sign up for these cruises—people who have been through the Depression, WWII, McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, and still kept their values. So some old people like cruises—big fucking deal, snotnose, that doesn’t make them idiots. Hold your tongue until you get to be 75 and we’ll see how you’re holding up.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from Berkeley, California on 12/02 at 03:52 PM

Don’t get your undies in a bunch there, Christopher. I’m 65 and I think “snotnose” is right on. Many “pretend” lefties eventually do come out of the closet. Or are forced out. Take Michael Moore for instance. Now that he has his bundle, he has a nice neat haircut, his beard is gone and he wears a suit and tie. Of course how somebody who is supposed to be a liberal endorsed Wes Clark is beyond me. Maybe a guilty conscience is why he’s eating himself to death. Must weigh at least 300 pounds. I think his conversion to conservatism is well underway.

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/02 at 04:18 PM

Christopher:
Though I agree with the Fortune 500 killers about Alterman, I really do not know enough about you or your father to agree or disagree with their positions on you.

BUT: the following sentence in your response is UNTRUE (As for giving Democrats a pass: The book was predominantly about Bush and the neocons because it was their energy and power that made the war a reality...)

Before Bush and the neo-cons stole the Election in 2004, Clinton and Gore oversaw the sanctions that killed 5,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 for over a decade. Not only did they mercilessly bomb Iraq, but Clinton and Gore called for “regeime change”: taking Saddam out of power, which the United States had NO RIGHT to do WMDs or no. The outsting of Saddam could have (and WOULD HAVE) been easily done by the Iraqi people were it not for sanctions and bombings in the 90s. The Clinton Administration was responsible for MORE deaths in Iraq than Bush in this current war (as horrible as this current war is). This war is a BI_PARTISAN effort and has been going on for over a decade, so please stop protecting the Democratic Party by omitting parts of the truth that indict them.....(more)

Posted by Brandy Baker from on 12/02 at 04:18 PM

And as the big chief over there at Alternet, you, along with the editors of the Nation magazine and other similar publications, share part of the responsibility for the current state of affairs by being blind apologists for the Democratic Party.

Kerry is NOT a progressive or #1 liberal or any of that crap.

Posted by Brandy Baker from on 12/02 at 04:24 PM

Oh Chris, what a big man you are. BTW, ever heard of satire? I am sure you have: I read your book, pretty funny. I did miss your debate in early 2004 with your old man .. Too bad you weren’t debating Kerry’s position more recently. When it would have mattered.

Maybe you guys can drink some cocktails and chat about how you helped Bush win while reinacting Columbus. (And don’t think any of those old lefties would even subscribe to the Nation if it weren’t for Cockburn) That’ll be fun.

St. Clair had a great piece some years back now about this cruise (When they took it up the coast of Alaska). How much are you getting paid again, anyway? Do you have any idea of the environmental effects of said cruise liners?

Hogwash, no wonder Alternet is now an outpost for arm chair activists and the MoveOn crowd. You guys did throw some steller DVD parties though. The punch was a bit weak, but that’s to be expected. What’s the word for guys like you? Oh yeah, “pwogs.”

Posted by Federation Ally from on 12/02 at 04:29 PM

Will Kathie Lee be on this cruise?

Posted by Brandy Baker from on 12/02 at 04:39 PM

For those interested, here’s a link to a 1996 study on the effects of cruise ships in the Caribbean.

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 12/02 at 04:41 PM

Where’s the link, Frank???

Posted by Frank Furter from on 12/02 at 04:46 PM

Whoops.

Here’s the link.

ps: Where can we find this St. Clair piece?

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 12/02 at 04:46 PM

Aw jeez, this is pathetic. I’m sorry I even responded. For those who actually give a shit about facts, here are a few:

-- Taking on the Bush Administration does not mean that I am a shill, supporter or apologist for the Democrats! Somehow by writing a simple little book on the lies the Bush Administration told us about Iraq, it is assumed by (Brandy) that I endorsed sanctions, or the bombing, etc. Hmmn. So I guess since we didn’t talk about depleted uranium munitions in our book, I support their use in Iraq?

-- I do not get paid to go on the cruise. My son and I get a free room. I thought it would be an interesting experience hanging out with 600 Nation readers, not to mention folks like Navasky, Ivins and Grieder. Guess I didn’t read the fine print where they tell me all of them are brain-dead idiots and I’d be an earth-destroying piece of scum if I went.

-- I am neither the “operator” or the “Big Chief” at AlterNet. In fact, I HAVEN’T WORKED THERE FOR A YEAR! I was, for nine months, the managing editor working for founder and editor Don Hazen, and as far as I could tell, we were as diligent as humanely possible about securing the rights for everything we printed, as well as giving all writers 50 percent of any syndicated work. Most lefty Web sites, like CommonDreams.org, don’t do either, claiming copyright is no longer relevent.

-- In the first six months of this year I gave 100+ personal and radio appareances in which I, as far as I can remember, ALWAYS made a concerted attempt to make it clear that Kerry in particular and post-9/11 liberal hawks and media outlets in general bore enormous responsibility for supporting and/or allowing the Iraq War (in, yes, Brandy, it’s more fulsome phase) to be launched.

By the way, does anybody see the irony in touting Cockburn as The Nation’s one pure soul when he survived for year’s writing hot-rod articles for auto mags and HIS father was a famous journalist (in England)? Oooooooh! Sell-out! Nepotist! Kill Piggy! Let the sharks eat him!

Ha ha ha. Wow, what clever “satire.” Sorry it puts my “panties in a bunch.” Guess I’m a homosexual as well...add it to the list of crimes.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from A limosine in Beverly Hills on 12/02 at 06:21 PM

Wow. Now out of nowhere he intimates the Federation is homophobic in his last paragraph. Looks like the piece hit a nerve. Al Giordano has documented quite well the Alternet shenanigans. Eliminating Democratic complicity, a huge factor in the war’s execution, is pretty egregious. The Nation crowd’s vilification of Nader and support for Kerry gives precious little support to their “We’re just as tough on Democrats” claims.

Posted by Luther von Gergan from on 12/02 at 06:34 PM

“Now out of nowhere he intimates the Federation is homophobic in his last paragraph.”

Um, no, it was Greg Stricherz who said “Don’t get your panties in a bunch, Christopher.”

“Looks like the piece hit a nerve.”

Hit a nerve? Sure, just like getting punched in the face hits a nerve. It’s not surgery.

“Al Giordano has documented quite well the Alternet shenanigans.”

It’s Al vs. Don on that one, but I can only speak from my experience. Believe what is convenient for you.

“Eliminating Democratic complicity, a huge factor in the war’s execution, is pretty egregious.”

And I did that? Hmmmn.

Liberal Pundits Lost
http://www.alternet.org/story/17090/

Selling Out the Democratic Party
http://www.alternet.org/story/17362/

And from our book itself:

“In many ways, the dangerous and faulty promise that American military, economic and political power could be employed directly to create a peaceful citadel of democracy in the Middle East that would be friendly to the West, join us in teh “war on terror,” and generally behave in a way deemed civilized by those writing editorials for American newspapers, was spread as much by outspoken liberals as the neoconservative Republicans who dominate the Bush White House. In a very real sense, a motley brigade of liberal commentators and politicians, led by New York Times flagship columnist Thomas Friedman and the majority of the Democratic Party candidates for president in 2004, acted as a sort of “fifth column” for the Bush Administration’s misinformation campaign.” Etc., etc.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/02 at 07:21 PM

Chris, with all due respect, are the environmental consequences of the Nation cruise somehow “pathetic” concerns, unworthy of response? Just wondering.

It seems easy to ignore these sorts of issues (how it is liberals can endorse such blatant acts of environmental injustice), and instead dilly dally around less important crap—like whether or not you get paid for this cruise, or if Cockburn writing articles in Hot-Rod magazines taints his rep.

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 12/02 at 07:24 PM

Ah, how revealing. Angry, whiny lil’ Chris just revealed his own homosexual stereotyping. “Panties in a twist” is an old and commonly used phrase. It was deployed against Chris without any mention of heterosexuality or homosexuality. But Chris argues that the implies an accusation of being homosexual. It is Chris, therefore, who links homosexuality with wearing panties—way to stereotype, you latent bigot.

Posted by Luther von Gergan from on 12/02 at 07:34 PM

The environmental concerns are not “pathetic” and I never intimated they were.

I have responded on this board to personal attacks on me regarding nepotism, support of Democrats, Clinton-era war crimes, my work at AlterNet allegedly exploiting writers, etc. I’m not on here as a p.r. rep for the Nation or the cruise line or anybody else. Nor have I claimed to be an expert on cruise ship environmental issues. I have read this FAQ that the cruise line has posted....
http://www.tcacruise.com/nation/faq.htm#commitment

...but I can’t fact-check it and am sure it is self-serving, as an corporate p.r. is.

My personal feeling? I fly airplanes, I drive cars, I am not living off the land, off the grid and in harmony with the earth, although I try not to abuse it anymore than I can. Nobody here or elsewhere has convinced me that cruise ships are worse for the environment than eating fish, flying to New York, driving to see my relatives at Thanksgiving, and other things I do in my current impure state of being. But, as I’ve said, I am not an expert.

So, if you want to consider me a despoiler for going on the cruise, I can accept that as a valid opinion. Just don’t tell me I didn’t write a book, have let the Democrats off the hook on Iraq or have ripped off struggling freelance writers everywhere!

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/02 at 07:42 PM

After enduring the sour stomach of Eric Alterman’s calumnies of Ralph Nader this past election season, I’ll consider re-subscribing to The Nation when his column disappears from it.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/02 at 07:50 PM

Chris, again. Come on man. A cruise ship is the moral (and environmental) equivalent of driving an SUV in NYC, or chomping on an apple from South America when you live in Seattle.

Posted by Joshua Frank from on 12/02 at 08:26 PM

“A cruise ship is the moral (and environmental) equivalent of driving an SUV in NYC, or chomping on an apple from South America when you live in Seattle.”

Well, if that’s true, then I’m guilty as charged, and I apologize for my ignorance.

“Ah, how revealing. Angry, whiny lil’ Chris just revealed his own homosexual stereotyping. “Panties in a twist” is an old and commonly used phrase. It was deployed against Chris without any mention of heterosexuality or homosexuality. But Chris argues that the implies an accusation of being homosexual. It is Chris, therefore, who links homosexuality with wearing panties—way to stereotype, you latent bigot.”

Please. I’m a bigot because I pointed out the homophobic etymology of the clearly demasculinizing insult, “Don’t get your panties, in a bunch”? I’m sure Greg was using it unconsciously, but I couldn’t resist pointing out his own PC violation. And, yes, I have of course heard it before—I remember back in the Fantastic Four comics it was The Thing’s favorite thing to say to the pompous Mr. Fantastic. But he meant Reed was a sissy, too!

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/02 at 09:01 PM

Christopher Scheer is a damned good writer, and his comments here are welcome. I wonder what he has to say about some of his magazine-mates’ lack of courage regarding certain issues? BTW I have no problem with the cruise per se, I can see my grandparents, old progressives that they are, going on one of those things. And hyper-Berkeley leftism is not the case here, there is some such satire, imho, in the Federations approach. But isn’t sectarian Berkeley leftism healthier for Abu Ghraib land than, say, the Left Behind novels?

Posted by j cummings from on 12/02 at 10:02 PM

Christopher is a good writer. But he needs a bit of help reading. What I said was “undies in a bunch” not “panties.” Pretty generic, I believe.

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/02 at 10:18 PM

Looks like a little Freudian slip on Chris “panties” Scheer’s part.

Posted by Luther von Gergen from on 12/02 at 10:45 PM

Being a good writer shouldn’t let the guy off. PJ O’Rourke is a great writer, but #### him too.
I think it is interesting that ol’ Chris has to defend himself by posting two articles he wrote against the Democrats in early 2004.

Where was the outrage when it counted? Like last summer or fall? Where was Alternet when it counted? Where was Chris when it mattered most?

Indeed, Chris is “guilty as charged” for more than one failure.

Posted by Federation Ally from on 12/02 at 11:13 PM

The Nation Cruise line-up of celebrity limousine liberals:

William Greider
Jonathan Schell
Calvin Trillin
Victor Navasky
CHRISTOPHER SCHEER?!?!?!?!

Kind of like a celebrity cruise reading as follows:

Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, Dustin Hoffman, Denzel Washington, DUSTIN DIAMOND ("Screech" on “Saved by the Bell")?!?!?!

Posted by R from on 12/02 at 11:28 PM

To use a phrase that Ralph recently used, I don’t blame the liberal intelligentsia for acting like the liberal intelligentsia. A cruise for members of that social class seems about right.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/02 at 11:35 PM

Christopher,
I never said that you endorsed the sanctions and you damn well know that; you are the one who obviously doesn’t give a shit about the facts. I said that the war was a BI-PARTISAN one, and people like you let slide because you don’t want to shine the spotlight as brightly on the Democrats. You said that Bush and the neo-cons started the war; I contested that fact. It’s not Kerry that is just the problem. Clinton and Gore enabled the neo-cons to do what they are doing today. Please have enough courage to condemn both parties EQUALLY without someone having to publicly challenge you to do so. You criticize the Democrats, yes, as you have shown above, not enough to show that they are a very big part of this problem. That’s not “ultra-left”; that’s the way that it is.

I don’t care if you are at Alternet, the Nation, or the National Enquirer. You and many other liberal writers continue to let the Democrats off of the hook and stop playing dumb about that reality. Instead of being angry at us, be angry about what is going on in Fallujah, which is being brought to the Iraqi people by the American two party system: not Ralph Nader.

Posted by Brandy Baker from on 12/02 at 11:37 PM

Christopher:

I just read the rest of the thread and one more thing: in my first post, I took issue with a statement that you made about the war and your lack of equal comdemnnation of the Democratic Party. I have never made any “personal attacks” on you; you need to reevaluate the definition of “personal attacks” if you feel that I have done so. I did no such thing. Geez, get a grip.

Posted by Brandy Baker from on 12/02 at 11:49 PM

I saw Christopher Scheer on Democracy Now discussion with Mark Green. Basically Mr. Scheer’s position was that Kerry should profess “ignorance”. For example “bad intelligence”, “misguided or “misleading” remarks and information about the “imminant” threat and WMD’s. This way Kerry could stake a position against the war with clarity.

No moral indigation from Scheer just do an Ozzy Osbourne—“I didn’t know!”—quite weak and pathetic. Anyway Kerry threw out that position when he stated that he would have voted for the “war” resolution regardless.

WB

Posted by Wilson Barber from on 12/03 at 04:08 PM

This is like being in a barfight where you don’t know where the next cheap shot is coming from—without the extended hospital bill and brain damage. I fully expect somebody to pop and say, “You took my candy in second grade, you asshole!”

Funny, too, how the Naderites on here sound exactly like the bitter Gore supporters in 2000 blaming somebody else for their own lack of popularity. Guess its tough to take responsibility for one’s own limitations. In that vein, let me sketch out some of mine:

-- I am not an editor at The Nation or at AlterNet, as I already mentioned, so should not be pilloried for their editorial stance on the election, right wrong or otherwise.

-- I have not published anything in eight months and am currently jumping through the official hoops to become a high school teacher. So, Federation Ally, I’m sorry if I let you down ("WHere was Chris when it mattered most") but I gotta make a living. Guess I missed my chance to cash in on my status as the “Screech” of liberal punditry! It became clear in the Spring that I could either go to Iraq or change professions; since I have a four-year-old, I decided the former would be irresponsible.

-- If anybody truly cares why I am included with such notables as Grieder and Schell, here’s my guess: I wrote a book that proved suprisingly popular, I’m under 40 years old, I have a fan who is one of the key organizers of the cruise, and I am the son of a Nation regular who is popular with the Nation cruisers. If that appalls you, so be it. For the record: I’ve written for The Nation twice in ten years.

I find it interesting that the mysterious author of this “Puuuke” column nor anybody else has chosen to slam the two African American panelists, Patricia Williams and Derrick Bell.

MORE BELOW

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/03 at 07:49 PM

Some personal responses:

Brandy: “People like me” Hmmn. Last I checked, I was the only person like me. Stop lumping. And I’m not angry with people who are frustrated with the Democrats or find them useless, I’m angry with people who seem to think that if other people don’t toe their line then they should be attacked in the cheapest ways possible, as this “Federation” dork did.

And yes, you certainly did strongly imply that I tacitly supported Clinton’s Iraq policy, which is simply not true. Was I writing against it? No, I was a wageboy at the San Francisco Examiner at the time. Look, all I’m asking is that if you’re going to take me to task, take me to task for things I’ve DONE instead of things I haven’t.

Speaking of things done, one irony here is that I am a longtime supporter of the Green Party, voted for Nader in 2000 (albeit in the “safe” state of California) and secured $10,000 from WOrking Assets to fund daily coverage of the 2000 Nader campaign, including paid commentary from Third Party enthusiast Micah Sifry. My two reporters were the only people who covered Nader everyday (that includes AP), and thus our Nader page on WorkingForChange was the top link on the Nader sites. Did I personally support Nader this time, and would I have voted for him in 2000 if I lived in a state like Florida? No. But I have always taken a firm stand, in print and in person, defending anybody who did against the enraged folks in 2000 and 2001 who felt somehow radicals “owed” them their vote!

J cummings: Thanks for having the guts to say something just plain NICE on here. That shows guts. And hey, I still live in Berkeley, don’t I? But it’s good to remember that the term P.C. was coined, not by conservatives, here in the early 80s by progressives tired of being berated at every turn by folks in political cults—i.e., the RCP or that group with the factory produced signs who always wear the cheap ties.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/03 at 07:58 PM

Christopher Scheer is a very good sport for responding to people here. Being a semi-regular contributor here, I can say that Press Action writers and readers are a diverse bunch, and not all like many people here who seem to marvel at seeking out deviation. This site is a labor of love for Mark Hand, the editor, and others, myself, Josh Frank, Mickey Z, Rosemary and others who contribute our couple of cents simply to stimulate this type of discussion. This isn’t a job for us.
But I think attacking anyone here - even someone who writes for the “Nation Bourgeoisie” like me (who read Christopher and his dad’s book which is excellent and accessable,) who has been reading the Nation every week for about fourteen years, hell, if I were old I’d go on one of those cruises...and we were gonna send my grandmother on one this year....she’s one of those old reds that Christopher alluded to.

Not every person of means is by nature “bourgeois,’ nor is every poor person by nature “proletarian”...my own reading of Marx - influenced by Paul Sweezy - tells me that there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling your labor in a capitalist economy for a high price, and do well and live well, all the power to you. Horatio Alger is a shitty myth, but “From each according to his ability” definitely implies that a good share of the surplus capital of society does not make one a rentier.

If you can afford to go on a cruise, use a computer, etc, you aren’t a negative human being any more than a prole who votes for Bush. The categories that Marx introduced, as revealed in Grundrise, are epistemological more than economic...but thats a whole different ball park.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/03 at 08:00 PM

Greg and Luther: OK, you got me. Undies, panties, let’s call the thing off.

R: I think to be a limosine liberal you have to be RICH (hence the limosine). Sean Penn, Barbra Striesand ... NOT Victor Navasky or Calvin Trillin. Or did you think Trillin makes a mint of those poems?

WB: You’re clearly badly paraphrasing my FATHER, not me, who was asked by Green at one point what Kerry should do strategically. Again, folks on this board seem to love to throw roundhouse punches without any regard for the truth. (And fyi: The live event was two+ hours, but Democracy Now! only showed about 20-30 minutes, of which I only appeared once or twice—one of which was basically that there was no fucking way Kerry could claim to be ignorant about the WMD and the phony cakewalk claims if my father and I (and millions of others, although apparently very few in the media) could figure it out in the Summer of 2002 just using Lexis-Nexis and public record CIA documents. We also both noted that “we all got it wrong” was the height of stupidity, since 15,000,000 people around the world got it right.)

One final thought on cruises: Contrary to what Mr. Wellen and others on here have said, cruises are not the playground of the wealthy (who, of course, play on boats they own) but a vice of mid- to lower-middle-class older people who spend not-particularly-outrageous sums (my room retails for $1000 a week) to have a physically and mentally unchallenging vacation in pseudo-exotic locales.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/03 at 08:07 PM

Am I misunderstanding something here? The original writer was critical of Christopher. Christopher, the good sport, then replies to the writer as “snotnose.” Perhaps some think that is not an attack. I think it has the earmarks of an attack.

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/03 at 08:17 PM

“Funny, too, how the Naderites on here sound exactly like the bitter Gore supporters in 2000 blaming somebody else for their own lack of popularity.”

Poppycock and balderdash.

As a proud and passionate supporter of a real American hero, Ralph Nader, I have never blamed anyone for anything concerning his mosr recent candidacy.

I do, however, hold The Nation fully accountable for how THEY treated Ralph during his campaign… and always will.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/03 at 08:44 PM

“Am I misunderstanding something here? The original writer was critical of Christopher. Christopher, the good sport, then replies to the writer as “snotnose.” Perhaps some think that is not an attack. I think it has the earmarks of an attack.”

You’re right, there was some anger in my response, and I’m not particularly proud of it.
But at least my attack had some basis in fact, as it is safe to say that “snotnose” accurately applies to anybody who thinks they’re clever by calling me “Little Scheer” and making cracks about another writer’s receding hairline!

Maybe we should review the paragraph in question:

“There�s Christopher Scheer, whose main accomplishment is co-writing �The Five Bigggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq,� which besides ignoring the fact that Democrats pumped up the same lies, has this journalistic non-entity listed as a co-author for one not-so-veiled reason: author two�s a guy named Robert Scheer. Little Scheer also operates the Alternet.org syndication service, known for frequently copying journalists� articles without permission and then selling them to alternative newsweeklies without compensating the original author. Maybe going on a cruise that exploits the cruise staff and pays them sub-par wages isn�t so out of your league, Chris.”

Ah yes, what a witty onslaught. Too bad none it is true. Attack away, folks, just get your facts right and don’t just make stuff up as it is convenient for your larger biases and/or bitternesses.

Nader Rider: OK, I get it now. The Nation hurt Nader and I am going on a Nation fundraiser, so therefore I am a Nader basher. OK, I can live with that. At least it has some sort of logic.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from on 12/03 at 09:05 PM

Try not to weave fiction into the facts of what I said, Christopher. I neither directly or indirectly posited that you were a Nader basher. I did, however, reveal my great distaste for what The Nation did to Ralph. And I have very little respect for The Nation, as a consequence.

Addiionally, and because they assumed a vanguard position for the rest of the ABB flock, they bear extra accountability for encouraging sheep-like conduct amongst the electorate. Again, please note that my feelings about The Nation in no way infers that you are Nader basher. I just prefer to be in more integretous company.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/03 at 10:29 PM

Christopher,
I most certainly did NOT imply that you “supported” Clinton’s war crimes; that you were for the bombings or sanctions waged under Clinton’s watch. I never said nor “implied” such a thing. Re-read my original comment to you.

Your original comment about the war being started by the neo-cons omits the very fact that the Clinton administration was waging it before Bush et al and this (demonizing Bush without showing how the Democrats were a part of the crime) is a tactic that liberal writers use to be soft on the Democratic Party; I did imply (and come right out and say) that you were soft on the Democrats by your omission.

By looking at the facts, no reasonable person can access that this war began with Bush. But that is all we have heard from the ABB camp this year. Yes, Bush is horrible, of course and should be fought in word and action, but this demonizing him to the extreme is a partisan tactic used by ABBers to take the spotlight off of Clinton, Kerry, and the other democrats.

Finally, my attacks on you were not in any way personal. I do not know you and I have no interest in you personally. I have clarified my position and am ready to move from this dialogue.

Posted by Brandy Baker from on 12/04 at 04:18 AM

Something seems quite awry here. The federation posted an article that was quite scathing in its denunciation of certain individuals, the Nation, and Alternet.

This triggered an ad hominem response. Meanwhile there is a Hitler clone with a vast military machine wreaking havoc on developing nations while progressives seemingly lose sight of the divide-and-rule dictum.

The Democratic Party is pathetic and the Green Party has done much to undermine itself. The Nation magazine and some “high-profile progressives” chose a lesser-evilist path that went counter to a segment of the progressive constituency. The result is a fractured left.

I respectfully submit that what is important here is to solidarize. Probably the only superpower that can take on the out-of-control military power is one led by the masses of people.

The core principles (egalitarianism, peace, a clean environment, etc.) that all progressives believe in to should be sufficient to band together and rid the world of warmongering capitalists.

Posted by kim from on 12/04 at 06:54 AM

CS Replies:

WB: You’re clearly badly paraphrasing my FATHER, not me, who was asked by Green at one point what Kerry should do strategically. Again, folks on this board seem to love to throw roundhouse punches without any regard for the truth. (And fyi: The live event was two+ hours, but Democracy Now! only showed about 20-30 minutes, of which I only appeared once or twice—�one of which was basically that there was no fucking way Kerry could claim to be ignorant about the WMD and the phony cakewalk claims if my father and I (and millions of others, although apparently very few in the media) could figure it out in the Summer of 2002 just using Lexis-Nexis and public record CIA documents. We also both noted that “we all got it wrong” was the height of stupidity, since 15,000,000 people around the world got it right.)

Apparently you verified that the position was stated albeit by your father. Then therefore there was REGARD for TRUTH to the statement albeit INACCURATELY attributed. However you did state that the Democrats were responsible for VietNam but there was no mention of the Clinton Administration’s role regarding his belligerency toward Iraq. The only mention of lies wrt Clinton was his inane affairs. And apparently you didn’t interrupt your father to express disagreement with that sorry tactic.

You are correct the Democracy Now! clip is too brief but you state that you are a 36 y/o “kid” that you didn’t want to write such a book and that Kerry should have taken care of business however where were you during the past 8 years of Clinton—putting you at about a 30 y/o grown man—and how come you didn’t write that book wrt his policies in Iraq and the killing of nearly 500,000 children that Madeline Albright stated was “worth it”.

Your closing remarks on Democracy Now were the following:

“The bottom line is, we are in the wrong war for the wrong reasons; and until Democrats and other moderates accept that and charge forward with that, we will simply make the same kind of mistakes on our foreign policy that got us deeper and deeper into Vietnam.”

I stand by the main premise of my previous post— the lack of conviction and moral indignation. Did Kerry plagiarize your response to Amy Goodman because it certainly sounded like his campaign mantra of “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time wrong leader”.

Thanks,
WB

Posted by Wilson Barber from on 12/04 at 10:27 AM

This was funny.

Posted by Theo from Greece on 12/04 at 10:36 AM

“The bottom line is, we are in the wrong war for the wrong reasons; and until Democrats and other moderates accept that and charge forward with that, we will simply make the same kind of mistakes on our foreign policy that got us deeper and deeper into Vietnam.”

Thanks for the quote, WB. It certainly does sound Kerry-esque.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/04 at 10:44 AM

The ‘war’ began at Mt. Carmel.

Posted by MDPB from on 12/04 at 11:35 AM

About Victor Navasky not being rich, that may or may not be true. I don’t know. But I read recently that Katrina Vanden Heuvel is very wealthy. Moreover, I was astonished to hear that she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a very exclusive, and semi-secret club that meets clandestinely to formulate foreign policy. Z Magazine did a story about this in October, a snippet of which appears below. Note vanden Heuvel’s name near the very end.

“There is also a special category of corporate membership: executives from 200 ‘leading international companies representing a range of sectors’ participate in special CFR programs. Corporations representing capital in its most abstract forms�the financial sector, the largest commercial and investment banks, insurance companies, and strategic planning corporations�are most heavily represented in the Council. Petroleum, military, and media companies also have fairly close connections. A review of director lists of major corporations found that the following corporations have at least three of their directors who are also CFR members:

American Insurance Group and Citigroup: Eight directors
J.P. Morgan Chase, Boeing: Six directors
The Blackstone Group, Conoco, Disney/ABC: Five directors
Kissinger-McLarty Associates, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones/Wall Street Journal, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner: Four directors
The Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston. Washington Post/Newsweek, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Alliance Capital: Three directors

“The Council�s membership network consists of people one would expect to be CFR members�David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Peter G. Peterson, George Soros, Maurice Greenberg, Robert Rubin, George P. Shultz, Alan Greenspan, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard B. Cheney, and George Tenet�as well as individuals whose membership is more unexpected, such as John Sweeney, Jessie Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Richard J. Barnet, and Daniel Schorr.”

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/04 at 05:25 PM

She once famously went on Hardball and claimed to live in Harlem, you know, to establish her “street cred.” When queried further, however, she admitted it was really Morningside Heights, many streets below.
A total phony, this vandanheuvel.

Posted by Ludwig von Gergen from on 12/04 at 05:35 PM

Wow! I didn’t know that about Ms KvH. Illumination is such a wonderful feeling. It also kind resurrects what Ralph once said:

“The liberal intelligentsia has allowed its party to become a captive of corporate interests.”

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/04 at 05:43 PM

Edward Said was also a members of the CFR, so I read. Same with Richard Falk and Benjamin Barber, both of whom I consider to be foremost mainstream critics of American Imperialism. The CFR is basically a club that any “public intellectual” gets invited into, from left to right, except no out-and-out anti-capitalists or neocons. It has no agenda-setting goal, in comparision with the American Enterprise Instituteor the National Endowment for Democracy This isn’t to say that they’re good guys. Just mainstream centrism, with some anti-interventionist/anti-imperialists among their global analysts.

The whole “CFR” thing is two steps away from saying that Freemasons control Z magazine or that the Nation has been sitting on stories about Area 51. I don’t normally like Chip Berlet’s research, but he has written about the danger of right-populist “conspiracist” analysis versus institutional. And the CFR are a paper tiger. If I wanted to attack the Nation on principle I’d look to see if they get any dough from NED cut-outs (somehow I don’t doubt it.)

Posted by j cummings from on 12/05 at 09:15 PM

I’m not the slightest bit interested in carving up The Nation. Someone else already carved that turkey.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&s=exchange

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/05 at 09:41 PM

Ooops! Sorry. Wrong steak knife.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5727.htm

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/05 at 09:48 PM

read this on the Nation magazine: ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP: SPONSORED BY CIA’s FORD FOUNDATION?

Posted by kim from on 12/05 at 09:48 PM

A lot of that FEldman stuf sadly doesnt prove anything, and is typical of “conspiracy” writing in its speculation. My own speculation, without flowery words? Certain nation writers- Cooper, Corn, Alterman, Laura Secor, Kanan Makiya, Achmed Chalabi etc. refer to themselves and their extended group - Berman - as harkening back to the “liberal anti-communists” and thus redbaiters. It stands to reason that this group would get NED grants, and messages would be sent to the editor to ensure that they publish such things. This is also why any time Cockburn or Tom Hayden or someone write something nice about Chavez, there are three anti-Chavez letters. It is basically a sop from management to the NED crowd, but hardly a formal conspiracy. Would the NED allow publication of the type of information that reporters in Iraq like Klein and Christian Parenti found? I don’t think so. If they would, furthermore, it lends creedence to the theory that within government, the intel community are the defacto “left” and to quote Robert Baer, “the CIA got Nixon and we’re damned proud of it.” So in other words, if it is a government op, it is one that is working against the dominant/neocon agenda, with some exceptions to be sure. I really don’t think that people who represented the Sandanistas against the US at the world court are funded by the government.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/06 at 10:59 AM

Hi guys and gals. I signed on here and am suprised this conversation continues.

Kim, thank you very much for bring some sanity to us here. I’m sorry if I’ve overreacted, by I don’t take well to being told I’m a fraud who abuses people. I’m weird that way.

I don’t see much point in responding to these other complaints that I should have been more passionate, should have written books during the 90s attacking Clinton, have somehow inspired John Kerry (yeah, right) etc. Why don’t you just throw in there that I should have cured world hunger? Jeezus.

On Katrina and the CFR: I realize some of you are sincere, but some are just embarrassing. Just about anybody who wants to cough up a $100 or some such can join the Council on Foreign Relations! Maybe they have some kind of hardcore center somewhere, but mostly its just a forum where they bring in guest speakers. I went with a lefty SF reporter (who has a membership) recently to a CFR event where some fo the 9/11 commission members were giving their intelligence reorganizing song and dance. Most of the people attending were mid to low-level business people, ranging in political stance from Deaniac to Zionist neocon.

Finally, Brandy, if you think there is no real-world difference between Clinton’s policy on Iraq and Bush’s, then I don’t think we can have a meaningful coversation. Growing up around Communists and living in Easter Europe for half a decade has given me an aversion to black&white thinking.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from Nassau, Bahamas on 12/06 at 11:51 AM

Christopher, you’re right. Clinton managed to kill more Iraqis through sanctions than Bush did through war.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/06 at 12:02 PM

From the CFR website: “A candidate for regular membership must be nominated in writing by one Council member and seconded by a minimum of three other individuals.”

I didn’t dig deeply enough to see what the actual dues are.

Posted by Greg Stricherz from Minneapolis, MN on 12/06 at 12:06 PM

“if you think there is no real-world difference between Clinton’s policy on Iraq and Bush’s, then I don’t think we can have a meaningful coversation.”

You’re right, Christopher. There is a difference. The US and Britain were adamantly opposed to the lifting, or serious reform, of the UN sanctions which were first imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War. Sanctions which had a direct impact on the death of roughly one million Iraqi children. Those sanctions were removed, of course, directly after GWB invaded and occupied Iraq… giving the the US occupation authority full control over Iraq’s oil sales and oil industry. The differences are certainly there. Approximately one million children on the one hand, versus a different number of casualties on the other.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/06 at 12:06 PM

Sorry if that seemed rude, but one of the things that liberals and leftists should remember is just how many deaths Democratic wars (as Bob Dole called them on the campaign trail in 76) have cost. From Truman to Clinton, the Dems have been the part of Empire. Bush is so brazen about it that the process may well reverse itself under him, more likely than under Clinton. Of course Clinton was not as brazen about imperialism, did the right thing in Ireland, etc. - but far more people died in preventable deaths under his watch than any other US president. Even if you don’t allow Rwanda as part of those numbers, its high. Somalia was simply stupid. Haiti only allowed Aristide back in power if he sold out, and they still didnt protect him. Srebnica and Sarajevo did not lead to principled high-minded UN peacekeeping, but to too-little too-late wars and civilian deaths and backing Nazis in Croatia and Islamists in Bosnia. Sanctions of course, Unicef itself is clear on the numbers killed.

Bush may be a monster, but his totally stupid way of handling things may well backfire into a second term of doing what the world wants, if only to escape potential retribution from his many enemies in DC. I can comfortably say that in terms of foreign policy, I am glad a Republican is in power, because they can easily be looked at as fools, thus negating their power strenghtenig int’l and local opposition. When Clinton used to come to Canada, people loved him more here than at home. He was magnetic. I even know a girl who.....(no joke)....but when Bush comes here, the masses go nuts, in a polite Canadian way. The ruling party is ostensibly backing Bush’s missile plan, but his party is fracturing (perhaps to create a situation in which Martin has an out, and can say to Bush what Trudeau said to Reagan, that “it can’t work")

Posted by j cummings from on 12/06 at 12:13 PM

More on the differences that Christopher alluded to (excerpted).

May 12, 1996: On “60 Minutes,” Lesley Stahl asks Albright: “We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?” Albright responds: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it.”

http://accuracy.org/iraq/index.htm

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/06 at 01:12 PM

I’d have to go back and read the Z Magazine article, which I don’t want to do. But if I remember right, it said dues for the CFR were very substantial - I want to say $500,000 initiation; maybe it was $100,000. In any event what is a supposed leftist like vanden Heuvel doing cavorting with the likes of James Baker III and Brent Scowcroft, whom the article said were members, and the corporations listed above? Nothing like walking the talk. I wonder if Jordy could supply any of the documentation for Edward Said’s membership in CFR, as well as Falk and the other progressive he mentioned? The Z article made the CFR sound very sinister, and as if it were a very arduous task to get a nomination into it, let alone confirmation.

As far as the differences between Bush policy and Clinton in Iraq, I third and fourth what several writers have said here: Clinton to date is responsible for about ten deaths or more there to Bush’s one. And I’m glad someone brought up Rwanda. - about which the progressive Democrat did nothing, and made sure the UN did the same.

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/06 at 09:28 PM

That Z piece struck me as not believable, given Said’s membership. In terms of citation, I’m sure it is googlable - its 5 am, I’ve been working on my book for the lst few hours and don’t have the energy to track that down - but Benjamin Barber - his book is blurbed by the Grand Poobah of CFR (forget his name) And even if were the case that one has to jump through hoops, in Said’s case it can be argued that it was important to use such a venue to argue the Palestinian case.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/07 at 05:09 AM

What’s wrong with Brent Scowcroft? Him and Baker may be a capitalist republican crooks, but he’s one of the few foreign policy players with the right ideas about the world.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/07 at 05:14 AM

No matter how you try, you are not going to make me “admit”, reeducation-style, to be some defender of Clinton or his foreign policy. I have no stake in defending it nor fondness for it!

I was raised by parents who were completely dedicted/obsessed for the first eight years of my life to ending the horrendous imperialist war in Vietnam WHICH WAS LAUNCHED, NURTURED AND GROWN by Democrats!! I will never forget that. As for Clinton, his foreign policy was a grim joke from beginning to end.

But how could nobody mention here that Clinton inherited the Iraq semi-occupation from the first Bush? Is that not relevent? Nor is it acknowledged that Clinton, for the most part, did not control Congress and was hamstrung by first his stinging defeat in 94 and then the Lewinsky scandal. It is not that I think Clinton had any good idea of what to do in Iraq, but it was a Bush who set up the status quo and another Bush who upped the ante.

As for Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia and Rwanda ... Clinton to a lesser (Haiti, Bosnia) or greater (Somalia, Rwanda) extent bungled these, but can you a really imagine an American intervention in those cases that you would really like to see?

Finally, to be provocative, I’d like to point your attention to a well-researched article by a friend of mine that takes a hard luck at the grim numbers of dead and other statistics of suffering that were blamed on sanctions—and which are exaggerrated up or down by both sides in the debate.

http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml

p.s. Nothing on the cruise so far has shaken my belief that the old folks on this cruise could kick the political ass of the anonymous “federation” any day of the week (or at least mine). These people’s idea of a vacation is monitoring elections in the Ukraine or Bosnia, or building low-income housing in North Carolina or Haiti—despite their age and various infirmities. They treat the Cruise as one big ad-hoc criticism/self-criticism session and they bring it every day. Frankly, I don’t think they care about being on the cruise—they’d be as happy in a Day’s Inn in Des Moines, as long as they could discuss politics with the Nation writers.

I salute them.

Posted by Christopher Scheer from high seas on 12/08 at 12:24 AM

Re. your friend’s (Matt Welch) spin on the numbers of children who died in Iraq as a result of the sanctions, Christopher… here’s what Kathy Kelly (not a friend of mine, unfortuantely) had to say in response:

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/kelly3.html

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/08 at 01:17 AM

I also find Mr. Shah’s take on the sanctions’ devastating effect much more compelling than Mr. Walsh’s take. I am stricken by some of his direct quotes from Messieurs Singh, Halliday, and von Sponeck too. They deserve the reader’s particular attention.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/08 at 02:05 AM

I think it’s relevant that “Clinton inherited the Iraq semi-occupation from the first Bush,” and just as relevant and exemplary of his political cowardice and expediency that he maintained the status quo in spades. That he inherited it, does that forgive him that the vast majority of Iraqi murders due to sanctions occurred on his watch?

Posted by Tracy McLellan from on 12/08 at 01:04 PM

I find it interesting that Liberals save much of their anger and snarling for their left flank while they fawn or play dead re: their right flank.

I also find it interesting that Scheer’s can excuse Clinton while expessing a faux-moral outrage towards GW.

This is why the Liberals will continue to lose elections. I just hope they don’t “sink” the rest of the “left” down with them.

Posted by Wilson Barber from on 12/10 at 06:54 PM

Liberal, conservative, left, or right. It matters little to me that the puppet is either left-handed or right-handed...as long as all of their strings are controlled by the same puppetmasters.

Posted by Nader Rider from on 12/10 at 08:02 PM

Right now the right wing of the Democrats are trying on a McCarthyite campaign against the antiwar movement, in terms of rhetoric. Michael Moore is the big target, as is Howard Dean. I hold no brief for the latter, and think the former is a great filmmaker if politically misguided. I think their followers though, the Move-On crowd, the actual sincere liberals (in other words, people who will move left with the times,) are in for quite some dissilusionment when the Dem poobahs don’t allow their man Dean, no matter how much Soros wants it, to take over the DNC. In fact I predict broad success of this purge.

This would be great for the broadly defined left, for obvious reasons, along with a campaign for IRV or a parliamentary system. Even Dean can be forced by his constituents to abandon the Democrats if he wants to retain pride and credibility. If these folks, along with the Rainbow Coalition/Civil Rights/Labor crowd realize what is happening, which I’m sure they will..given how Jesse Jackson has been getting the brushoff from the establishment, perhaps finally its time for something that could be called a socialist or at least social democratic party.

Posted by j cummings from on 12/12 at 12:01 AM

You are the best. Thank you http://www.bignews.com

Posted by Phany from Spain on 08/24 at 09:02 PM

You little diatribe was the pot calling the kettle black. My husband and I had the misfortune of ending up on a Crystal Cruise in Europe which was the annual cruise of the National Review. It cost as least twice as much as the nation cruise on Holland America. Many of your idols on the National Review spent half their time in the smoking bar getting drunk and polluting the air. One more obversation: we did notice that like you, they seemed to be very mean sprited!!

Posted by mary from chicago on 11/04 at 05:55 PM

accessori accessori mani mani stampanti stampanti ebay ebay monica monica fotografia fotografia pompei pompei cartoline cartoline pene pene

Posted by Halim from ... on 02/12 at 08:06 PM

auto auto posteriore posteriore struttura struttura milan milan appunti appunti campioni campioni risparmio risparmio abruzzo abruzzo pornografia pornografia

Posted by Cybil from ... on 02/13 at 08:56 PM

casa casa zucchero zucchero basket basket valentino valentino campeggi campeggi calciomercato calciomercato candele candele fuoco fuoco girl girl

Posted by Scott from ... on 02/14 at 09:34 PM

Thursday, December 02, 2004

The Nation Magazine Cruise: Puuuke!

Comments:

Support Press Action

Support Press Action

Search

Editor's Picks

Most Recent Entries

Archives

Best of the Web

Syndicate