The New York Times Does It Again… I Think.
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.
The Collective Stupidity of the U.S. Mainstream Media.
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?
Plagiarism remarks boomerang for Clinton
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.
Dear Mr. Castro: What, Exactly, is a Soldier of Ideas?
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 S?nchez, 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.)
There are things that happen outside of the US!
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!
Go Away, Mike Huckabee. Go Away.
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.
Biofuels Counterproductive, says Scientific American
You mean the bumper sticker hippies lied to me?
Well, I hate to break it to you, but… apparently, yes, they did. (or, to be fair, they didn’t do their research. I know. Shocking.)
You can find the full text of the article here, but here are the Cliff’s Notes, for your perusal:
This Scientific American report actually consists of two separate studies, each concluding that biofuels, specifically corn-grown ethanol produced in the continental United States, do little to help curb the production of excess greenhouse gas, and, in fact, makes it worse.
Problem #1: the clearing of land for the express purpose of cashing in on the new ethanol demand actually adds to global climate change. “‘Any biofuel that causes land clearing is likely to increase global warming,’ says ecologist Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy, lead author of the second study. ‘It takes decades to centuries to repay the carbon debt that is created from clearing land.’” -SciAm
Even though Fargione is speaking of the debt to jungle and soybean clearings in the immediate context of the article, clearing for increased ethanol demand has been happening with the same effect all over the United States. Which brings me to my next point:
Problem #2: As one of the world’s principal producers of grain, America’s repurposing of food-worthy material into fuel harms the poor. (Bet you haven’t heard about this one?it’s too difficult a conundrum for the Blame-America-First coalition to frame with any accuracy.) “Turning food into fuel also has the unintended consequence of driving up food prices, reducing the access of the neediest populations to grains and meat. ‘It’s equivalent to saying we will try to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing food consumption,’ Searchinger [the Princeton U.-based author of the second research study] says. ‘Unfortunately, a lot of that comes from the world’s poorest people.’” -SciAm
Problem #3: With current technology and harvesting practices, the carbon energy give/take ratio of biofuels is not yet productive enough to warrant a significant victory for the atmosphere. “‘Corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20 percent savings [in greenhouse gas emissions], nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years,’ the researchers write. ‘We can’t get to a result with corn ethanol where we can generate greenhouse gas benefits,’ Searchinger adds.” -SciAm
Whoops! Better get the PR department moving on that one, Greenpeace.
Problem #4: American the Beautiful isn’t big enough to offset her citizens’ thirst for fuel. ‘”If we convert every corn kernel grown today in the U.S. to ethanol we offset just 12 percent of our gasoline use,’ notes ecologist Jason Hill of the University of Minnesota.” -SciAm. This is something even the most liberal ecology professor will acknowledge.
However, there IS a silver lining, though small. Of all the types of technology today, biofuels represent the most feasible alternative energy source available, as well as the one most likely to take the U.S. from energy dependence to independence within the span of our lifetimes.
But the basic message is this: Americans are up ****-creek with regards to energy-saving and our debt to dangerous and uncompromising fuel-rich regimes like Chavez’s Venezuela and Ahmedenijad’s Iran right now. But biofuels alone, right now, are not the answer. They need to be combined with nuclear energy, the CO2-emitting but safer liquid coal, and the environmentally conscious (but not self-sacrificing) plumbing of America’s own resources.
Nil Illegetum Environundum.
In the Wake of McCain’s Ascendancy, the GOP Decides to Hang Separately.
Since McCain became the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting last week, most of the prominent talking heads in the GOP have been falling all over themselves crying foul, stuck in the throes of McCain Derangement Syndrome.
Here is Michelle Malkin, frequent Fox News contributor and webmistress of Hotair.com and michellemalkin.com, exhibiting the most common symptoms of McCain Derangement Syndrome:
Here again is Rush Limbaugh, who has claimed that electing either McCain OR Mike Huckabee would lead to the ruin of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, justifying his M.D.S.:
And last but certainly not least, infamous right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter and her claim that she would vote for Clinton should McCain get to be the GOP nominee:
Okay. McCain’s not your traditional Republican. We get it. But the one important point that everyone seems to be forgetting is this: McCain or no McCain, the alternative is a Democrat. McCain or no McCain, the alternative will be “living Constitution” judges in the courts, shamnesty bills for open borders, socialized medicine, and maybe, just maybe, slinking out of the Middle East with our collective tails between our legs. (We’re not really sure about that- Obama seems pretty set on withdrawing the troops, Hillary, as usual, is flip-flopping.)
Obama and Clinton are, as Karl Rove once said, eminently beatable. Each has several specific weaknesses that a candidate like McCain can exploit: his war record speaks for itself (the Vietnam Veterans Against McCain notwithstanding), his eighteen-plus years in the Senate trump both Obama’s and Hillary’s handful of years on the Hill, and his ability to bring together moderate Democrats and Independents with Republicans has been proven throughout the presidential race so far.
But the most prominent pundits and policymakers in Washington are showing an unprecedented collective idiocy in their torpedoing of McCain’s candidacy. The hitjobs performed by Limbaugh, Malkin, and Glenn Beck, among others, will SwiftBoat McCain without the Democrats ever having to lift a finger.
If the GOP has any hope of beating two deeply flawed Democratic candidates this November, it must hang together, show unity, and support our presidential nominee. If we do not, if the Michelle Malkins and the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs of the GOP do not put aside their petty grievances and look ahead to the future of the Republican party, the result will be both Clintons or an Obama in the White House, the political missteps of whom render McCain’s conservative transgressions insignificant in comparison.
Not that I want to render the conservative movement meaningless. The ideals of the Reagan-fueled revival have become driving principles and empowered an entirely new generation of politicians and activists. I consider myself a card-carrying member of what Hillary Clinton once called “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.” No, John McCain wouldn’t have been my pick for a nominee. The fact?mentioned by Michelle Malkin in her news clip above? that he has liberal moneyman George Soros and “Mexico-first” immigration amnesty advocate Juan Hernandez on his staff are things that I find deeply disturbing. The McCain-Feingold bill has opened the door for new ways in which our government can hamper free speech, especially on the Internet. McCain is well-respected for cutting down wasteful government spending, but his economic credentials (compared to a Guiliani’s or a Romney’s) are sorely lacking.
But in the face of all these things, how can true conservatives deny the facts? We cannot hold McCain up against Ronald Reagan any longer. To see the big picture, we must hold McCain up to his competition: Senator Barack Obama, with one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate, junior Senator Hillary Clinton, who as I have mentioned before, has done next to nothing for her constituency, has done next to nothing beneficial in her capacity as State and United States First Lady, and, I’m sure, will continue that trend in the future.
McCain may be no Reagan (or for the non-bumper-sticker-educated liberals out there, no FDR), but neither is he a Clinton, or an Obama. While all the conservative talking heads are attacking one of our own (be it the maverick of the bunch) and saving the Democrats money in smear campaigns, they should instead support the superior candidate for the job.
“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
-Franklin
Clinton is a Guitar Hero?
Given her abysmal numbers among young voters, I’m not surprised that a video like this was in the making. Soak it in blogosphere.
P.S. As we all know, videos are the mark of a lazy/busy blogger. Regular longer commentary and photo manipulation that produces a comical effect will resume shortly.
McCain’s Cautious Homecoming
View the full transcript of McCain’s remarks here.
The crowd cheered, they booed, they cheered again.
So how did John McCain fare at the conservative trial-by-fire?
“I think they hated him,” Ithaca College Republicans (ICR) Treasurer and CPAC attendee Scott Smolinski, Ithaca ‘09 said. “They were shouting at the TV.”
Ithaca senior, President of ICR, and CPAC attendee Carly Sparks pointed out that McCain hard-boiled the issues down into one basic premise: it’s either elect McCain, or face four years of a Hillary or an Obama. The conservative gathering seemed to agree.. maybe.
“I don’t think McCain was that received badly, really,” Sparks added.
Jon Courtot, Ithaca junior and the Public Relations exec of ICR, remarks, “Romney supporters could have done much worse [to McCain]. They weren’t trying to be antagonistic to him.” Courtot went on: “It could have been much worse. I disagree with Scott.”
He added: “Go away, Mike Huckabee. Go away.”
From my vantage point, I think CPAC greeted him with caution, starkly contrasting the thunderous applause that met Mitt Romney only hours before.
Perhaps they were all still in shock from the former Massachusetts governor’s untimely departure. Either way, no one has forgotten one critical fact: McCain must unite the Republican Party, or face the onslaught of the Democrats in November.
Can he do it?
Feed for The Spectrum