March 19, 2007--Tim Robbins?

I know it was a nasty weekend in the Northeast, but was that the reason why only a few thousand showed up in Washington for the anti-war demonstration? I confess, with considerable guilt, that I didn’t even know it was scheduled. Maybe the NY Times also wasn’t aware of it and thus did not publish even a two-inch report about who was and wasn’t there. Me included, is this the best we as a nation could muster to mark the fourth anniversary of Iraqi Freedom?

But I did see some video about the protest on CNN. And who was there, front and center, leading the march, none other than Tim Robbins. Now I have nothing against him, quite the contrary because he was there and I wasn’t; but is he the best person to be the celebrity presence to help assure a huge turnout? Though I’m too old and uncool to think about which current stars might attract a crowd, where was Jay-Z or Beyonce or Scarlet Johanson or Leo DiCaprio? The Dixie Chicks got blackballed after they criticized President Bush but that was then and this is now and they recently won five Grammies. So the risk to one’s career for speaking out would be minimal. It actually might even help.

It’s of course unfair to single out celebrities when the rest of us stayed at home, keeping warm under our comforters. But how come everyone I asked today told me that they, like me, did not know about plans for the demonstration? How did millions learn about and show up for the March on Washington in the 1970s? Before the Internet and text-messenging? Is it all because there is no draft now for any of us to worry about? In other words, there is no direct self-interest, that our concerns about U.S. foreign policy is thus abstract and abstract issues do not bring out a crowd? Or is it that most of us are so sated by entertainments and diversions that it’s more important to stay glued to the TV to watch March Madness or get the latest news about Anna Nicole Smith or Attorney General Gonzales? Are we, in the words of media-ecologist Neil Postman, “amusing ourselves to death”?

While glued to my set yesterday I tuned into Meet the Press. Tim Russert marked the war’s anniversary by having a panel that included Richard Perle, perhaps the leading pre-war strategist who saw invading Iraq as an easy opportunity to bring democracy to the region; and former exterminator and Congressman Tom DeLay. Also there was retired Vice Admiral Joe Sestak who is now a congressman from Pennsylvania, someone who actually served in the military.

Among other things Sestak challenged Perle’s account of his own role in beating the war drums, asking if he didn’t predict four years ago that by now the Iraqis would be so grateful that George Bush “liberated” them that they would have named their main street George Bush Boulevard? Perle of course ducked the question and no one pressed him to answer. He continued to tap dance around it so that it became a metaphor for his unwillingness to take any responsibility for the fiasco; but it became equally a metaphor for the irresponsibility of the mainstream media not to hold anyone accountable for their past actions. Why didn’t Tim Russert insist that DeLay answer the congressman’s legitimate question? And further, why was the disgraced Tom DeLay there in the first place, and why did Russert repeatedly hold his book up to the camera, giving him free advertising?

I think we all know the answers to these questions.

But I forgot, one more question—how are you doing in your office basketball pool? At the end of the first week, how many of your teams are still alive? I’m down to only six. Bummer.