Overlooked: The Edwards Media Machine Posted by Andrew Guess October 31 at 4:02 PM | Comments (0)
Much has been written about the Clinton propaganda machine and, more recently, the Obama PR coup running up to yesterday's MSNBC debate. With all the hype you'd think John Edwards' spinmeisters are holed up in a podunk shopping center in North Carolina somewhere.
Actually, they are. And when an enterprising student in the University of North Carolina journalism school pursued a hard-hitting video report on the choice of that apparently affluent location to house The Man From Poverty's campaign, she witnessed the full wrath of his public relations operation:
[Professor C. A.] Tuggle said they threatened to cut off access to Edwards for UNC student reporters and other student groups if the piece aired.
"My gosh, what are they thinking?" Tuggle said. "They're spending this much time and effort on a student newscast that has about 2,000 viewers? They're turning a molehill into a mountain."
Behold the ruthless Edwards campaign. Ready to root out negative press, no matter how trivial or banal. No dicking around with glossy effluvia -- like men's fashion magazines.
How Spain Conducts Its War on Terror Posted by J.P. Freire October 31 at 2:26 PM | Comments (0)
Spain's a great place to vacation, even for terrorists. Remember the 2004 train bombings in Madrid? Via the AP:
That's right. The bombers are actually getting convicted, but STILL getting off easy. Spanish law precludes anyone from spending more than 40 years in jail. However, it wasn't required by law that the Spanish vote out their tough-on-terrorism government right after the bombing. Unfortunatley, the impulse of the Spanish is, these days, more weak-handed than the French -- who would have ever predicted that?
And just a thought: Isn't it ironic that the convicted were radicalized while in jail in Morroco? Does that mean that now they have 40 years to recruit in-country?
Lesson to terrorists? Bomb away. And don't bother killing yourselves doing it. Spain will remain vigilant, however, in the face of the fascists who are already dead.
This weekend Timespiece was a PR coup. Getting a national newspaper to cover your candidates' decision to be stronger? Usually reporters don't go for that sort of thing. They prefer solid actions, so that when they tell their editors they have an article to write, they can say, "And he's done this, this, and this to prove it." In fact, Obama's PR group did a fantastic job of getting something that's not really big news into the mainstream. Look at this video from Reuters made available by The Wall Street Journal:
But his performance last night was hardly the fighting wonder campaign officials promised. Instead, Chris Dodd was far more successful in his swings, as was Edwards. My theory is twofold: Obama's claim to "get tough on Clinton" is an empty promise meant to get the press to attribute any harsher words he *might* speak to the "newer tougher Obama" so they can praise him for how strong he is. And that he's happy to use Edwards as his attack dog -- so he can remain "strong-ish" while not "dirty."
But boy oh boy, would it be great if he went dirty.
Q: Brian Williams, I'm curious, when can we expect the first commercial break during this MSNBC presidential debate?
A:We have built two or three rather short breaks into tonight’s program, this two-hour debate tonight. And we’re going to choose to take the first of them right now, mostly so everyone can take a breath, on this hot stage, on this otherwise cool night in Philadelphia. We will continue with our debate, from the campus of Drexel University in Philadelphia, right after this.
Q: Hot? As in Dennis Kucinich's wife?
A:This is what happens late at night in a hot room.
Example: Brain Parasites Parasites that turn victims into mindless, zombie-like slaves are fairly common in nature. There's one called toxoplasmosa gondii that seems to devote its entire existence to being terrifying.
This bug infects rats, but can only breed inside the intestines of a cat. The parasite knows it needs to get the rat inside the cat so the parasite takes over the rat's freaking brain, and intentionally makes it scurry toward where the cats hang out. The rat is being programmed to get itself eaten, and it doesn't even know.
Of course, those are just rats, right?
How it can result in zombies?
Hey, did we mention that half the human population on Earth is infected with toxoplasmosa, and don't know it? Hey, maybe you're one of them. Flip a coin.
Take a deep breath. Relax. It's a joke right? Well, take a look around your office. Could some of your co-workers be infected? How would you know? Have some of them been acting stranger than usual? It could even happen to our favorite office co-workers:
Larry Flynt, editor and publisher of Hustler magazine, just told FOX Business Network’s Neil Cavuto that he’s “hoping to expose a bombshell” that will stand “Washington and the country on its head.” Within the next week or two, he says his magazine will expose a sex scandal of huge proportions involving a prominent United States Senator. Flynt refused to comment on the Senator’s political affiliation, but alluded that he or she is a Republican.
Little birdies are telling me that said prominent United States Senator will be none other than Mitch McConnell. Remember, kids: You heard it here first.
What About the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Posted by Joe T. October 31 at 6:48 AM | Comments (0)
Well, I have to say, I'm actually pretty disappointed in Bill O'Reilly. He had an opportunity to turn this interview with Richard Dawkins into one of his classic, ruthlessly entertaining shouting matches, and he instead approached it in a calm, rational manner that can only hurt his ratings. The topic, as it usually is with Dawkins, was God. Is there a higher power? Did he create humanity? Is he, perhaps, a flying collection of noodles and tomato sauce?
Dawkins and O'Reilly both managed to make some good points, although Bill slipped a bit when his argument against the validity of Zeus and Apollo was that he "just saw Apollo, and he's not looking too good." Gosh, I guess Greek gods just aren't built like Greek gods anymore.
Break Out Your Dictionary, Nancy Posted by Joe T. October 30 at 7:05 PM | Comments (0)
This just in from the Department of Redundancy Department: Apparently, Congress is to blame for the whole waterboarding brouhaha. (Only the Democratic Congress, of course - I mean, come on, we all know that blame depends entirely upon which party you belong to.) See, the federal government is confused about how to handle waterboarding because Congress hasn't specifically said that we can't do it - so say Michael Reagan and Pat Buchanan, who apparently haven't heard of that whole "cruel and unusual" thing.
Why is that redundant? Because Congress already tried to do that, only to be blown off by the White House. After the passing of a bill intended to ensure that detainees would at least receive the same treatment as, say, convicted murderers, President Bush whipped out one of his All-Powerful Signing Statements in order to declare that he could ignore any restrictions on torture when doing so would "assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Lovely. Honestly, why bother even having a legislative branch anymore? I'm sure the Founding Fathers would agree that checks and balances were, like, so two centuries ago. Let's just text in votes for an all-powerful Decider in 2008, and tell Congress to come back when it can get answers out of terrorists in five screams or less.
Fair and Balanced... For the Candidates We Like Posted by Joe T. October 30 at 5:33 PM | Comments (0)
As the Ron Paul phenomenon gains momentum among Nigerians everywhere, there have been a few complaints about the coverage he gets in the mainstream media. The majority of these complaints have been lodged against Fox News, which is about as surprising as a blonde lingerie model managing to screw up a suicide attempt. (Important questions: How is that even possible? Is any stereotype as unprotected by political correctness as blondeness? Was that story referenced for the sole purpose of linking to a very large and very scantily-clad picture of said lingerie model?)
Some people, frequently referred to by on-air talking heads as "Internet lunatics" and similar derogatory e-labels, believe that Paul's anti-establishment message annoys Republican leadership enough for them to actively pull the strings that will keep television coverage of the Texas Congressman twisted and minimalized. They seem to have a case - but, given what could at least be described as moderate levels of success by the Paul campaign, the motive for any underhanded reporting becomes a bit less clear. Is Ron Paul simply a nuisance? Or might Republican leadership be worried that a large chunk of its base could be attracted to Paul's decidedly different brand of politics?
The magical world of the Internets makes this sort of analysis much more interesting, because not only do sites like YouTube allow for inspection of every second of Fox News' broadcasts (and who doesn't want to spend hour upon hour looking at the masterpiece of human genetics that is Neil Cavuto?), but they can also spread moments that were never intended to be recorded - such as this discussion amongst Fox producers that Paul's supporters claim proves bias against treating his candidacy with any sort of legitimacy. Is it enough? Or might the reason behind the subtitled comments be much more mundane? We report, you decide.
The authoritarianism in Russia and the populist demagoguery in Venezuela are both products of the very elections Kagan boosts. The fact is that liberalism has a small constituency in both countries (outside of a very few western European, Anglophone and North American countries, this has often been the case), and when put before the electorates of Russia and Venezuela liberalism fares very poorly. Some of this has to do with the fact that relatively liberal politics was associated with the wealthy elite and tycoons, and the effects of policies carried out in the name of liberalism were generally poor or even disastrous for the people who now back authoritarian populist leaders. There will be objections that Russian elections in particular are not fully “free and fair,” but against this I would note that even with fully free and fair elections the overwhelming majority would still want nothing to do with the Russian liberals. This is hardly surprising: in mass democracy, the politics of liberty tends to lose and lose badly, while one form of demagoguery or another (be it nationalist or revolutionary socialist) usually prevails.
Under those circumstances, a people with a recent memory of a Soviet Republic would likely know the drill. Mutter under your breath, but don't get dead. Right, Anastasia?
Bozell: EM ESS EMM LURVS HILLARY! Posted by J.P. Freire October 30 at 4:41 PM | Comments (0)
"New Book by Media Analyst Brent Bozell Shows How Journalists Refuse to Investigate Serious Charges or Report Clinton Scandals"
Okay kids. Sit down. Take out your notepads. We're going to have a little lesson on how to write a press release title. We're not even going to go further than the title. It would take too long and it's almost happy hour.
Rule #1: Make it interesting. The first interesting phrase in the release is "investigate serious charges." But it's almost at the end. Speaking of which...
Rule #2: Titles should be short. Not long. And definitely not crazy media-conspiracy-theory long like this one. If you're an organization that's into the crazy media conspiracy theories, you can look way more sane by following the "Brevity is the Soul of Wit" rule. It goes as follows: "Brief."
Rule #3: Make it timely (the "new book" angle isn't enough). I want to know why I need to go to Brent Bozell to get all of my Hillary-Gets-Off-Easy news. What is something she JUST DID that she got away with?
Rule #4: New book? Or new study? Because journalists love studies. They get goosebumps just thinking about them. You could write a study showing that the Jews really did make up the Holocaust, and I assure you, reporters will just wave you through, balancing the report by calling it a "controversial study." They can quote all the outraged people they want, they're still publicizing your work, and isn't that what P.R. is all about?
Anyway. I'm not impressed by the press release because I really want this point to go far and wide:
"The national media have flagrantly abandoned their duty as independent and dispassionate journalists," write Bozell and co-author Tim Graham. "When Republicans are investigated by the media, it is done with such tenacity it usually leads to a humiliating resignation or electoral defeat. When there is a hint of impropriety by the Clintons, the media react quite differently."
Partisan cult-of-victimization lines aside, the point stands that the only serious reporting being done on Hillary has been on her laugh, but not very much has been said of her ties with criminal donors. Which, surely, is just the recent news hook Brent Bozell can use to lob his book into the hyperactive media bloodstream.
...Or not:
a) By ignoring the allegation, as NPR and PBS did for 500 days after Whitewater broke,
b) By turning the story into an investigation of the Clinton's accusers, which Mrs. Clinton usually claims to be conservative Republicans, or a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,"
c) With little investigation, the issue is not resolved,
d) The public grows weary of it and no longer cares about the end result.
Wait. Whitewater? That was years ago. And yes, it's an example of how no one cares about something because it was underreported, but again. It was years ago. And no one cares! As far as voters are concerned, it's a little like World War I. It was something important but not as important as the thing that happened after it, but it was kinda confusing, and I think I hear the phone ringing. Heck, why not mention the fact that little scrutiny has been applied to her taking advice from fmr. National Security Advisor and Thief ExtraordinareSandy Berger?
It is a big help to the Hillary campaign that she's scrutinized on things that have nothing to do with policy. But that is, in many ways, the fault of Republicans who thought that demonizing her personality would prevent her from moving forward. It's about time they started raising questions about policy and focused on how similar Hillary is to Edwards. Otherwise, they'll have to sit through more rounds of nonsense like useless comparisons between Hillary and the new Presidette of Argentina.
Freedom, Voting, and Other Inverse Correlations Posted by Anastasia October 30 at 4:22 PM | Comments (0)
Voter turnout is abysmal in the free world. So P.J. O'Rourke will forgive me for quoting at length from a recent article of his in The Atlantic that addresses that very issue. I may be teetering on the razor's edge of a copyright violation, but I'm only performing a civic duty. So if posting this is wrong, then I don't wanna be right. ...do you know what causes low voter turnout in America? It’s the result of having the fate of our nation at stake. This began with the bitter presidential election of 1828, which pitted the education, cultivation, and puritan constraint of John Quincy Adams against the yahoo populism of Andrew Jackson, thereby deciding permanently whether America would become a shining city upon a hill or an overlighted strip mall along a highway. Voter turnout that year was 55.2 percent. A dozen years later, a small and unctuous incumbent, Martin Van Buren, the first professional politician to occupy the White House, ran against the vacuous William Henry Harrison, who would die from the pneumonia he contracted by giving an overlong inauguration speech in the freezing rain. Harrison’s platform consisted entirely of the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Van Buren’s platform was even less substantive. There were no issues of note. And voter turnout was 77.5 percent.
In 1860, when a vote for or against Abraham Lincoln meant deciding whether to fight a civil war, 72.1 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. In 1876, when a vote for or against Rutherford B. Hayes meant bubkes, 82.9 percent of eligible voters showed up.
In 1932, with Republicans and Democrats offering radically different political and economic responses to the Great Depression, voter turnout was 56.8 percent. In 1940, with the reelection of FDR a foregone conclusion, turnout was 62.9 percent.
Another way to guarantee that a lower percentage of eligible voters will exercise the right to their franchise is to guarantee their franchise rights. Voter turnout in the presidential election of 1916 was 61.9 percent. Then, in 1920, the 19th Amendment was ratified, giving the vote to women. Voter turnout in that year’s presidential election was 49.2 percent. The Voting Rights Act, ensuring access to the polls for blacks, was passed in 1965. Voter turnout went from 63.3 percent in 1964 to 62.5 percent in 1968. And after the voting age was lowered to 18, in 1971, voter turnout took a further dip, to 56.4 percent in the 1972 presidential election.
Extrapolating from the trend lines evident in Historical Statistics, we see that if one of the 2008 presidential candidates is a vicious moron (entirely possible) and the other is a beneficent genius (not as likely), and all life on Earth is threatened because al-Qaeda has discovered a way to poke every American with a sharp object simultaneously (could happen), and we extend the franchise to absolutely everyone, including preschoolers, citizens of the EU, illegal aliens, space aliens, and household pets (probably resulting in a better-informed electorate), we could achieve a voter turnout of zero.
Hey, This Guy I Know, I Think He's a Terrorist Posted by Andrew Guess October 30 at 12:48 PM | Comments (0)
... Think you could check him out? I don't know him, or anything. He likes to collect butterflies, read radical texts and blow people up. A friend of a friend, really. Hope that narrows things down a bit: "A friend of a friend of mine is a member of al Qaeda involved in a bombing in Bali," [Japan's justice minister Kumio] Hatoyama said, adding the alleged member of the terrorist network had gone in and out of Japan a number of times two or three years ago.
Later on Monday, Hatoyama held another news conference and tried to clarify his comments, saying, "I am not a friend of the terrorist and I do not know him personally."
According to Hatoyama, he does know a man in a butterfly collectors group he belongs to who said he received a message from a man believed to be involved with a terrorist organization.
It's been a tough month for us Swiss, countering (or, in my case, admitting the truth of) notions that our tiny nation's people are a generally insular, xenophobic lot whose demeanor is shaped more by the motherland's slowly melting glaciers than its abundance of sweet, succulent milk chocolate.
But it turns out they also happen to be extremely healthy. Finally some flattering news, confirming what I've insisted for years: Switzerland has the best darn health care system in the world. You wouldn't know that from Sicko, because the Swiss distrust their government almost as much as we do and prefer their health care delivered in nice, privatized packages.
Which is presumably why the Bush administration is sending Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt to see what's so great about the Swiss (and the Dutch, but we'll ignore them for now). He wouldn't admit as much, but Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care plan (and Arnold Schwarzenegger's in California) was heavily influenced by the consumer-based, private system that Switzerland boasts, and the basic ideas have been promoted on both the left and the right for some time. Now, of course, these ideas are the sole domain of the Democratic candidates for president.
It's almost the kind of development that makes you wonder if there's a consensus building in Washington.
You'd think with a widely publicized hunting trip on the horizon, and frothy-mouthed media mavens eagerly clawing for post-buckshot story material, that Dick Cheney's entourage would have at least scrubbed the Clove Valley Rod and Gun Club for controversy before his arrival.
Apparently Confederate Heritage Month came early this year in rural New York, as it often does, and Mr. Cheney's hunt-crisis-management office is again fighting an impending public firestorm after a photographer spotted a Dixie battle flag hanging in the gun club's garage. Can this story get any better? Darth Vader hates Muslims, eats babies and supports slavery!
No one so far has pointed out the obvious, which is that hunting folk north of the Mason-Dixon line don't tend to pine for the Lost Cause ... but then again, neither do wine-swilling Californians married to French imperialists.
"I am calling on Vice President Cheney to . . . denounce the club and apologize for going to a club that represents lynching, hate and murder to black people," the Rev. Al Sharpton said in a statement.
-Ah, the media: guardians of truth, defenders of the public trust. [CS Monitor]
-Dad called. He wants your allowance back. Also, your paycheck, your mortgage, your car, your savings, and the change in your wallet. [Weekly Standard]
Tim Russert informed Chris Dodd on Meet The Press that some polls were showing him at zero percent. Dodd explained: "We've got a lot of room to grow....The more important question may be why aren't these leading candidates, who get all the attention every single day, why aren't they doing better?"
Good call Chris! When you poll at zero percent, there really is no place to go but up.
Mike Huckabee discussed his latest endorsement on CNN's Late Edition: "I've got the endorsement this week of Chuck Norris. Now people are going to be afraid not to support me." Insert your best Chuck Norris fact:
-[Mike Huckabee] does not sleep...he waits.
-The last thing you hear before [Mike Huckabee] gives you a roundhouse kick? No one knows because dead men tell no tales.
Last but not least, Laura Bush on Fox News Sunday: "I'm looking forward to voting for a Republican woman, whenever that is, but I'll be supporting the Republican."
Wallace: "So the fact that she's a woman doesn't matter?"
Bush: "No, it doesn't matter to me. And I hope it doesn't matter to other people. I hope that people will choose the candidate that they think really has the views that they want, you know, that they believe in, and that represent them in the way that they want to be represented"
As always, Chris Wallace really gets to the bottom of issues.
In Lesley Stahl's segment with "Sarko the American" in Sunday's 60 Minutes, the French president smoothly deflected a question about his personal life ... by removing his mic, standing up and shaking the visibly flummoxed reporter's hand before walking off with his entourage. There was a time when American presidents were supposed to be the ones with bad manners -- but now, it seems, that most American of French leaders is beating us at our own game. See his performance in all its glory:
It's Make-Fun-of-Silly-Old-Men Day! Posted by Anastasia October 29 at 10:31 AM | Comments (0)
It's Monday and I damn well ain't happy about that, so what I thought I'd do is pick on long-shot candidates running pathetically laughable campaigns. That's how cranky I feel. Stay out of my way.
Here is Ron Paul throwing a tantrum. Gosh, he's so electable.
Here is Mike Gravel trying his best John Cage impression. Gosh, he's so hip -- not at all the mean, angry old man of campaign lore.
John Dickerson's fascinating Derridean deconstructionist meta-analysis of said video here.
Hide the kids! Dick Cheney is going hunting tomorrow at an unpscale hunting resort in New York. What is scarier than the idea of Cheney with a gun is The Clove Valley Rod & Gun Club where he is hunting. According to the NY Daily News, it costs $150,000 to join the club and there is an added cost for every bird that is shot. Whatever happened to never shooting a sitting duck? A few locals express their sentiments:
"I don't want him in my backyard," said Viva Ttanata, 63, a farmer whose land adjoins the exclusive upstate hunting ground where Cheney plans to shoot tomorrow. "He scares me."
"He'd better take a shooting lesson," he said. "I'll be keeping my dog inside while he's here."
"They keep cracking jokes about it while they're waiting for their sandwiches," said a waitress at the nearby Clove Valley Deli and Cafe.
"They keep saying 'Duck! Put your armor on! Don't turn your back on him!'"
Even if he did shoot another one of his friends, we probably wouldn't find out about it for a few days. If you remember, Cheney decided to not tell the sterling White House press corps until days later. Does anyone think that a reporter will ask the question, "Mr. Vice President, did you shoot anyone this time?"
Harry Potter "Is Like Spiritual Peanut Butter" -- And That's A Bad Thing? Posted by J.P. Freire October 26 at 3:25 PM | Comments (0)
Things are heating up in Wakefield, Massachusetts:
I don't know which is sillier -- the story of a priest banning Harry Potter from his school, or the way reporter Rhondella Richardson (an "investigative reporter") speaks truth to power:
"Parents are petrified to share their opinions... Only a handful had enough faith in their convictions to speak up."
Righto. Otherwise, they might find their tires slashed, or just lose their children entirely to albino assassins. A strict Catholic school? Rhondella, you've got quite a story on your hands.
Especially when you have an archnemesis who says things like this:
"Let's say you have organic vegetables in a bowl of soup. And I happen to know that that broth has some poison in it. [Rowling] had a nice kinda series, ... but I have a problem with the broth she put it into."
Huh?
Interestingly, the Pope has previously written about the dangers of Harry Potter, describing them as "subtly seductive." But what's the big deal? I don't mean with Harry Potter. I mean with religious leaders saying that literature can be bad. If moral authorities are supposed to be moral authorities, why shouldn't they tell their congregations what is and is not okay? Here's something I wrote a few years ago on the topic:
Harry Potter may not exactly lead young Jimmy into a lake of fire, but it is not a reach to say that it could without guidance detract from the Church's message -- just as a child watching Desperate Housewives might get the wrong idea about what marriage is really like.
As for Potter, sure, the series is entertaining, but the emphasis on magic doesn't exactly sit well with Catholic teachings. Maybe the reporter would have been better off investigating the possibility of this priest's relation to St. Peter?
The Chronicles of Counterterrorism Bungling Posted by Anastasia October 26 at 3:24 PM | Comments (0)
Looking over my shoulder as I post this from Brian Beutler: "I think I'll have much more about this later, but in the meantime, feast your eyes on this GAO report about how, for seemingly no reason at all, we have a terror watch list with nearly a million names on it. I believe that all of al Qaeda is about one percent that size."
Ok. I wasn't born here. I speak French. And I was once detained at Miami International because I was caught reading Behind the Veil in Arabia for an anthro course (I placed the book face up at check-in and the TSA agent, noticing the book, secretly starred my ticket. Then I lost my dignity at security.)
I am totally going into hiding. Goodbye world.
David Brooks Uploads His Brain to NYTimes.com Posted by Andrew Guess October 26 at 1:25 PM | Comments (0)
After reading David Brooks's column today -- one of his periodic forays into amateur pop psychology, this time poking literary fun at all the confusing little gizmos that have irreversibly altered our lives -- I'm tempted to imagine his reaction upon discovering the Internet.
Was it a pleasant experience, inspiring him to write of this bold new frontier, a medium whose limitless possibilities will fundamentally define our character for this next American century? Or perhaps it disturbed him, prompting him to worry that we're in effect uploading our civil society where it can only be viewed through a Web browser, in a form that even Tocqueville, logged in through a prison computer, would never recognize today?
Whatever he thought then, his attention has since moved on to GPS systems and iTunes, and the idea that we're dependent on technology to the point where we rely on it not only to tell us what we want to know, but what we want. Wielding his well-worn rhetorical playbook, Brooks writes: "Wherever there is a network, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a TiVo machine making a sitcom recommendation based on past preferences, I’ll be there. Wherever there’s a Times reader selecting articles based on the most e-mailed list, I’ll be there."
Well, he's there all right, sitting at #1 on the Most E-mailed list, just as he preordained. I'd speculate about whether Brooks is prescient, but unfortunately his predictive powers don't extend much further than the reading habits of New Yorkers.
He Had The Craig Experience Posted by Joe T. October 26 at 12:10 PM | Comments (0)
Wow. For all the fervent denials Larry Craig throws out about his bathroom incident and subsequent sexuality speculation, there's never been evidence quite this vivid against him. David Phillips, a DC resident, claims to have slept with Craig some twenty years ago, and happily described the encounter down to every last latex-laced detail for Wonkette.
Phillips was recently in a bar minding his own business when he heard Craig’s voice on the television. “I went pale and nearly vomited,” Phillips says. It was the man he remembered from one of his creepiest sexual encounters twenty years earlier. “After a truncated meal I went back to my hotel room and began unwinding and jotting down the memories that the voice had opened. I recalled The Follies, the furtive groping and pawing there, the odd following of this man in my car….. Crap!”
...
One night, Phillips continues, “I followed [Craig] from The Follies to a Capitol Hill neighborhood, parking on the street no telling how far from his house. We walked up the alley and through the back door of a house, with him repeating several times, ‘You were never here. You don’t know me. Right?’ and me responding, ‘Right!’ in boyish submission. As we tiptoed from the back door to the stairs to the upper floor, as if somebody else was home, he turned to grope my crotch and brush my face with his hand.” The house’s decor led Phillips to believe that this was a married man: “The bric-a-brac with family pictures didn’t scream ‘old queen’ to me; it announced a woman’s influence. Still, we made our way upstairs.
You can either leave the rest to your imagination or click on the link, which would qualify as erotic literature to some. But if Phillips is to be believed, this is a first-hand account of a one-night stand with Craig, which makes the scandal all the more interesting, and, yes, entertaining. Craig's probable response? A pre-written denial which will contain a 3:1 ratio of denials of his homosexuality to denials of the actual event ever taking place.
Surgeon General's Warning: In case it wasn't already clear enough, the Wonkette's story is very graphic in nature.
Jack Bauer Goes to Washington, Tortures Somebody Posted by Andrew Guess October 26 at 10:59 AM | Comments (0)
Senators, take note: If you need an American hero to honorably defend the use of torture, call Jack Bauer. Next season on 24: truth, justice, the American way, and the vicarious thrill of mutilating bad guys! Check out the trailer (less-annoying YouTube version below), which, besides confirming that the show has officially jumped the shark (if it hadn't already), features a Congressional hearing that I'd love to see in real life:
I guess I'm just surprised that the show is again tackling the issue of torture. It's done it all before, to the point where the executive producer finally admitted last season that it was getting old. Is it just something that viewers don't tire of? Maybe -- whether and under what circumstances torture is acceptable is far from settled in this country. Ask Michael Mukasey.
A New Feature: If You Don't Cut It, I'll Cut Myself Posted by J.P. Freire October 26 at 9:22 AM | Comments (0)
You read and write enough articles that you get to a point where you can totally tell someone's trying to fill space. No one's perfect, but there's certainly a trend among journalists to write ledes that have nothing to do with the content -- that is, a journalist will tell you about the article he wishes he wrote, and then give you the article he had to settle for. All of this is fine if we had all the time in the world to read the news, but a tight piece is easier to read, let alone remember. So, with that in mind, let's look at something sent my way by Wonkette's briefing.
The piece has insight into the Romney campaign, sure, but it looks like someone was trying to write something that went three pages long. It was actually about how Romney has a lot of money and is using it in his campaign. But for some reason, Politico reporter Jeanne Cummings describes it as the extension of a clever business-minded strategy. It reeks of spin to me.
[His campaign headquarters has] an interior design reflecting the private-public partnership that runs through the Romney operation: the investors and businessmen who know Romney from his Bain Capital days who today are teamed up with the professional political strategists from Washington.
What on earth does the "private-public" partnership mean here? And how is that any different from any politician that has business connections (i.e. most of them)? And if the decor of Romney's office is important, why not describe what other campaign headquarters look like? Without that information, what does the reader gain from knowing this?
More nit-picking after the jump.
As in the private sector, the key to success is spotting opportunity early, sharply analyzing strengths and weaknesses, developing a blueprint for success, and having enough money to get the job done. Romney brought all those skills to the table.
Analyzing strengths and weaknesses, eh? Good thing we know that. If it weren't for this line, I would have assumed that business largely hinges on strong handshakes and good opening lines in speeches. But in what ways have his strengths as a businessman allowed him to differentiate himself from everyone else? Sure, he's running a solid campaign, but nothing about it seems to be particularly different from the other candidates.
The most important one now is the built-in financial advantage that comes from his willingness to dip into his personal wealth, valued at $190 million to $250 million. To date, 27 percent of Romney’s receipts have come from his own pocket. ... Romney’s willingness to spend his own cash has made the normally significant cash-on-hand advantage of his rivals meaningless.
This is relevant, but John Kerry did the same thing. Does that make him a good businessman? Any rich idiot idiot can do this -- in fact, idiots do this all the time. Ross Perot, for instance.
Romney’s financial advantage alone won’t win him the nomination. The campaign is bracing for flip-flopper attacks on television and in bold-printed direct mail flyers on his changing positions on abortion and other issues. How well Romney defends himself during that phase will determine his fate far more than his creative finances.
If anything, this shows how being a businessman could hurt his campaign. A businessman looks for safe positions where a politician would look for consistent positions. A businessman can change his mind any number of times because profits, not image, counts, when doing so would be suicide for a politician. The flip-flops aren't a "by-the-way" problem. They're his greatest obstacle.
Even as he sought to build a broad donor base, Romney privately concluded that his lack of national name recognition would require him to invest his own money to compete with his widely recognized rivals.
So Romney's business mojo is to credit for what any candidate in his right mind should do?
In the third quarter, Romney spent more money, $21 million, than he collected from outside donors — $10 million. An $8.5 million personal loan kept the campaign from ending the quarter virtually broke.
Sure, I'm complaining about a bad lede, but I'm also complaining about susceptibility to spin. Surely, the article would have been viewed differently if it were entirely about how a rich guy is holding his position at the top of the field because of self-financing. It's fine that he's doing it. But how is one supposed to interpret the non-sequiturs about his business-oriented approach aside from an effective PR job?
So you know when you're standing in line at Chipotle and you get to the moment of truth: guacamole or none? Tough decision. Guac adds a whole nother dollar to the entire deal.
That choice just got easy. The wildfires that consumed 300,000 in Southern California have also incinerated a third of their avocados, pushing the price to two bucks a pop: "The avocados are going to be over a $1.50 a piece -- around $2 -- because there's going to be a very high demand on avocados,” San Jose produce stand owner Nader Mechel said.
The problem, according to Mechel, is that avocados grow on trees.
Unfortunately, money doesn't.
Dept. of Oops: The New Republic Makes a Retraction! Posted by J.P. Freire October 25 at 4:28 PM | Comments (0)
That's right!
... Oh wait. No it's not. It's not right. They didn't do it. Even in the face of this. New documents were leaked to the press (and up on Drudge yesterday) that clarify that the editors conducted an embarrassingly big (and bungled) cover-up over a number of fraudulent "reports" TNR featured from a soldier in Iraq describing our own military as a group of sadistic thugs. When conservatives smelled a rat, they found one, and the author eventually admitted he made up the articles. TNR never made a retraction. For more background on the matter, read my article in Human Events. The documents include a transcript of a phone call among editors at TNR, as well as Army investigation files. Bob Owens goes into detail with the damning information -- here are the juiciest tidbits, but it's worth reading in full:
That there was a conference call between editors of The New Republic and their debunked author Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a disclosure that I made on my personal blog on October 9, roughly a month after the call was made. Now that we see Beauchamp’s side of the conversation amounts to a weasely "I will neither confirm nor deny what I wrote," it seems obvious that The New Republic should have printed a retraction almost immediately after the call.
...Instead, they chose to remain silent, even though they knew at the time that a formal U.S. Army investigation had determined the charges made by the author were false and that the author himself would not support his own stories, even under direct questioning by TNR editors.
...After getting off the phone with Centcom’s FOIA office just moments ago, I now know that there are a total of 58 pages of sworn statements that have been collected from Beauchamp’s fellow soldiers and are now on their way to legal review.
As I pointed out before, the worst part about this whole scandal? The pieces weren't even worth running in the first place. They were vain, self-aggrandizing, and shed no light on the war. And as one friend told me, TNR has always been hated by the rabid anti-war left, and yet it felt compelled to run these articles to gain the favor of that very group. For what?
Beyond that, editors aren't just there to protect their magazines. They're also there to prevent writers from embarrassing themselves. They're called editors because they are responsible for ushering through copy as WELL as checking it to make sure it is as good as possible -- from grammar, to style, to facts. Sure, Beauchamp, the offending author, did make the choice. But he wasn't an employee hired for quality assurance.
Will someone get fired? Doubtful.
Maverick McCain Boldly Dumps DREAM Act Posted by Andrew Guess October 25 at 2:20 PM | Comments (2)
The Evolution of John McCain continued yesterday as the senator backed out of voting -- either yea or nay -- on the DREAM Act, which he had previously sponsored. He could have voted if he'd wanted to, of course; the New York Sun reports that he "rearranged his campaign schedule to return to Washington yesterday for a vote on a judicial nomination, but he did not stick around for a key vote just an hour later."
Why would a man who staked part of his presidential ambitions on defending a path to legal citizenship duck out of a fairly unobjectionable piece of that agenda? DREAM would allow illegal immigrants who came to America before they were 16 (i.e., with their parents) to apply for legal residency as long as they've lived here for five years and have been through two years of college.
The problem for Fred Thompson and the other immigration panderers in the Republican field is that people who'd benefit from the law are precisely those who don't fit the mold of the lazy Mexican who speaks no English and brings disease over the border.
It doesn't matter, though. McCain has proved, again, the limits of his principles in the face of competitive pressure.
An Irrelevant Aside on George Washington Posted by Andrew Guess October 25 at 1:51 PM | Comments (0)
SEATTLE -- The Washington State flag bears the likeness of our first president, a man who voluntarily stepped down from office in the hope that his seat would never resemble a throne. How depressing, then, that until this year the logo of King County (home of Washington's largest city) was a crown: George Washington, if he weren't already invincible, would be turning over in his grave.
Did Seattle come to its senses? Not really. Instead, the county decided to "rename" itself after Martin Luther King Jr., a man who had little connection to the area and whose civil rights campaign might as well have never existed for residents of the Northwest. Forget the crown: the new logo, unveiled this year, features Dr. King's face.
The Reverend now presides over a city with a colorblind school system.
(The Seattle Monorail and the Space Needle contributed research for this blog post.)
I hear a lot about the possibility that Hillary could blow out just like Dean. I'm not saying it isn't possible. But there's a big difference between Hillary and Dean. Howard Dean was viewed, at that time, as a radical left-wing leader of the netroots. His fall was due to the bursting of a bubble. If anything, the only candidate who resembles his credentials is Ron Paul, though obviously not policy-wise. It wasn't his anti-establishment credentials that got him where he got to be, it was the rabid support of the supposedly fringe elements of his party.
So how on earth does Clinton possibly compare? She's a former first lady, mainline establishment Democrat, who already has her husband's entire campaign machine working for her. There's no parallel. None.
But the idea that Obama is right out? I'm not sure about that. Read to what Gov. Deval Patrick says of Obama and himself:
"People made a mistake … by supposing, presuming, that our appeal would be in certain discrete corners of people who looked like us and thought like us," Patrick said. "The whole point was to reach across divides and invite people who had checked out to check back in. And they did."
Now try to read this article and try to find one thing positive from Clinton strategist Mark Penn (or anyone else) about Hillary. It could be that the reporter is biased, but not a single pro-Hillary quote emphasized her positive attributes. They only emphasized her ability to defend herself in the face of negative ones. That's hard to jump for. It's not good news that Penn, HER OWN EMPLOYEE, couldn't come up with a pro-Hillary quote that a reporter would find irresistible.
Worse news? In this article talking about Hillary's image, Hillary declined the interview. It might have been a smart move, but it implies a lack of confidence she can't afford in the face of... well, audacious hope.
When a matter as important as the next leader of the free world is up for debate, the most intelligent, rational thing to do would be to organize a rigorous analysis of the candidates' respective policy plans, histories, diplomatic skills, and general leadership abilities. But this is America. So instead, we're gonna focus on who has the hottest wife.
Unfortunately, the most famous spouse of all had to be left off the list due to a Y chromosome. But how upset can Bill really be? I can't imagine he misses any Future First Ladies of America meetings when some of the other members look like this.
If you think you're excited now, just wait until the Bikini Contest.
Burning Bush(es) to California: Let My People Go Posted by J.P. Freire October 25 at 8:30 AM | Comments (0)
Sure, the devastation, the human tragedy, all of these things bother me. What bothers me more? Sitting through the coverage. I felt like there was something a little gonzo about watching Geraldo Rivera wander around looking for grief-stricken families to get on tape. Is it opportunistic? Or is it compassion? I don't know. I'm actually in awe of the guy regardless -- it takes a lot of energy to face that kind of devastation, and then constantly emote with interviewees. There could be a sociopathic quality to it, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
But is there anything redeeming about it? Sure, actually. Coverage like this enables people to feel bad enough to donate money or volunteer. Gonzo or not, these people will benefit from the coverage. So I guess it's not all bad.
But according to some reports I'm seeing, the fire may have been caused by illegal immigrants -- possibly ones who came to America in search of work. Then, I see this:
Hopped up on some kind of flower-based drug, Mario Mario, an Italian-born plumber of questionable legal status is a suspect in the arson investigation. And in one strange twist, Mario Mario is Geraldo Rivera's evil twin.
So one makes the news, the other one reports it. Coincidence? I think not.
Oh, Hai. I'm in Ur Bathroom, Skerrin' Ur Doodz Posted by Anastasia October 24 at 4:42 PM | Comments (0)
Rob explains how to make the BEST HALLOWEEN COSTUME EVER, OMGZ11!!1!
And if you're an interior designer (or at least so inclined this autumn season), consider this porch decoration with an exceptionally wide stance. Lolz!
Per Joe T.'s post on video games, I interviewed Jack Thompson once, and he was very engaging. The guys at Penny Arcade, amongst others, can't stand him, and frequently place him at the butt of their jokes. But Thompson represents a very real constituency in the country, and the reason he makes it onto the news shows isn't just because he's a good self-promoter. It's because there are lots of parents out there who are worried about their kids being exposed to The Wrong Sort Of Things.
Unfortunately, the segment precluded any kind of discussion on what Thompson meant by the fraud being perpetrated by the video game industry. I think he's saying that the industry isn't enforcing their own rating system -- as he did mention sending his son to do "stings" on Target and Wal-Mart by purchasing these games.
If you're not familiar, the ESRB is the video game industry's self-regulating body. They're responsible for the labels you see at the bottom of video games. The ratings look like this:
When you sell games, you agree not to sell games to kids that have labels that say not to. I don't know about the fines involved or if there are any. But parents that want to be involved in their kids' development benefit from this kind of guidance. Actually, there's an entire site run by a father ("GamerDad") that wants to make sure that his kids play fun, but not "bad" games.
I'm not entirely convinced that exposure to content doesn't have negative effects, which is why I wouldn't discount Thompson's message -- it seems unreasonable to suggest that watching violent film after violent film is unhealthy for kids. But I'm also not convinced that the games are primarily what's responsible for children doing incredibly insanethings. I just think that at the point where your kids can be influenced by media to do evil, they've already fallen pretty far down the rabbit hole. If parents hadn't done their job up to the point where a child goes, "That's not a bad idea!" to a scene in Grand Theft Auto, then there's a bit of a problem.
Anyway, all of this was just me trying to work in a link to Zero Punctuation. Here Yahtzee discusses the original Manhunt game.
You want to know what an "oops" sounds like? Accidentally endorsing someone. That's a major oops. It's a good thing no one is silly enough to make such an error. Oh wait! Somebody did. A preacher. A Very Important Preacher.
The response from the Romney people:
"Rev. Wilton is a great leader in the community and we respect any decision he makes regarding his involvement with the campaign," campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said in an e-mailed statement.
Can anybody think of anything that would upset the Romneys, or their campaigners? At the moment I read that quote, I immediately thought of Mitt saying something like, "We love the Reverend, and we look forward to his input. It'll be great fun!"
So here's some advice. It's free. No charge. Gratis. Me to the Romney campaign:
Forget about mussing up your hair, Mitt. I want to see a photograph of you smoking a cigarette and kicking the tire of a car. I want to know that you hate mornings as much as the rest of us do. I want to watch you pick your teeth with a switchblade. I want to hear you say, "I need coffee and if someone says one more thing about golden plates, I'll pour it on their face."
You do that, Mitt, and you win Giuliani's core supporters. Never again will anyone wonder how you were able to run Massachusetts.
Ah, Abortion: Really Brings Out The Best in People Posted by Joe Laliberte October 24 at 2:17 PM | Comments (2)
Massachusetts legislators are on the brink of extending the "buffer zone" surrounding abortion clinics to 35 feet to allow women access without being bombarded by protesters. From the Boston Globe:
Supporters say the measure is a public safety initiative that would protect women from intimidation that they may face from protesters and would make it easier to prosecute violators. But opponents said the bill violates protesters' First Amendment rights by limiting their ability to distribute materials that could encourage women seeking an abortion to change their minds.
Now, there's a legitimate argument about abortion with serious implications to consider on both sides. Are we restricting free speech only to abortion protesters? Or, are we trying to protect women as they make one of the most challenging decisions of their lives? I tend to come down on the side of the former. There are only a few states that have restrictions on protests during funerals. If there are no laws restricting protesters at military funerals, should there be laws restricting protests at abortion clinics?
Whatever the answers to those questions, they're at least valid questions.
Our message board on abortion, however, is becoming completely ridiculous. A few choice quotes:
--"First of all, this is the 'philosophy' of Hitler and Stalin, who were amateurs compared to the millions more killed by abortionmurder. Whoever wants to prune back on the human population is welcome to jump off a cliff today, to demonstrate their sincerity. Being hypocrites, they have no sincerity and will not prune back their own part of the "excess" population by jumping off cliffs. This hypocrisy demonstrates the falsehood of this specious argument."
--"You obviously have a lot of issues. How does it make you feel to know that most of the pro-life people disagree with the pictures you have. You don't practice what you preach. You want unborn children to have rights yet did you have the permission from the dead baby that you have on your sign to put their picture on the street???? No you didn't, so you are exploiting that baby."
--"I suppose you would give the same advice to those who oppose slavery. 'Don't want a slave, don't have one. But don't tell me I can't have one.' Or those opposed to female genital mutilation. 'Don't want to mutilate your girl's clitoris, then don't. But don't tell me I can't.' What you and others who support abortion do not seem to get is that we are not against abortion because we think women should have no control over their lives or because we think every one should have the same views on sex that we do. We are against abortion because we believe that it is murder. It is a social injustice. It is evil. It is wrong."
--"God creates all people and He doesn't make mistakes....no baby is a mistake because he/she was created by God."
--"And he also created all the people who perform abortions and those who have them. So what do you have to say about that? If I take your statement literally then abortion is not a mistake because you say he makes no mistakes. If he doesn't make a mistake then people who get them and people who perform them are not making a mistake either because everyone was created by God and you say he is not wrong. So by you saying abortion is wrong you are saying that God is wrong then according to your statement."
Actually, touché on that last one.
Is there any sensible middle ground on this issue? Why is it impossible to have a civil discussion on abortion without invoking Hell or Hitler?
1 Million Two-Year-Olds Strong for Barack Obama Posted by Andrew Guess October 24 at 2:14 PM | Comments (0)
Political operatives used to be content dredging up the dead to stuff the ballot box. Cold hard stiffs, however, aren't as useful when it comes time to raise cold hard cash. (Blame the death tax!) Fortunately, some especially fertile donors have hit upon a solution: writing checks for their young children.
The Washington Post, for instance, found a two-year-old generous enough to donate the maximum $2,300 to Barack Obama. ("Obama Baby" YouTube video forthcoming? Who wants to bet how long it'll take?) In completely unrelated news,
the amount written by those identifying themselves as students on contribution forms has risen dramatically this year, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. During the first six months of the 2000 presidential campaign, students gave $338,464. In 2004, that rose to $538,936.
This year, the amount has nearly quadrupled, to $1,967,111.
The Post explains why all this is happening:
Congress tried to outlaw political contributions from those under age 18 as part of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002, but the Supreme Court struck down that provision as an infringement on the constitutional rights of minors. With that ruling in mind, the Federal Election Commission wrote new regulations two years ago that tried to balance what it considered a legitimate desire among some children to make political contributions against the possibility that parents would seek to pad their donations by funneling money through children.
If you build a wall, they'll find a way around it. My brother's dog tends to lean Democratic, by the way....
Flying Dutchman Wows White House Bystanders Posted by Andrew Guess October 24 at 12:30 PM | Comments (2)
The latest Dutch import to these shores is a Kurt Cobain lookalike who can levitate himself using the powers of his mind, or something. Watch what happens when he does it in front of the White House:
Can you figure out how he does it? And if the White House can play host to a flying, unkempt Dutchman, can bipartisan unity be far behind?
(Or is this all a distraction from more pressing domestic and international issues? Hey, worked for me.)
Maybe We Could Ban Idiot Commentators Instead. Posted by Joe T. October 24 at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)
Fox News had an interesting little debate the other day over a particularly violent video game called Manhunt 2. The game has recently been banned in the UK for its graphic death scenes, flirted with the rare "Adult" rating from the ESRB, and has drawn the ire of people concerned about little Timmy coming home from school and slitting virtual throats. So why not have a shouting match about it?
This exchange is particularly idiotic thanks to the man defending the game's sale, who drags out the most tired cliches in the book ("I don't go kill people because I play video games") after starting his argument with the following question: "Which do you read more, the Bible or the Constitution?"
The world would be a better place if he had missed his interview due to a long game of HALO.
Storm Lake Times: Biden's Our Boy Posted by Joe T. October 24 at 9:04 AM | Comments (0)
He was probably hoping for an endorsement from a paper with a daily readership in the double-digits, but Joe Biden will take whatever he can get, and today he gets the Storm Lake Times, a small publication in northwestern Iowa.
We have seen all the Democratic presidential candidates, except for two, up close and personal: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. Biden is our choice for the nomination for the powerful personal story he shares, for his deep knowledge of international affairs, and for his long record of exemplary service in the United States Senate.
Biden is astounding with his sheer command of world politics and conflict. He has distinguished himself by offering the only workable plan to get us out of harm’s way in Iraq. He advocates a loose federal system under which the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would each control their own territory, somewhat similar to the notion of American federalism. He would remove American troops to a safe distance in friendly environs Kurdistan and Kuwait, to name two and let the Iraqis solve their own problems.
The article dramatically simplifies Biden's approach to Iraq, but it definitely nails his biggest selling point - his expertise in the international arena. So far, Biden has blown away his Democratic competitors in every foreign policy segment of the televised debates, and offers the attractive combination of being both an anti-war candidate and being able to intelligently describe just how he would get American soldiers out of Baghdad.
There's plenty of speculation that Biden is really in the race in order to position himself to be selected as Secretary of State, but if he's going to make a legitimate run at the Democratic nomination, he'll have to pull some surprising numbers in Iowa - and nothing says "dark horse" like the staff of Storm Lake.
