As you may have heard by now, while Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, the town charged rape victims for the cost of their rape kits. A rape kit is the forensic/medical exam and testing done to deterimine the identity of the rapist - sort of like dusting for fingerprints, but more invasive and unpleasant.
When the town's police chief refused to end the practice, the Alaska legislature debated and passed a bill to forbid it, and specifically targeted Wasilla.
The debate over the practice has focused on whether Palin knew about and, by implication, condoned the practice. The general consensus is that there is no evidence Palin had direct knowledge of the practice.
That seems to miss the point. The significance of the story is not whether Palin condoned such an abhorent practice. Rather, it is that such a thing could occur in her town while she was mayor, and apparently she knew nothing about it. What kind of leadership is that?
And isn't it difficult to believe that the mayor of a town being targeted by the state legislature doesn't know that her town is so targeted? Again, what kind of leadership is that? Did she live in a bubble?
Palin criticized Barack Obama's stint as a community organizer by noting that one of the key differences between that job and being a small-town mayor was that the may had "actual responsibilities." If that is true, then when will we hear Palin take "actual responsibility" for the actions of her town's police chief, the actions of her mayoral staff in (presumably) keeping her in the dark, and her own actions in reviewing and approving budgets that reflected the practice without, it would seem, actually reading those budgets? And what kind of leader doesn't know this is going on?
Clearly, not all "experience" is created equal.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
More Fox News Just Making Stuff Up.
Came across this today from Fox News' John Gibson, in a piece about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:
In fact, Fannie Mae was created in 1938, as part of FDR's "New Deal." Bill Clinton was born in 1946. I'm hard pressed to grasp how Fannie was a creation of the Clinton White House, when it was created 8 years before Clinton was even born.
Freddie Mac was created in 1970, during Richard Nixon's presidency. For those of you from Mars, Nixon was a Republican.
Gibson was right in that both entities were created by Democrat-controlled congresses. So, even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle.
"Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn't afford them."Really? Maybe Mr. Gibson should try fact-checking his commentary. On the other hand, if he was relegated to speaking the truth, he wouldn't have much to say (as would be the case with most of Fox News).
In fact, Fannie Mae was created in 1938, as part of FDR's "New Deal." Bill Clinton was born in 1946. I'm hard pressed to grasp how Fannie was a creation of the Clinton White House, when it was created 8 years before Clinton was even born.
Freddie Mac was created in 1970, during Richard Nixon's presidency. For those of you from Mars, Nixon was a Republican.
Gibson was right in that both entities were created by Democrat-controlled congresses. So, even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle.
Monday, September 22, 2008
The subtle genius of SNL's Palin incest skit
On Saturday, September 20, 2008, Saturday Night Live ran a skit in which reporters from the New York Times were discussing being assigned to go to Alaska to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin. The relevant dialogue went as follows:
On its surface, the skit was designed to poke fun at the NYT and other liberal media efforts to discredit Palin, while seriously failing to understand the world outside their cloistered Manhatten existence. Although you would think conservatives would enjoy watching the NYT be skewered, instead they are up in arms over how inappropriate it was to suggest Palin's husband and daughter was engaged in an incestuous relationship.
Fox News is on the story of course. In this somewhat rambling "report" about the controversy, the non-news network somehow tries to tie the fabricated incest story with the all-to-real story of Sarah Palin's Downs-Syndrome baby, and perhaps suggest the skit was intended to give voice to some bizarre conspiracy theories that the baby is actually that of the Palin's eldest daughter Bristol.
The beauty of the skit was saved for the final headlines though. First the paper creates a "what if" rumor based on nothing but ignorance of Alaska and Alaskans, then reports as news the fact that its phony story has not yet been disproven. That, in a nutshell, is what Fox News does every day - except they don't use a live audience or a laugh track.
Sadly, I don't keep a journal of all the examples I see of this on Fox News, which I confess to watching for the entertainment value - I am often on the edge of my seat waiting to see how they'll distort reality this time. Here are some examples.
First, on June 6, E.D. Hill, on her show "America's Pulse" characterized the Michelle and Barack Obama "fist bump" as "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."
Following that lede, after a commercial break Hill returned with an interview with body language "expert" Janine Driver and never again mentions the "terrorist fist jab" interpretation, and certainly Driver says nothing remotely similar. (Hill and her show were cancelled within days, so credit to Fox where it's due).
Another great example comes from Megan Kelly, whose apparent qualification to work on TV is she's blonde and kinda hot. (Note - Megan Kelly is also a graduate of Albany Law School and worked for a brief period for Jones Day, one of the world's largest law firms).
In her speech to the Democratic National Conventinon, Michelle Obama said "the world as it is just won't do." She then went on to discuss how people have to fight for a better world.
In her subsequent "analysis," Kelly says this:
Really? If I replace someone's words with other words, then I can ask whether there are issues surrounding the story I just made up? And then, perhaps, I can continue to note that, although there is no evidence to prove my fabricated story, there is no evidence to disprove it, either.
Reporter: Uh, what about the husband? You know he's doing those daughters. I mean, come on, it's Alaska!
Editor: He very well could be. Admittedly there is no evidence of that, but, on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.The skit ends with a shot of a NYT mockup with a banner headline reading: "In Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger." Halfway down the page is another headline, two columns wide, that reads: "While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizongly Elusive."
On its surface, the skit was designed to poke fun at the NYT and other liberal media efforts to discredit Palin, while seriously failing to understand the world outside their cloistered Manhatten existence. Although you would think conservatives would enjoy watching the NYT be skewered, instead they are up in arms over how inappropriate it was to suggest Palin's husband and daughter was engaged in an incestuous relationship.
Fox News is on the story of course. In this somewhat rambling "report" about the controversy, the non-news network somehow tries to tie the fabricated incest story with the all-to-real story of Sarah Palin's Downs-Syndrome baby, and perhaps suggest the skit was intended to give voice to some bizarre conspiracy theories that the baby is actually that of the Palin's eldest daughter Bristol.
The beauty of the skit was saved for the final headlines though. First the paper creates a "what if" rumor based on nothing but ignorance of Alaska and Alaskans, then reports as news the fact that its phony story has not yet been disproven. That, in a nutshell, is what Fox News does every day - except they don't use a live audience or a laugh track.
Sadly, I don't keep a journal of all the examples I see of this on Fox News, which I confess to watching for the entertainment value - I am often on the edge of my seat waiting to see how they'll distort reality this time. Here are some examples.
First, on June 6, E.D. Hill, on her show "America's Pulse" characterized the Michelle and Barack Obama "fist bump" as "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently."Following that lede, after a commercial break Hill returned with an interview with body language "expert" Janine Driver and never again mentions the "terrorist fist jab" interpretation, and certainly Driver says nothing remotely similar. (Hill and her show were cancelled within days, so credit to Fox where it's due).
Watch it here:
Another great example comes from Megan Kelly, whose apparent qualification to work on TV is she's blonde and kinda hot. (Note - Megan Kelly is also a graduate of Albany Law School and worked for a brief period for Jones Day, one of the world's largest law firms).In her speech to the Democratic National Conventinon, Michelle Obama said "the world as it is just won't do." She then went on to discuss how people have to fight for a better world.
In her subsequent "analysis," Kelly says this:
Megan Kelly: If you replace "world" with "country," you're back to the same debate, arguably, you've been having about Michelle Obama's feelings about this country.
Really? If I replace someone's words with other words, then I can ask whether there are issues surrounding the story I just made up? And then, perhaps, I can continue to note that, although there is no evidence to prove my fabricated story, there is no evidence to disprove it, either.
Watch Stephen Colbert illustrate the point better than I:
Notably, Hume doesn't try to say Obama is a Muslim. Rather, he engages in the "if we put it out there and nobody disproves it, maybe it is true" practice that is the hallmark of what passes for reporting on Fox News. Worse for Hume, turns out it's not true anyway. The last half of the sentence is a fabrication, and you can listen to the actual interview here. You'll note that Malik Obama never says what Hume and Fox said he did.
In this broadcast, former journalist Britt Hume reads a story that begins by restating that Barack Obama and his campaign have gone out of their way to remind people that Obama is a christian, not a muslim. Then, Hume notes that the Jerusalem Post reported an interview with Obama's half brother Malik. The Post story, as reported by Hume and Fox, said "if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background."
Notably, Hume doesn't try to say Obama is a Muslim. Rather, he engages in the "if we put it out there and nobody disproves it, maybe it is true" practice that is the hallmark of what passes for reporting on Fox News. Worse for Hume, turns out it's not true anyway. The last half of the sentence is a fabrication, and you can listen to the actual interview here. You'll note that Malik Obama never says what Hume and Fox said he did.
So kudos to SNL for its sly (even if unintended) slap at Fox News and its mindless followers. Lies, and in particular outrageous lies, are no less wrong and immoral when they are couched in the false pretense of "just wondering" and then left to grow on their own, like a noxious weed. Sucks to be on the receiving end of that tactic for once, huh. (And a thumbs down to NBC for cowardly removing the clip from YouTube and failing to post it on its own website).
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Busting the Palin Bubble
It was fun ride, to be sure, but the Sarah Palin bubble of excitement that came with her unexpected (by anybody) nomination for the Republican vice-presidential slot appears to be bursting right before our eyes.
Palin has been on the stump for a good couple weeks now, and has yet to give a new speech. She continues to lie about the Bridge to Nowhere, she continues to lie about her opposition to earmarks, she continues to lie about being a fiscally responsible governor/mayor. Worse, she continues to make these lies after they have been universally debunked. However, Palin, John McCain and the rest of the GOP machine have apparently bought into the time-tested truth espoused by Vladimir Lenin - "A lie told often enough becomes truth."
The GOP has borrowed from Lenin's playbook before, leaking the "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama is not a citizen" or similar falsehoods through their proxies, and then disavowing responsibility while coyly responding "That's for Senator Obama to address," thereby tacitly re-asking the question and giving it an air of authenticity.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a campaign for any office at any level delve to the depths of the McCain camp. And I am very troubled. I have always had a high opinion of John McCain. I believe his record of running against the Beltway Insiders is, by and large, pretty admirable. Sure he's had his failings - even significant ones (i.e. the Keating Five), but I believed he learned from that and become a better senator because of it. I disagreed with McCain during this campaign on the important issues - the economy, taxes, health care. I disagree with his assessment of the war in Iraq, with the "success" of the surge (which I still consider dubious at best), and his non-strategy for exit.
But now, McCain has turned his campaign over to a group of hacks who, in any other election, would be salivating at the chance to light up McCain for being too liberal, too much of an insider, or just plain too old. They, in turn, have taken the campaign into an area that even Karl Rove has decried as beyond the pale. That's something. When even the devil himself says you've crossed the line, what do you do?
Apparently, if you are John McCain, you go on "The View" and expose the fact that you have no idea what your campaign is saying or doing. And now I don't know what to think of John McCain. Either he has, as one Obama staffer said, decided he'd rather lose his integrity than lose an election, or he is now exposed for the weak, bumbling old man being led by the nose that I sort of thought he was at the outset.
In either case, the magnitude of his and Palin's lies are beginning to unravel the whole aura of excitement and remove their stolen mantra of "change." Worse for McCain, Palin's handlers won't let her talk to the media until the media is nice to her (which is clear evidence of her ability to lead), won't let her cooperate with the "Troopergate" prove in Alaska (just like a real reformer), won't release her tax records, and won't let her go off script, even if that script has grown tired and has been rejected as an outright lie.
McCain should have picked Mitt Romney. There would have been a short run of ads showing Romney and McCain tearing each other up at debates and on the stump, but that would have passed and things would have settled down, allowing McCain-Romney to run on their records and issues. They would have posed a formidable challenge to Obama-Biden. But McCain-Palin is quickly turning into a punchline the magnitude of which I don't recall having ever seen.
Palin has been on the stump for a good couple weeks now, and has yet to give a new speech. She continues to lie about the Bridge to Nowhere, she continues to lie about her opposition to earmarks, she continues to lie about being a fiscally responsible governor/mayor. Worse, she continues to make these lies after they have been universally debunked. However, Palin, John McCain and the rest of the GOP machine have apparently bought into the time-tested truth espoused by Vladimir Lenin - "A lie told often enough becomes truth."
The GOP has borrowed from Lenin's playbook before, leaking the "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama is not a citizen" or similar falsehoods through their proxies, and then disavowing responsibility while coyly responding "That's for Senator Obama to address," thereby tacitly re-asking the question and giving it an air of authenticity.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a campaign for any office at any level delve to the depths of the McCain camp. And I am very troubled. I have always had a high opinion of John McCain. I believe his record of running against the Beltway Insiders is, by and large, pretty admirable. Sure he's had his failings - even significant ones (i.e. the Keating Five), but I believed he learned from that and become a better senator because of it. I disagreed with McCain during this campaign on the important issues - the economy, taxes, health care. I disagree with his assessment of the war in Iraq, with the "success" of the surge (which I still consider dubious at best), and his non-strategy for exit.
But now, McCain has turned his campaign over to a group of hacks who, in any other election, would be salivating at the chance to light up McCain for being too liberal, too much of an insider, or just plain too old. They, in turn, have taken the campaign into an area that even Karl Rove has decried as beyond the pale. That's something. When even the devil himself says you've crossed the line, what do you do?
Apparently, if you are John McCain, you go on "The View" and expose the fact that you have no idea what your campaign is saying or doing. And now I don't know what to think of John McCain. Either he has, as one Obama staffer said, decided he'd rather lose his integrity than lose an election, or he is now exposed for the weak, bumbling old man being led by the nose that I sort of thought he was at the outset.
In either case, the magnitude of his and Palin's lies are beginning to unravel the whole aura of excitement and remove their stolen mantra of "change." Worse for McCain, Palin's handlers won't let her talk to the media until the media is nice to her (which is clear evidence of her ability to lead), won't let her cooperate with the "Troopergate" prove in Alaska (just like a real reformer), won't release her tax records, and won't let her go off script, even if that script has grown tired and has been rejected as an outright lie.
McCain should have picked Mitt Romney. There would have been a short run of ads showing Romney and McCain tearing each other up at debates and on the stump, but that would have passed and things would have settled down, allowing McCain-Romney to run on their records and issues. They would have posed a formidable challenge to Obama-Biden. But McCain-Palin is quickly turning into a punchline the magnitude of which I don't recall having ever seen.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Kissing Pigs
Not that this is any big deal, but I sometimes wonder if the media, and perhaps most of America (or at least, America as it appears in the media) lives in a cave (or a small box).
In a campaign speech the other day, Barack Obama said, in regard to the GOP's questionable usurpation of the "change" theme, that if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. Now, I don't know how many times in my life I've heard that phrase. My favorite variation is that a pig in a dress is still a pig, but whatever.
Apparently some ignorant folk believe the remark was intended to call GOP Veep Wannabe Sarah Palin a "pig." This, because in her rousing yet hollow convention speech, she mentioned that the difference between a hockey-mom and a pit bull was lipstick. It was a stupid line then, and it remains a stupid line now.
But in order to believe the Obama comment was somehow formulated to respond to Palin's stupid line, you have to have lived in a cave (or a small box) for basically your entire life. Otherwise, you would know that the lipsticked pig remark is an old-school, tried-and-true, time-tested and pundit-approved colliquialism that is shorthand for you can't make a substantively bad thing good by applying cosmetic changes.
In this case, the Obama comment was meant to say that you can't change the tired, hackneyed, tried-and-failed ideas of the GOP by adding an exciting and energizing personality into the mix. (Or, maybe he was saying that you can make John McCain look like a maverick by propping him up next to a sexy librarian - I don't know).
But seriously, to those who are currently foaming at the mouth over this, stop being stupid.
And eat some bacon.
In a campaign speech the other day, Barack Obama said, in regard to the GOP's questionable usurpation of the "change" theme, that if you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. Now, I don't know how many times in my life I've heard that phrase. My favorite variation is that a pig in a dress is still a pig, but whatever.
Apparently some ignorant folk believe the remark was intended to call GOP Veep Wannabe Sarah Palin a "pig." This, because in her rousing yet hollow convention speech, she mentioned that the difference between a hockey-mom and a pit bull was lipstick. It was a stupid line then, and it remains a stupid line now.
But in order to believe the Obama comment was somehow formulated to respond to Palin's stupid line, you have to have lived in a cave (or a small box) for basically your entire life. Otherwise, you would know that the lipsticked pig remark is an old-school, tried-and-true, time-tested and pundit-approved colliquialism that is shorthand for you can't make a substantively bad thing good by applying cosmetic changes.
In this case, the Obama comment was meant to say that you can't change the tired, hackneyed, tried-and-failed ideas of the GOP by adding an exciting and energizing personality into the mix. (Or, maybe he was saying that you can make John McCain look like a maverick by propping him up next to a sexy librarian - I don't know).
But seriously, to those who are currently foaming at the mouth over this, stop being stupid.
And eat some bacon.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Who Ya Gonna Tax? BIG OIL!
A funny thing happened on the way to the gas station today - Big Oil made more money. I'd sure like some that.
As it turns out, I'm likely to get my wish regardless of who is elected President.
Barack Obama wants to institute a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. I don't know what constitutes a "windfall" profit as opposed to a regular, or even large, profit. But he wants to send me a check with the money he takes from the oil companies, who I am sure won't miss it.
But, like with almost everything Obama discusses so far, it's pretty words and happy talk - good speech, no action - at least not yet.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin, the GOP's veep nominee, has already played the roll of Robin Hood. In Alaska, Palin seriously jacked taxes for the oil companies doing business in her state, then distributed the money to the people in the form of $1,200.00 rebate checks. Presumably, that also made it easier to manage the state's budget.
So I guess Obama and Palin aren't so different after all. Because I am certain that Palin's Great Alaskan Handout was not overt political pandering, but rather epitomizes her strongly-held conviction that it is her role to ensure government takes what it needs from big oil (or big business for that matter) and redistribute some to the masses while keeping the rest for itself.
Balanced budgets are just around the corner!
As it turns out, I'm likely to get my wish regardless of who is elected President.
Barack Obama wants to institute a "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. I don't know what constitutes a "windfall" profit as opposed to a regular, or even large, profit. But he wants to send me a check with the money he takes from the oil companies, who I am sure won't miss it.
But, like with almost everything Obama discusses so far, it's pretty words and happy talk - good speech, no action - at least not yet.
On the other hand, Sarah Palin, the GOP's veep nominee, has already played the roll of Robin Hood. In Alaska, Palin seriously jacked taxes for the oil companies doing business in her state, then distributed the money to the people in the form of $1,200.00 rebate checks. Presumably, that also made it easier to manage the state's budget.
So I guess Obama and Palin aren't so different after all. Because I am certain that Palin's Great Alaskan Handout was not overt political pandering, but rather epitomizes her strongly-held conviction that it is her role to ensure government takes what it needs from big oil (or big business for that matter) and redistribute some to the masses while keeping the rest for itself.
Balanced budgets are just around the corner!
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Obama "least experienced candidate"?
Wow - it's been three months since I've posted anything. Not for lack of interest, just lack of time.
Anyhow, among the many things churning in my turbid little brain is the questioning of Barack Obama's experience and whether is qualified to be President.
Last night, I heard this line from presidential wannabe and former Senate washout Fred Thompson (R-TN), who apparently took time away from his nap to speak at the Republican National Convention. In his speech, Thompson said that Obama was "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President."
Fred, you're a good actor. But you're also an idiot.
Here's a little comparison for you Fred, using one of your honored own (unless you're from the South, then maybe not so honored).
Barack Obama
8 years in Illinois Senate (1996-2004)
3.5 years in U.S. Senate (2005-2008)
Democratic nominee for President (2008)
Abraham Lincoln
8 years in Illinois House (1834-1842)
2 years in U.S. House (1846-1848)
Republican nominee for President (1860)
Note Lincoln's 12-year absence from elected office. No way he could get elected today.
Obama the "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President"? Other than Abraham Lincoln, perhaps. But I don't think Lincoln turned out so bad, and he was a decent war-time Commander-in-Chief (at least he won his war).
I note, Fred, that you ran for President with only 9 years experience in any elected office (U.S. Senate). That's less elected-office experience than either Obama or Lincoln. Something about people living in glass houses not throwing stones comes to mind.
Lastly, Fred, please -- I know you didn't write the speech (unless you did), but people who speak English as a first language would not say "most inexperienced." The correct term is "least experienced." Ignorant stupidity is one thing. Illiterate ignorant stupidity is simply intolerable.
Anyhow, among the many things churning in my turbid little brain is the questioning of Barack Obama's experience and whether is qualified to be President.
Last night, I heard this line from presidential wannabe and former Senate washout Fred Thompson (R-TN), who apparently took time away from his nap to speak at the Republican National Convention. In his speech, Thompson said that Obama was "the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President."
Fred, you're a good actor. But you're also an idiot.
Here's a little comparison for you Fred, using one of your honored own (unless you're from the South, then maybe not so honored).
Barack Obama
8 years in Illinois Senate (1996-2004)
3.5 years in U.S. Senate (2005-2008)
Democratic nominee for President (2008)
Abraham Lincoln
8 years in Illinois House (1834-1842)
2 years in U.S. House (1846-1848)
Republican nominee for President (1860)
Note Lincoln's 12-year absence from elected office. No way he could get elected today.
Obama the "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President"? Other than Abraham Lincoln, perhaps. But I don't think Lincoln turned out so bad, and he was a decent war-time Commander-in-Chief (at least he won his war).
I note, Fred, that you ran for President with only 9 years experience in any elected office (U.S. Senate). That's less elected-office experience than either Obama or Lincoln. Something about people living in glass houses not throwing stones comes to mind.
Lastly, Fred, please -- I know you didn't write the speech (unless you did), but people who speak English as a first language would not say "most inexperienced." The correct term is "least experienced." Ignorant stupidity is one thing. Illiterate ignorant stupidity is simply intolerable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
