Take Matthew Rothschild's "Rampant Xenophobia" which, no, isn't a confessional piece. As per usual, he points the finger at everyone else. As per usual, the whole world is screwed up except for the Divine Matthew. His only problem? That he doesn't recognize the country. Really? Who taught him geography?
Matthew likes to zoom in on xenophobia because it allows him to ignore his own sexism. In 2008, did any publication on the left or 'left' enjoy the sexism aimed at Hillary as much The Progressive? Remember, he made an article on the c-word one of his "editorial picks." And, he enjoyed her being called that c-word so much, he was more than happy to link to a right-wing outlet that he usually calls out.
Terry Tempest Williams shows tremendous skill with her three page essay ("Landscapes of War") and also, a rarity for a left or 'left' writer these days, an awareness that the Iraq War drags on. But no sooner does she set the high-water mark for the issue than this leftist magazine, which started as a Socialist (Socialist-leaning, when they get nervous) magazine, run by a Socialist (Matthew Rothschild) is all about the Democratic Party's elections needs.
Writing blond, Kari Lyndersen thinks American gives a damn about the Senate seat most recently held by Roland Burris. She does an assassination -- Blond Ambition style -- on the Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones. Apparently to make him appear 'odd,' she bill shim with his middle name -- a trick she forgoes when writing of the Democratic and Republican candidate. She then opens a paragraph insisting that his "views are not necessarily in line with many environmentalists and progressives on some key issues." Okay, such as? Skeptical on global warming. Alright, does he think that means more research -- which many would be more than okay with, global warming needs to be studied -- or does she mean that he doesn't believe it's happening or that human kind's not effecting it or what? She never says. Then she checks off a laundry list and -- sorry, Kari -- insists that his belief that Barack Obama isn't doing enough on youth violence. St. Barack hasn't done a damn thing to curb youth violence. Green's opinions aren't so 'controversial.' (She notes he opposes gun control. His stated belief captured in the article isn't controversial and would be in keeping with most voters.) The Democrat gets the most space -- a crook is a nice way to describe him but Kari manages to find strong defenders for him, then the Republican gets the second most. Green? He gets as much space as Barack. Yes, Barack. Kari has to end her bad writing with musings on Barack. She ought to save it for Dear Penthouse Forum.
Abby Scher shows up next to take down Republican Sharron Angle. Scher's article reads like a parody of the stereotype of catty women -- sadly, she's being herself. So we get ha-ha! an Iranian-American woman thinks Barack hails from Communists. She's careful not to quote that, of course. Just as she's careful not to discuss Barack's parents. Not content to attack one woman, she then attacks a good portion of Nevada. You have to wonder when our side's going to stop losing by doing our superiority dance? It goes on and on to the point that we bailed before Roseanne Cash's interview.
Feeling things couldn't get any crazier we grabbed The New Republic which features loony David Axelrod on the cover. That may be the most grabbing aspect of the issue. After that, it's time for party politics (though coming from the center-right TNR, that's hardly surprising). In Noam Scheiber's cover story, we learn that, "Axlerod rents a spare, two-bedroom apartment in the Logan Circle neighborhood and sees his family in Chicago once a month." Which makes them very, very lucky. And file that sentence away for another reason that may puzzle you today but will be one of those "DUH!" moments soon enough.
Harper's Magazine mitigates is usual heaping serving of sexism in the October issue by featuring Susan Faludi who contributes the essay "AMERICAN ELECTRA: Feminism's ritual matricide." Sadly Faludi pulls punches as if she's still reporting for The Wall Street Journal. She notes Linda Hirshman calling out two women ('young' ones) with Jezebel for an online interview in which they were "bragging . . . about having unprotected sex with men they'd picked up in bars. The young women had dismissed date rape ('You live through that') as not worth reporting, because, as one of them put it, 'I had better things to do, like drinking more'."
Wait in vain for a call from Faludi on that and grasp that some readers -- this is Harper's, not a feminist publication -- will draw the conclusion that Faludi disapproves of Hirshman's criticism.
To be clear, date rape is real and two little girls who can't grasp that might have careers as stand up comics or party girls, but they aren't feminists. And unprotected sex? Even online erotica which portrays unsafe sex comes with a "this is fantasy, in the real world use protection" disclaimer. Faludi may think she's playing objective. If so, we'd direct her to her own writing -- in Backlash -- on Sherry Lansing and ask Faludi when coming out against rape became 'controversial'?
Mother Jones continues the colorful illustration cover trend of the month. The cover's much better than Mark Peterson's photograph on page 13 -- and if that photo isn't staged, we would suggest an apology be published before a lawsuit comes in. (As a general rule, you're not allowed to photograph in a bathroom -- not even a public bathroom. Photographing people actually using the bathroom opens them up to ridicule. But ridiculing people is the point. Yes, folks, it's time for another superiority dance." Because BP cover be damned, all Mother Jones wants to do is turn out the vote for the Democrats. Stephanie Mencimer (and the editors) are so quick to trash they make a huge mistake. They know how Google used to work. They're just not aware of how it works today. In other words, Steph, your search results? They were such because of your past search results. You're so very 2007.
We were trying to save International Socialist Review for last as a reward. But we needed some reality and needed it badly after three magazines singing How Great Thou Democrats Are. Frantically reading through Phil Gasper's "The Democrat's broken promises" (pages 4 and 5) restored our sanity. Especially pay attention to his critique of a linguist. It is the issue's highpoint, sadly, there are many low points. But we'll keep moving right along.
We grabbed The Nation and noted it was about as attractive as a brown paper sack. The cover actually looks like one. The issue's a crap-fest not worth printing. The sole bright light is Norman Solomon's letter to the editors where he calls them out on their moral cowardice in a recent theme -- 7 writers weighing in with 7 articles on Barack -- which failed to ever mention the Afghanistan War.
In mid-August, the entire leadership of the California Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus -- by most measures the largest caucus in the state party -- mustered a directness in addressing the president that eluded the seven writers in the Nation forum. "We worked very hard for your election as we do for all candidates who seem able and willing to work for progressive social change, and to make a better life for our citizens and for the world," the caucus's executive board wrote in a letter to President Obama. "Your rhetoric often suggest that you share this goal, but your actions frequently prove otherwise. We do not simply disagree with you on a single small issue. Unfortunately our unhappiness and disappointment has a broad scope." declared that presidential The letter said, "You campaigned against the Bus imperial presidency, and then you expanded it. . . . In our opinion you have failed, in whole or in part, to deliver on many of your commitments. Instead, you have continued and supported some of the Bush policies that many hoped and believed, based on your utterances, you would quickly terminate." And the letterspokesman Robert Gibbs, like chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, "is not the real problem, Mr. President. We fear you are."
Good for Norman Solomon. If he'd only stop trying to scare people into voting as he wanted them to do, we'd be able to applaud him more often.