Politicians Lie?! OMGWTFBBQ!!1
March 26, 2008 10:43 am by Shanan Glandz
Really, who wouldn’t want to have a juicy story about getting shot at while on a good-works USO mission in a war zone overseas? Hillary Clinton was caught in a lie (irony of ironies, by comedian Sinbad, who accompanied her on the trip), albeit a mostly trivial one, about her experiences once her plane (well, according to her, it was a chopper) landed in war-torn Bosnia in 1996. She and her team ran, heads down, through sniper fire, into waiting cars, all drama and speed.
According to Sinbad (who was later corroborated by reporters), disembarking from the plane was a decidedly more pleasant experience, topped off by a welcoming ceremony before being loaded into official transportation.
Was Hillary Clinton lying or was it an “honest mistake”? Do we even care?
I mean, sure, we’re supposed to deserve honesty (especially in historical account) from our public representatives, but in light of recent events (Eliot Spitzer and the mayor of Detroit immediately come to mind), we really shouldn’t hold our public opinion so high.
After all, they’re just politicians. Politicians philander, lie, cheat, steal, occasionally drive their girlfriends off bridges while intoxicated, and that’s okay.
Isn’t it?
Share 
Leave a Comment
A Speech You Need to Watch and Think About (in four acts)
March 19, 2008 12:13 am by Shanan Glandz
In all four Youtubey parts. Enjoy!
1
2
3
4
Hillary Clinton responds:
Share Leave a Comment
It’s Raining Men (Alternate Title: What Tangled Webs They Weave)
March 18, 2008 11:59 pm by Shanan Glandz
The politically fallen are, quite literally, raining down upon us.
Far be it from me to mention the obvious: NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, a.k.a. “Client No. 9″ resigned last week in the midst of the worst political sex scandal to hit Albany in a century… that is, if you think 6 years of shacking up with a prostitute while your pretty wife sleeps in your posh New York City pad and your two daughters go about life unaware is shocking. Surprisingly, many people don’t think so, anymore.
Eliot Spitzer’s departure
This icky situation was made only more bizarre when, mere hours after Lt. Gov David Paterson was sworn in as Governor, Paterson re-revealed his and his wife’s philandering history to the press to head off a developing news recycling of an old story that may have resulted in another resignation from the governorship if it hit the fan unchecked.
“Accept certain inalienable truths: prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old,” sings (preaches?) Baz Luhrmann in everyone’s favorite graduation ditty, “Everybody’s Free (to Wear Sunscreen)”. Now, Baz, I love the song, but I disagree heartily that we citizens of a democracy (shadowy as it may be) should resign ourselves to the mounting evidence that politicians, the faces we assign to represent us in the free world, are just naturally made of inferior moral stuff and are predisposed to infidelity.
We should not accept the credo that “men will be men” and we are not near-obligated to tolerate this need to have mistresses and prostitutes on the side. Thomas Jefferson did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. JFK did it. MLK Jr. might have done it. Bill Clinton did it, more than once, and in one instance, was accused of rape.
And everybody knows about it, as if that ever made it “okay”.
But we should not just accept these moral failings as part of the politician’s personality description. I believe that the moral weakness of cheating on a spouse is indicative of moral weakness in other areas of life, and the public should not put itself at risk for that kind of self-centered personal fulfillment to metastasize in public life. Not all men are cheaters. Not all First Ladies are doormats. American voters deserve better than to be publicly shamed by the personal affairs of our statesmen. Believe it or not, the rest of the world does care and is politically-incorrect enough to judge the political character of the cheater on the same standards as the political character of the embezzler, the thief, the pedophile, or the abuser.
This is not private business. Being a public servant exacts a type of commitment not accorded to private citizens, therefore, their philandering is public business, because it is in this way (which is one of many) that they display (or tarnish) their honor and respectability.
When politicians can’t keep it in their pants (or female politicians can’t do the girlish equivalent of such), everyone loses.
And, just for a fun-filled foray into the absolutely revolting, a former aide for sacked NJ Governor Jim McGreevey claims that, contrary to Dina McGreevey’s claims during her divorce proceedings (which, inevitably, involve cash settlements), the former governor’s ex-wife was pristinely aware of her husband’s sexual proclivities because (cue: drum roll) the aide and the former First Couple of New Jersey engaged in sexual menage a trois routinely, and at Dina McGreevey’s request.
All together now: Ew…
Share Leave a Comment
Breaking Character to Rant About Detroit.
March 5, 2008 7:12 pm by Shanan Glandz
“Bigfoot”, Michael Specter’s be-nice-to-the-environment article in the New Yorker had me bouncing right along with the green rhetoric and the sweeping calls for environmental analysis of the vagrancies of our human carbon footprints. To put a conservative like me under this kind of spell isn’t easy, but Specter had me going until I stumbled over this line: “Possessing an excessive carbon footprint is rapidly becoming the modern equivalent of wearing a scarlet letter.”
I could not disagree more.
Michael Schumacher and his Ferraris notwithstanding, America has the strongest speed tradition in the automotive world, a tradition exemplified by the magnificent big blocks, the 351, the Hemi, the Carroll Shelbys in the days of old (and their new inceptions in the 2000s). With its long highways and wide, flat plains, American car buyers are perceived by Detroit as horsepower junkies. Americans don’t respect the inline three-cylinder, the Smart Fortwo so popular in France, or the space-capsule-esque Honda Insight (the first off-the-line hybrid sold in America, which was phased out in 2006).
I’d buy a ‘67 Shelby GT500 or a Dodge Charger SRT-8 over a Honda Civic any day, but as an adult who has to pay for her own gas, I’d leave my dream car in the garage more often than not.
With that in mind, I would just like to announce to everyone that gas prices as high as $5.39 have appeared in California.
There is no “scarlet letter” in Detroit. Sure, every automaker ad these days makes some claim (and some that are real head-scratchers) about a car’s relative fuel economy compared to other cars in its class. Yet, Ford and Chevy still roll out their Excursions and Suburbans, and Cadillac’s Escalade is still a symbol of power and class. Why?!
What Detroit needs to know is that Americans want some change (no Barack, I’m not talking to you), and not the pennies they get from dropping a 10-spot on gas every couple of days to get them from A to B. Given the immense popularity of BMW’s Mini Cooper (particularly the Cooper S, which is still a gas-sipper), the waiting lists for Toyota’s Prius and Honda’s Civic hybrids, and the anticipation awaiting the 2008 Volvo C30 (only inches longer than the Mini), there is an enormous market for economical compact cars that fit snugly into the parking spaces in New York but still pack just enough punch for the open road. For example, the ~250 hp C30 delivers up to 32 mpg highway. Let me tell you how much not-highway my 200-hp 2003 Intrepid delivers, sitting on the longest chassis of any production American car made in the last 5 years, weighing in at 3,318 pounds.
The problem is that Detroit is too invested in the legacy of the American sports cars and the luxurious Cadillacs and Lincolns to see the writing on the wall. Daimler-Chrysler’s Smart Fortwo (with 71 hp and an inline 3-cyl) may not hit the jackpot across the pond, but Americans are tired of being ripped off every time they open up the throttle.
Oh Roger Chillingworth, where are you?
Share 2 Comments
The New York Times Does It Again… I Think.
February 28, 2008 1:05 pm by Shanan Glandz
The title of the article is “McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out” and, aside from the extremely poor grammar (don’t you think “McCain’s Canal Birth Zone Prompts Queries About His Candidacy” or “About His Presidential Eligibility” would have been a much more mellifluous title? I digress), I’m experiencing some definite schizophrenia about interpreting it.
When I analyze the framing of the “queries” in the article, and the weigh-in of the experts (they were named this time), I don’t really see the queries flowing forth as the title indicates. What I do see, instead, are passages like these:
But given mounting interest, the campaign recently asked Theodore B. Olson, a former solicitor general now advising Mr. McCain, to prepare a detailed legal analysis. “I don’t have much doubt about it,” said Mr. Olson, who added, though, that he still needed to finish his research.
That sounds like, um, sound legal analysis to me. But still, who, exactly, is making these “queries”?
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of Mr. McCain’s closest allies, said it would be incomprehensible to him if the son of a military member born in a military station could not run for president.
“He was posted there on orders from the United States government,” Mr. Graham said of Mr. McCain’s father. “If that becomes a problem, we need to tell every military family that your kid can’t be president if they take an overseas assignment.”
I say again, that sounds pretty definite to me. Throughout the rest of this article, which is, I must admit, much more well-written than the NYT’s previous McCain sm- ahem, excuse me, that must have slipped out.
Anyway, this article is more well-written than the last NYT article I discussed in this blog.
But I say yet again– where are the queries? Who is raising the questions?!
In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be “unpredictable and unsatisfactory.”
“If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain,” Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. “But it is certainly not a frivolous issue.” (emphasis mine)
This begs the only question anyone seems to be raising in this whole debacle: Who, exactly, is questioning McCain’s American legitimacy?
And the answer seems to be: The New York Times is the only major entity questioning it.
It’s healthy for newspapers and their editors to raise issues. But as even the article says, this issue has been a non-issue since the nineteenth century. The Times isn’t doing the history buffs any favors. Once again, this just seems like another poorly timed (but better written) smear job.When the Times does this, my respect for the gold standard of American print journalism, which long ago hit bottom, keeps digging.
The New York Times: All the nineteenth-century news that’s fit to print… and where non-issues should go to die.
Share Leave a Comment
The Collective Stupidity of the U.S. Mainstream Media.
February 26, 2008 12:04 am by Shanan Glandz
I don’t know how else to say it- it’s just one big ball of dumb.
Exhibit A: The New York Times.
Original link here.
Everyone has heard by now about the Times‘ flap over a tabloid-quality story that insinuated circumstantial evidence in such an arranged way as to imply that McCain had an affair almost a decade ago with a female lobbyist. According to the Times‘ politics editor, the main thrust of the story was about the suspect relationship McCain has with lobbyists and general.. but what the overwhelming majority of readers got out of the piece, curiously and obscurely titled, “For McCain, Self Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk”, was the romantic relationship ghosted in the article, cleverly concealed with trumped-up, US Weekly-style reporting.
Frankly, the story is bad reporting, a hit piece cleverly timed on the heels of the last set of primaries that definitively decided the outcome of the GOP race. The Times chose its candidate, and as predicted, has unleashed the dogs. Which is appropriate, given the quality of sources, structure, and clarity of the McCain piece.
The final verdict: when the fact that the Times reported the story is more widely known than the story itself, when other departments of the monolithic paper denounce the article… um, Mr. Keller, you screwed up.
Exhibit B: The Obama-in-Turban photos.
Photo credit: Associated Press
Yes, we know, we know, we know that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. But for the Clinton camp to elevate this photo of Obama, acting as a diplomat and donning the traditional dress of the Kenyan government (a common practice for politicians), to any kind of silent importance, is utterly xenophobic and absurd. Could you imagine what would happen if a picture of Hillary turned up in traditional Kenyan garb, plus turban?
Absolutely nothing. And that’s how it should be.
Shame on all the major news networks for even giving this piece airtime. It’s an unworthy scaremongering tactic completely devoid of importance.
Exhibit C: Bill Clinton Hits Black Obama Supporter at Rally
(hat tip: Mark Finklestein.) Oh, you haven’t heard about this? Catch the grainy vid here:
Absorb this video. Take it in. Ready?
Let me just point out the obvious, at the risk of appearing like a whiny conservative. Bill Clinton assaulted an Obama supporter at a rally. Clinton has a history over the past couple of months of blowing his top on the campaign trail. The guy is sexually frustrated. No big deal, right? Wrong.
The bare bones of the story are these: Clinton assaulted an Obama supporter. It doesn’t matter what the race of the Obama supporter happened to be. In good consciousness, I can conjecture that racism had nothing to do with this incident. However…
Picture, for a moment, the media explosion that would have occurred had the politician assaulting the Obama supporter been a Republican. The news clip would be running 24 hours, Al Sharpton would fly to Ohio, politicians everywhere would denounce the assaulter as a racist, and the assaulter would probably endure legal repercussions and have to apologize to the black community nationwide. The recoil would be political suicide.
Why? Because the national reflex is to call the Republican racist of the Republican acts badly towards a black citizen. An irritated fisticuff becomes a hate crime, sure evidence that foul race relations are still alive and well in Republican politics. The GOP’s chances to win the Presidential election would vanish.
But the Democrat, well, most assume that he is not inherently a racist; therefore race never enters into the argument at all (as it rightly should not).
Amazing how discrimination can appear (hypothetically, but anyone who follows mainstream trends in political/racial conflicts can corroborate… “macaca” anyone?) in so many forms, eh?
Share Leave a Comment
Plagiarism remarks boomerang for Clinton
February 22, 2008 4:33 pm by Rob Griffin
Clinton was rather predictably asked about Obama’s supposed plagiarism, and responded to it with the catchy even if canned “Change you can Xerox” phrase. Despite being clever, it drew boos from the Texas crowd who were sick of political “silly season”. In what has got to be the most ironic moment of the night, her end remarks - which brought the crowd to a standing ovation - looks like they were lifted from comments John Edwards had made:
Although I don’t really expect Hillary to be writing her own material, it seems a bit to close to Mr. Edwards remarks for comfort. Additionally, its not like Edwards is on Hillary’s staff and extremely unlikely that he told her to use parts of his speech.
Share 1 Comment
Dear Mr. Castro: What, Exactly, is a Soldier of Ideas?
February 20, 2008 8:13 pm by Shanan Glandz
Kiddies, hear this: Fidel Castro may be down, but until he dies, he is not out. So those among us hoping for a shipment of real Cuban cigars to the U.S. may have to wait a little longer.
Popular conjecture holds that soon Castro brother Raul will step up as the new leader of Cuba. Raul briefly assumed control during the period in which his brother Fidel was too ill to maintain power. And during that time, Raul did… basically nothing of note to assist or ameliorate the dire human rights situations on the island, nor did he act in any way to reform even a minute part of Cuba’s deeply corrupted electoral process. There is no reason to expect, with Fidel no longer in the driver’s seat, that anything will change.
In fact, in this snippet from a New York Times article, the island’s leading political upstart remarks: ‘“This isn’t news,’ said the dissident, Elizardo Sánchez, after learning from friends that Mr. Castro was ceding power. ‘It was expected and it does nothing to change the human rights situation, which continues to be unfavorable, or to end the one-party state. There’s no reason to celebrate.”’ -NYT
One-party state. Essentially, Cubans are still getting the same old, same old in terms of one-sided elections, political oppression, and the retardation of free and open discourse. Even though Raul Castro has indicated in the past that he is open to negotiations with the United States, the average citizen must look at Raul’s record in office as the leader of the Cuban government and his record while he was riding shotgun alongside his brother. Nothing significant has come from Raul, so by using my incredible powers of deduction…
Remember, the U.S.-enforced trade embargoes placed on Cuba stem from the U.S.’s long-standing refusal to aid Communist regimes where it was at all possible to avoid. And although detractors whine on and on about how the mighty United States is depriving the Cuban people of resources (read: dollars) without affecting the Cuban government overmuch, I say this: I am no expert on international ethics, but it seems to me as though the United States has the right to choose with whom, how, and when it does business. Yes, Cubans have suffered in poverty for years, but it is not the responsibility of the United States to try and remedy this, any more than it is the responsibility of Venezuela or Canada to do the same.
It’s just a shame that Cuba’s sham government will live on even after its founder passes on. “I am not saying goodbye to you,” Castro wrote in his letter, according to the NYT. “I only wish to fight as a soldier of ideas.” All that means is that Fidel will exert his influence from the grave, because as we all know, ideas live on far past the expiration of those they belonged to.
There will be no relief for the Cuban people until the bloodlines of the government are renewed. Cuba needs “change”.
Obama, are you listening? (Just kidding.)
Share Leave a Comment
There are things that happen outside of the US!
February 14, 2008 6:16 pm by Rob Griffin
Dear readers (all 6 of you),
Its primary season and so obviously this blog and every other like it has been absolutely obsessed with the latest news on this rather unprecedented election. Now, I can run over the same old ground that everyone and their mother knows by now, but suffice to say that the only thing that a non-political junkie might care about is that McCain’s adviser won’t run against Obama and that Hillary is chopping off heads/changing her message in the face of so many losses.
Maybe its the Oriental food I had today, maybe its the fact that I’m blogging from the library’s language lab, but I feel a little international flavor is needed. As self-absorbed as we can get - and who can blame us when the only competition for news on the continent is Mexico and Canada - there are things that are going on in the outside world.
1) Pakistan successfully tests nuclear-capable missiles
Oh goody, just what the international community wanted for Chrismahanukwanzakah. Now I suppose they aren’t specifically being tested for use on India, but then again they only have a range of 180 miles so its a pretty short list.
In a related story, certain private companies looking to get a jump on the competition have begun printing updated postcards:
Click here to read more.
2) Hezbollah leader accuses Israel of involvement in Mughniyeh assassination and threatens with “open war”
For those of you coming late to the story, one of the world’s most-wanted terrorists was killed in a car bomb attack in Syria on February 12th. The irony of a well-known terrorist being killed by terrorism aside, the situation has caused no small amount of trouble as Hezbollah leaders accuse Israel of being complicit if not responsible for the attack. Israel has predictably denied any such involvement while quietly applauding the action. Two things:
a) Mughniyeh was a bad guy of the first order and no tears should be shed on his account.
b) Denials aside, of course Israel had a hand in his death. And if they didn’t, they sure as hell wish they had.
At any rate, hundreds of thousands have gathered for his funeral and its not unlikely that Israel will be dealing with some repercussions for weeks to come.
Click here or here to read more.
3) President Vladimir Putin admits that he will all but remain Russia’s leader in final address
While limited by the Russian Constitution from running for president once again, it has long been conjectured that the wildly popular Putin would maintain some position of power within the government. As predicted, the candidate who received his support is almost assured to win in the presidential election and has made it clear that Putin would be his Prime Minister.
The general feeling now is that the presidency will become nothing more than a face while real power shifts to the newly appointed Prime Minister Putin. This has been backed up by rather blatant references he made in his final news conference as Russia’s official leader. In short, he’s becoming a Shadow President:
What scares some groups about Putin’s continued rule is that political dissenters and financial backers alike have recently been showing up dead of natural causes or have been carted off to state run mental hospitals. Isn’t it wonderful to see democracy flourishing in Russia?
P.S. That image is from an actual game called Shadow President. I played it when I was a kid and it was AWESOME! (Download here)
You can have fun balancing the budget!
Taking military action against Saudi Arabia!
Or simply talking to people half-cast in Shadows!
Share 2 Comments
Go Away, Mike Huckabee. Go Away.
February 14, 2008 4:48 pm by Shanan Glandz
Unfortunately, Huckabee says he isn’t going away any time soon.
Mitt Romney is expected to endorse John McCain, and in political parlance, that means that Romney’s 280 delegates will go to McCain, widening the electability margin between McCain and Huck, and putting McCain easily past the 1,191 needed to win the GOP’s nomination.
Before I get to the conspiracy theory part of my post today, I want to say this: Mitt Romney was the classiest Republican candidate in the race. He ceded the race while the going is still good for the Republicans, he ceded the race at CPAC, demonstrating respect for the younger base of his party and lending an air of real consequence to the conservative delegation.
The final few minutes of hope at Mitt’s CPAC appearance:
And now, Romney’s throwing his nomination, not to the socially conservative candidate that matches his values (for the last five years, anyway), but to the candidate who needs it the most to unite the Republican party: McCain. Classy, Romney. Very classy.
Conspiracy Theory? Or Huckabee’s Game Plan?
There has been some word around that Huckabee is staying in the Presidential race (which he has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning), not to pull votes or distract the GOP from McCain (or to, you know, win), but to prove himself to the McCain Train as a viable, Southern, socially conservative candidate… for Vice-President.
God help us. No irony intended.
Okay, maybe a little.
Whatever Huckabee’s intentions, seriously, Huck would torpedo the efforts of the GOP to hold the White House in a way the Democrats could never dream up on their own. He brings absolutely nothing–besides Chuck Norris– to the table. Yes, he cut taxes a bit while Governor of Arkansas, but across the board he is an economic liberal: not exactly the man to balance McCain’s lack of economic reputation in a way that would be appealing to anyone.
Did I mention that Huckabee is also a creationist? Because that’s what we need in the White House.
Also, Huck is old. John McCain, if elected President, would be 72 when sworn into office. Barack Obama, McCain’s leading contender for POTUS, has a strong (the Kennedys say Kennedyesque) youthfulness about him; that’s what makes the Illinois senator’s message of “hope, change, change, hope” so palatable.
McCain doesn’t seem like change. McCain’s been in the Senate for 18 years. He’s a Washington insider. And that’s where Huck would hurt him- not only is the Governor in his fifties, but he is everything the mainstream Republican voter (excluding West Virginia) wants to see less of in the party: they want to see an embracing of science, not a rejection of it. They want a President who’s sensitive to the issues of global climate change. And they want a President who actually knows what to do about the economy. Huck has none of these qualities.
The good news is that most of the major news wires, although humming with the possibility that Huckabee could become McCain’s running mate, are panning the match in favor of people like Oklahoma’s Sen. Tom Coburn (who is 57 but of more intelligent stuff than ol’ Huck) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
(Yes, I am aware Jindal’s link is from RedState. For fairness, Coburn’s profile is by the Washington Post. Cry about it.)
The even better news is: the mainstream media is giving Obama an edge. Hillary’s past her prime in the papers. Although much still rests on the Mar. 4 primaries in places like Ohio and Texas, the wires have already dropped her as a serious candidate and her teary populist message is backfiring.
Now, when Obama actually comes up with a plan, instead of more shiny rhetoric, then we can see what he’s made of. Until then, Obama-mamas (and Rob), hold fast to… um… hope.
Feed for The Spectrum