i'm going to take a moment to highlight a post of mine: "a stripped down antonio was the only thing of value the new republic has ever offered" (http://sexandpoliticsandscreedsandattitude.blogspot.com/2005/01/stripped-down-antonio-was-only-thing.html).
in that post i highlighted some of the problems with the new republic. a hideous magazine that gets worse every day. i got three e-mails from straight men bothered by interest in antonio (why do the prudes even come to a sight called 'sex and politics and screeds and attitude?'). basically they were reading from the same playbook: 'the new republic is a great magazine, a landmark magazine! how dare you say these mean things about it.'
how dare i?
how dare i?
how dare you defend it.
little petey bienart (who the fellows felt i was too rough with) doesn't just write for the magazine, he also gives autographs. like on this letter to congress:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm
from the letter:
In sum: We can afford the military we need. As a nation, we are spending a smaller percentage of our GDP on the military than at any time during the Cold War. We do not propose returning to a Cold War-size or shape force structure. We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.
that's right folks, petey of the new republic is arguing the 'tough case' of increasing military spending, cause lord knows we don't spend enough! (i'm being facetious.)
and did we mention it's pnac? little peter beinart is the perfect fit for the new republic.
and i would urge everyone to check out this web article:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_15502.shtml
it's "United States Divided: How much do some Pro-Bush crazies hate those who oppose the war?" by dave zirin:
New Republic Writer Calls For Anti-Bush Left-Wingers To Be Killed
The words "libelous" and 'the New Republic" have a proud history of walking arm-in-arm. Now, in the esteemed tradition of [former TNR writer who peddled fiction as fact] Stephen Glass, The New Republic has stooped to a new low, publishing a piece that calls for violence, torture, and even death for leading leftists who dare oppose Bush's war on terror and the slaughter in Iraq.
Author Tom Frank -- clearly from the Glass School of Journalism the New Republic has made famous -- described sitting in on an anti-war panel sponsored by the International Socialist Organization, the Washington Peace Center, the DC Anti-War Network and other groups.
After having heard the 100 plus attendees cheer sentiments like "Money for Jobs and Education Not For War and Occupation," Frank became so riled up, he unloaded a deranged harangue about the suffering he would like to rain upon people daring to organize against this war. After Stan Goff, a former Delta Forces soldier and current organizer for Military Families Speak Out, expressed sentiments like "We ain't never resolved nothing through an election," Frank's jag began. Clearly too doughy to do it himself, Frank started to fantasize about a Teutonic strongman who could shut Goff up.
...
This piece is yet another effort to intimidate and silence people who aren't willing to toe the "party line" espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike that the death of 1,400 US troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians is somehow justified. Frank's piece is an exercise in hate and intimidation. To be quiet in its face is to give ground in a period when we have precious little to give.
Therefore, this is a call for people to e-mail The New Republic and let them know what you think about humorous musings on killing Arundhati Roy or torturing Stan Goff. Let them know that a disgraced magazine will not intimidate us, especially one with the credibility of The National Enquirer. Let them know that we will publicly debate Tom Frank or any of their 20 something post-graduate hacks on the merits of this war anytime and any place. This is the only way to deal with darkness: shine as bright a light as possible -- right in it's face.
E-mail letters@tnr.com to let them know what you think. We are also considering a picket of the New Republic Offices, for those interested.
i wonder how that will play on air america which just seems to love those new republic writers.
if you buy ad time, does air america book you? matthew rothschild and the staff of the progressive can't seem to get on but good god if the new republic writers aren't on about as much as their damn ads. (barbara ehrenreich was on the majority report. ehrenreich was filling in for maureen dowd at the new york times and she also writes for the progressive. ehrenreich is also the author of the best seller nickle and dimed.) in these times may as well not exist in air america's eyes. (david sirota has contributes pieces to in these times. when he's on the show al franken's show, franken stresses that he's with the center for american progress.) the progressive and in these times haven't bought air time.
or how about sam seder's war with daniel okrent, public editor of the new york times? he was all over that story. then the new york times bought ad time (and continue to do so) and the outraged sam seder is no longer so outraged. has he even mentioned that okrent declared war on a reader in months? that was a big deal to him and he promised that they would stay on this. hey i forget things all the time myself. maybe he just forgot.
but when the non-left that is the new republic can get booked on pretty much every show that features guests and people from magazines not advertising on the network can't get on, i think it's a question worth asking.
i think another question worth asking is how many majority report listeners were pissed off last night due to sam taking calls from people attacking janeane - but praising him, naturally.
it wasn't funny. it wasn't cute. sam may think he's 'da man' but reality check would tell most people that the show wouldn't exist without janeane. one caller bragged about how janeane was too left but sam's a moderate. that's what we need, a few more moderate voices in this country because lord knows the media just lets the right and the left talk. oh wait, they don't do that.
no, they put centerists on the tube and call them the 'left.'
janeane's not yammering "uh ... uh ... uh." she's also got a name. seder's lucky to be her co-host and should the show attempt to go on without her, it will crash and burn. it's dumbed down npr without janeane. it was disgusting to hear sam chuckling at the callers griping about janeane. he may be carving out a future for himself at the new republic at this rate.
