|
|
« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
Politicians, pundits, TV anchors and other assorted talking heads are never again allowed to use the words "bold" and/or "robust." Christ on a cornflake, there's gotta be 50 million synonyms for each of those words. Find some.
A lot of weird news has happened in the past few days. Over in the MIddle East, they're continuing to bomb the shit out of each other. Up north, even the New York Times has endorsed dark-horse-candidate-turned-frontrunner Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race. And down in Miami, President Bush has continued his long tradition of babbling nonsense to adoring, pre-approved fans in carefully stagecrafted events that are designed to make the public think he is speaking to real people. The Miami Herald story about Bush's trip explained that the visit was "part of a White House strategy to get the commander in chief out of the Beltway bubble and amid regular folks." But in the very next paragraph in the same story, the Herald -- hardly a bastion of this alleged liberal media I keep hearing about -- mentioned that at Bush's visit to Joe's Stone Crab, "Diners in shorts and T-shirts grabbed cameras and craned their necks for a peek of the president, but they had to settle for a huddle of Secret Service agents as the president ate privately with people the White House called 'community leaders.'"
You say Bush "amid regular folks," I say Bush "amid a prechosen set of supporters in a public place." Whichever.
Of course, food has long been a central theme of Bush's photo ops, which have included everything from corn:
To fake turkey:
But at least Bush's advance team picked good eateries. Along with the aforementioned Joe's, which features amazing, if overpriced, Stone Crab claws, Bush also visited the Versailles Restaurant, home of the best Cuban food on the planet -- seriously, you can't even get better Cuban food in Cuba.
But enough of all this. I am a voter in Florida's District 22, which is shaping up to be one of the toughest battles of 2006, if you believe all the political pundits who bloviated over it in the leadup to the race. Over the weekend, I had my first encounters with the campaigns of incumbent Republican Rep. Clay Shaw and Democratic challenger Ron Klein. In some ways, the differences between the two encounters were stark.
A knock at the door last Saturday turned out to be a Ron Klein volunteer, a middle-aged lady with an army-green tanktop, and short black hair coupled with shockingly blonde bangs. She handed out campaign literature before running through a bunch of questions. In particular, I recall her asking what was the most important factor in defeating Clay Shaw. Among the multiple-choice answers were keeping social security safe, ending corruption in Congress, and so on. I went with corruption. If this hypocritical greed orgy in Washington goes on any longer, the rest of these issues won't matter.
Challeger Ron Klein, allegedly out to end corruption
The next day, I caught the first televised campaign commercial for Clay Shaw. Points for not even mentioning Klein -- the commercial offered no mud-slinging at all, a welcome change from Shaw's initial campaign strategy. At the time I predicted a Klein win back in a May blog entry, Shaw's Web site was rife with slime. The site has since been cleaned up, and is as squeaky as the new TV ad, which focused on Shaw's pro-environment stance. A kindly female voiceover intoned, "The Audubon Society even named Clay Shaw 'Guardian of the Everglades,' and an even bigger honor? That came from the Boy Scouts." An inset phoro showed a Boy Scouts Everglades Patch, which was commissioned in honor of the congressman, while the larger picture focused on Shaw with a large group of Scouts.
Of course, the Boy Scout endorsement, coming from an incumbent, is patently absurd. The Boy Scouts support the status quo, no matter who's in charge. I'm an Eagle Scout myself, and I have congratulatory letters on achieving that rank from President George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle, a man who I still consider one of the stupidest men alive -- perhaps the Stupidest Man in the World, were it not for a few notable others. But despite my own misgivings about these douchebags, did I not invite them to my Eagle Scout Court of Honor? You bet I did! And I would have done the same, no matter who was president. My point is, the Boy Scouts honor whomever may be in charge at the moment. They don't do politics. So an incumbent saying he's been endorsed by the Boy Scouts is a bit like any politician saying he's been endorsed by his own mother -- well, no shit.
I mean, seriously? A Boy Scout endorsement is the best this guy can do? Whatever.
Clay Shaw, allegedly courting the all-important Boy Scout vote
So, one side's got freaky ex-hippies out canvasing the neighborhood. The other side's hiding behind Mom and apple pie. Of course, in American politics, hiding behind Mom and apple pie is all-too-often successful. And after an unbelievable 26 years in Congress (remember when the GOP took over Congress in 1994 with promises of term limits?), Shaw ought to know how to win a campaign. I'm a little more hesitant in my Klein prediction, but I still think he'll pull it out. Shaw is too easily tied to President Bush, and that guy is downright loathed these days.
I can't take it any more. This guy has got to be the most idiotic person in the world. Who could possibly even come close? Holy crap, this dude is a moron of such colossal extent that I find it breathtaking and in defiance of all logic that he is able to feed himself, much less hold down the incredibly important job that he has.
Bet you think I meant the guy on the left in this picture:
Well, you're wrong. Sure, Bush is a little slow on the uptake, but he's nothing compared to CNN Morning Anchor Miles O'Brien.
Yeah, this guy. Holy Mother of Jesus, what a dolt.
Every morning when I wake up, I click on the news to see what happened the night before. MSNBC insists on screening footage of Don Imus' radio show for reasons I've never understood. So it's either I watch CNN's American Morning and have my intelligence insulted, or go to Fox News and have my ethics assaulted. I go with the former option.
And at least once a week, but usually far more often, Miles O'Brien will come out with a statement so stupid, so moronic, so utterly ignorant, that it leaves co-anchor Soledad O'Brien and whatever guest they have on momentarily speechless. It's actually pretty funny to watch. I'm convinced they only brought Miles on so that they could have the cutesy O'Brien/O'Brien lineup for the morning show. Well, it's stopped being cute. God damn it, I am sick to death of this empty head giving me my news.
I'll give y'all an example. This morning, live from the Middle East, Miles was interviewing Marine Brigadier General Carl Jensen, the U.S. Evacuation Mission Commander. Although I saw this idiocy with my own eyes, I'll quote from the CNN transcript (see it for yourself here).
Miles asked of the general: "Final thought here -- Lebanon is a part of your anthem in the Marines, 'the shores of Tripoli' and all. It's also one of the darkest chapters in the U.S. Marine Corps history, going back to 1983, the Hezbollah bombing of the barracks there, 241 Marines died. On a personal level, what's it like having marines back in Lebanon, one way or another?"
Aside from being a throwaway, sentimental question without any real news purpose whatsoever, Miles referenced the "Shores of Tripoli" -- which are in Libya, not Lebanon. The general was kind enough not to point out Miles' stupidity, but instead discussed the "sacred ground" of the Beirut bombing. There is a Tripoli in Lebanon, I should point out -- which is likely the reason for Miles' mistake. He learned of a Tripoli in Lebanon and just assumed it was the one in the song, without bothering to check his facts like even a first-year rookie reporter would.
Now, I don't expect everyone to know that the "Shores of Tripoli" from the Marine Hymn are in Libya, and are in fact a reference to the First Barbary War. But I do expect a major cable news anchor to know it. And failing that, I expect him to at least check his freaking facts. How many people out there are now convinced that the "Shores of Tripoli" are in Lebanon, because Miles O'Brien said so? Does this jagoff not realize the power he has to influence and educate?
Moving on. Much later in American Morning, Miles had this to say (also per transcript, here): "Soledad, before this all began here, Haifa was viewed as a safe place, even though it is so close to that northern border. The mayor, when he was serving in the Knesset in his previous political job, pushed to have the Israelis leave Southern Lebanon in 2000. I said to him today, would you like those Israelis to move back in? Would you like an occupation of Southern Lebanon? He said never, never would that be a good plan. Even though, perhaps, that might mean a measure of safety for the people here -- Soledad."
That last sentence, of course, reveals that Miles is shocked that the mayor wouldn't want an occupation of Southern Lebanon. This suggests that Miles is unaware that, the last time Israel occupied Lebanon, Hezbollah was created as a direct result.
Thus, we see that Miles appears to be utterly unaware of the history, geography or politics of the entire region. So -- Why the fuck is he covering it?
In the coming days, I'll be posting more on Miles, until CNN has the good sense to fire him. Parts II through MMDCXXVI on The Stupidest Man in the World will be forthcoming. It shouldn't be too hard -- after all, as stated toward the beginning of this blog entry, Miles makes an ass out of himself on a more-than-weekly basis.
As for the conflict itself -- well, that's why I haven't been posting a lot in the past few days. I have very little to say. It saddens me to see so many people die in a region that has already seen far too much bloodshed. I think a ceasefire should be instituted as soon as possible, regardless of whether or not Hezbollah has been completely destroyed. But I also think lasting peace in the region is, at this point and for the foreseeable future, an impossibility. Life ain't always perfect, and sometimes -- hell, a lot of the time -- it's downright mean. For now, I just hope the Lebanese and Israeli citizens keep their heads down and stay alive.
He's slapping a congressman across the face.
Here's the president after speaking to the NAACP, slapping Congressman Al Green.
Where does it end? How long until someone, Karl Rove probably, takes Bush aside and says something. I can see it now:
(Scene opens)
"Pardon me, sir. Do you have a moment? ... Great. Please, come on inside and take a seat. ... No, no. You don't have to sit on the floor, sir. Take a chair. Great.
"Listen, Mr. President, I just wanted to take a moment of your time to point out some things you might want to avoid in the future. ... What? ... Yes, I know you don't make mistakes. These aren't mistakes. More like improprieties.
"Mr. President, in the future, please avoid rubbing the shoulders of foreign leaders. It's just that, in some other countries, that may be seen as 'looking down' at the person receiving the massage. And we all know what a chip those Krauts have on their shoulders, eh Mr. President? ... Ho ho ho! Hitler indeed, sir! Well played.
"But to get back to the situation at hand. Um, now, this one's a bit more delicate. Sir, I know you like it, but please stop rubbing bald heads. ... Whoa! Take it easy, sir! ... Mr. President, I know how you feel about bald heads. Believe me, I do. We've all got our favorite body parts. Just look at your Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten, and his creepy photos of your hands. ... What? .... Yes, Mr. President, you do have very nice hands. But that doesn't give you a reason to go slapping congressmen around, which brings me to my next point.
"Yes, sir, I know you like to call Congressman Green "Slappy." I get the joke, but ... Mr. President. Mr. President, please stop rubbing my head, sir.
(Heavy sigh)
End Scene
Seriously, though, somebody's really gotta do something about our leader. I think he's slipping off the deep end, and we don't want a bald-obsessed, batshit-insane, bitch-slapping backrubber with his finger on the button, do we?
Man oh man, what is there to say about the most recent bombing of oft-bombed Beirut? The real loser in this, I suppose, is the nascent Lebanese government, forced into the bizarre predicament of innocuous observer to the bombing of its own land.
Me, I didn't realize how bad it'd gotten. I was in this country's heartland, Kansas City to be exact, celebrating my 30th birthday with a week-long orgy of booze, barbecue and various unmentionables. But that's all behind me now. I'm on the dark side of young adulthood, and the Middle East is on the dark side of... well, something. So let's get into it.
Any of y'all catch the Colbert Report last night? The montage showing just about everyone on Fox News calling the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict "World War III" was particularly hilarious. I'll be ready to agree with them, just as soon as Israel busts out the nukes. Or maybe as soon as Fox News' favorite guy in the whole wide world starts to take it seriously himself -- and it's pretty obvious that Bush has yet to do so. In a press conference a couple days ago, White House Pres Secretary Tony Snow said that Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice would visit the region, but that he wasn't sure when, or what her goals would be, and that he prefered to just not deal with it for the time being.
"Look, the Secretary's going to go, but she's not even sure when. I think I'm going to kick the can down the road a little bit," Snow said. Nice. Let's play some kick the can while people are dying. Of course, given that we sat back on our asses and did nothing about genocide in Darfur, why should we get involved in this little spat, just because 300 or so people have died? I mean, that's kid's stuff to us. We wouldn't do anything about bodycounts in the six figures in places like Darfur or Rwanda, and now 250 Lebanese and 25 Israeli deaths are a big deal? Given past precedent, I don't get it. Or maybe I'm just forgetting one of the unmentioned rules of Western diplomacy -- black bodies mean about as much as grease spots on the road.
Pissed off yet? I know I am. The idea that we actually get involved in foreign wars to protect human life is so woefully wrong I don't even know where to begin. If that were true, we'd be all over Africa. But we've got no other reason to be -- like, say, oil. Or in the case of Israel, a friendly, stable democracy in an unfriendly, generally dictatorial part of the world. Wars don't start because of human life. Wars start because we can't reach our objectives through political and diplomatic means. And our objectives are never simply the "end of genocide" or some such noble goal. There's always something more. The decent, moral reasons for war are just the justification-icing on the geopolitical-cake.
As for the hyperbole of this being WWIII, it's just that -- vitriolic exaggeration spewed by people who are actually fervently hoping for such an outcome, because it'd be great for ratings and maybe it would make Jesus reappear.
Oh, and one other thing that happened while I was out. Did the president actually give the German chancellor a fucking back rub? Seriously?
Great fucking God. When will our embarrassment end?
Her reaction to this, just a few seconds later, shows how much she enjoyed it:
Seriously, what else can Bush do to embarrass each and every citizen of this country? Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany not a fucking Hooters Girl, you stupid, ignorant jackass. Christ! This is the sort of thing that makes me long for the dignified, upstanding White House of Bill Clinton.
So it's official. Joe Lieberman is facing such a threat in the Democratic primary in Connecticut that he will petition to run as an independent, just in case he loses the primary to dark-horse candidate Ned Lamont.
In the story in Connecticut's own Hartford Courant, Lieberman is quoted as saying, "I've been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democraitic party's nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot."
Ah, Joe. You're a Democrat, sure. Anyone who registers with the party counts. But "proud, loyal and progressive?" Seriously? The reason Lamont has been steaming ahead in the polls is because you lack progressive creds. So, how again are you progressive?
And, you say you're loyal in the speech in which you announce your intent to run as an independent if you lose the primary? Come again?
And proud, you say? I offer the above examples as evidence that your pride in the Democratic Party is sorely lacking. There's nothing wrong with being a Republican, Joe -- well, OK. There's plenty of things wrong. But no one likes a political chameleon, Joe. You should stand up for what you believe in. And, by all accounts, the Democratic Party platform isn't one you get along with too well these days. No big deal -- just join the Republicans. Then you can be for the Iraq War and not have to explain your position to anyone.
"Boltin' Joe" Lieberman, alleged harbinger of "Joementum"
Politically, though, this is actually the best move Joe could make -- at least on its surface. Lamont has gained ground by leaps and bounds in the polls. Now just 10 or 12 points behind, depending on what poll you look at, he was 40 points behind in the polls just a few short months ago. In fact, the latest Rasmussen poll has Lieberman ahead by just six points.
Meanwhile, the June Quinnipiac poll in which Lieberman runs as an independet against Democrat Lamont and Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger shows Lieberman winning with 56 percent, compared to Lamont's 18 percent and Schlesinger's 8 percent.
But, now that he has looked at these hard polls and decided to make the independent jump, how will that affect future polls? I imagine a lot of Democratic Lieberman hold outs will see this as a sign of disloyalty and jump on the Lamont bandwagon. If it goes that way -- and I think it will -- Lieberman will lose the primary, and then be saddled with an independent bid with no help from the party. In that case, that Quinnipiac poll will mean nothing. Support for Lieberman will drop like a bomb within weeks. If this plays out the way I imagine it will then...
... Say hello to Sen. Ned Lamont (D-Conn.)
Mind you, I'm not necessarily a Lamont supporter, though I do like a lot of what he says. But more than anything, I enjoy the idea of his election. What will it mean to the rest of the Democratic Party? It could be another stepping stone on the road to crafting the Democratic Party into a viable opposition party, rather than just the center-right/center-left coalition that it has become.