Politics and Press

The interaction of the press and politics; public diplomacy, and daily absurdities.

Roger Clemens’ Theater of the Absurd

By

If anyone needs performance enhancing drugs, it is the Republican members of the U.S. Congress. In an exhibition befitting Little Leaguers, the House Oversight & Govt. Reform Committee managed to turn a hearing on illegal use of steroids by baseball players into theater of the absurd.

Steroid use is a serious issue at least partly because of its effects on those young athletes – high school age and younger – trying to gain an edge by using drugs that ultimately can seriously damage their health. By focusing on one player’s presumed guilt the Committee managed to create an opportunity for Republicans to rush to the protection of Clemens, a Bush family friend, and turn a potentially serious discussion into one more GOP generated partisan flackshow.

As for the Hearings – Mike Wise in the Washington Post cut quickly to the chase:

“As the contradictions kept coming yesterday in the Rayburn House Office Building, Clemens came across as a megalomaniac, a habitual liar and a barrel-chested fraud. The people who believe him now seem to be either paid by Clemens, married to him or in worse denial than the Rocket himself.

He came to Capitol Hill not to swear, under oath, his innocence of being a drug cheat; Clemens came here to show America that the arrogance of the elite athlete has moved beyond our ball fields, universities and clubhouses straight into a witness chair at a congressional hearing.”

Those Republican Committee members that attempted to portray Clemens as a hero rather than an egotistical liar were on something but it was decidedly not performance enhancing. They accepted Clemens’ nonsensical testimony without blinking an eye and proved once again that most of a generation of Republican politicians have become T.S. Eliot’s Hollow Men.

“We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar”

Whose war is this, anyway?

By

Who knows? Maybe Senator McCain will overcome all odds and become the next president of the United States, in which case the war in Iraq, which has become a forlorn US war as the few original allies head for the hills, may not be over. But the war in Afghanistan, supposedly a NATO war with some help from Australian special forces, is anything but over. But for most of the NATO countries, it has never started.

In a scenario that nobody could have imagined even five years ago, Canadian Minister of Defence Peter MacKay knocked on the doors of all of his colleagues at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Lithuania this week, and asked a simple question. “Are you willing to order your soldiers to actually fight in Afghanistan, or do you plan to keep them in safe havens under orders to not engage in combat while Canadian, British, and US troops do all the dangerous work, with some limited help from the Netherlands and Denmark?” For the Canadian government has announced that it has had enough of this charade of a NATO army and will pull its 3000 troops out of dangerous Kandahar, where 78 Canadian soldiers have been killed, if other NATO countries don’t contribute at least 1000 actual fighting soldiers by next year. The US Secretary of Defence inadvertently added his salt to this wound by stating that while US soldiers knew how to fight Taliban forces, other NATO soldiers didn’t. Later he admitted he hadn’t meant to include Canada, the UK and the Netherlands in this condemnation, but by then it was too late.

MacKay met with lots of encouragement but little success, though the US promised marines on a temporary basis, and France seemed to vaguely suggest it might send 700 fighters. The real disgrace is that supposed leading powers in NATO like Germany, Italy and Spain have ordered their armies to not engage in combat, while their Canadian, US and British colleagues, all supposedly part of the same army, are suffering heavy casualties. Can such a supposed political union really survive such a breech of loyalty?

Willard Mitt Romney: Sewer Rat

By

“Because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to stand aside for our party and our country… If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror” Willard Romney, 2/7/08

Mitt Romney has spent $40 million to provide an opportunity for the vast majority of Americans – including the majority of republicans – to learn to despise him. He could have saved his money – all he really had to do was crawl out of the sewer and open his mouth in public. His ever-shifting stands on issues indicated his lack of character and judgment but the pious, self-serving slanders quoted above seal the verdict.

The people of Massachusetts learned their lesson the hard way but Romney is indeed doing the right thing to stand down “for the good of our country”.  Not even Schadenfreude over his failed campaign can compensate for having to listen to his self-indulgent, mealy-mouthed, pious bullshit.

A Mormon friend had the following to say to me months ago and he nailed it.

“I really detest this Romney guy. There is something sickening about him besides arrogance and his shameful bragging about success. …The bastard has lived off others his whole life….he is a hollow version of himself. It is hard for me to believe that anyone who makes an honest living won’t be revolted by the bastard….He has a long history of parasitic success. He has no track record of running anything or risking like a true capitalist. He has always had the inside track behind closed doors. Warren Buffett nailed him in a NYT piece that discusses how he made millions on commissions. Buffett hates fees and commissions because they drain share holder profits and don’t add to the economy. And by the way in that NYT article they hit him on how many people lost their livelihood when he bought and sold companies, several ended up in bankruptcy and he still made a ton of money while others lost their jobs, pensions and benefits. Romney actually said, “I wish I had paid more attention to how these deals affected employees”.
He is living off blood money.

All he did in his campaign was show us how insecure he is.”

PBS GOES ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

By

It is easy to despair over Fox News and less easy but still readily possible to despair over CBS, NBC and ABC news. But there has always been this sense that PBS would raise the bar – would be serious and discuss real issues. Sorry – that is no longer the case. Witness the Lehrer Report.

Tonight Judy Woodruff covered – for an endless and painful twenty minutes – the South Carolina Democratic primary. Having sat through that – whatever it was – I can say with some authority that issues in the South Carolina Democratic primary do not exist. I would have thought that there were issues around Iraq, the economy, education, and health care, but no. The issues are first of all, are more people going out to hear Bill Clinton prostitute himself in support of loyal wife and next-in-line in the dynasty, or going to Southern Baptist churches to sing and clap for the candidates.

And how does the Lehrer Report analyze this primary? Why the cheapest and safest way possible – the tried and true man/woman in the street approach. “Why, Ahh believe that Bill Clinton is the first black president” or “Obama will bring us all together”. Good lord – what is this all about? Why would any sane person contribute to PBS to give us this mindless puff (as compared to the good work of Bill Moyers)? Woodruff interviewed what seemed like a thousand citizens of S. Carolina, almost none of them interested in discussing a serious issue. And we end up with a kind of horse race with Woodruff as the track tout babbling about something neither she nor we know anything more about tonight then we did before PBS went into boredom mode.

IRAQ: THE MYTH OF THE SURGE

By

‘Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it’s gonna happen?” Mrs. Bush declared. ”It’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?” – Barbara Bush, commenting to Dianne Sawyer in March 2003

Conservatives, neo-cons, and ordinary journalists have recently flocked to flack the success of the “Surge” in Iraq.  Columnists like the NY Times’ new neo-con voice of balance, William Kristol and the Boston Globe’s neo-con voice, Jeff Jacoby, are among those declaring the U.S. winners in Iraq in a print replay of Bush’s  2003 “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier speech. And recently more serious analysts who applaud the surge and ignore history have joined their voices.

The success of the surge is a 4th quarter field goal in a game being lost by 30 points. Makes you feel good to get on the scoreboard, gives the kicker a moment of pride and the cheerleaders a chance to strut their stuff. But the game is lost and most of the crowd has left the stadium.

The war began in 2003 on a lie –no weapons of mass destruction – certainly no nuclear threat. When no WMD were found, the rationale shifted to “spreading democracy” in the region. When it became apparent that that was bogus it shifted to going after Al Quada whose existence in Iraq was a direct result of the U.S. invasion.

The Times’ Kristol views the war as virtually won, writing in the Times that. “…Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq…”. Jacoby writes in the Globe ”THE NEWS from Iraq has been so encouraging in recent months that last week even the mainstream media finally sat up and took notice…” And in fact, the “mainstream media” (whatever the hell that is) in general views the surge as proof that the war is being won.

Well, hold on there. Looking at costs and benefits– something the administration and the press are loathe to do – reminds us of the long term and continuing damage done to legitimate and serious national interests. The sole benefit to the Iraq fiasco might be the removal of Saddam Hussein from the scene. While this is a potential benefit to the Iraqi people as a whole it is not clear that it benefits the United States other than the psyches of our President, his Vice President and the neo-con chicken hawks.

Saddam’s secular Iraq was not available to Al Quada and served as a buffer to Iran. Al Quada now operates in Iraq, Iran is joining forces with the Iraqi government and a once-secular country is taking on the face of a fundamentalist Islamic country. This is not good news for the U.S. It is simply not easy – if even possible – to find a single major benefit from the adventure.

Costs are a different story:

•    4000 (and growing) American lives;

•    Somewhere between 150,000 and 600,000 Iraqi lives (this latter figure is tough to pin down but assuming the lowest number – the equivalent toll in the U.S. would be 2 and quarter million civilians dead!);

•    An estimated 30,000 seriously wounded Americans (not including those troops coming home with serious mental injuries);

•    Hundreds of thousands of wounded Iraqis;

•    2 million Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries;

•    2 million additional refugees within Iraq;

•    The likelihood of a Civil War if and when American troops leave;

•    The sullying of America’s reputation throughout the world;

•    Iran’s increased influence in the region;

•    Over $2 trillion of U.S. taxpayers’ money spent and committed without increasing taxes to pay for it – leading to an economy in which the dollar is in the toilet, oil is approaching $100/barrel, the U.S. deficit is out of control and the U.S. economy is heading towards a recession (for a discussion of the economic effect of the war see this article from the Milken Institute Review);

•    An over-extended U.S. military with seriously reduced recruitment standards;

•    National embarrassment and shame.

The surge has succeeded in reducing current casualties to a point that apparently is acceptable to the American people and much of the press. Commentators like Kristol and Jacoby do serious damage to their country’s national interests when they promote the continuation of such a disaster.  We deserve better.

Martin Norén goes to Disneyland

By

Some time last August, Martin Norén left his house in Lund, southern Sweden, and got on Iceland Air flight 689 from Copenhagen to Orlando, Florida, where he was scheduled to take part in a conference for computer technicians. He missed this conference as he was ordered to stay in his seat as the other passengers disembarked upon landing in Florida. Mr. Norén, a thin quiet man with no particular political affiliations, had never been in any world hot spots nor had anything at all to do with areas of particular concern to the US border authorities, and therefore had no idea why he was asked to stay seated as the others left for their destinations. His Swedish passport and all travel documents were in order, but he alone was soon escorted from the plane and deposited into the hands of six armed guards who escorted him to an interrogation room.

There all of his documents were taken from him along with his belt and watch. He was bombarded for four hours with questions about his knowledge of Arabic (none), his affiliations with Al-Qaida (none), his religious beliefs (none), his reasons for his hatred of the US (none), and his reasons for wanting to go to Afghanistan (none). His repeated answer was that he was simply a computer technician from Lund and had no idea what they were asking about. Despite his complete inability to answer any of their questions, since none applied to him, he was then escorted to the Seminole State Prison in handcuffs and put into a filthy, cold cell. After six hours he was taken back to the plane and returned to Sweden.

Upon his return to Sweden he laid charges against unknown criminals and the Swedish police were able to trace his misadventures to a FBI website in which citizens are asked to denounce people they suspect to be Al Qaida terrorists or at least sympathizers. Mr. Norén’s father-in-law does not like him and therefore typed in Norén’s name on the website and the rest is history. So that’s how easy it is, as Mr. Norén put it, to think you are on your way to Disneyland and to end up in handcuffs in a cold dirty cell.

Campaign ‘08” Iowa and Schadenfreude

By

Well, tonight is the night the press has told us that we have been waiting for after many months of political polls, prognostications by the media Big Heads, and TV ads bouncing between stupid and nasty and humorous and stupid. Take your pick from Mitt Romney’s simple-minded gutter politics on pardons and immigration or Mike Huckabee’s ignorant babblings about his own personal Jesus Christ who apparently sends his message to all of Iowa’s evangelicals. One of these guys has to come in second, which provides a measure of Schadenfreude that can only be maintained if the winner then takes gas in New Hampshire.

On the Democratic side we can choose from the so-called “experience” of a former first lady who tells us that she actually met Benazir Bhutto, an African American of some charm who claims to give us “hope” and a lawyer who made huge amounts of money suing corporations who has morphed into the enemy of all special interests. Again, the polls shift and the prognosticators prognosticate. But the press has delivered damned little serious discussion of the real issues and all candidates get away with simple messages, shifting views to satisfy newly discovered constituencies, and mind-bending banalities, many of which are simply not true and some of which are bizarre beyond belief – unless you are an evangelical, literal interpreter of the Bible.

The entire Iowa Caucus process is corrupt and ultimately meaningless. The candidates buy votes in one way or another – they give snow shovels away, they pay for babysitters, they give away meals and transportation – all so that some miniscule percentage of Iowa voters will manage to support someone or other and allow someone or other to go into New Hampshire with the title of “Winner” of a ridiculous process. The press handles all of this in typical fashion – they interview men and women in the street, many of whom cannot seem to make up their mind about anything until the last bell. It seems they have no real connection to a set of political ideals. But there they are on the Lehrer Report babbling about nothing of substance as Judy Woodruff beams in support.

Then there are the questions of why candidates like Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, etc. never quite make it into the Iowa polls. And therein is the real scandal. The press anointed the front-runners months ago – largely based on how much money a candidate could raise. It was certainly never based on a review of policy, real experience, judgment and honesty. “Follow the money” is the message and the press has done an enormous disservice to the country with its lemming-like parade over the cliff of celebrity worship (Obama, Clinton, Giuliani) and money worship (Clinton, Romney, Obama).

The Lehrer Report just completed its pre-caucus coverage with comments from a group of academics and two journalist-political operatives (Mark Shields and David Brooks) and it is clear that PBS has gone the route of the rest of the media. It is the Banality Turnpike and it leads to the lemming’s cliff. Nine months to go and then we can consider whether the first thing is to kill all the lawyers or to kill all the journalists. Tough call.

Iowa and Iowans deserve better than this farce – so does America. There has to be a better way to choose leaders – else we end up with another G.W. Bush.

A tale of two journeys

By

If you live in Iceland and wish to travel to Estonia or Bulgaria, or Malta, you can now take a short plane ride and rent a car or take a train and in a couple of days you will arrive at your desired destination without having crossed a single controlled border. But if you get in your car in Vancouver and drive 45 minutes south to Point Roberts, Washington, you will reach a border control very reminiscent of the old European borders between the Soviet-bloc nations and western Europe, but with enough sophisticated and expensive electronic detection equipment to convince even the most sophisticated terrorist to try another route.
if you are lucky and hit this border at a time when there is not a hour-long lineup (or more) and then manage to pass muster at the guard station, by displaying a valid passport and a believable story about why you want to go to Point Roberts (usually to go to the post office as the US postal system is much cheaper and more reliable than the Canadian one), and then drive another 15 minutes in any direction, you will hit salt water since Point Roberts is US territory accessible by land only through Canada. Kids who live there have to be bussed out to US schools in the main part of the US by passing across this border, making the misery of school bus journeys four times as trying as it is for any other US kids, since they now must cross heavily guarded borders 4 times a day.
OK this is the most absurd of all the East German-like US border crossings, but it is not at all funny at places like the Peace Arch Crossing between Seattle and Vancouver, the highway between Winnipeg and Minneapolis, the tunnel between Detroit and Windsor or the bridge at Niagara Falls. In these places, and in many lesser ones all along what used to be an unguarded border, normal travel regularly comes to a complete standstill as cars wait for hours in lineups that, among other things, make any talk about an interest in cutting down pollution from idling cars ridiculous. Does anyone out there know of a single terrorist who has been captured at a Canada/US border crossing?

DEATH BY FIRE: POLITICS AND TAXES

By

A fire in Gloucester, Massachusetts last night destroyed an apartment building and a synagogue and killed a 70-year-old disabled man. The fire broke out across the street from the city’s fire station and the initial response was only one fireman at least partially because the department has been understaffed since the city’s voters refused to vote for a tax increase in 2004. Another Gloucester resident died in a fire a year ago when it took 11 minutes to respond because the nearest fire station had been closed for budgetary reasons.

This is not an isolated incident – throughout America voters have opted to reduce the quality of basic services in order to reduce their tax bills. At the same time the federal government has provided huge tax breaks to the wealthy thereby reducing funding for local and statewide services. As governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney consistently bragged about reducing the cost of services in the state by simply reducing their quality. This allows him to take credit for holding the line on taxes but also the blame for deteriorating services throughout the state.

We are a country of bridges that collapse, schools that don’t provide arts education, libraries with reduced hours, lousy train service, spotty public transportation services, deteriorating medical services, etc. According to the United Nations World population Prospects Report the U.S. ranks 32nd in infant mortality behind virtually all Western democracies as well as Cuba, S. Korea, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Japan and Singapore. The country ranks 38th in life expectancy behind such countries as Cuba, Chile, Costa Rica, Malta, Martinique and Japan.

For years politicians have promised lower taxes without mentioning the corresponding guarantee of reduced quality of life for the vast majority of Americans. And the American people have been willingly seduced by the promise of lower taxes while ignoring the ugly reality of what shortsighted policies have produced for coming generations. We are literally scared into spending trillions on a senseless war in Iraq yet cannot find the resources to fight fires, repair bridges, provide well rounded education to our young and improve health care for all at home. Shame on us.

What ever happened to the US election system?

By

It’s not so long ago that the US caucus system designed to choose nominees for the presidential candidates of the only two parties that count came up with figures like Eisenhower, Stevenson, Kennedy, Reagan, McGovern, Nixon. Now it is certainly true that not all of these chaps proved to be such worthy leaders, but all of them were at least experienced politicians or, in the case of Eisenhower, an important historical personality and father figure. You could despair of Reagan and Nixon’s California view of the world or McGovern’s innocence, but their campaigns were veritable Socratic dialogues compared to the reports reaching foreign ears of the level of discussion in the current round of presidential candidate debates.

Recently on what many thought were satirical comedies, European and Canadian television has been running selections from Youtube or CNN debates in which grown men striving to lead a very powerful nation struggled over who was the best Christian or indeed if one of them was a Christian at all. This takes place in a country that is supposed to separate church and state. The Scopes trial was revisited and nobody seemed willing to really defend the idea of evolution. Questions were thrown at the man who was once the leading candidate about whether he wore secret underwear, and the beast that raised questions about real Roman Catholic beliefs, who seemed to have left the stage forever with the Kennedy election, once again raised its weird head. Fortunately Joe Liebermann isn’t in the mix.

What is going on? It is impossible to imagine any of these debaters would be taken seriously as a contender for any important position in any other leading western country with arguments like these. Certainly it is true that at least a couple of these people might have something to offer on some important topics, like health care for the US society or the Middle East for the global one. But they don’t seem to be able to find a forum or get much of a chance to discuss anything of consequence when the only topic that wins you votes is whether your Christianity is better than the next guy’s. Isn’t anybody down there working on a way of changing the electoral system?