Editor's Note: Yes, I know the opening ceremonies have already occurred in Beijing. However, they have yet to air on television in the United States. Hence, to most people, they have yet to transpire.
In a matter of hours, the Olympics will officially kick off here in America. As per usual, viewers will be deluged by the scenes of pageantry, camaraderie and egalitarianism that the Olympics are hypothetically said to represent. Amidst soothing oration from Bob Costas detailing the harmonious spirit that pervades the game, viewers will be treated to an evening of pomp and circumstance, replete with the artificial symbols the Chinese officials will undoubtedly utilize to emphasize the sanctimony and collectivity of the Olympic ideal.
As one watches this orgy of lofty symbolism and rhetoric of justice and equality, let's not forget how China has transformed itself into a city purportedly worthy of hosting the Olympics. This metamorphosis has come by systemic discrimination, environmental degradation, and a fundamental disregard for human dignity. Here are just a few examples of China's wanton rejection of the human rights that are supposedly endemic to the Olympic spirit:
1. China has been engaged in a systematic and brutal repression of Tibet since the former invaded in 1949. More than 6,000 Tibetan monasteries have been destroyed in the last 58 years, with only a few to be rebuilt. Numerous internal reports have also detailed the despicable abuse the PRC has perpetuated on the women and children of Tibet, a practice which included a 1994 death of a Tibetan nun reportedly due to beating at the hands of guards.
The Chinese government has implemented a policy that amounts to cultural genocide in Tibet. From importing thousands of ethnic Chinese into the Tibetan lands, to forbidding the Tibetans to practice their religion, the Beijing has made a concerted effort to stifle the symbols and practices that define Tibetan cultural.
2. The Chinese government is a frequent practitioner of arbitrary detention. Though it sounds somewhat benign, arbitrary detention actually entails labor camps and imprisonment for long periods of time. According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the People's Republic of China (PRC) utilizes these nefarious forms of detention "for political and cultural rehabilitation." PRC estimates, which are likely to be on the low end, say that there are than 100,000 people in the "re-education camps."
3. Dissidents in China are treated with an iron fist, and are often imprisoned, or even murdered, simply for exercising their fundamental right as a human being to liberty and dignity. The list of activists persecuted simply for pursuing reparations, or fair treatment for the downtrodden and poor are too many to list in this space. However, here a are merely a few of these courageous folks who have been subjected to heinous treatment, simply for campaigning for justice
Housing rights activist Ye Guozhu has been detained, and tortured via electric shock batons, simply for protesting the spate of forced evictions that the government instituted to free up space for Olympic construction.
Activist Hu Jia was recently sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison for "inciting subversion." What exactly did Hu do that was subversive? He participated in a European Union parliamentary hearing on how China has failed to live up to their human rights promises. He also was cited for "giving interviews to foreign media outlets", according to Amnesty International.
Doesn't it seem farcical that a government that imprisons citizens for speaking to foreign media outlets is allowed the right to host the most prestigious athletic competition in the world?
4. Censorship is rampant in the PRC of 2008. Sites from amnesty.org (the official website of Amnesty International) to the BBC are censored by the state. Information, no matter how factually correct it may be, is constantly taken away from the upwards of 250 million Internet users on the Mainland. Though this is hardly as egregious as some of the other abuses, censorship is nevertheless antithetical to the Olympic spirit.
5. And last, but surely not least, is the despicable manner that the PRC has dealt with the Falun Gong sect. The government continues to persecute and torture those Falun Gong members as the latter attempts to worship in peace and tranquility. Bu Dongwei, a Falun Gong practicing, was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison simply for having Falun Gong literature in his possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, freedom of religion, association, speech and information are thoroughly vitiated in China. The violations listed above are but a mere few of what is a veritable compendium that the Chinese government has compiled, even after they promised improvements after being awarded the Olympics in 2001. In fact, Amnesty International reports that on an aggregate level, the human rights situation in China has actually deteriorated since they were given the Olympics.
Given this, one must take tonight's ceremony for what it truly is: a despotic, autocratic regime putting on an elaborate ruse designed to convince the world that they have even a modicum of respect for human rights and social justice.
The IOC was fooled by the PRC's promises that they would modify their intransigent behavior. I hope that when you watch the gallantry and pomp of tonight's Opening Ceremony, you won't be utterly fooled like they were.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Lesson of the Oil Drilling Debate
Officially, Congress is on a five week recess.
And yet, inside the decorous chambers, insurgent House Republicans remain, pledging to stay ensconced within the chamber until they sufficiently embarrass House Democrats, or force them come to back into session.
Gleeful reports emanate daily from conservative publications imploring these "true Americans" to fight on, no matter the cost. For the first time during this political season, it even appears that the GOP has an issue that may catalyze the electorate in their favor. And boy have they attempted to capitalize on it, facts be damned!
In fact, the fervor with which these lawmakers have shown during the nascent debate leads one to believe they consider it almost their own Alamo.
But instead of protecting Americans from Santa Anna's army, these "patriots" fulsomely claim to be protecting all of America from the cripple of gas prices. According to this claque of Republicans, the continental oil drilling that they presently remain in Washington to support is both the panacea and the last bastion that we have against the rising tide of astronomical energy prices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what exactly has inspired these Republicans to eschew their beloved vacations, and stay instead to advocate for continental oil drilling?
Given their propensity for 2 day work weeks while in the majority, it certainly can't be a pure love of legislating.
As aforementioned, their commandant George W. Bush has deserted them in favor of a luxury box at the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, so he obviously can't be the forerunner of this protest. Incessant campaigning on behalf of drilling also prevents days of valuable campaigning in battleground districts.
And nevertheless, the Republicans remain, despite the litany of risks because they are buoyed by a tide of public opinion in favor of drilling. Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from a majority to even as much as 70 percent of Americans support the idea of expanding drilling on the continental shelf.
It appears that the public sentiment, for once, is the sole ferment that led to the Republicans putting on this fanciful, although ultimately inconsequential protest.
The title of the post references a pivotal lesson to be gleaned from this debate, and this specifically arises from these public opinion polls:
The public still has not learned their lesson about the deceit of the Republicans, even after 8 years of Bush rule.
Amazingly, after all of the tomfoolery and deceit that has been evinced by the Bush Administration, and their Congressional lackeys, the public still manages to fall for their scams. Inexplicably, the public has yet to realize that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican policies. That the party itself is bankrupt of ideas has mysteriously yet to dawn on the majority of Americans.
As most experts note, offshore drilling will not produce tangible economic results for 15 years, at the very earliest, and yet the GOP can mount a successful public relations campaign by focusing on that illusory solution. They can only do so because the public, who is normally blase, or even disdainful towards politics as a whole, is foolish and complicit enough to endorse their piecemeal, ineffectual solution. Even after 8 years of lost wages, decreasing public services and a drastic heightening of societal inequality, the electorate as a whole still cannot see through the duplicity of Republican policies.
The propensity of voters to fall the canard the Republicans are currently shamelessly selling has been a hallmark of the Bush years, and it has in large part, led to the troublesome situation in which we now face. As Thomas Frank so eloquently put it in What's the Matter with Kansas? voters responded to having their jobs outsourced to the third world by fervently promising to endorse a cut in corporate tax rate.
And, on and on it goes for these dimwitted souls, who torpedo any sort of reform that would require a mere modicum of sacrifice with their uninformed decisions which are all too susceptible to the soundbite political messages espoused by the Republicans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, politicians foremost goals are to keep their jobs, not to propagate necessary and beneficial policies upon our society. Because of this, public pressure is often perversely successful at dictating public policy, irrespective of the long term consequences that policy may cause.
Barack Obama has already started to crack under the increasing pressure, as evidenced by his recent shift towards a limited endorsement of off shore drilling. Expect Congressional Democrats, who have hitherto resisted the heat, to eventually cave as well, if the concerted pressure from the Republicans, who purport to speak for the public, continues.
If that were to occur, those of us who have the perspicacity to see that offshore drilling is a fool's errand at best, and an environmental disaster in waiting at worst, will end up yet again forced to deal with the consequences of the misinformed majority.
That being the case, it got me to wondering: Is there any way to make a political efficacy test a prerequisite for voting??
And yet, inside the decorous chambers, insurgent House Republicans remain, pledging to stay ensconced within the chamber until they sufficiently embarrass House Democrats, or force them come to back into session.
Gleeful reports emanate daily from conservative publications imploring these "true Americans" to fight on, no matter the cost. For the first time during this political season, it even appears that the GOP has an issue that may catalyze the electorate in their favor. And boy have they attempted to capitalize on it, facts be damned!
In fact, the fervor with which these lawmakers have shown during the nascent debate leads one to believe they consider it almost their own Alamo.
But instead of protecting Americans from Santa Anna's army, these "patriots" fulsomely claim to be protecting all of America from the cripple of gas prices. According to this claque of Republicans, the continental oil drilling that they presently remain in Washington to support is both the panacea and the last bastion that we have against the rising tide of astronomical energy prices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what exactly has inspired these Republicans to eschew their beloved vacations, and stay instead to advocate for continental oil drilling?
Given their propensity for 2 day work weeks while in the majority, it certainly can't be a pure love of legislating.
As aforementioned, their commandant George W. Bush has deserted them in favor of a luxury box at the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, so he obviously can't be the forerunner of this protest. Incessant campaigning on behalf of drilling also prevents days of valuable campaigning in battleground districts.
And nevertheless, the Republicans remain, despite the litany of risks because they are buoyed by a tide of public opinion in favor of drilling. Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from a majority to even as much as 70 percent of Americans support the idea of expanding drilling on the continental shelf.
It appears that the public sentiment, for once, is the sole ferment that led to the Republicans putting on this fanciful, although ultimately inconsequential protest.
The title of the post references a pivotal lesson to be gleaned from this debate, and this specifically arises from these public opinion polls:
The public still has not learned their lesson about the deceit of the Republicans, even after 8 years of Bush rule.
Amazingly, after all of the tomfoolery and deceit that has been evinced by the Bush Administration, and their Congressional lackeys, the public still manages to fall for their scams. Inexplicably, the public has yet to realize that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican policies. That the party itself is bankrupt of ideas has mysteriously yet to dawn on the majority of Americans.
As most experts note, offshore drilling will not produce tangible economic results for 15 years, at the very earliest, and yet the GOP can mount a successful public relations campaign by focusing on that illusory solution. They can only do so because the public, who is normally blase, or even disdainful towards politics as a whole, is foolish and complicit enough to endorse their piecemeal, ineffectual solution. Even after 8 years of lost wages, decreasing public services and a drastic heightening of societal inequality, the electorate as a whole still cannot see through the duplicity of Republican policies.
The propensity of voters to fall the canard the Republicans are currently shamelessly selling has been a hallmark of the Bush years, and it has in large part, led to the troublesome situation in which we now face. As Thomas Frank so eloquently put it in What's the Matter with Kansas? voters responded to having their jobs outsourced to the third world by fervently promising to endorse a cut in corporate tax rate.
And, on and on it goes for these dimwitted souls, who torpedo any sort of reform that would require a mere modicum of sacrifice with their uninformed decisions which are all too susceptible to the soundbite political messages espoused by the Republicans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, politicians foremost goals are to keep their jobs, not to propagate necessary and beneficial policies upon our society. Because of this, public pressure is often perversely successful at dictating public policy, irrespective of the long term consequences that policy may cause.
Barack Obama has already started to crack under the increasing pressure, as evidenced by his recent shift towards a limited endorsement of off shore drilling. Expect Congressional Democrats, who have hitherto resisted the heat, to eventually cave as well, if the concerted pressure from the Republicans, who purport to speak for the public, continues.
If that were to occur, those of us who have the perspicacity to see that offshore drilling is a fool's errand at best, and an environmental disaster in waiting at worst, will end up yet again forced to deal with the consequences of the misinformed majority.
That being the case, it got me to wondering: Is there any way to make a political efficacy test a prerequisite for voting??
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Yet Again, David Brooks Willfully Ignores Reality to Criticize Barack Obama
In Tuesday's New York Times, columnist David Brooks decides to tackle the question of why Barack Obama is not, in an apparent shock to Brooks, winning in a landslide. In probing why Obama's lead over John McCain has slowly dwindled, but remained intact, Brooks comes up with the following theory:
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
"And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner.... There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart...As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded."Brooks continues along this path of argument for another dozen paragraphs until his summation, in which he indicates that Obama should be winning in a "landslide", but that voters are preventing the what he deems as "to be expected" from transpiring, because they are resolutely wary of him "as a sojourner."
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Some Random Thoughts....
Given that we are in the midst of a relatively slow news week, I don't have a full length piece just yet. However, I did want to chime in on some other developments on politics in the last few days:
1. So much for the Liberal Bias in the Media, eh? As the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday, the mainstream media has continued their love affair with John McCain throughout the 2008 campaign. As the report detailed, McCain has gotten away with a series of gaffes that have gone essentially ignored by the mainstream press. From his sordid marital past to his inability to understand foreign affairs (Iraq-Pakistan border???), McCain has run what can only be called an abysmal campaign. And yet, he continues to get away with those mistakes with the voters because most media outlets simply choose to ignore them.
Starting with the 2000 GOP primary, McCain made a concerted effort to buddy up to the press and they have reciprocated with soft coverage ever since. The prevalent narrative that depicts McCain as a charismatic, independent, reform minded politician is rooted in that campaign, and no matter what facts emerge to the contrary, the media does not want to stray from their original thesis.
In a year where Republican prospects are fair at best, and dismal at worst, the main stream media is doing John McCain an enormous favor by blithely glossing over the litany of critical mistakes the presumptive Republican nominee has hitherto made. What makes this oversight even more pernicious is that while they look at McCain through rose colored glasses, Obama is scrutinized for every single thing he does.
Obama, as befitting a newcomer, has undergone a thorough analysis of his life by the media, from his relationship to his pastor, to his supposed affiliation with Jim Ayers. The biographical aspect of the spotlight makes sense for a man a few years removed from the Illinois State Senate. What truly does not, however, is the media's stubborn insistence on holding Obama's feet to the fire on every single issue while at the same time completely ignoring many of the litany of faux pas made by his opponent, Sen. McCain.
2. Republicans Care More About Having a Potent Political "Issue" than Alleviating the Energy Crisis: Despite repeated offers of compromise by Harry Reid, the Senate Republicans refuse to take any tangible action to solve the exorbitant gas prices. Though they supposedly have overwhelming support for curbing speculation in the oil market, the GOP will not allow any sort of legislation to gain cloture. These stalling tactics have both stalemated activity in the Senate and allowed the energy prices crises to percolate.
In addition, they also refused to allow a bill to come to the floor that would require oil companies to utilize the leased land that is currently uncorrupted.
Now, why would the GOP vitiate legislation that comports with their goals?
The Republicans realize that the oil drilling issue is their only chance to sway the electorate towards their caucus, and they won't dare give it up, even if that means prolonging the problem.
For the last few months, all one hears out of the GOP camp are solutions that have no prospect for immediate results e.g. a gas tax holiday, and offshore drilling. The Republicans know this, but as the party has proven time and time again historically, they will exploit any issue for political gain, irrespective of the detriment that causes the electorate as a whole. From the pointless Terri Schiavo fiasco under the Frist led majority, to the grandstanding on ineffectual oil drilling, the GOP has proven yet again that they care little for helping the average person's suffering. Instead, at the taxpayers expense, they will push red herrings as a means to mobilize what little public opinion remains behind their party platforms.
3. Apparently, giving a speech abroad makes you "arrogant": The GOP media cabal was out in full force to criticize Barack Obama's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe.
Unsurprisingly, they hardly dealt with any substantive issues that were raised by Obama's sojourn, but instead turned to their favorite method of attack; petty, unquantifiable, and fictitious "personality based" attacks.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC informs us that Obama "has a little bit of an arrogant streak in him, he does." Media Research Center fulminates that he "is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned." The sagacious David Brooks criticizes Obama's speeches as naive and slightly ignorant by informing us that Obama's vision is "just Disney."
Wow, what could the presumptive Democratic nominee do to draw so much ire? Did he forget the timeline of the surge? Did he confuse the difference between Sunni and Shia while claiming to be a foreign policy expert? Did he flip flop on tax cuts, the housing bill and Social Security reform?
In actuality, all of the above refer to the imprimatur John McCain has thus far left on his fledgling campaign. Barack Obama offended the right wing hordes in the media simply by travelling out of the United States and giving speeches. David Brooks specifically calls out Obama because he "fed the illusion that we could solve our problems only if we united."
Ignoring the fact that all of the calamities he referred to in the column happened under the catastrophic watch of George W. Bush, Brooks totally misunderstands the purpose of that speech. I'm not sure why, but Brooks incorrectly assumes that Obama should offer a wonkish speech, laden with policy proposals. In front of 200,000 non-citizens, why would Obama talk about things that the audience cares little about, like health care or reforming the American legal system? It wouldn't make any sense.
On the other hand, speaking broadly about goals that are likely of interest and to be shared by the world community would likely be more relevant to that audience. Multilatera ism didn't start the Iraq War, worsen global warming or instigate the calamitous developments in Darfur. Rather, behind the pernicious mantle of acting unilaterally, the Bush Administration exacerbated all of the aforementioned problems. Given that, what's wrong with a little cooperation?
John McCain has traveled out of the country recently, to Canada, Mexico and Columbia. And yet nowhere do I hear the caterwauls from the media about McCain being arrogant like I do when Obama does the exact same thing? Well, as point 1 illustrated, the media does not exactly look upon McCain as negatively as they do Obama. Given that, it's unsurprising that another double standard between the two candidates coverage would arise.
Ultimately, the personality based, subjective attacks have become a hallmark of the conservative media. After all, they cannot really criticize Barack Obama on anything else policy wise. With their policy proposals do deeply unpopular, Republicans, as per the norm, must resort in spewing invective that has little to do with the fundamental issues that confront politicians in 2008. Time and time again, the media serves as a convenient mouthpiece for this salacious, counterproductive dreck.
1. So much for the Liberal Bias in the Media, eh? As the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday, the mainstream media has continued their love affair with John McCain throughout the 2008 campaign. As the report detailed, McCain has gotten away with a series of gaffes that have gone essentially ignored by the mainstream press. From his sordid marital past to his inability to understand foreign affairs (Iraq-Pakistan border???), McCain has run what can only be called an abysmal campaign. And yet, he continues to get away with those mistakes with the voters because most media outlets simply choose to ignore them.
Starting with the 2000 GOP primary, McCain made a concerted effort to buddy up to the press and they have reciprocated with soft coverage ever since. The prevalent narrative that depicts McCain as a charismatic, independent, reform minded politician is rooted in that campaign, and no matter what facts emerge to the contrary, the media does not want to stray from their original thesis.
In a year where Republican prospects are fair at best, and dismal at worst, the main stream media is doing John McCain an enormous favor by blithely glossing over the litany of critical mistakes the presumptive Republican nominee has hitherto made. What makes this oversight even more pernicious is that while they look at McCain through rose colored glasses, Obama is scrutinized for every single thing he does.
Obama, as befitting a newcomer, has undergone a thorough analysis of his life by the media, from his relationship to his pastor, to his supposed affiliation with Jim Ayers. The biographical aspect of the spotlight makes sense for a man a few years removed from the Illinois State Senate. What truly does not, however, is the media's stubborn insistence on holding Obama's feet to the fire on every single issue while at the same time completely ignoring many of the litany of faux pas made by his opponent, Sen. McCain.
2. Republicans Care More About Having a Potent Political "Issue" than Alleviating the Energy Crisis: Despite repeated offers of compromise by Harry Reid, the Senate Republicans refuse to take any tangible action to solve the exorbitant gas prices. Though they supposedly have overwhelming support for curbing speculation in the oil market, the GOP will not allow any sort of legislation to gain cloture. These stalling tactics have both stalemated activity in the Senate and allowed the energy prices crises to percolate.
In addition, they also refused to allow a bill to come to the floor that would require oil companies to utilize the leased land that is currently uncorrupted.
Now, why would the GOP vitiate legislation that comports with their goals?
The Republicans realize that the oil drilling issue is their only chance to sway the electorate towards their caucus, and they won't dare give it up, even if that means prolonging the problem.
For the last few months, all one hears out of the GOP camp are solutions that have no prospect for immediate results e.g. a gas tax holiday, and offshore drilling. The Republicans know this, but as the party has proven time and time again historically, they will exploit any issue for political gain, irrespective of the detriment that causes the electorate as a whole. From the pointless Terri Schiavo fiasco under the Frist led majority, to the grandstanding on ineffectual oil drilling, the GOP has proven yet again that they care little for helping the average person's suffering. Instead, at the taxpayers expense, they will push red herrings as a means to mobilize what little public opinion remains behind their party platforms.
3. Apparently, giving a speech abroad makes you "arrogant": The GOP media cabal was out in full force to criticize Barack Obama's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe.
Unsurprisingly, they hardly dealt with any substantive issues that were raised by Obama's sojourn, but instead turned to their favorite method of attack; petty, unquantifiable, and fictitious "personality based" attacks.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC informs us that Obama "has a little bit of an arrogant streak in him, he does." Media Research Center fulminates that he "is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned." The sagacious David Brooks criticizes Obama's speeches as naive and slightly ignorant by informing us that Obama's vision is "just Disney."
Wow, what could the presumptive Democratic nominee do to draw so much ire? Did he forget the timeline of the surge? Did he confuse the difference between Sunni and Shia while claiming to be a foreign policy expert? Did he flip flop on tax cuts, the housing bill and Social Security reform?
In actuality, all of the above refer to the imprimatur John McCain has thus far left on his fledgling campaign. Barack Obama offended the right wing hordes in the media simply by travelling out of the United States and giving speeches. David Brooks specifically calls out Obama because he "fed the illusion that we could solve our problems only if we united."
Ignoring the fact that all of the calamities he referred to in the column happened under the catastrophic watch of George W. Bush, Brooks totally misunderstands the purpose of that speech. I'm not sure why, but Brooks incorrectly assumes that Obama should offer a wonkish speech, laden with policy proposals. In front of 200,000 non-citizens, why would Obama talk about things that the audience cares little about, like health care or reforming the American legal system? It wouldn't make any sense.
On the other hand, speaking broadly about goals that are likely of interest and to be shared by the world community would likely be more relevant to that audience. Multilatera ism didn't start the Iraq War, worsen global warming or instigate the calamitous developments in Darfur. Rather, behind the pernicious mantle of acting unilaterally, the Bush Administration exacerbated all of the aforementioned problems. Given that, what's wrong with a little cooperation?
John McCain has traveled out of the country recently, to Canada, Mexico and Columbia. And yet nowhere do I hear the caterwauls from the media about McCain being arrogant like I do when Obama does the exact same thing? Well, as point 1 illustrated, the media does not exactly look upon McCain as negatively as they do Obama. Given that, it's unsurprising that another double standard between the two candidates coverage would arise.
Ultimately, the personality based, subjective attacks have become a hallmark of the conservative media. After all, they cannot really criticize Barack Obama on anything else policy wise. With their policy proposals do deeply unpopular, Republicans, as per the norm, must resort in spewing invective that has little to do with the fundamental issues that confront politicians in 2008. Time and time again, the media serves as a convenient mouthpiece for this salacious, counterproductive dreck.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Much Ado Nothing: Why the Hype over the VP is Pointless
Since Barack Obama and John McCain became their respective parties nominees a month or so ago, the media has been abuzz about who each man will select as their running mate. Pundits have been figuratively leaping over one another in the quest to figure out who the #2 person will be on the ticket. Chuck Todd of NBC News drafted a running list of contenders, and he has also devoted a full column to solving a question that has confounded, and invigorated scholars for years: should a nominee go with comfort or convention in their VP search? (/sarcasm)
I guess one can't really blame the media for being all a flutter about the search. After all, Obama's campaign keeps their prospective list, and the overall vetting process as a whole as secretive as possible.
Given this, seemingly every story the media has hither to produced regarding the search always reminds us of how pivotal a decision this will be. Walter Shapiro offered the coup de gras of hype when he asserted on Salon.com that:
"Aside from being a horse trainer inflamed with dreams of winning the Triple Crown, there may be no job in America with greater potential rewards and greater risk of abject failure than heading a vice-presidential search team. "
The furor over who will become Vice President has metastasized to a point where, for the first time I can remember, a candidate has used the prospect of selecting a VP as a way of stealing the spotlight. Earlier in the week, Bob Novak reported that McCain may be close to selecting his VP, with the ultimate decision even possibly coming within a few days.
As it turned out, Novak had been but a mere pawn in a scheme concocted by the McCain campaign in an ultimately futile attempt to deflect attention away from Obama as he traversed the Middle East. That the McCain campaign views the selection of the VP as their proverbial trump, the ultimate way to garner the spotlight if you will, shows you a lot about how vociferous and unrelenting the story has become.
Given all the hullabaloo, whomever Obama and McCain selects must ostensibly have a tangible impact on their counterparts electoral prospects, right?. The media couldn't have spent these last few weeks shunning other stories in favor of feverish reporting on John McCain's decision to invite Romney, Crist and Jindal to his Sedona abode for no discernible reason. All of the caterwauling about whether or not Hillary Clinton will be named to the #2 post on the ticket couldn't be utterly inconsequential, could it?
In actuality, all of the frenetic reporting and discussion has belied the the profound lack of importance the Vice President possesses in terms of getting his running mate elected. Amidst all of the furor, no one decided to consult the historical record of recent Presidential elections. If they had, they would summarily have eschewed the conversation about who would become the eventual VP, because they would realize that it almost never matters. Recent Presidential history has time and time again illustrated how impotent the VP is with respect to assisting the viability of their running mate.
From the 1956 re-election victory of Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson to the George W. Bush garnering a 2nd term in 2004, the Vice President has only affected the outcome of the race positively for the President 1 time. That lone instance was the 1960 election when John F. Kennedy selected LBJ, a favorite son of the Hill Country, to push him over the top in Texas and garner that 24 electoral votes of that state. As mentioned, LBJ's presence helped Kennedy in Texas, however, that victory was far from the decisive winner, as Kennedy defeated Nixon by 83 electoral votes.
But even as pedestrian as the help LBJ provided for JFK ultimately turned out to be, it's stentorian compared to the impact VP's have levied in the 10 elections since 1960. In the landslides of 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1996, the margin of victory was so pronounced that the VP selection was almost irrelevant. Ronald Reagan could probably have selected a monkey as his VP in 1984 and still won.
The other 6 elections were closer, but the outcome in each was hardly influenced by the presence of a certain individual on a ticket, despite the express purpose of the VP being to tangibly impact the race. Hubert Humphrey lost 1968 by more than 100 electoral votes to Nixon, a fact which made the 4 electoral votes that Ed Muskie siphoned off from Maine a mere pittance. Ford selection of Bob Dole did absolutely nothing for the ticket, and as Ford unfortunately found out way too late, Dole does a better job selling Viagra than selling Gerald Ford. In 1992, Dan Quayle was an liability, not an asset as the VP candidate. Either way, Bush lost because of Ross Perot, not because of the wrong pick for his second in command. The 2000 election has been proven to be fixed, so it's hard to rationally analyze anything about it, much less about whether or not Joseph Lieberman had a tactile impact on how Al Gore fared.
Last, but not least is the 2004 contest between John Kerry and George W. Bush. This contest is most emblematic of the axiom that the VP, even if he is expressly selected to deliver a certain state, is largely irrelevant in voters' minds when it comes to down to decision making. John Edwards was selected almost entirely because of his Southern roots, and in the end, he delivered a whopping 0 states from that region to the Kerry ledger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, modern Presidential history has been decided by a litany of different factors; an incumbents perceived indifference and incompetence on the economy (GHW Bush), a lesser known candidate being demonized as a war monger by his opponent (Barry Goldwater), or a popular vice president having his fate decided by a partisan Supreme Court (Al Gore). The selection of the VP has never been one of the aforementioned.
Ultimately, all of the hype surrounding what history shows to be an extraneous decision is yet another reflection of how unbearably long the Presidential election season has become. Before it's all said and done, the Presidential race will have gone on for an astounding 2 years. During the 730 some odd days from the commencement of the race to election day, there will inevitably by periods of down time. Said intervals must be filled with something in a 24/7 news cycle.
In that sense, the question of the VP is the same as "flag pin" gate or Obama's purported relationship with William Ayers. Like the latter, the VP search is mere filler which has no corporeal impact on who moves into the Oval Office in January.
I guess one can't really blame the media for being all a flutter about the search. After all, Obama's campaign keeps their prospective list, and the overall vetting process as a whole as secretive as possible.
Given this, seemingly every story the media has hither to produced regarding the search always reminds us of how pivotal a decision this will be. Walter Shapiro offered the coup de gras of hype when he asserted on Salon.com that:
"Aside from being a horse trainer inflamed with dreams of winning the Triple Crown, there may be no job in America with greater potential rewards and greater risk of abject failure than heading a vice-presidential search team. "
The furor over who will become Vice President has metastasized to a point where, for the first time I can remember, a candidate has used the prospect of selecting a VP as a way of stealing the spotlight. Earlier in the week, Bob Novak reported that McCain may be close to selecting his VP, with the ultimate decision even possibly coming within a few days.
As it turned out, Novak had been but a mere pawn in a scheme concocted by the McCain campaign in an ultimately futile attempt to deflect attention away from Obama as he traversed the Middle East. That the McCain campaign views the selection of the VP as their proverbial trump, the ultimate way to garner the spotlight if you will, shows you a lot about how vociferous and unrelenting the story has become.
Given all the hullabaloo, whomever Obama and McCain selects must ostensibly have a tangible impact on their counterparts electoral prospects, right?. The media couldn't have spent these last few weeks shunning other stories in favor of feverish reporting on John McCain's decision to invite Romney, Crist and Jindal to his Sedona abode for no discernible reason. All of the caterwauling about whether or not Hillary Clinton will be named to the #2 post on the ticket couldn't be utterly inconsequential, could it?
In actuality, all of the frenetic reporting and discussion has belied the the profound lack of importance the Vice President possesses in terms of getting his running mate elected. Amidst all of the furor, no one decided to consult the historical record of recent Presidential elections. If they had, they would summarily have eschewed the conversation about who would become the eventual VP, because they would realize that it almost never matters. Recent Presidential history has time and time again illustrated how impotent the VP is with respect to assisting the viability of their running mate.
From the 1956 re-election victory of Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson to the George W. Bush garnering a 2nd term in 2004, the Vice President has only affected the outcome of the race positively for the President 1 time. That lone instance was the 1960 election when John F. Kennedy selected LBJ, a favorite son of the Hill Country, to push him over the top in Texas and garner that 24 electoral votes of that state. As mentioned, LBJ's presence helped Kennedy in Texas, however, that victory was far from the decisive winner, as Kennedy defeated Nixon by 83 electoral votes.
But even as pedestrian as the help LBJ provided for JFK ultimately turned out to be, it's stentorian compared to the impact VP's have levied in the 10 elections since 1960. In the landslides of 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1996, the margin of victory was so pronounced that the VP selection was almost irrelevant. Ronald Reagan could probably have selected a monkey as his VP in 1984 and still won.
The other 6 elections were closer, but the outcome in each was hardly influenced by the presence of a certain individual on a ticket, despite the express purpose of the VP being to tangibly impact the race. Hubert Humphrey lost 1968 by more than 100 electoral votes to Nixon, a fact which made the 4 electoral votes that Ed Muskie siphoned off from Maine a mere pittance. Ford selection of Bob Dole did absolutely nothing for the ticket, and as Ford unfortunately found out way too late, Dole does a better job selling Viagra than selling Gerald Ford. In 1992, Dan Quayle was an liability, not an asset as the VP candidate. Either way, Bush lost because of Ross Perot, not because of the wrong pick for his second in command. The 2000 election has been proven to be fixed, so it's hard to rationally analyze anything about it, much less about whether or not Joseph Lieberman had a tactile impact on how Al Gore fared.
Last, but not least is the 2004 contest between John Kerry and George W. Bush. This contest is most emblematic of the axiom that the VP, even if he is expressly selected to deliver a certain state, is largely irrelevant in voters' minds when it comes to down to decision making. John Edwards was selected almost entirely because of his Southern roots, and in the end, he delivered a whopping 0 states from that region to the Kerry ledger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, modern Presidential history has been decided by a litany of different factors; an incumbents perceived indifference and incompetence on the economy (GHW Bush), a lesser known candidate being demonized as a war monger by his opponent (Barry Goldwater), or a popular vice president having his fate decided by a partisan Supreme Court (Al Gore). The selection of the VP has never been one of the aforementioned.
Ultimately, all of the hype surrounding what history shows to be an extraneous decision is yet another reflection of how unbearably long the Presidential election season has become. Before it's all said and done, the Presidential race will have gone on for an astounding 2 years. During the 730 some odd days from the commencement of the race to election day, there will inevitably by periods of down time. Said intervals must be filled with something in a 24/7 news cycle.
In that sense, the question of the VP is the same as "flag pin" gate or Obama's purported relationship with William Ayers. Like the latter, the VP search is mere filler which has no corporeal impact on who moves into the Oval Office in January.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
I'm Mocked because of Brokeback Mountain?
The other night, during a commercial break of the magnum opus known as Titanic, the conversation between myself and 2 friends switched to the cinematic tour de force of the moment; The Dark Knight. Having yet to see the film, I inquired about the performance of Heath Ledger, who is reputed to be the favorite for an Oscar win posthumously.
As to be expected, both friends I asked agreed that Ledger offered a dynamic, nuanced performance. One said it best when she opined "he is creepy, no wonder he couldn't sleep."
Ever the skeptic, I responded that I doubted Ledger could have topped his performance Brokeback Mountain. I viewed Ledger's stilted, tormented, yet indisputably evocative performance as Ennis del Mar is one of the foremost achievements in acting in this decade.
I preceded to enunciate the aforementioned to the two in the room. Almost immediately, I received a bemused, slightly mocking look from the female on my right. I asked why she cast that glance towards me. Keep in mind, this person is not some ignorant rube plucked from the backwoods of Kentucky, she is educated, and an avowed Obama supporter.
She scoffed again, and then proceeded to question, implicitly, my masculinity by asking, in a ridiculing tone, "why would you like that movie?" (I am straight.)
My response was simply "Why shouldn't I?, and that largely quelled her present incredulity, but I could tell she believed that her viewpoint was nevertheless in the right.
Afterwards I got to thinking about the incident. Two possibilities materialized in my mind: Either this is merely an anomalous situation, or her "soft bigotry" (it paints me to borrow Bush administration rhetoric) which manifested itself in her propensity to chide me for, as a straight man, having an affinity for a movie that is centered on a gay relationship.
Hopefully her conduct was merely a product of the former, an inclination that is becoming less frequently. Then again, the liberal, progressive party has a nominee that does not even support gay marriage. That the head of the Democrats can't even deign to support equal rights for homosexuals says a lot about how far to the right the framework for this debate has shifted.
Of course, despite that, progress has indisputably been made towards making our society more understanding and tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Realistic portrayals of homosexual relationships in mainstream media, namely television, is purported to offset the demonization they are victims off from right wing demagoguery. While gays are by no means ubiquitous, highly popular and acclaimed shows have dealt featured gay characters, from Six Feet Under to the Sopranos to Will and Grace.
How much progress has been made? Has media's portrayal of realistic gay relationships triggered a backlash epitomized by my friend's scorn at my love of Brokeback Mountain? Or, is this, as I am hoping, merely characteristic of a dying minority of people who have judgments rooted in a fading bigotry?
As to be expected, both friends I asked agreed that Ledger offered a dynamic, nuanced performance. One said it best when she opined "he is creepy, no wonder he couldn't sleep."
Ever the skeptic, I responded that I doubted Ledger could have topped his performance Brokeback Mountain. I viewed Ledger's stilted, tormented, yet indisputably evocative performance as Ennis del Mar is one of the foremost achievements in acting in this decade.
I preceded to enunciate the aforementioned to the two in the room. Almost immediately, I received a bemused, slightly mocking look from the female on my right. I asked why she cast that glance towards me. Keep in mind, this person is not some ignorant rube plucked from the backwoods of Kentucky, she is educated, and an avowed Obama supporter.
She scoffed again, and then proceeded to question, implicitly, my masculinity by asking, in a ridiculing tone, "why would you like that movie?" (I am straight.)
My response was simply "Why shouldn't I?, and that largely quelled her present incredulity, but I could tell she believed that her viewpoint was nevertheless in the right.
Afterwards I got to thinking about the incident. Two possibilities materialized in my mind: Either this is merely an anomalous situation, or her "soft bigotry" (it paints me to borrow Bush administration rhetoric) which manifested itself in her propensity to chide me for, as a straight man, having an affinity for a movie that is centered on a gay relationship.
Hopefully her conduct was merely a product of the former, an inclination that is becoming less frequently. Then again, the liberal, progressive party has a nominee that does not even support gay marriage. That the head of the Democrats can't even deign to support equal rights for homosexuals says a lot about how far to the right the framework for this debate has shifted.
Of course, despite that, progress has indisputably been made towards making our society more understanding and tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Realistic portrayals of homosexual relationships in mainstream media, namely television, is purported to offset the demonization they are victims off from right wing demagoguery. While gays are by no means ubiquitous, highly popular and acclaimed shows have dealt featured gay characters, from Six Feet Under to the Sopranos to Will and Grace.
How much progress has been made? Has media's portrayal of realistic gay relationships triggered a backlash epitomized by my friend's scorn at my love of Brokeback Mountain? Or, is this, as I am hoping, merely characteristic of a dying minority of people who have judgments rooted in a fading bigotry?
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Hollowness of John McCain's "Experience"
The prevailing political winds are far from blowing John McCain's way in 2008. To begin with, his party goes over with the majority of people about as well as when Andy Dick tried to grope a hostess at a Chili's. After 8 years of Bush incompetence, the electorate seemingly is resigned to mobilize against the GOP brand. Obviously this is highly detrimental to McCain's candidacy for President. In addition, he has hardly helped himself for the balance of the campaign to date. From his painfully awkward speech behind the lime green banner to admitting his lack of knowledge on the economy to just today making reference to the nonexistent border between Pakistan and Iraq.
To rebut both the negative ambiance towards Republicans and his demonstrable foibles as a candidate, John McCain has proffered an image as a politician whose "experience" is second to none, and that this trait is indispensable to one's success in the Oval Office. Absent any discernible positives in the areas of economic acumen, or a cogent energy policy, McCain has spent the better part of his campaign emphasizing both the existence of his "experience" and thereafter, the said relevance of this trait to being President.
On McCain's official website, the first sentence of his biography emphasizes that " John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service. " One of his flagship slogans is "Experience to Lead." In the incipient weeks of his campaign, McCain was already promising that he had "experience to solve the big problems." As that quote shows, McCain was couching his run in the rhetoric of experience, even before the sub prime mortgage meltdown, and his phlegmatic response to it sullied his reputation on the economy even further. One editorial writer gushed that "vast experience, service of country define McCain." In fact, the notion of experience has been integral to the legitimacy of McCain's bid since he announced.
When in attack mode the notion of the pertinence of "experience" has been espoused ad nauseum by the senior Senator from Arizona. McCain just today disparaged Obama's credentials because he is someone "without any military experience whatsoever." Bereft of any other means of legitimate attack, McCain has ridden the "Experience" Express hard on his Presidential opponent.
At the center of McCain's narrative is his harrowing tenure as a POW imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and his subsequent decision to serve two decades plus in Congress. According to the McCain camp, these are the locations in which one can procure relevant amounts of "experience", as opposed to the areas in which Obama spent his formative years; the streets of the South Side of Chicago.
By in large, the pliant main stream media has heretofore bought both the assertion that McCain has "experience" and that it is relevant to the qualifications for Commander in Chief uncritically. In fact, it's almost as if they have been bending over backwards not to abnegate the rhetoric from McCain and his surrogates. Theresa Heinz Kerry was criticized for not releasing her tax returns in 2004; Cindy McCain releases a pathetic shell of her own, and not a peep from David Broder, Thomas L. Friedman or any of their ilk. Even overtly liberal rags like The New Republic fawn over McCain's "decades of experience" like a mother over an injured child.
More over, not only do McCain's claims go completely unchallenged in the media, but anyone offering an alternative interpretation of his credentials is wholly and summarily castigated. Case in point would be of course Gen. Wesley Clark (he who knows a few things about being in the battlefield after his stint as NATO Supreme Allied Commander) who, after having the gall to question the link between serving as a pilot, and then a POW in the Vietnam theatre and the utmost resume for President, was treated as a pariah by the majority of the major news outlets. Clark was inveighed against with such fury that it almost seemed like he had the gall to assert that the United States should not support Israel unequivocally, without respect to our own interests. It was that bad! (/sarcasm)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad part about the media conveniently deciding to let McCain present his narrative without vetting is that they are forgetting to see how void of meaning McCain's assertion of "experience" actually is. Implicit in McCain's self-appraisal as a man of the utmost "experience" is the idea that this experience has taught him the principles of sound judgment and reasoning. Without having gleaned a superior ability to think out difficult ideas, and then apply the pertinent remedy, "experience" is simply a sobriquet that conjures no significance whatsoever.
There can be no doubt that John McCain has spent many years on this planet (the guy has a scare the length of my middle finger that frames the right side of his face), has visited many countries (his favorite recent sojourn was reportedly the one to Czechoslovakia), and has served on many committees in the Senate. It would thus seem that McCain really has a breadth of knowledge and a cerebral, nuanced view on the world, given his expansive history.
However, in analyzing McCain's record, particularly his ruinous conduct vis a vis the Iraq war, blatantly illustrates how very little sound judgment McCain has absorbed from his many "valuable" years in public life that supposedly "define him." From his highly dubious actions in the Keating 5 scandal to the decision to totally reverse himself, and therefore abdicate his principles, on both Bush's tax cuts and the immigration legislation that he co-sponsored, McCain has exhibited a consistent propensity towards foul judgment.
His reprehensible conduct on Iraq however, is probably the most enlightening, and also, damning instance of McCain's utter dearth of judgment. McCain's lack of judgment on the correct course in Iraq is such because he had the most relevant experience in his background, Vietnam, that should have compelled him to take the exact opposite course that he ultimately took. As the New York Times Magazine reported recently, John McCain did a comprehensive retrospective of the war, and he nevertheless continues to conclude that the war in Vietnam could have won had the media caused the morale and will of the public to dissipate. McCain had the foremost opportunity to be introspective and critical; he instead chose to perpetuate a nearly implausible conclusion about the pivotal conflict in his life.
If this stupefying and inane conclusion didn't offer an ominous harbinger of McCain's inability to deduce the obvious lessons of the Vietnam war, then his conduct per Iraq hopefully cements into every voter's consciousness that John McCain's claim to "experience" is wholly barren and meaningless. From his pronouncements at the outset that "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security" to his laughable public relations trip (with bulletproof vest in tow) to illuminate the "gains" of the surge, John McCain has consistently been on the wrong side of facts and reason when it came to the situation in Iraq.
McCain's claque will claim disingenuously that "we are winning" (whatever the hell that means) and try to rationalize McCain's past failures on Iraq as a way of obfuscating how threatening the entire Iraq war has been to McCain's archetype of a man whose experience is somehow an indicator of sound judgment. No matter how hard they try, McCain's statements on Iraq will never die, and will instead remain a damning indictment en perpetuity against his utter absence of judgment .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposing the fallacious argument that McCain has the requisite judgment and critical thinking skills endemic to a successful Presidency is the next line of attack that Barack Obama must take. Though the media will collude and rabble rouse, as they did with General Clark's statements, in a concerted effort to vitiate any serious discussion about McCain's qualifications, Barack Obama must appeal to the facts, particularly the connection between McCain's arcane, unsupported views on Vietnam and his subsequent audacious failures on Iraq. If Obama can successfully elucidate the connection between those two wars, and they way they expose how little McCain has learned from his "experience", the facade will hopefully fall soon thereafter.
Exorbitant gas prices has left a lot of us with little left in our tanks. Figuratively speaking, John McCain, as a Republican coming off the heels of the Bush debacle, as a man whose knowledge of the economy rivals that of Freddie Muniz (no harm intended, Freddie), has perilously little left in his tank with which to build a campaign around. His last bastion is his concocted claim of superior "experience" and the positive attributes therein associated with it.
It's time for Americans to have a minor Rip Van Winkle moment, and wake up to realize that McCain's guise of experience is as empty as the market that the latter "toured" when he found out "how much progress" had been achieved in Iraq.
To rebut both the negative ambiance towards Republicans and his demonstrable foibles as a candidate, John McCain has proffered an image as a politician whose "experience" is second to none, and that this trait is indispensable to one's success in the Oval Office. Absent any discernible positives in the areas of economic acumen, or a cogent energy policy, McCain has spent the better part of his campaign emphasizing both the existence of his "experience" and thereafter, the said relevance of this trait to being President.
On McCain's official website, the first sentence of his biography emphasizes that " John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service. " One of his flagship slogans is "Experience to Lead." In the incipient weeks of his campaign, McCain was already promising that he had "experience to solve the big problems." As that quote shows, McCain was couching his run in the rhetoric of experience, even before the sub prime mortgage meltdown, and his phlegmatic response to it sullied his reputation on the economy even further. One editorial writer gushed that "vast experience, service of country define McCain." In fact, the notion of experience has been integral to the legitimacy of McCain's bid since he announced.
When in attack mode the notion of the pertinence of "experience" has been espoused ad nauseum by the senior Senator from Arizona. McCain just today disparaged Obama's credentials because he is someone "without any military experience whatsoever." Bereft of any other means of legitimate attack, McCain has ridden the "Experience" Express hard on his Presidential opponent.
At the center of McCain's narrative is his harrowing tenure as a POW imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and his subsequent decision to serve two decades plus in Congress. According to the McCain camp, these are the locations in which one can procure relevant amounts of "experience", as opposed to the areas in which Obama spent his formative years; the streets of the South Side of Chicago.
By in large, the pliant main stream media has heretofore bought both the assertion that McCain has "experience" and that it is relevant to the qualifications for Commander in Chief uncritically. In fact, it's almost as if they have been bending over backwards not to abnegate the rhetoric from McCain and his surrogates. Theresa Heinz Kerry was criticized for not releasing her tax returns in 2004; Cindy McCain releases a pathetic shell of her own, and not a peep from David Broder, Thomas L. Friedman or any of their ilk. Even overtly liberal rags like The New Republic fawn over McCain's "decades of experience" like a mother over an injured child.
More over, not only do McCain's claims go completely unchallenged in the media, but anyone offering an alternative interpretation of his credentials is wholly and summarily castigated. Case in point would be of course Gen. Wesley Clark (he who knows a few things about being in the battlefield after his stint as NATO Supreme Allied Commander) who, after having the gall to question the link between serving as a pilot, and then a POW in the Vietnam theatre and the utmost resume for President, was treated as a pariah by the majority of the major news outlets. Clark was inveighed against with such fury that it almost seemed like he had the gall to assert that the United States should not support Israel unequivocally, without respect to our own interests. It was that bad! (/sarcasm)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad part about the media conveniently deciding to let McCain present his narrative without vetting is that they are forgetting to see how void of meaning McCain's assertion of "experience" actually is. Implicit in McCain's self-appraisal as a man of the utmost "experience" is the idea that this experience has taught him the principles of sound judgment and reasoning. Without having gleaned a superior ability to think out difficult ideas, and then apply the pertinent remedy, "experience" is simply a sobriquet that conjures no significance whatsoever.
There can be no doubt that John McCain has spent many years on this planet (the guy has a scare the length of my middle finger that frames the right side of his face), has visited many countries (his favorite recent sojourn was reportedly the one to Czechoslovakia), and has served on many committees in the Senate. It would thus seem that McCain really has a breadth of knowledge and a cerebral, nuanced view on the world, given his expansive history.
However, in analyzing McCain's record, particularly his ruinous conduct vis a vis the Iraq war, blatantly illustrates how very little sound judgment McCain has absorbed from his many "valuable" years in public life that supposedly "define him." From his highly dubious actions in the Keating 5 scandal to the decision to totally reverse himself, and therefore abdicate his principles, on both Bush's tax cuts and the immigration legislation that he co-sponsored, McCain has exhibited a consistent propensity towards foul judgment.
His reprehensible conduct on Iraq however, is probably the most enlightening, and also, damning instance of McCain's utter dearth of judgment. McCain's lack of judgment on the correct course in Iraq is such because he had the most relevant experience in his background, Vietnam, that should have compelled him to take the exact opposite course that he ultimately took. As the New York Times Magazine reported recently, John McCain did a comprehensive retrospective of the war, and he nevertheless continues to conclude that the war in Vietnam could have won had the media caused the morale and will of the public to dissipate. McCain had the foremost opportunity to be introspective and critical; he instead chose to perpetuate a nearly implausible conclusion about the pivotal conflict in his life.
If this stupefying and inane conclusion didn't offer an ominous harbinger of McCain's inability to deduce the obvious lessons of the Vietnam war, then his conduct per Iraq hopefully cements into every voter's consciousness that John McCain's claim to "experience" is wholly barren and meaningless. From his pronouncements at the outset that "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security" to his laughable public relations trip (with bulletproof vest in tow) to illuminate the "gains" of the surge, John McCain has consistently been on the wrong side of facts and reason when it came to the situation in Iraq.
McCain's claque will claim disingenuously that "we are winning" (whatever the hell that means) and try to rationalize McCain's past failures on Iraq as a way of obfuscating how threatening the entire Iraq war has been to McCain's archetype of a man whose experience is somehow an indicator of sound judgment. No matter how hard they try, McCain's statements on Iraq will never die, and will instead remain a damning indictment en perpetuity against his utter absence of judgment .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposing the fallacious argument that McCain has the requisite judgment and critical thinking skills endemic to a successful Presidency is the next line of attack that Barack Obama must take. Though the media will collude and rabble rouse, as they did with General Clark's statements, in a concerted effort to vitiate any serious discussion about McCain's qualifications, Barack Obama must appeal to the facts, particularly the connection between McCain's arcane, unsupported views on Vietnam and his subsequent audacious failures on Iraq. If Obama can successfully elucidate the connection between those two wars, and they way they expose how little McCain has learned from his "experience", the facade will hopefully fall soon thereafter.
Exorbitant gas prices has left a lot of us with little left in our tanks. Figuratively speaking, John McCain, as a Republican coming off the heels of the Bush debacle, as a man whose knowledge of the economy rivals that of Freddie Muniz (no harm intended, Freddie), has perilously little left in his tank with which to build a campaign around. His last bastion is his concocted claim of superior "experience" and the positive attributes therein associated with it.
It's time for Americans to have a minor Rip Van Winkle moment, and wake up to realize that McCain's guise of experience is as empty as the market that the latter "toured" when he found out "how much progress" had been achieved in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)