This is a collection of articles Ehrenreich wrote in the 80’s covering a wide range of topics, but with a heavily political orientation. Democracy, feThis is a collection of articles Ehrenreich wrote in the 80’s covering a wide range of topics, but with a heavily political orientation. Democracy, feminism, the culture of the 80’s comes under her incisive analytical gaze, but she manages the job with a surprising amount of humor. I was not expecting that. The pieces have, in many instances, relevance to the 2000’s as well as the 1980’s. But the idolization of greed was newer then and the right-wingers had not yet made such a mess of the world or succeeded as well as dividing America into the haves and the wants. Much of what she wrote twenty years ago was quite prescient. It was a good read, not fab, but good....more
The 9/11 Commission has never received the sort of attention that was paid to the Warren Commission, but maybe it should have. Philip Shenon, a long tThe 9/11 Commission has never received the sort of attention that was paid to the Warren Commission, but maybe it should have. Philip Shenon, a long time reporter with the New York Times, dig some digging, and what he found should come as no shock and awe to anyone who paid attention to the behavior of the administration in question. The details are significant, and telling.
There is much here that impeaches the 9/11 commission. Phillip Zelikow was a close associate and advisor to Condoleeza Rice. Who in their right mind could have believed that a dedicated partisan like Zelikow would not twist the work of the commission to protect his patrons? And so he did. Democratic co-chair Lee Hamilton was more Republican than some of the Republicans, unwilling to consider the possibility that his buddies, Cheney and Rummy, would ever tell a lie. Tom Kean was uninterested in challenging the White House, unwilling to ask for subpoenas, even after it became clear that the Bushies were stonewalling. Ashcroft is portrayed as a complete crank, praying theatrically in his office, unwilling to listen to reports about domestic terrorism concerns, creepy about keeping security people out of his home.
[image] Philip Shenon - from NPR
It is particularly harsh about Condi, who did everything in her power to give the commission no useful information, covering the fact that she was probably the worst national security advisor in the nation’s history. It was she more than anyone else who kept terrorism on a low priority list, even demoting the head of the terrorism shop, Richard Clarke. The FBI managed to get extra cash from Congress but cynically used the money for other projects. It was a mess on several fronts. Clarke comes off relatively well. The FBI is shown to be a joke. Mueller single-handedly saved the Bureau by his persistent attention to the commission. In fact, it should have been completely reorganized. One relevant point made here was that the commission and staff may have been hesitant to criticize the Bureau out of intimidation, fearful that they might be subjected to official payback. Zelikow, after the commission made its report, took a job with Condi. And what does that say?
As a native New Yorker, I grieve in particular for those who lost their lives that day. I reserve a dark place in my heart for those who organized and carried out the outrage. And have enough rage left over to affix to those who not only ignored the warnings of growing and then imminent peril to our nation, but whose dishonesty, selfishness and lack of honor prevented them from owning up once the disaster occurred. The Commission names some names and those people should be ashamed.
Chiles offers a history of many disasters, accidents, misfortunes, and contends that the increasing complexity of machines in the modern age has raiseChiles offers a history of many disasters, accidents, misfortunes, and contends that the increasing complexity of machines in the modern age has raised the likelihood of disasters happening. He provides blow-by-blow descriptions of how the many disasters happened, exactly what went wrong. He notes that much misery might have been avoided by a true focus on safety uber alles, but notes that in most instances other factors were at play. Pushing to meet deadlines results in cutting corners, forcing workers to work when they are over tired, simple human screw-ups. What might have been unpleasant a hundred years ago now has the potential for mass misery. When masters of machines, for instance, were housed in the same space there developed a sense on the part of the engineers of what sounds, for example, might indicate, showing problems that gauges were not telling. Today, remote controllers who are physically removed from their charges do not have the opportunity to exercise that hands-on touch-and-feel. It bears mentioning that Chiles does not paint a completely black picture. He cites instances in which corporations actually did the right thing, at great cost. He also notes that there are some that have established mechanisms for rewarding employees who speak up.
I found that while the details of the events noted here were interesting, I had a hard time focusing. It became a bit too dry a recitation of facts. I suppose the book has value as a warning to be ever-vigilant, but did not move me much. ...more
The editors took interviews with many (82) people that had been conducted in preparation for a memorial for Peter on TV soon after his passing, at ageThe editors took interviews with many (82) people that had been conducted in preparation for a memorial for Peter on TV soon after his passing, at age 67. They mixed and matched quotes from these folks, ordering the mass into a chronological sequence of his life. It works much better than it sounds.
[image]
Jennings comes across as a true superstar. Son of Charles Jennings, considered by many the Edward R. Murrow of Canada, he had the genes and connections for success, but an affinity for mischief and a disinterest in school left him a high school dropout. He bounced around a bit, but found his way back to broadcasting very young, and by age 26 was anchoring. It is clear that he not only had a boundless curiosity, but the charm to satisfy it. He was, of course, a ridiculously handsome man, athletic, charming, extremely bright and had an unerring talent for compressing news into informative, short pieces and presenting those to his viewers in a mature, sympathetic way. He was not only an excellent journalist, honing his reportorial skills with many years as a foreign correspondent, but was a pretty good person to know, unless, that is, you were one of his wives. He seems to have been unable to hold on to marriage for more than six or seven years. That was no doubt a result of his extreme womanizing. This became public knowledge when Don Imus took some high caliber shots at him at the Radio/TV Correspondents Dinner in 1996.
Jennings made a considerable contribution to American television journalism by being willing to tell all sides of a story. For instance, having had first hand experience in the Middle East, he was eager to tell not only the Israeli perspective on that conflict, but the Palestinian side as well. He realized early that AIDS was a serious public health issue and pressed the matter. He was also instrumental in covering the Serbian ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and probably forced the US government to take action there by doing so. He found religion fascinating and did several specials on the subject. Jennings had wide ranging interests and used his power as one of the big three anchors to promote good journalism. He was also a major control freak, constantly rewriting his reporters’ work, to both their chagrin and ultimately their appreciation. I wonder though, how many really believed that his incessant corrections really made the work better, and how many said that merely as a courtesy when he passed. He is also reported to have been a major good guy in terms of wanting to listen to people, to helping the needy and not seeking coverage for this, remembering names, actually caring about people. He sounds almost saint-like to hear some tell it.
Finally, Peter Jennings was a real person, who lived a remarkable life, had an impact on many, many people through his work, and whatever his personal flaws, deserved the stardom that he achieved. I will always remember with deep affection and great appreciation his even-tempered coverage of 9/11. Peter Jennings: A Reporter's Life is a fascinating read, well worth the time.
Loading...
