Kerry Healey has opened her campaign for Governor of Massachusetts in predictable fashion. Her two main issues are crime and taxes. The soft on crime issue is a copy of President Bush’s “be scared, be very, very scared†campaign strategy that seems finally to be running out of steam. Will Healey have more success at scaring people into voting for a woman with –as her opponent Deval Patrick says – a theoretical understanding of crime? We shall see, but it seems unlikely. As for taxes, the tired idea of suggesting tax reductions in a period when we cannot educate our children, medicate our sick, or police our streets will resonate among those with no real commitment to their communities. It is of course impossible to know whether the people of Massachusetts will fall for this but hopefully they will at least recognize that the choice is not only about taxes but also for the social services that our taxes provide and that the Bush presidency and Congress have been hell-bent to kill. It will also be worth watching the press to see if broad comments like “soft on crimeâ€Â and “no more taxes” will be tested beyond simply passing them on to the readers. I have no expectations for TV/cable news but the print press has an opportunity to do better.
Archives for September 2006
George Allen and William Loeb, Brothers-in-Arms
The George Allen flap in Virginia regarding his over-the-top response to an innocent press question about his Jewish roots was a priceless example of a closet anti-Semite running for cover. This son of a Washington Redskins’ football coach with no apparent accomplishments other than inheriting his father’s name and paranoia is part Jewish and wears cowboy boots but he is no Kinky Friedman. It is reminiscent of a story about William Loeb, long-time publisher of the Manchester (NH) Union Leader. Loeb was a fairly nasty piece of work who never found a right wing nut he didn’t love. When “accused†of being a Jew he went apoplectic and – twice – published his Episcopal baptism certificate on the front page of his newspaper. Of course a difference between that and Senator Allen’s pique over a similar “accusation†is that while Allen was similarly incensed, it was – alas – true. Allen has now embraced his heritage and our hearts are warmed.
Annals of Medicine: Transplant Advance
Respecting this blog’s commitment to inform and comment on the absurdities of the day, we refer you to William Saletan’s piece in today’s Slate on Giving Head: the First Human Penis Transplant. Quotes from his report: “At one time or another, every middle-aged guy wishes he had the virility of a man half his age. In this case, that wish came horribly true…. a 44-year-old Chinese man lost all but the last half-inch of his penis. To replace it, they offered him the 4-inch member of an anonymous 22-year-old brain-dead patient whose parents had agreed to donate the organ…. You have to feel bad for this guy…. ‘He could not urinate in a standing position,’ the doctors write. ‘His quality of life was affected severely.’… Let’s start with the tactless question: Is the inability to urinate while standing an unacceptable loss of quality of life? Is every woman entitled to a penis?.â€
While the case report tells of a beautifully successful surgical procedure, “…At day 14 postoperatively because of a severe psychological problem of the recipient and his wife, the transplanted penis regretfully had to be cut off.” In their follow-up report, the doctors remain baffled. ‘What happened after the operation was still beyond our and the patient’s imagination because this was the first attempted transplantation,’ they plead.
Forgive the expression, but that excuse won’t cut it.
Back to the Shack, Same Game
So, Senators McCain, Warner and Graham – in a totally predictable outcome – caved to the folk who apparently believe that torture is producing valuable intelligence – such as the confession we got the Syrians to beat out of an innocent Canadian. The press behaves as expected in these situations – they take the Republican “disagreement†at face value and run back-patting stories when everyone supposedly compromises and gives the administration and the CIA what they want and what they knew they would get in the end. The story here is in the details and the details tell us that Bush et alia will do whatever they want by interpreting the legislation in whatever way they wish.
Matt Taibbi on American Media
“What a joke American journalism is. Our entire Army is on its knees before a few thousand gun-toting religious fanatics in the Arabian desert, and here’s our government, taking food out of the mouths of foster kids and single moms to go binge-shopping with our tax money in the Sharper Image catalog of the industrial world. And what’s on TV? Fucking Suri Cruise? Are you kidding me?â€
Taibbi describes much that is wrong with the way we purchase advanced weapons systems, the way we eliminate social programs in favor of government handouts to the military-industrial complex (remember Eisenhower’s warning?) and the way the American press can be counted on to miss the story. Taibbi’s piece in Rolling Stone is a great read.
OnTorturing Innocent Canadians
From U.S. Attorney General Gonzales: “Mr. Arar was deported under our immigration laws. He was initially detained because his name appeared on terrorist lists; he was deported according to our laws.” This disgraceful non-excuse defines what this administration has been up to with its pressing the Congress for legislation opening the door for increased torture of maybe guilty and maybe innocent people. It really does not matter to them.
Canada’s Prime minister, Stephen Harper, has taken a lesson from G.W. Bush by blaming the event on his predecessor Paul Martin. Martin’s efforts to get Mr. Arar released were blocked by Harper’s party in Parliament.
The Tortured Mind of Bush et alia
This, from Tom Dickinson at Rolling Stone’s National Affairs Daily:
“…Let’s translate. Not on some remote mountainous battleground, not in the netherworld of a lawless Pakistani province, but right in the middle of a New York airport, a Canadian citizen was kidnapped by American agents. Instead of being subjected to a proper police investigation, instead of being tried in a court of law for supposed illicit association, he was instead packed off to our good friends in the Jordanian monarchy. And from there, delivered directly to the same torturers in Damascus that we denounce on a daily basis….”
Pope Benedict, Islam, and the Press
Pope Benedict’s speech on relations among religions has created an (unfortunately literal) firestorm. There has been much toing and froing in the press about what he said, what he meant, was it a bad thing to say, etc. The response from Muslims has been immediate and predictable, burning churches, (apparently) shooting a nun, threatening violence, etc. Thankfully, Anne Applebaum posted a piece on Slate yesterday (Sept 18) that reminds us of our commitment to the defense of freedom of speech. She reminds us that
â€â€¦ nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism, and hatred that pours out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day of the week all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it’s time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to “hate” Christians, Jews, and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn’t the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain’s chief rabbi, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them—simultaneously. Equally, I see no reason why Swedish social democrats, British conservatives, and Dutch liberals couldn’t occasionally forget their admittedly deep differences and agree unanimously that the practices of female circumcision and forced child marriage are totally unacceptable, whether in Somalia or Stockholm. Surely on this issue they all agree….â€
The response of Christopher Hitchens (also posted on Slate on the 18th) to the event is puzzling. Hitchens was an active defender of the right of a Danish newspaper to publish cartoons seen as offensive by Muslims, and rightfully so. In this instance he has taken the opportunity to beat up on Cardinal Ratzinger and the Catholic Church without defending their right to the same freedom of speech.
Karen Hughes and Public Diplomacy
Back from two weeks in Europe I was amazed to see our under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy doing a rant on Hardball with Chris Matthews. There is something totally weird about someone in charge of public diplomacy shrieking about the need to support the concept of torturing people. But that is what Karen Hughes did – on the day that Canada released a report describing our having sent an innocent man to Syria to be tortured for information that he obviously did not have. Her style was similar to that of Nancy Grace, the nutty lawyer who convicts people on TV: shrill, arrogant and naïve. For this kind of nonsense to come from our head of public diplomacy is more sad than ironic.