Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the eve of his address at Columbia University. It was part of the Iranian president's media blitz.
Scott Pelley, the go-to guy on 60 Minutes, did the sit down with Ahmadinejad.
This Sunday, Pelley has another high profile interview -- Bruce Springsteen.
For Ahmadinejad, his few minutes with Pelley in the 60 Minutes sun served as an opportunity for him to try to get the American people to buy the notion that he's really a "Mr. Nice Guy" rather than a self-absorbed, Israel-hating, nuke-chasing, liar madman.
For Springsteen, the interview is part of a media blitz as well. However, unlike Ahmadinejad, this interview isn't only about winning converts or defending his cause. It is also about making money.
Springsteen is hawking his latest release, Magic.
From Drudge:
BRUCE UNDER FIRE? ROCKER SPRINGSTEEN CLAIMS UNNAMED CRITICS CALLING HIM 'UNPATRIOTIC'; SAYS U.S. COURSE OVER LAST 6 YEARS 'ANTI-AMERICAN'
Thu Sept 20 2007 16:11:22 ET
Rocker Bruce Springsteen answers critics who call his anti-war sentiments unpatriotic by saying the real sin against patriotism is saying nothing while your country is being harmed. Springsteen discusses this and other topics, including why he's still writing songs and performing, in an interview with Scott Pelley to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Oct. 7 (7:30-9:00 PM, ET, 7:00-9:00 PM, PT) on the CBS Television Network.
When reminded that his anti-war views, prominent on his new album, "Magic," will cause people to say he is unpatriotic -- as his critic have charged before -- Springsteen says "That's just the language of the day... the modus operandi for anybody who doesn't like somebody... criticizing where we've been or where we're going," he tells Pelley. "I believe every citizen has a stake in the course, direction of their country. That's why we vote... It's unpatriotic at any given moment to sit back and let things pass that are damaging to some place that you love so dearly and that has given me so much," says the 58-year-old musician.
In the interview, Springsteen points out the direction in which the U.S. is going, by his estimation. "I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States," says Springsteen. "When people think of the Unites States' identity, they don't think of torture. They don't think of illegal wiretapping. They don't think of voter suppression," he tells Pelley. "They don't think of no habeas corpus," he says, referring to the people being held by the U.S. government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"Those are things that are anti-American," Springsteen says. "There's been a whole series of things that... I never thought I'd ever see in America," he tells Pelley.
Now, the story is up on the CBS 60 Minutes Web site, including a 51 second video tease.
It appears that Springsteen reiterates the little speech he prepared for his concert performance on Today, September 28.
When introducing a new song, "Livin' in the Future," he said:
This is a song called "Livin' in the Future" but it's really about what's happening now, right now. It's kind of about how... the things that we love about America - cheeseburgers, french fries, the Yankees battlin' Boston, the Bill of Rights, V-twin motorcyles, Tim Russert's haircut, transfat, and the Jersey shore. We love all those things, and that the way the women folk love on Matt Lauer. That's right.
But over the past 6 years we've had to add to the American picture rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeas corpus, to the neglect of our great city of New Orleans and her people, an attack on the Constitution, and the loss of our best young men and women in a tragic war. This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here. And so right now we plan to do something about it. We plan to sing about it. I know it's early, but it's late. So come and join us.
Notice that he uses much of the same phrasing in the 60 Minutes interview, not the Matt Lauer or Tim Russert shtick, but the hot button issue stuff.
I think it's sort of funny for Springsteen to claim that America during the George W. Bush era is experiencing unprecedented attacks on civil rights.
He tells Pelley: "I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States."
He cites "no habeas corpus."
Someone should give Springsteen a history lesson. The writ of habeas corpus was suspended by President Abraham Lincoln.
During World War II, habeas corpus was tossed out while liberal saint President Franklin Roosevelt was in office.
FDR ordered tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans and resident aliens, including children, into internment camps.
Read FDR's Executive Order 9066.
Springsteen complains about torture. He should talk to his boy Bill Clinton about torture. Bill admits that there might be instances when torture has its place.
As a matter of fact, Bill was just discussing the matter of torture with Tim Russert only last weekend on Meet the Press.
Russert showed a clip from Bill Clinton's appearance on MTP, September 24, 2006.
MR. CLINTON: Every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days, and we know this guy knows where it is, know we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him.
They could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing post-facto to the intelligence court just like we do now with the wiretaps.
In response, Clinton goes on and on about the fictional Jack Bauer and 24, trying to back step, yet citing the reality of a need to make exceptions when it comes to torture.
CLINTON: You know, there’s a one in a million chance that you might be alone somewhere, and you’re Jack Bauer on “24.” That’s the Jack Bauer example, right? It happens every season with Jack Bauer, but to—in the real world it doesn’t happen very much. If you have a policy which legitimizes this, it’s a slippery slope and you get in the kind of trouble we’ve been in here with Abu Ghraib, with Guantanamo, with lots of other examples.
And I’m not even sure what I said is right now. I think what happens is the honest truth is that Tim Russert, Bill Clinton, people filming this show, if we were the Jack Bauer person and it was six hours to the bomb or whatever, you don’t know what you would do, and you have to—but I think what our policy ought to be is to be uncompromisingly opposed to terror—I mean to torture, and that if you’re the Jack Bauer person, you’ll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences. And I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth. I think there are a lot of areas in life where you don’t.
When Springsteen talks about voter suppression, I wonder if he's thinking about what Democrats did to keep Republican voters from the polls in Wisconsin.
Here more here.
What's the point of all this? I'm illustrating that Springsteen is spewing anti-Bush propaganda while pushing an incomplete reality. He's being dishonest in terms of the nation's history and mischaracterizing the Bush administration.
I have difficulty listening to Springsteen talk about his "critics" and the charges that he's unpatriotic. Actually, I think he's proud, wearing the criticism as a badge of honor.
I think Columbia and Sony BMG see that supposed victim status as an opportunity to boost his sales -- True patriot Springsteen in the role of freedom fighter, being the voice of the downtrodden.
Particularly disturbing to me is when he talks about how Bush has trampled on the Bill of Rights, tossed out the Constitution, and basically stripped America of its identity as a beacon of freedom in the world.
The Lefties, Springsteen included, consider themselves to be the champions of liberty and free speech.
BS.
I know the truth.
Springsteen's official Web site used to have a forum for discussions. It was shut down close to two years ago.
In addition to talk about music and concerts, there was a forum to discuss politics.
As is typical with the supposed anonymity of the Internet, it was often really ugly and abusive, sometimes shockingly. Conservative participants were routinely harassed. There were orchestrated efforts to silence their voices.
I don't know if Springsteen knew what sort of trash was on his site; but given the fact that the utterly uncivil exchanges were taking place on his forum under his name, it certainly stood as a very poor reflection on him.
Springsteen may have been clueless, but Sony BMG was not.
How did Sony BMG respond to the abuses?
With violations of policy, and ultimately, ineffectual threats and intimidation.
In my opinion, that was kind of "anti-American," the stuff Springsteen supposedly abhors.
Keep that in mind if you watch the 60 Minutes interview with Bruce Springsteen, the champion of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties, the concerned patriot.
17 comments:
sigh. It's CBS who is publicizing this in a sensational way so that people will watch. (Though, of course, Springsteen is on there because he has a new album/tour to promote.) It's the interviewer who predicted the "unpatriotic" charge would be flung at Springsteen for including anti-war and anti-Bush songs on his new album. Springsteen responded that he thinks it would be un-American not to express dissent if he thinks the country he loves and that has been so good to him has headed in a damaging direction. The fundamental issue here is that well-meaning, patriotic people should be able to disagree on what's best for our country without being accused of hating it.
His new album doesn't excite me much. One or two songs are ok. But I'm pretty disappointed. It's unusual, as I usually like 90% of the songs on any given Springsteen album. I don't know if it's the producer, or what, but there's an electronic-kind of sound in his singing on this album. It's annoying.
"I think we've seen things happen over the past six years that I don't think anybody ever thought they'd ever see in the United States," says Springsteen. "When people think of the Unites States' identity, they don't think of torture. They don't think of illegal wiretapping. They don't think of voter suppression," he tells Pelley. "They don't think of no habeas corpus,"
Ugh...
1) Torture. Listening to this limosine liberal who wears torn clothing to prove he's proletariat, and eats caviar and quiche try to sing without unclenching his teeth is torture.
Does Fred Springstone have an instance of torture he'd like to share with us?
2) Illegal wire tapping. Did Fred Springstone get his law degree from Rutgers? Who has been wiretapped illegally Fred? Springstone is so far removed from the day to day American life style that he lives in a theoretical world in which his ease of life and cash resources leaves him with few worries except the fear of Islamic radicals being spied on. Keep up the good work Springstone, you are a current events genius, you could win $400 on who wants to listen to a millionaire!!
3)Voter suppression. Fred, I was a little upset about the Republican vans that had their tires slashed by a black Congresswomans son too! Springstone lives in a comfortable Hollywood existance, where just like John Edwards his conscience is eased by pretending to be "down with the people". Bruce/Fred ca$hed in on his patriotism with the red-white and blue bandana in the emotionally riveting hit. "Born in the U.S.A.". A little ditty in which he sings about Saigon and the "yellow man".
Nice work again Bruce/Fred. You care deeply. You and Little Johnny Cougar Mellencamp were both BORN and R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A. And in the words of Little Johnny Cougar, you both "married an L.A. darling" OR TWO. Rich "artists" with lots of time to care so deeply!! Bruce Springstone, most of us don't live in multiple mansions with 10 ft. gates and guards. We actually live in America and work very hard to pay taxes and feed our kids. And many of us have kids, nephews and family members who get shot at and at times shot, in an effort to keep your fossilized mouth in new Moet Chandon, as you sing about the poor poor unions of Allentown and Pittsburgh etc. In short. You have no fuqqing clue what you are talking about. Take your gold plated microphone and your beat up, scratched and abused prop of a Fender "Squire" and shove them up your corn hole. Brucie-pie, I suggest you take your rusting hulk of an act to the sold out stadiums of Iran, Syria and Libya and sing your "Born in the U.S.A" oratorio, and then after the show take a drive down Mainstreet Damascus in your "pink cadillac". Where your patriotic bandana speak frankly about whatever subject you fancy.
And then put your head betwixt your legs and kiss you ace-buh-bye.
Mark Levin opines: "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid." A far greater mind, John Stuart Mill, said: "While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." The general nastiness of your site gives QED validation of Mill's observation.
--
Columbia University claims they are America’s best and brightest?
Did you see the way they applauded Ahmadenijad?
They are just a bunch of filthy Little Eichmanns.
It is too bad that Cho Seung-hui didn’t go to Columbia University!
The general nastiness of your site gives QED validation of Mill's observation.
If you think that my site is "nasty," I guess that you haven't had much exposure to political blogs. Have you been to the Huffington Post or Daily Kos?
Have you watched Bill Maher or Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews on MSNBC?
In terms of "nastiness," are you referring to the comments on this post?
I think some of them are rough and certainly not things I would say.
Some are horrible; but I don't want to delete them.
I don't condone the ugliness at all.
However, I also don't want to silence voices. I don't want to trample on the Bill of Rights.
I meant "nasty" in the same sense that Mencken did. Moreover, the fact that liberals lapse from good taste from time to time does not warrant your doing so, n'cest pas? To do so is rather like saying that because an enemy practices torture, it's proper for us to do so. One does not defeat a foe by becoming indistinguishable from him. That having been said, I do commend your attitude re freedom of speech, with the caveat that freedom and license are not synonyms either in speech or action. One final comment: dissent is not treason, nor should ad hominem attacks be used to refute it. Free argument and debate are essential in a democracy; indeed, democracy cannot survive, nor come into being, without them. Oh, by the way, I am not "Mary."
Jefferson? Can I call you WEASIE??
I admire your non-ad-hom-non-vitriolic nature, but disagree with your logical or pseudo logical conclusions.
Liberals do not "lapse" from good taste. Liberals lapse from logic and co-equal tolerance.
If our enemies use torture or not, has no relevance to our response nor the protection of "our" people.
The RIDICULOUS insinuation is that, if our enemies do XYZ, that we are EQUALLY EVIL if we respond in kind. That is TRIPE. It's a liberal argument seeking a fight.
It's a pre-concluded axiom, that holds "us" to a standard, that assumes our FOES are equally or more MORAL than/as US.
If Muslim slime cuts off your brothers head and films it for all to see, the act is of it's own volition. WHATEVER RESPONSE we ENGENDER......CANNOT....ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY...CANNOT...be looked at in the same LENS.
A response to EVIL has some level of justification, unless it purposely crosses a line of impropriety.
Someone harming my son, will be answered with SHOCK and AWE.
And Righteously SO.
""A far greater mind, John Stuart Mill, said: ""
Sorry libs, but....HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA.
A far greater mind, John Stuart Mill!!!!!!
Who???
Where did John Stuart Mill recieve his "greater mind" validation???
Sweet Julius Caesar this cracks me up. Libs claiming superiority via fiat. Oh dear me, John Stuart Mills say, welfare is Roast Beef!!!!!! Great Caeser's Ghost that cracks me up. Some teat eating Lib Nancy cites, John Stuart Mill!!
Hilarious. Stop it man, my stomach is aching from laughter.
"Anonymous 3:03 AM, October 07, 2007" is now using the moniker "jefferson" and declares, "I am not 'Mary.' "
What is that?
And of course, I should have just assumed that "anonymous/ jefferson/ not Mary" was referencing Mencken when speaking of the "nastiness" of my blog.
Funny.
The issue here is that Springsteen's talk of the Bill of Rights and patriotism and the erosion of civil liberties is hollow.
He is either incredibly hypocritical or remarkably ignorant in terms of what happened on the now defunct discussion forums on his official Sony BMG sponsored site.
Ah, how I love the sweet sound of foaming-at-the-mouth neo-conservatives! 1. Liberals lapse less often from logic than do conservatives, being constrained by reason. 2. In response to one comment, no, you may not call me "weasie," although considering your vulgarity there are a number of things I could call you--but that would be to follow your example, which would be absurd. 3. I am particularly amused that no one seems to over a reasoned refutation of my opinions, only general attacks, primarily ad hominem. 4. Here's a proposition for you to consider: the Constitution is based on the proposition that people are competent to rule themselves--and that's probably the most "liberal" idea in history. 5. Saying that because a foe acts obscenely you may do so is infantile. 6. Many consider dummya to be the worst, not to mention the goofiest, president in American history. What does that say of those who worship him? Aren't you all a bunch of monarchists?
jefferson, reread your comments.
There are striking instances of hypocrisy, as well as logical lapses.
For example, you complain about ad hominem attacks.
"Foaming-at-the-mouth neo-conservatives"
"Dummya"
Very nice.
It's mildly amusing.
But more importantly, you fail to address the issue at hand -- the glaring hypocrisy of Springsteen preaching about the Bill of Rights and abuses when he, via his Sony BMG site, hosted a forum that was exceedingly and inexcusably abusive.
There is no lapse of logic in my most recent comments,nor is there any hypocrisy. There is a bit of sardonicism.
As for Springsteen--you're quite correct, so mea culpa in this regard; however, I must observe that this seems to be another case of someone commenting on the mote in a neighbor's eye. (Biblical reference).
All partisanship aside, I enjoy this blog, and respect the enthusiasm of those who post to it. The true enemy is apathy. We may call one another names; we make think one another mad, but we are expressing opinions freely and passionately. This is essential. Keep it up.
John asks where J. S. Mill receives his greater mind evaluation. In answer: Mill was able to read the Greek philosophers--in Greek--before he was five; Mill's economic work was the definitive text on the subject from ca 1848 to ca 1919 (Oxford); his famous "On Liberty" is still considered--universally--one of the greatest books ever written on the subject. I doubt Levin would consider himself to be in the same league: why don't you ask him?
As for terming me a "teat-sucking nancy".... "nancys" don't suck teats, preferring a part of the anatomy those with teats lack. Moreover, "sucking teat" tends to be an enjoyable experience, for heterosexuals. John seems a bit confused on the subject.
Overall sarcasm rating for John: A-
On history lessons - if you care to pull out your Constitution (that scrap of paper Liberals hold dear and Conservatives seem happy/eager to ignore), it says:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
I seem to recall something in High School history class about a rebellion during Lincoln's presidency -- ring a bell for anyone?
There is no rebellion or invasion underway today - and yet GWB is working so hard to do away with habeas corpus, in direct violation of the Constitution. On top of that, the former Attorney General had the gall to suggest that the people aren't necessarily entitled to the writ in the first place. And to think that both of them took an oath in the name of their God to uphold the Constitution.
You're a real piece of work.
Post a Comment