THIS MODERN WORLD

If you happen to be near Palo Alto, Calif., Wednesday, you can attend a house party for Rudy Giuliani at the home of Abraham Sofaer, a Reagan-era State Department advisor and major Republican campaign contributor. The price of admission: $9.11, of course.

Here.

The horrible Kyl-Lieberman Amendment on Iran may be voted on in the Senate as soon as today. Its passage, particularly if it’s lopsided, would be a significant step toward war. Call your senator right now (Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121) to tell them to oppose it.

I don’t have any hope this will fail, but it would be nice for it not to be a shut out. Call now.

AND: You should write them, too. Get their contact forms at senate.gov or via Just Foreign Policy. A useful guide on writing to congress is here, although of course there’s no time to send something by mail.

Bob has inexplicably failed to stick the below post from his site here, so I’m taking matters into my own hands. As you see, it’s about what’s happening in Burma, what we (don’t) learn from TV news about Burma, and how this connects to Bob’s new book Who Hates Whom—which goes on sale today. (You should buy it, if you like things which are genuinely informative, genuinely insightful, and genuinely funny. But if not, avoid it at all costs.)

Okay, from this point forward it’s pure Bob Harris. I’m out!

• • •

Burma: Why I Wrote Who Hates Whom
Bob Harris

As you’ve probably already heard, about 100,000 of our fellow humans marched in peaceful opposition to a brutal regime yesterday, led by maybe 1000 Buddhist monks in full-on saffron gear waving six-color religious flags.

Burma may seem far away, but it’s not. Significant oil reserves, for example. Changes here, if nothing else, could affect how much you pay at the gas pump down the road. Also, it’s ruled by a thuggish dictatorship opposed by most of its own population, and we all care about that on principle, right? So, big story. Theoretically.

Obviously, we’ll root for the guys in burnt sienna togs holding pics of the Nobel Peace laureate, but nobody knows what happens next.

Thing is, for those relying only on TV news, nobody knows what already happened, either.

Out of curiosity, tonight I taped an hour each of two of CNN’s signature shows — the "Situation Room" (where the main situation usually seems to be Wolf Blitzer needing to speak in headlines! every third word!) and "Prime News with Erica Hill" on CNN’s Headline News channel. So just how much airtime did an unprecedented march against one of the world’s most despicable governments get?

Prime News with Erica Hill: zero minutes and zero seconds.

To anyone mistakenly relying on this program, the vast protest in Burma simply didn’t happen. Although there was time to mention Mike Tyson’s latest arrest, possible criminal charges against Britney Spears, a tapestry in Florida that kinda looks like the Virgin Mary, and — I kid you not — an extended discussion entitled "Does God Watch Sports?" Speaks for itself.

The Situation Room with Howlin’ Wolf: one minute, fifty-two seconds, total, including a pre-commercial tease.

After a half-hour of designated-enemy baiting (Ahmadinejad’s impotent idiocy contrasted with the speaking styles of Castro, Chavez, and Khruschev) and pointless yet heavily-hyped chat with Donald Trump (why? because he’s so terribly hard to find on TV?) — and only after reporting on a new study finding that (quoting CNN’s graphic) "Too Much, Not Enough Sleep Can Kill You" — one brief report on Burma, almost completely devoid of history or context.

Wolf tossed to a young lady named Abbi standing at a big TV showing a QuickTime movie downloaded from the internet, which she proceeded to point at, confirming that these were indeed monks in "MEE-ann-mar," and this was footage from the internet, and the Burmese government doesn’t like it. Back to you, Wolf!

(Think I’m exaggerating? Read the transcript.)

So. Aren’t you still a little curious about why tens of thousands of Burmese might join this monk-led protest? Or just how oppressive the Burmese government might be? Who exactly is this Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, now in her twelfth year of house arrest? And how is she descended from a key luminary in Burma’s independence struggle, and therefore inseparable with national identity for many democracy activists? Why is it called Myanmar by some people and Burma by others? What’s the difference? Where the hell is Burma, anyway, and why did the British and Japanese fight over it? What about the influence of China, and its oil companies, and those of other countries? Is it still a big source of opium? And what’s the deal with boycotting teak? Are we still supposed to do that?

That’s all in the Burma essay in Who Hates Whom. And it’s only five pages long. Including a map showing roughly where the major oil pipelines and opium producers are.

Who Hates Whom exists because today’s pattern was no exception. It’ll be repeated elsewhere tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. The sad reality: TV news shows generally are not there to deliver you information that you can use — they exist to deliver you… to the advertisers. You’re the product being bought and sold. And the most efficient way to do that is to inflame, to excite, to bring back recurring characters (Donald Trump, coming up next!), good guys and bad guys. It’s a news show, involving actual news, to about the same extent that Cheez Whiz involves actual cheese.

(If you need further proof, why else would a perfectly intelligent CNN anchor bother to conduct a lengthy segment rambling on about whether or not an unknowable infinite invisible deity is personally invested in televised sports, for f*** sake? It sure as hell ain’t for the news value.)

So last year, I was in my editor’s office, and we were bouncing around ideas for my next book. Not intending to pitch this, actually, I made one offhand comment about how it would be cool if there were a little guidebook, called, I dunno, Who Hates Whom or something, detailing most of the major conflicts in the world with little maps and photos and short essays, all crunched down short enough that you could bone up on Iran or Sudan in one trip to the can. Next time tens of thousands of people are pouring into the streets, or something blows up somewhere and you’re, y’know, a little curious what the hell is going on, and you’d like something that doesn’t involve Britney Spears being shot by Phil Spector, this book would be handy.

A year later, Who Hates Whom hits bookstores today. It ain’t perfect, mind you — wars are high-flux situations, books require months of lead time, and I’m neither infallible nor a real expert on anything — but it’s the best I could squeeze together, small enough to fit in your jacket pocket.

Meanwhile, let’s just hope that the Burma chapter in some future edition will have a very happy update. Instead of the messier one that the government decided on last time.

I dug up Jon Stewart’s 1996 HBO special, and have snipped together the bits on America’s propensity to bomb things—particularly Iraq. It’s interesting for a bunch of reasons, and still pretty funny. Comments encouraged here.

So the President, behaving a little bit more than usual, like we’d all interrupted him while he was watching his favorite cartoons on the DVR, stepped before the press conference microphone and after side-stepping most of the substantive issues like the Israeli raid on Syria in condescending and infuriating fashion, produced a big-wow political finish that indicates, certainly, that if it wasn’t already — the annual Republican witch-hunting season is underway.

“I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. Military.

“And I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad.

“And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like Move-On-Dot-Org — or **more** afraid of irritating them, than they are of irritating the United States military.”

“That was a sorry deal.”

First off, it’s “Democrat-ic” party, sir.

You keep pretending you’re not a politician, so stop using words your party made up. Show a little respect.

Secondly, you could say this seriously after the advertising/mugging of Senator Max Cleland? After the swift-boating of John Kerry?

But most importantly… making that the last question?

So that there was no chance at a follow-up?

So nobody could point out — as Chris Matthews so incisively did, a week ago tonight — that you were the one who inappropriately interjected General Petraeus into the political dialogue of this nation in the first place!

Deliberately, premeditatedly, and virtually without precedent, you shanghaied a military man as your personal spokesman — and now you’re complaining about the outcome, and then running away from the microphone?

Eleven months ago the President’s own party — the Republican National Committee — introduced this very different kind of advertisement, just nineteen days before the mid-term elections.

Bin Laden.

And Zawahiri’s rumored quote of six years ago about having bought “suitcase bombs.”

All set against a ticking clock, and finally a blinding explosion… and the dire announcement:

“These are the stakes – vote, November 7th.”

That one was ok, Mr. Bush?

Terrorizing your own people in hopes of getting them to vote for your own party has never brought as much as a public comment from you?

The Republican Hamstringing of Captain Max Cleeland and lying about Lieutenant John Kerry met with your approval?

But a shot at General Petraeus — about whom you conveniently ignore it is you who reduced him from four-star hero to a political hack — that merits this pissy juvenile blast at the Democrats on national television?

Your hypocrisy is so vast, sir, that if we could somehow use it to fill the ranks in Iraq you could realize your dream — and keep us fighting there until the year 3000.

The line between the military and the civilian government is not to be crossed.

When Douglas MacArthur attempted to make policy for the United States in Korea half a century ago, President Truman moved quickly to fire him, even though Truman knew it meant his own political suicide, and the deification of a General who history suggests had begun to lose his mind.

When George McClellan tried to make policy for the Union in the Civil War, President Lincoln finally fired his chief General, even though he knew McClellan could galvanize political opposition – as he did… when McClellan ran as Lincoln’s presidential opponent in 1864 and nearly defeated our greatest president.

Even when the conduit flowed the other way and Senator Joseph McCarthy tried to smear the Army because it wouldn’t defer the service of one of McCarthy’s staff aides, the entire civilian and Defense Department structures — after four years of fearful servitude — rose up against McCarthy and said “enough” and buried him.

The list is not endless — but it is instructive.

Air Force General LeMay — who broke with Kennedy over the Cuban Missile Crisis — and was retired.

Army General Edwin Anderson Walker — who started passing out John Birch Society leaflets to his soldiers.

Marine General Smedley Butler — who revealed to Congress the makings of a plot to remove FDR as President — and for merely being approached by the plotters, was phased out of the military hierarchy.

These careers were ended because the line between the military and the civilian is… not… to… be… crossed!

Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man.

And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career.

The upshot is — and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement — he betrayed himself more than he did us.

But there has been in his actions a sort of reflexive courage, some twisted vision of duty at a time of crisis. That the man doesn’t understand that serving officers cannot double as serving political ops, is not so much his fault as it is your good, exploitable, fortune.

But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.

That, sir, is not only un-American — it is dictatorial.

And in pimping General David Petraeus, sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming radioactive demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray your party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.

You did it again today, sir, and you need to know how history will judge the line you just crossed.

It is a line — thankfully only the first of a series — that makes the military political, and the political, military.

It is a line which history shows is always the first one crossed when a democratic government in some other country has started down the long, slippery, suicidal slope towards a military junta.

Get back behind that line, Mr. Bush, before some of your supporters mistake your dangerous transgression, for a call to further politicize our military.

Good night, and good luck.

Video.