Cock & Bull

by Richard Oxman

“America’s a melting pot. When you bring it to a boil, the scum rises to the top. Maybe there’s hope for you yet, Jack.” — The pimped talking to the pimp (John Laurie’s) character in Jarmusch’s *Down by Law*.

This is not about Alexander Cockburn. No more than it’s about Rosalind Russell, or Holly Golightly. [1a]

But…what is he doing selling T-shirts?

And if he must hawk haberdashery, why compound ignorance with ignorance… selling the notion that those who disbelieve the NYTimes *ensemble* constitute any kind of solidarity?

And, since (in his own words), ” We’re been at it for thirty years at least, saying that most things in the Times are distortions of reality or outright lies and here is a robust slice of the American people agreeing with us”…, why is he going over the old ground again? While lamenting that “the Left hasn’t got too many ideas. We should stop bitching about the corporate press and get with a new program. If it’s credible, then the people who don’t trust the New York Times might start trusting us.”

I’ve got ideas. I’ve sent him some. I don’t see each one…run. And something tells me it’s not a simple matter of taste. [1b] But, regardless, we’ve got to *bust* this “trust” business. There is no future in the kind of mobilization he suggests is possible. Perhaps he should read –if not *run*– more of the pieces I’ve submitted. This isn’t my opinion any more than it’s Alexander’s *opinion* that the NYTimes is slanted. The so-called left is not slated to go anywhere…except, perhaps, down to the mailbox –in part– to pick up their T-shirts. Having parted with their hard earned cash…for what?

At this juncture, I’m particularly pissed off at cockamamie capitalist cons ’cause I just got word from Italy (confirming what I heard from Japan recently) about $$$henanigans among The Alternavitos. To wit, Amy Goodman is now raking in funds from Ford and other pro-war foundations. What? She isn’t earning enough from her incessant book tour? She needs more “mikes” in Iraq? The Firehouse needs to do what they do every day on the HGTV Channel? Are they still on that stillborn wavelength that says more info for more people is what’s needed?

This Charnel House does not look kindly upon such cavalier, leisurely corralling of hard-to-come-by cash. [2] It cries the Foreigner lyrics: “Urgent urgent emergency.”
In the space of a paragraph Cockburn suggests that newspapers are dying, the NYTimes is crumbling fast, and that we’re “infinitely better off than we were thirty years ago” because “we have the web.”

Does anyone not know that newspaper sales are down? Does anyone believe that the NYTimes, in spite of that, is in *trouble*? Does he expect us to take heart in the fact that the left has made some strides vis-a-vis the web? Does he truly believe that marketing his 14% *solution* represents a worthy use of heartbeats? Or are we not that pressed?

I’m very unimpressed, to say the least.

He chides Chomsky: “My only quibble with Chomsky down the years has been the implication in all his trenchant criticisms of the Times that somehow the NYT should be getting things right, and that it would be better if it did so.” Why is Chomsky on *old ground*, and not Cockburn? Why is Chomsky *not getting it*, but Cockburn is?

I’m not prone to come to Chomsky’s rescue right now, considering his recent abominable remarks about why proposals for sanctions against Israel are *silly*. And more. [3] However, Chomsky’s not the only one who’s at fault here. Holding us back.

Turning backs have taken me aback.

AC continues to beat the dead horses of Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman (and those of the posses they rode in on), whilst making quite a big deal about the following remark by his *Nation* intern Mark Hatch-Miller:

“Stop bringing up Jayson Blair every time you screw up. Every time the Times talks about why people don’t trust them, they have to mention Blair, but we all would have forgotten him by now if they’d shut up about him for a second. His story is only used to distract us from the real problems. at the Times.”

Mr. Counterpunch says, “Aye to that.” How ’bout an *aye* for an “aye?” Distract us? Who is distracting who from what? The NYTimes, Chomsky and Cockburn (with this kind of modeling) are all distractions. Disasters.

The Pew Research Center study cited shows that there’s a “robust slice of the American public agreeing?” I think not. It is a major *distraction* to suggest otherwise. [4]

“The evidence is in. The case is proved a million different ways. American capitalism can’t do that. It’s produced an unjust society run by a tiny slice of obscenely rich people (including the real estate developers owning the New York Times) with a vested and irreversible interest in permanent war and planetary destruction.” So says AC, in doing the anti-Chomsky fandango.

It begs the question of whether or not he still believes that talking about marxism, and talking down the strawmen and *strawinstitutions* will count for much.

In his “The Case for Anarchism Proven” (a section of this weekend’s contribution which follows his focus on the NYTimes) there’s some interesting/fun thoughts laid out to support another approach. But what is he *doing* about it? Playing both ends against the middle with the Parthian shot he offers up in that section…on his way to T-shirt sales?

I am eternally grateful to the Counterpunch couple, Cockburn and St. Clair, for running my “[Invitation to the Bodily Snatched](http://www.counterpunch.org/oxman11062004.html “The Leno/Letterman Model for Direct Action”)” awhile back. Their support enabled me to take the pulse of their readership vis-a-vis a proposal for action following a new paradigm.

But what’s happened since? Other plans I’ve sent their way have been neglected. That, in light of virtually zero else being proposed on their site… designed to provide the “new program” he begs for at the end of this weekend’s plea.

I never could figure out why the Counterpunch gang didn’t sign on…or at least inquire more about the proposal that they did post. What were they thinking? That others would jump into the fray. That they could stay *out of the way*…and keep researching and writing? Is that what most of the 14% believes? That *they* don’t have to budge beyond the podium or…position statements? That being smart, beautiful *alternativos* is sufficient?

And I am dumbfounded respecting what goes through the minds of such left leaders when it comes to the need to nurture ideas. To wit, proposals submitted subsequent to my Leno/Letterman plan –as faulty as they may have been– beg for back and forth…to, hopefully, hone something into shape that *will* make an impact. Yes?
There is virtually no acknowledgement in alternative circles of the lack of intimate *coaching, feedbacking*; and I’m not talking about what the polluted parameters of The Nation allows for interns.

At one point in his diatribe, Cockburn says,

“On the matter of constructive versus destructive criticism, I’ll always opt for the latter. Keep things clean and simple, like ‘US out of Iraq now’.”

I’d like to destroy a few things myself. As simple as possible. But it doesn’t have to be clean.

The French have a phrase *coq a l’ane* to describe rambling yarns (”bestiaries”)…that influenced the English form…which replaced their donkey with a bull, giving us *cock-and-bull story*. My dad, as a postal supervisor in Newark, New Jersey, was founder of the Cock-a-Moon Club. He came home each night with great tall tales. [5]

Such fish stories can keep people from going *postal*, for sure. There’s a value, undoubtedly, in blah blah…in and of itself. But the fish pond’s polluted, and drying up.

This is no time to be spending heartbeats on cock ‘n bull, while the show goes on…with all our Auntie Mames singing “life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death.” Us just meowing about how down the Depression is, not acknowledging that our show’s the flipside of *Breakfast at Tiffany’s*. [6] With beautiful, but offbeat words. Eccentric. Only.

That would be “cockamamie” in a sense other than *laughable*.

Financial/Foolish/Fish Footnotes:

[1a] [Join the 14 Per Cent Club! We Won!](http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn05142005.html “Join the 14 Per Cent Club!”) is this past weekend’s lead story for Counterpunch. I’m bouncing off of that. See footnote #6 ahead of time, if you must.

[1b] What’s deemed, possibly, “bad for business” does not fall into the category of *taste*.

[2] I can’t wait to get the “green light” to put the fat mouth on outfits like United for Peace and Justice, exposing the ripoffs and waste.

[3] That “only quibble” remark certainly begs for a double-take.

[4] “Agreement” can only be spoken of in terms of the very superficial count of anti-NYTimes votes. That’s a count to which we can attach…little or no significance.

[5] Anyone see Burton’s interesting ‘03 *Big Fish*?

[6] Rosalind Russell is often associated with the role of Auntie Mame, and Holly Golightly was the lead character in Blake Edwards’ cinematic version of Truman Capote’s *Breakfast at Tiffany’s*. Warning: Read further and “plot points” will be given away! Okay. In the spirit (almost) of my upcoming publication, The Annotated Ox, I should underscore how the writer, the actress and the character are NOT important. In the sense of what IS important. That would be…the show. Here’s to bringing down the curtain. Or at least trying stuff like that free-for-all approach to traffic that Cockburn writes about in the same contribution I’m criticizing; third segment of the piece headed “The Case for Anarchism Proven.” Without vehicles.