The upcoming New Yorker cover and its consequent fallout is a shame. I would totally expect the reaction that the Obama campaign is having from a conservative candidate in his shoes. After all, they have done all that they can to discredit the “liberal media” (i.e. media not controlled by conservative owners and organizations) over the last decade or so, so much so that people are not sure what is real information and what is purely myth, as attested to by the purely-myth, conservative mass email that was forwarded to me today about all of the ways the Democratic party has screwed the American people over Social Security over the last few years. Whereas I may agree with bloggers like the one from the Guardian UK that the cover is not all that funny, that it indeed misses the mark by not being absurd enough – largely because the allegations it portrays are too absurd as it is, I do not agree that there needs to be the adverse reaction from both the McCain and Obama campaigns. In fact, there really needs to be very little reaction at all. As an Obama supporter, the cover does not bother me in the least as it has so many others. It may be in bad taste, but not because it is portraying Obama or issues that have surrounded the presidential race. It is in bad taste in the traditional sense. It’s not funny, which is what it ostensibly is supposed to be, and it does not cast any additional light or provide a new perspective about the absurd allegations that have...
The story that broke over the weekend about Bush/Cheney escalating covert activities in Iran, possibly indicating a build-up to armed confrontation with the country is not surprising, is it? Especially interesting is this quote from the article: President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have rejected findings from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran has halted a clandestine effort to build a nuclear bomb and “do not want to leave Iran in place with a nuclear program,” Hersh said. Haven’t we heard it all before? The President’s logic seems to be, “I understand that we spend big bucks on all of these intelligence operations, recruiting and training smart people to carry them out, but in the the end, Dick and myself and our buddies are a lot smarter than all of them.” It’s infuriating to see the U.S. embroiled in the war in Iraq, having gotten there on false pretenses put forth by the administration, and then to see the same thing happening again now. Now, just as with the Iraq invasion, you can’t help from feeling that ulterior motives are involved. In this case, it’s hard to believe that the November election is not fully part of these new activities. So far the polls are pointing to a decent Obama popular and electoral lead. The rhetoric coming from both sides of the race is the same that we have always heard. The republicans will try to paint Obama as too inexperienced to handle military matters, McCain’s veteran status and tenure as a politician will be cast as the obvious antidote. This strategy only works if the Republicans can convince...
After being beaten decisively in N.C. and not winning by the desired or expected margin in Indiana yesterday, Hillary Clinton today vows to fight on, stating in so many words that “she must continue to stand up for what she believes in.” Is it me or has what either of the candidates “believes in” become more and more difficult to discern as this campaign has gone on? We know that both candidates are solidly “democratic” in most of their stances, but, as far as I can see, there’s little that separates either of them on most of the issues. They have similar approaches to many issues (e.g. health care), and both have yet to propose any substantive plans for other issues (e.g. the economy). As the campaign has gone on longer, issues have taken a back seat to personal attacks. The energy put forth by both campaigns is purely being used for spin, media manipulation and smear. That energy could, and should, be being put toward developing a real platform and agenda that can be used to defeat McCain in November. It’s time for Hillary to step down and let the general election campaign to begin in earnest. It’s time to start making plans and figuring out how we are going to really handle the mess in Iraq, the failing economy and it’s international ramifications, the economic disparity between the rich and (increasingly) poor, environmental protection, etc. For Hillary to continue the contest at a point in which it is mathematically impossible for her to get the nomination (unless she manages to pull strings within the party and gain...
So I just started this week at a new Job with CNN, and whereas it has been an interesting start, I have kind of had to do a roll-your-own training schedule that has left me with lots of time to check out the site and keep up with the daily news, even down to a granular level. So today I am looking and I see this story about Ron Paul being a racist, or about some old remarks attributed to him, or some other sort of thing. The story didn’t startle me as much as it may have others. I do believe Paul when he says he did not write the things that are being attributed to him, but they apparently were written under the banner of a political newsletter bearing his name. Regardless of whether he wrote it or not, he should have protected his “brand” (his name) a little better. But all of that is neither here nor there, the real question is whether or not the Internet will shut down if Ron Paul does not receive the Republican nomination for president? An acquaintance of mine recently boldly stated that the Internet would indeed shut down if Paul does not get the nomination at his house one night after he had imbibed at least a couple of pints of Irish Whiskey. I do not know this person or his political views very well. I do know that he is smallish, has a tendency toward a Napoleon complex at times, and that if he has an opinion at all about something, it is a STRONG opinion. I really...
Interesting Op-Ed piece on nytimes.com today by Paul Krugman called “Gore Derangement Syndrome”. I mean, I’ve never claimed to be the biggest Gore fan, but he has turned out right a lot more than he’s turned wrong in recent years (besides the, possibly urban legend, claim of inventing the Internet). Favorite quote: “So if science says that we have a big problem that can’t be solved with tax cuts or bombs — well, the science must be rejected, and the scientists must be...
Okay, I don’t usually do this but I started reading this article and got sick to my stomach. I mean, I’ve all but shunned the Marxist leanings of my past, but a huge political and cultural issue that is completely flying below the radar in public and political debate is the economic disparity between the richest in the country and the rest of us. Check out this article about Forbes magazine’s richest 400 Americans. Especially interesting (sickening) was this sentence: The minimum net worth for inclusion in this year’s rankings released Thursday was $1.3 billion, up $300 million from last year. Holy shit, at a time when most of us are not getting raises, or anemic ones at best, and more and more homes are going into foreclosure because people can’t afford their mortgages, yep!, indeed the rich are getting richer. I know I can’t blame it all on the President or his party, even if I am inclined to do so, but something has to change – with tax policy, corporate culture, most American’s way of thinking… Supply-side economics sure as shit doesn’t seem to be working unless you are one of the 400 on the list and their ilk. Those people stand out there as a carrot to all of us, making us think that with hard work we can all make it their one day. That’s an illusion. It helps keep us with our nose to the grindstone thinking that the reward for all of the labor is just around the corner. It’s not coming folks, at least not in the present economic climate. (I guess...
Recent Comments