By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions
There’s a lot about Maureen Dowd’s column (sub. req.) in today’s New York Times that I don’t like, but never mind. I love her description of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, whom she has dubbed the “Surge Twins”:
The Surge Twins seemed competent and more realistic than some of their misbegotten predecessors, but just too late to do any good. They’re like two veteran pilots trying to crash land the plane.
Exactly.
It looks like Gov. Deval Patrick is going to have a rough couple of days over an unfortunate (but not unfair) implication some critics are drawing from his 9/11 speech yesterday. I’ll get to that in a moment. But first I want to establish the context, so here’s the full text of his brief remarks (link now fixed; plus I’ve added paragraphing to make it easier to read):
We meet today to honor the lives and memories of the 206 sons and daughters of our Commonwealth who were lost six years ago in the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 and with them the thousands of others from across our nation and across the globe, who were lost in that tragedy as well.
Our tribute is for each of them and our condolences are with each of you and the families and survivors so touched by that day. Each of us felt the impact of the incidents of September 11th. But the mothers and fathers and sons and daughters, sisters and brothers and friends of those endured perhaps the most profound loss of all. This is your community and your community is with you today and everyday.
We have lived the last six years in the shadow of that tragedy. We carry the vivid reminders of the pain and the anger we felt. But we must also carry the vivid reminders of the compassion and generosity that was shown that day and the days and weeks that followed. The coming together that happened not only in communities that lost a loved one remember them, and not only in New York, Virginia or Pennsylvania and Washington DC or not only in the United States but all across the world.
That is the spirit in which we re-convene today, and that is what must last. Because among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other, and to learn to love each other. And it seems to me that that lesson and that warning is something that we must carry with us everyday.
Fortunately, for human beings, the human heart is not designed to carry grief forever. Somehow we manage to move on and that might be in some ways our greatest strength. We live in a rare place, where our ideas, our shared goals, and our common humanity will and must be more powerful and must ultimately win out over intransigence and anger and violence and division.
Tempered by these losses, we will emerge a strong and better place. That is how we best serve the memories of those we love. We do that not in anger at the horror of their loss, but in honor of the beauty of their lives. We miss them not because they are gone, but because they were here.
The part that’s causing Patrick problems, obviously, is this: “Because among many other things, 9/11 was a failure of human understanding. It was mean and nasty and bitter attack on the United States. But it was also about the failure of human beings to understand each other, and to learn to love each other.”
A Boston Herald editorial today — headlined “Hearts, flowers just aren’t enough” — begins with this sarcastic observation: “If only Osama bin Laden had been hugged more as a child.” The editorial continues:
Unfortunately, the governor’s fuzzy recollection of that terrifying day seems to be in keeping with a certain “blame us” mentality that so many of his supporters embrace, along with a failure to acknowledge the continuing threat of evil that Americans face.
A little while ago, the Massachusetts Republican Party sent out a press release that quotes party chairman Peter Torkildsen as saying, “The only failure of understanding is Governor Patrick’s failure to understand the 9/11 attacks were a cowardly, unprovoked act of war aimed at destroying our democracy and our economy. Terrorists murdered 3,000 innocent people on 9/11, and they were attempting to murder many thousands more that day.” It continues in that vein for several more paragraphs. (So far, the release doesn’t appear to be available at the party’s Web site.)
Bloggers are beginning to react as well, as you can see from this Technorati search.
As you can see from Patrick’s speech, nearly all of it is exactly what you would expect an elected official to say on such occasion. I don’t think his remarks about the human failure to understand and love one another were taken out of context; but I do think they need to be seen within their full context, which was a speech clearly aimed at honoring the victims of 9/11.
As for the part that the Herald and the Republicans are upset with, I’d call it a sloppy bit of rhetoric. I’m all for peace, love and understanding, but Patrick’s words lend themselves too easily to being interpreted as meaning that the attacks came about, at least in part, because we failed to love our enemies.
Look for the inevitable clarification later this week — if not later today.
Dan Gillmor blasts the media for a recent New York Times/CBS News poll finding that one-third of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. He writes:
The continuing scandal is that media organizations are doing so little to correct the record. Because it is not enough to run an occasional story debunking the lie.
I don’t disagree, but it’s also more complicated than that. Last Friday, NPR’s “On the Media” ran a fascinating interview with the Washington Post’s Shankar Vedantam, whose reporting suggests that the harder you try to debunk a falsehood, the more people are likely to believe it. Here’s Vedantam, talking about what happened after the subjects of a University of Michigan study read a flier produced by the Centers for Disease Control debunking myths about vaccines:
[A]bout 30 minutes later, older people started to remember some of the false statements as true, and three days later, very large numbers of older people and significant numbers of younger people also started remembering increasing numbers of myths as true.
The true statements did not suffer the same kind of deterioration with time. In other words, over time we tend to remember false things as true but not true things as false.
This doesn’t mean the media shouldn’t at least try to educate the public in an ongoing way. But it does mean that it’s likely a significant minority of Americans will continue to believe whatever they like, whether it’s about 9/11 or the (non)-existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
After all, as Vedantam points out, majorities in Arab and Muslim countries continue to believe the United States and/or Israel were responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. You can only do so much to set the record straight.
Vedantam’s original Post story is online here.
Would the New York Times Co. please, please, please sell its 17 percent stake in the Red Sox? Then, when the Boston Globe publishes a press release like this on the front of the business section, we can attribute it to simple bad news judgment rather than more nefarious motives. Good grief.
Oh, yeah, and this one too — although I suppose it actually qualifies as news.
Update: Boston Daily beat me to it.
Conservative supporters of the war in Iraq are spreading a bizarre meme — that MoveOn.org’s New York Times ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us” is the moral equivalent of McCarthyism. A few examples:
OK, enough. You do see what the problem is, don’t you? McCarthy was smearing government officials by accusing them of being communists. MoveOn is smearing Petraeus by accusing him of being a known associate of (gasp!) George W. Bush.
And though it may have been wrongheaded for MoveOn to suggest that Petraeus would shade the truth on Bush’s behalf, it would be a stretch to call that offensive, let alone “McCarthyite.” Shading the truth about the war — its causes and its prosecution — is, after all, the modus operandi of the Bush White House. Pete Hegseth, writing in the Weekly Standard, accuses MoveOn of calling Petraeus a “traitor.” Hegseth needs to think through the implications of what he’s saying.
I have no love for MoveOn, and I fail to see how blowing its members’ money on a full-page ad in the Times advances its cause. There are not too many Times readers, I suspect, who continue to support (or who ever supported) the war.
I also think that Petraeus stands as one of the few honorable leaders in this terrible folly. His analysis — that U.S. and Iraqi troops are making progress on the ground — seems eminently reasonable. Too bad Iraq’s leadership continues to rip the country apart. (And yes, I understand that Petraeus wrote an overly optimistic op-ed piece for the Washington Post just before the last presidential election, an act that could be seen as political.)
This past Sunday’s “Meet the Press” was valuable, both for the downbeat assessment offered by retired Marine Gen. James Jones and former Washington police commissioner Charles Ramsey, members of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, and for Sen. Joseph Biden’s take on the MoveOn ad: “I don’t buy into that. This is an honorable guy. He’s telling the truth.”
Petraeus‘ truth, unfortunately, is just a small part of the picture. But unless President Bush is suddenly the new Nikita Krushchev, then MoveOn’s ad can’t possibly be compared the tactics of the late, unlamented Joseph McCarthy.
Not much to say about the return of John Dennis and Gerry Callahan to WEEI Radio (AM 850) except that Entercom executives proved to be not quite as suicidal as they sometimes appear.
Personally, I wouldn’t have minded seeing the offensive duo take a permanent vacation. But they’re ratings monsters, and it was obvious that Entercom had to do everything it could within reason to bring them back.
Even though I suspect WEEI’s morning ratings would be fine without Dennis and Callahan, Jason Wolfe and company would be foolish to take a chance.
Paul Sullivan has died. I heard it on the way to work this morning on WBZ Radio (AM 1030), where he had hosted a talk show until his illness forced him to step down in June. Sullivan was also political editor of the Lowell Sun. Here’s a rundown of the coverage:
— “The Sullivan Family and the WBZ family lost a real treasure,” says the station’s news director, Peter Casey. “Paul Sullivan brightened up every room he ever entered and every life he ever touched. Right now, our thoughts are with Paul’s wife and their five children and Paul’s extended family.” (WBZ Radio)
— “Paul Sullivan, the irrepressible veteran Sun columnist, popular radio talk show host and educator who turned his battle with cancer into an example of the bravery and grace with which such epics can be fought, has died.” (Lowell Sun)
— “His handling of his illness was a classic insight into the man,” says WBZ-TV (Channel 4) and radio political analyst Jon Keller. “He refused to make a spectacle of it and downplayed it with self-effacing humor.” (Boston Globe)
— “God gave us in eight years what most don’t have in 80,” says Sullivan’s wife, Mary Jo Griffin. “Paul came into my life and taught my girls by example how they should be loved by a man. I’m most grateful for that. I think he is at peace.” (Boston Herald)
I did not know Sully well, but his demeanor was such that you would think you’d known him your entire life. Every so often he’d call me out of the blue and ask whether I could come on his show to talk about a media topic. It was always a welcome invitation. Sully’s style — like that of the late David Brudnoy, whom he replaced in 2004 — was to let you have your say, but at the same time to challenge you if he thought you were laying it on a little thick.
Ironically, and tragically, Sully attained his greatest professional success just as he was beginning what would prove to be a long battle with melanoma. Sullivan learned he had cancer in late 2004, just before Brudnoy himself died of cancer. Sullivan, who’d been a late-night host and frequent Brudnoy fill-in, got the coveted 8 p.m.-to-midnight slot — as Brudnoy had wished — and filled it with distinction during the short time he had left.
Media Nation’s thoughts go out to the Sullivan family and to his professional families, WBZ and the Sun.
The best description in the traditional media of the Middleborough town meeting that approved the casino-gambling deal appears in an editorial today in The Enterprise of Brockton. The whole thing is a must-read (linked moved; now fixed), but check this out:
This is a decision that will affect the state for generations. It will alter many lives, change the economy of the Bay State, create new issues and have many consequences. It is not a decision to be made lightly or hastily, so no one should hold Patrick to his previous promise to make a decision this week.
This rational approach is in sharp contrast to what has happened in Middleboro in recent months where residents reluctantly voted to support a casino, to be built by the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe (or more accurately, their billionaire backers). There was little time for debate and reflection on how it would affect the town and the region, especially since there was always the subtle threat that if Middleboro didn’t make up its mind — and fast — the Indians would take their slot machines elsewhere.
To which I would add this: The “subtle threat” was not so much that the Indians would take their slot machines elsewhere, but that they would build them in Middleborough whether residents liked it or not. That’s why people were told to vote “yes” on the deal even if they opposed the casino itself. That’s why they turned right around after the first vote and voted “no” on an advisory question asking whether they wanted to see a casino built in town.
The editorial urges Gov. Deval Patrick to take his time on making a decision (apparently he needs no such urging), and concludes: “This may be the most important decision you ever make as governor. Don’t let anyone from any quarter put pressure on you. Do what is best for the long-term welfare of the people of Massachusetts.”
Look at what we’re dealing with now. A tribal chairman, Glenn Marshall, who left in disgrace. The entire tribal leadership facing a recall election. Three of Middleborough’s five selectmen facing a recall election. (The other two, including the chief casino enabler, Adam Bond, escaped only because they were elected too recently.) Two of the investors with dubious legal records. A mysterious meeting with the ethically challenged state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson.
Just walk away, governor. You don’t need this.
New York Times columnist Joe Nocera doesn’t like his Treo (sub. req.) — and he blames Wall Street Journal columnist Walt Mossberg. To wit:
Maybe I should never have believed The Wall Street Journal’s technology guru, Walt Mossberg, who wrote in early 2006 that “Palm’s Treo smartphones have been the best high-end cellphones on the market, with the finest combination of voice, e-mail and Web-browsing capabilities in a hand-held device.”…
Maybe, if my due diligence had gone beyond reading Mr. Mossberg, I might have realized that the Treo was far more trouble than it was worth.
Whoa! Nothing yet on Mossberg’s Web site, All Things D, but I imagine he’ll fire a return volley before the weekend is out.
But hold on. Here is the January 2006 Mossberg review to which Nocera refers. It’s a review not of the 700p, which has made Nocera’s life such a living hell, but of the 700w, which runs a completely different operating system — Windows Mobile rather than the Palm OS, which Nocera fingers as his culprit (other than Mossberg). True, Mossberg said nice things about the Palm OS, but the 700p hadn’t even been released yet.
Then, in June 2006, Mossberg was back with a review of the then-brand-new 700p, a good seven months before Nocera made his purchase. Here’s an excerpt:
In our tests, over a couple of weeks, the Treo 700p performed well. Web browsing was a pleasure at the new high speeds. Our only complaint was a short but annoying lag in displaying the text of emails and in performing certain other operations. Also, our test unit crashed twice and had to be restarted. (It didn’t lose any data in the crash.)
It crashed twice in a couple of weeks, eh? Did Nocera notice that? Sounds like a pretty good harbinger of the problems he describes today.
Nocera has complained about his toys previously without taking, uh, due diligence. If he can’t slip one past a tech doofus like me, he ought to find another subject.
State Treasurer Tim Cahill is very upset that U.S. Customs agents harassed his family when they flew home from Italy recently because one of his daughters was found carrying peaches (Globe story here; Herald story here). “As a citizen who cares about security, I think that the time needs to be spent better and maybe on less serious issues than peaches,” Cahill is quoted as saying.
Both papers report having made unsuccessful attempts to get government officials to comment (the Globe’s Andrea Estes appears to have tried quite a bit harder than the Herald’s Dave Wedge), and then leave it at that. But about three seconds of Googling would have revealed what their intuition should have told them in the first place — that fruit can carry non-native insects and other nasties that could wreak havoc if they get loose in the United States.
Here’s part of a press release on a food-sniffing dog that works for the Houston Airport system:
During their training, these canines are taught to alert their human counterparts when they sniff five primary odors: apple, citrus, mango, pork and beef. Plants and flowers are also at the top of the dogs’ target items list.
These target items are foreign to the United States and may contain certain diseases and insects that are not currently present in the country. The function of CBP [Customs and Border Protection] is to prevent these potentially dangerous items from entering the country and, by the same token, to prevent foreign items from the U.S. entering other countries.
Meats can carry livestock diseases, such as swine fever and mad cow disease that can kill American livestock. Fruits and vegetables, on the other hand, can carry insects or diseases, such as the Mediterranean fruit fly or citrus canker, which can wipe out hundreds of acres of the U.S.’s agriculture.
Or maybe we could review how Dutch elm disease, spread by bark beetles, came to wipe out the graceful elm trees that used to line the streets of Boston and other American cities. According to this Wikipedia entry (corroborated by the Encyclopedia Britannica):
The disease was first reported in the United States in 1928, with the beetles believed to have arrived in a shipment of logs from the Netherlands destined for the Ohio furniture industry. The disease spread slowly from New England westward and southward, almost completely destroying the famous Elms in the “Elm City” of New Haven, reaching the Detroit area in 1950, the Chicago area by 1960, and Minneapolis by 1970.
Maybe the agents who stopped the Cahills acted unprofessionally and didn’t bother to explain themselves. Maybe they were unnecessarily rude, the default mode for too many government officials with a little bit of power. But certainly they had a legitimate reason to confiscate the peaches. Too bad the papers didn’t make more of an attempt to find out why.
Even better: Steve finds the notice at left on the Customs Web site. It begins: “We regret that it is necessary to take agricultural items from your baggage. They cannot be brought into the United States because they may carry animal and plant pests and diseases. Restricted items include meats, fruits, vegetables, plants, soil, and products made from animal or plant materials.”