A Little Loaded Language

So this article from msnbc.com about last night's Democratic debate uses the phrase "a gang assault" to describe the rest of the field's verbal attacks against Hillary Clinton. Is it just me, or is that kind of a loaded phrase to use in regards to the female front-runner vis-a-vis her male opponents? I don't think it's me.

Of course, I don't want to impute any particular intent to the writer because I find that even writers in the, ahem, esteemed field of professional journalism ain't always too bright. So, it might have just been a somewhat poorly chosen metaphor. If there was some slightly sneaky intent however, what might it have been? To garner some sympathy for the Senator by painting her male interlocutors as a gang of vicious thugs? There's no knowing for sure, but personally, I find such a phrase a bit overwrought and tendentious, whether or not it was intended to be.

In any case, it strikes me that these sort of linguistic explosives might be something to keep one's eye out for as the race progresses, particularly if Clinton advances, and it becomes a mano-a-...uh, womano kinda contest.

Weekly Weigh-in - What it is

Yesterday, I received some correspondence from a reader, and while I probably won't generally bother answering such things directly - preferring to let these posts speak for themselves - I haven't got anything I want to write about in particular today, and besides it might be useful to answer a question now so as to preempt the need to do more answering in the future.

So...this reader asks, "Do you think it's really good (journalistically speaking) to throw down an ad hominum [sic] such as 'that hypocrite Huckabee' without just a tiny bit of supporting evidence[?]"

Ah, where to begin? Well, first of all, I'm not a journalist in the typical sense. This is a blog, which means that I don't have to pretend, like MSM journalists do (because they are afraid of losing their precious "access"), to accept the phony pretexts of statements made by politicians and gov't officials. On the contrary, I can say what I damn well please without fear of any significant consequences because I am not obliged to be obsequious with the figures I write about. And so, somewhat absurdly, you will find far more truth in this blog - just as you will find more in comedy news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report - than you will ever get from mainstream journalists.

Secondly, I actually do spend a decent amount of time researching the things I write about (and providing relevant links), and I don't feel like I should have to footnote or elaborate on everything little thing I say. If you feel like I've made an unsubstantiated claim, why not just substantiate it yourself? You've obviously got the Internet at your disposal, which means you have a hugely powerful tool for finding evidence yourself (assuming you can distinguish between facts and opinions, lies and truths, etc., etc.). Rest assured, anyways, that I have a good reasons for just about everything I say.

But, just to be extra helpful this one time...consider this clip from The Colbert Report (if the link doesn't work, search for "medium matters" on the Comedy Central video site). Obviously, no politician on either "side" should be obligated to defend or condemn the idiotic statements of private groups or individuals. But of course, huge numbers of Republicans, Huckabee included, blasted Democrats for not condemning Moveon.org's ill-considered ad but then cited free speech in defense of Limbaugh, just as lots of Democrats - also hypocrites - did the exact same thing, except with the nouns in a different order. So anyways, yeah, Huckabee is indeed a "Huck-ba-crite," just as Colbert was saying (though you're gonna have to be able to understand satire to not take him literally). Huckabee's typical-politician pandering to right-wing voters led him to make contradictory statements about situations that were essentially the same (except insofar as they were viewed by said right-wingers). Ergo, he is a hypocrite.

Which brings me to my final point. When are politicians not hypocrites? Name me one politician who isn't a two-faced opportunist, and I will happily dispel your delusion. Even when one comes along who somehow gets a reputation as a truth-teller, ala McCain with his "straight talk" in 2000, rest assured that it is only a matter of time before he shows his true (chameleon) colors, ala McCain kissing the thank-God-he's-dead Jerry Falwell's fat ass after having once called him and other evangelicals "agents of intolerance." In short, calling any politician a hypocrite is hardly something I should have to back up . On the contrary, you'd have far more cause to call for evidence if I had said "Huckabee isn't a hypocrite." I mean, c'mon, "politician" and "hypocrite" are practically synonyms, and anyone who has ever paid even a little attention to politics should know it.

But, if you genuinely need to have your eyes opened to the lies and chicanery of politicians, then just keep reading this blog. If you have the eyes to see, you will see...After all, that's kinda one of the main themes here...y'know, "bloated body politic" and all that? The deep-rooted ugliness and human folly of it all is pretty much right there in front of us on a daily basis. One simply has to choose between reality and fantasy. Granted, I know that for most people the latter is preferable - there is some comfort in it - but this blog is more about the former, and ultimately I do think that facing it will do us more good than denial.

The Priest in Giuliani's Closet

Okay, so only a few days ago, I speculated about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, predicting that hizonner Rudolph Giuliani would probably take the thing only to lose in the general. But, not being a complete fool I threw in the old caveat that anything can happen with so much time left to go. A story I learned about this very day demonstrates the wisdom of that cliche.

Turns out that Giuliani is bosom buddies with a defrocked priest accused of multiple counts of child molestation. And when I say bosom buddies, it's not an exaggeration. The guy, one Monsignor Alan Placa, was apparently the best man at Giuliani's first wedding, and then officiated at his second one. They were in high school and a college frat together, and when Placa was forced to give up his priestly duties, Giuliani promptly gave him a job with his consulting firm.

But let's get a bit more specific. The ABC report says that the Suffolk County grand jury that looked into the allegations against Placa (along with slew of others against other priests in his diocese) believed the accusers, and that Placa only escaped a criminal trial because the statute of limitations had run out. Perhaps even more disturbingly, for both Catholics and Giuliani supporters, it turns out that Placa was for years one of the church's main officials charged with dealing with allegations of abuse against priests, which he did, according to the grand jury, by means of "deception and intimidation." And so, even if one were to doubt the abuse allegations against Placa (and I personally see little reason to do so), it seems clear that he was, at the very least, a protector of clerical abusers, cut from the same mold as Bernard Law and Roger Mahoney. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just about as despicable.

What is most bizarre about this story, however, is that Giuliani has apparently known about these allegations for some time now and yet has done nothing to distance himself from Placa. Indeed, he defended the man in a campaign appearance just last week.

Well, Giuliani apparently has a reputation for being deeply loyal to his cronies (remind you of anyone?), but I'd say he runs the risk of destroying the whole enterprise if he doesn't throw Placa under the campaign bus (ala Romney with Larry Craig) as quickly as he can. Only a couple weeks ago I explained how it was already apparent that Giuliani surrounds himself with some real dirtbags, but I was only talking about belligerent, racist neocons then -- most Republican voters wouldn't have a problem with that. But a pedophile priest?! Good luck with that one, Rudy. Or wait, not good luck. Only a f****** idiot and complete a****** would defend and pay a guy when there are credible allegations of child abuse against him. So you stick with him, Mr. Mayor, and watch your f****** campaign implode...

Only problem with that would be that it would kinda mess up my predictions. Maybe the Huckster's odds aren't looking so bad, after all.

But, then, I doubt Giuliani is that much of an idiot. I imagine this Placa guy will be persona non grata tout suite if the mayor's advisers have even half a brain among them. Even still, this will be another black mark (and rightly so, in this case) against Giuilani in the minds of far right primary voters. He probably shouldn't get too comfortable, then, with his front-runner status.

Monday Special - Echo, Echo, Echo

So, I was reading the news earlier today, when I came across this interesting piece by Jonathan Alter. While the main thesis of it was certainly a bit different than my last post on Sunday, it was suspiciously similar on a lot of details, even to the point of also using the phrase "past his sell-by date" in reference to John McCain and "albatross" in reference to the numerous problems facing Republican candidates. Hmmmm, could it be that Mr. Alter is reading my blog just a little too closely : ^)...

Okay, I'll grant that it's far more likely that I read too much of his scribbling (and that of other "real" journalists) than the other way around, particularly since I've only mentioned this blog to a handful of discerning cognoscenti (no pearls before swine, you know), but I certainly didn't read the article in question until after writing my own thoughts. So, it is kinda funny how people working entirely independently can reach similar conclusions. Of course, as I mentioned in the post, a lot of these theories have been bounced around a bit already, but still...it's interesting how Alter and I seem to put them all together in largely the same way. Naturally, one might argue that we are both dupes of some sort of "liberal press" echo chamber, but I'd have to aver that both our analyses, whatever their flaws, certainly have a little more thought to them than the DOA verbiage of so many AM radio and talking head gasbags.

Of course, Alter and I certainly differed on his central point (even to the extent that I relegated the subject in question to something of an afterthought). Or rather, he seems to agree with me that Huckabee will probably not get the nomination because of the perception that he is too right-wing to win in the general election, but disagrees with me insofar as I believe that perception to be correct. To be fair, Alter does make some good points: Huckabee does have some traits that would mollify the fact that he is apparently another evangelical looney (the American public has long since indicated that it can stomach a cheery biblethumper far better than the fire-and-brimstone type), and he seems less tied to Iraq than any of the other leading candidates. But, I still doubt that those things would be enough to make enough voters ignore his far-right, crazy, revival-tent religiosity. True, the overwhelming majority of voters do want a candidate who talks the God talk at least a little bit, but frankly, I think a majority of that majority are sick of the politicos who wear their religion on their sleeves. That's another one the Republican field can thank Bush for to a large extent.

In any case, this'll all be moot if, indeed, most Republican primary voters can't be convinced of the Huck-ba-crite's general election viability. Granted, he does seem to be perhaps the only candidate outside of the McRomniani triumvirate with even an outside shot at the nom (oh, did I forget Thompson? How silly of me), but I think the process is too front-loaded for Huckabee to genuinely have a shot...Hmm, that sounds familiar - wonder if I heard it somewhere before? ;^P

Weekly Weigh-in - Presidential Prognostications

Yes, not seeing any particular story I felt like commenting on this week, I decided it was time to get out the ol' trusty crystal ball and make some presidential predictions. I.e., this post will be a chance for me to later say, "I told you so," should things go the way I predict, but of course I will lard it with enough caveats and qualifications that no one can say I was wrong, if in fact, I turn out to be wrong.

So, let's get started, eh? First of all, I feel pretty confident now in asserting that former Senator and TV "star" (one has to use that term pretty loosely, after all, to apply it in this case) Fred Thompson's campaign seems more or less dead on arrival. Consider this news about a straw poll of so-called "values voters." Seems to me if Thompson's main idea was to position himself as a viable, conservative alternative to the Mormon and the pro-choice Rudy "9/11" Giuliani, he might as well throw in the towel if he's gonna get whomped by that hypocrite Huckabee. Looks to me like Republicans have by and large accepted the idea that Thompson is a lazy bugger too slothful to pull any wagon he's hitched to.

In effect that seems to leave Romney and Giuliani to duke it out for the Republican nomination. (Huckabee, in spite of his appeal to the far right, is, precisely because of that appeal, pretty much unelectable in the general election, and won't get the nod because of that...And as for McCain, well I thought the obits for him were already written. Why's he still running? He has too much suspiciously non-conservative baggage to separate him from the Mormon and the mayor for the far right, and he's passed his sell-by date relative to those two for all the other primary voters.) So again, it'll probably be Romney versus Giuliani, a prospect that ought to make Democrats fairly cheerful.

Here's why: Mormonism is just gonna be too freaky-deaky for a lot of Republican voters, especially as things go into the stretch run and they learn more about it. Of course, this is not to say that more typical Republican candidates religion-wise don't believe some pretty whacked out s*#t (see Huckabee's notion that our heaven is duck hell, to paraphrase Jon Stewart), but at least that's whacked out s*#t those voters are used to. It's their whacked out s*#t, after all. Mormonism, not so much. Couple this with the fact that Romney himself was pretty much pro-choice and pro-gay rights not so very long ago, and I don't think primary voters are likely to see his telegenic chin as enough of an asset.

Which leaves Giuliani. As noted here last week, "America's Mayor" kind of seems like an asshole, and hangs out with people who definitely are (assholes, that is), but that sort of personality has never really dissuaded Republican voters (look at Bush, look at Nixon), and I think that Giuliani's, ahem, accomplishments ("9/11, 9/11/ 9/11") will be enough to get him the nomination. Ah, but then there is that problem of him being a thrice-married, pro-choice, gay-loving, transvestite. This will not sit well with a lot of those "values voters" and many have already stated their distress at the prospect. Indeed, they have even talked of fielding a third-party candidate of some sort - someone who, presumably, would do for Giuliani what Nader did for Gore and what Perot did for the older Bush idiot - should "9/11" win the Republican nomination. And heck, what with, y'know, Bush and Iraq and all the other problems of the Republican party, that should probably be enough to make the next president a Democrat, whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be.

And who will it be? Well, all signs point to Hillary (uh, Clinton) at this point. I, for one, am far from thrilled at this. Naturally, I know enough by now not to be thrilled by any politician, but I do find some candidates less nauseating than others. I suppose I would prefer Obama to Clinton, if only because I think he is somewhat less cynical than she is and because I think having him as president would do more to symbolize some of the things that genuinely are good about America vis-a-vis, say, Russia or Iran. Oh, and he strikes me as utterly competent, or competent as they come, for the job, which would be a nice change of pace from the last seven years. (Of course, on that score, the best thing about the race may be that any of the serious candidates in either party would almost certainly be a significant improvement over Bush.) But, again, Hillary does seem to have that air of inevitability about her. Obama will have to do something quick - or she will have to screw up badly, which seems unlikely, robot that she is - if he wants to render erroneous the writing on the wall. As it is, I think she'll be the nominee.

But speaking of caveats, yeah, I think a lot people find Clinton off-putting and unpleasant in various ways, and as noted above, I kinda understand that. But, she really does seem to be doing pretty well with the whole campaigning thing, and, let's face it, most voters are fickle mushheads with short memories and even shorter attention spans. If any campaign going can perform the slight-of-hand and misdirection necessary to make a seemingly cold and unpleasant person seem sufficiently humanoid for the general populace, it looks like it's Clinton's. Accordingly, given all the aforementioned albatrosses for any of the potential Republican nominees, I don't think Clinton's personality will be enough of a liabilty to keep her from becoming the first female president. Which would make for a pretty remarkable political comeback from the yesteryears of Hillary-care.

So there you have it: I'm going out on a limb here (okay, not really) and predicting a Hillary-"9/11" grudge match which the former first lady will win again, quite possibly with the aid of a third-party, wingnut candidate running almost entirely on a platform of great affection for embryos and intense hatred of homosexuals. And sure, that ultimate outcome (another Clinton presidency) is probably the conventional wisdom prediction at this point, but I invite you to scrutinize some of the above details, which are less CW, about why I think it will end up that way, and see just how closely they match the eventual reality.

Oh, and the election's still a year away, a lot can change, etc., etc., so if I turn out to be wrong, well, I think I've also just covered that, too :^P.

Weekly Weigh-in - Noble Monks, Bloodless Gore, Genocidal Neocons

So, Al Gore gets a vindication of sorts by winning the Nobel prize. The best thing about it, in my opinion, is that I'm sure it's got El Presidente feeling peevish in that spoiled-rich-kid way he so frequently displays. His old nemesis gets the Peace Prize and an Oscar while he looks destined to go down as one of the worst presidents in history. You'd almost think he'd want to take his ball and go home. (We should be so lucky.)

But let's put the schadenfreude aside for a moment. As for whether Gore actually deserves the prize...Well, that's another matter, and it kinda depends on how you look at it. Given that the prize is hugely politicized and has been given to such monstrous individuals as Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger (who, in light of the atrocities he helped commit in Timor, Cambodia, Chile, etc., etc., ad nauseam, is almost certainly America's worst living war criminal), the prize committee certainly could've picked a worse recipient. But I have to agree with those who find the link between Gore's global warming campaign and peace somewhat tenuous. I mean, sure, a warming planet might lead to drought, famine, competition for resources, and yes, war, but aren't there plenty of people out there whose actions are far more directly related to peace vis-a-vis war?

Consider those Burmese monks, for example. Here are people who just in the last weeks acted in the greatest traditions of non-violent protest, knowing full well that their courage might end in torture and death. Some of them were murdered in the streets, some are even now being beaten and interrogated in some hell-on-earth prison. Aren't they a little more deserving of the prize than some pudgy ex-vice president who jets around the world giving a bloodless, albeit worthwhile, PowerPoint presentation? The question answers itself. Of course, I'm sure the prize committee can hide behind the technicality that the monks' bravery came too late to be considered for this year's award, but frankly, when they've given the thing to rotten-to-the-core dirtbags like Kissinger, I think that bending the rules a bit would be far from the worst thing in the prize's long, not-always-so-illustrious history.

None of which is to suggest that a collective prize would do much for the dissidents currently suffering in Burma's gulags, but to the extent that the prize can do anything at all, it should be injected into conflicts like their struggle for freedom. Every bit of pressure on the junta would help, and indeed, if China and Russia and America and Europe and all the other nations of the earth were truly willing to force the generals out of power, I think they could do it. But, of course, Beijing, for example, can't exactly get on the generals' cases too much when they treat their own opposition exactly same...So, what're ya gonna do? Let's just use the prize to poke a finger in Bush's eye and have a grand old time at the Olympics next year...

Ah, well, bleak as some things seem, there's no reason to throw in the towel completely. Let's just work on those things we can control to some extent for now...like making sure that more genocidal leaders don't take power. To wit, have you been looking for a reason not to vote for Rudy "9/11" Giuliani? I mean, besides the apparently prick-ish personality that makes him more reminiscent of Bush, on that score at least, than anyone else in the race? Well look no further. A Newsweek article this week reports on how Giuliani is surrounding himself with neocons. That's bad enough after what these clowns got us into in Iraq, but it gets worse when you realize that one of these guys, at least, would be more suitable as an adviser to a Mussolini than an American president. I'm talking about Daniel Pipes, who, according to the article, has argued, for example, "that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was not the moral offense it's been portrayed as." Right, what could be wrong with forcing thousands of completely innocent people out of their homes solely because of their race? But it gets worse: we learn that Pipes has even "advocated 'razing [Palestinian] villages from which attacks are launched'" against Israel. Sure, why not? History has shown that the best way to solve racial and sectarian strife is by killing everyone on the other side and burning their houses to the ground. Oh, and then we could salt the earth. Yup, that's a great policy and has been heartily endorsed by such world leaders as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan.

Seriously, though, this is a guy the article describes as one of Giuliani's "core consultants." I.e., a racist crackpot who advocates war crimes has the ear of someone who may very well win the Republican nomination. That is seriously f'd up. Oh sure, I don't think a President Giuliani would actually listen (much) to such a lunatic, but the company you keep says a whole lot about you, and I say this alone should disqualify the pugnacious little a-hole from anyone's consideration. That said, I guess any country has a decent sized a-hole approving demographic (after all, they elected Bush), so I don't think we can count the guy out just yet, unfortunately.

Weekly Weigh-in - Saying Goodbye Is Hard to Do

Well, there were certainly lots of goings-on this past week -- the military (for once not circling the wagons) finding that Blackwater was "at fault" in that recent massacre of Iraqi civilians, the clown President protecting poor children from, uh, healthcare -- but it would seem wrong somehow if I didn't comment on the (surprisingly) continuing saga of our old friend Senator Craig.

Having done something gay, then proclaimed himself "not gay," having promised to resign from the Senate in September, then deciding not to resign pending the outcome of an attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, while suggesting that he would still resign if that attempt was unsuccessful, the decisive senator has currently decided to serve out his term, after all, in spite of a judge's decree that the plea will stand. That's another 15 months, then, of bathroom jokes and related hilarity. Better yet, as noted in this here blog back in August, it remains just another of the many electoral albatrosses -- the war, the president, healthcare, the president, corruption, the president -- hanging around the collective neck of the Republican party.

I mean, can you imagine what it'll be like if this nutty fruitcake actually sticks around until next November? The Democrats would have a field day invoking his name at every turn (sorta like Giuliani with 9/11) and will inevitably have great success in depressing turnout of the so-called "family values" voters just as the Foley scandal did in '06. Indeed, while the newsworthiness of the whole sordid affair is somewhat arguable versus war, disease, famine, and that fourth horseman, it could be much much more meaningful if the guy actually sticks it out. I mean, other than Bush himself, he would probably be the single biggest ally the Dems could have in their quest for an electoral KO. In fact, if it weren't for my continuing doubts about Hillary Clinton's electability -- though she does seem to look stronger and stronger as the months go by -- I'd say Craig's continued presence would all but ensure at least two years of complete Democratic domination. (As it is, even if he does go, the smart money is still on the Dems increasing their margins in House and Senate).

Of course, Craig's Republican buddies still have some time to twist his arm some more, and I expect some of them are already at it. That said, it's amazing how laissez-faire, or rather encouraging, some, like Arlen Specter and fellow Idahoan Mike Crap-o, are about the whole thing. It's downright bizarre behavior for politicians. I mean, encouraging Craig to stay is tantamount to endorsing political suicide for the party as a whole. It's almost as if these two guys, at least, have simply resigned themselves to an '08 slaughter and so don't care to even bother with pushing for what's clearly the right call politically. All the same, perhaps the less nihilistic GOPers will have their way with Craig eventually (um, by which I mean they'll get him to resign :).

In other news...well, like I said, there was lots to talk about this past week, but all this Schadenfreude has left me drained. I think we can wait til next week for more exciting adventures of the Bloated Mr. P.