Patriots Act is getting some traction with reviewers, but not the attention I thought it would get in the blogosphere. It’s been completely ignored by the Daily Kos crowd, even though a personal copy was given to its founder. Four chapters, however, were excerpted on Salon; and as a result of the book falling into the hands of Arianna Huffington, I was asked to blog for her site - which I have been doing since May.
But, I thought the book would be attacked by the right; it hasn’t. I have no theories on why not. It baffles me, to be quite honest. I had the publisher send copies to many of the conservative talk show hosts and columnists. All I can is that the media is an unpredictable world, and a lot like Alice in Wonderland. Right-wing talk show host Michael Savage wrote back when he was contacted, saying, “Don’t bother me. Take me off your mailing list. The book is filled with the usual liberal suspects.” Last month, however, he read a chapter excerpt from Patriots Act, which had appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. It was the excerpt concerning the former Red Team counter-terror expert with the FAA who criticized aviation security. The next day, Savage had the Red Team expert on his show for a half-hour. And yes, the former Red Team expert did suffer reprisals at work after the book came out.
You seem to be suggesting, in this book, that whistleblowing = dissent = patriotic act. Apologies for the oversimplification, but is that a fair summary? Is whistleblowing always a good thing or are there cases - for example of national security or confidential information - where it's not appropriate?
If lives are in danger when someone is not blowing the whistle, then it’s not patriotic to keep silent. Let’s take the case of Abu Ghraib. Do you think the government would have stepped forward publicly with the allegations and photos had not Seymour Hersh forced them to do so in the pages of The New Yorker? The military sat on this scandal for months. Wouldn’t many lives have been saved if folks in the Pentagon and CIA stepped forward before the start of the Iraq War and said, “There are no weapons of mass destruction.” Or that there is no terrorist link between Saddam and 9/11. Daniel Ellsberg eloquently made this point to me in Patriots Act. It took him nearly two years to gather the courage to release the Pentagon Papers which detailed how the U.S. government lied about Vietnam. He says that he should have acted much sooner. He then goes on to say that Richard Clarke should have told the public what he knew about Al Qaeda, Iraq, etc while he was still the White House counter-terrorist advisor - and not afterwards in his best-selling book. By then, it was too late.
Article comments
1 - gonzo marx
some really Good Stuff here...
excellent Interview and timely material...
"it's got a great beat, Dick, and I can bug out to it"
/golfclap
well done!
Excelsior!
2 - Lumpy
Sounds like another example of a good book on an important topic where serious analysis is sacrificed on the altar of leftist bias. I should really say partisan bias because right wingers are often just as bad.
But it was a good interview and made me interested enough to at least leaf through the book next time i'm in borders.
Did he really interview krugman? what qualifications he has on any topic relating to patriotism is beyond me.
3 - gonzo marx
one would think that ANY American can have a vlaid view about Patriotism...
that whole Individual thing
i'll hold off on Judgement until i can actually read the book
but the Interview, and the subject matter is very pertinent in today;s circumstances
any disagreement on that?
and one cannot Objectively state with any degree of accuracy that therehave not been numerous documented cases of some partisans labellign ANY dissent with the "anti-american" or "america hater" kind of labels
and THAT is the Point
Excelsior?
4 - Scott Butki
Glad you guys liked the interview. We had to cut it some and the original is here.
5 - Scott Butki
Take 2 - the full interview is at my blog site.
6 - Scott Butki
I was thinking about this interview today because of one comment that was in the interview that I cut out because of space limitations.
I'll post it in full below.
I mention it because of the death of journalist Oriana Fallaci, who Temple Stark wrote a good profile of.
7 - Scott Butki
The excerpt:
"Would I be correct in assuming Studs Terkel, one of the best practitioners of oral histories, was an influence? Who are some of the other influences on your writings?
Absolutely, I am in great debt to Studs. I was introduced to him as a freshman at the University of Michigan in 1975. I read Working straight through Thanksgiving weekend. I had never read something of that breadth before. I wasnt a journalist then. But his brand of reportage influenced me greatly. It just took awhile to germinate. I later went to Berkeley for grad school in political science. While there, I read Oriana Fallacis Interviews with History, which made me realize how much skill and insight are required to really get to the soul of one's interview subject. Shes the best in the game at this. The gold standard. I recommend anyone interested in interviewing a public figure to read her interview with then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger under Nixon. Listening to him talk, she wrote in her intro, is like a dull rain hitting the roof. She made Kissinger disclose how much he thought Nixon depended on him for his expertise on global issues; he compared himself to a Western gunslinger, the man in the white cowboy hat. The net effect of her interview--it first appeared in The New Republic--was twofold: Nixon was furious with Kissinger; and the interview became a major media event.