Categories
Election 2008 Humor

Osama Outraged at Magazine Cover

Courtesy of Tripartisan, the magazine cover that islamist extremists are outraged over.

Categories
Election 2008 Obama Politics The Media The Opinionsphere

The 188-Minute Workout

I appreciate that Matt Drudge is in the tank for Obama, but this is a bit ridiculous.

I find it hard to believe that ABC News published the story, let alone the fact that Drudge is linking to it as his biggest story.  It’s virtually inexplicable.

Unless Drudge has some angle on this that he has yet to reveal.

Otherwise, this is just silly.

Categories
Domestic issues Politics Videos

The Housing Price Roller Coaster

[digg-reddit-me]The Financial Times has a graph illustrating the dramatic rise in housing prices in recent years.

Given the warning signs of some impending financial collapse, the graph is truly frightening.

Luckily, to dramatize the matter further, some enterprising individual decided to use the stats behind this graph to make a simulated roller coaster…

Categories
Election 2008 Humor Obama Politics

Obama releases list of approved jokes.

Really.

Well, kinda.

Here’s one:

Q: What’s black and white and red all over?
Barack Obama: The New Yorker magazine, which should be embarrassed after publishing such a tasteless and offensive cover, which I reject and denounce.

Categories
Election 2008 Humor Obama Politics The Opinionsphere Videos

Jon Stewart Defends the New Yorker

[digg-reddit-me]Jon Stewart backs the New Yorker and their cover 100% – showing more guts and – that highly valued quality that I’ve been harping on lately – perspective than most journalists or other opinionators. But that apparently is what Jon Stewart is here for.

Jon Stewart issues what Obama’s response should have been:

Barack Obama is in no way upset by this cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist. Because you know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists, of which Barack Obama is not. It’s just a f****ng cartoon

Categories
Domestic issues Election 2008 Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Law Liberalism Libertarianism National Security Obama Pakistan Political Philosophy Politics The Opinionsphere The War on Terrorism

A Liberal Defends George W. Bush’s Legacy

Or, how George W. Bush has been just awful enough

[Photo by schani licensed under the Creative Commons and found here.]

[digg-reddit-me]Many liberals argue that George W. Bush’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster; most libertarians see George W. Bush as the worst thing to happen to America since our government interned hundreds of thousands of Americans purely based on race and expanded government involvement in the economy at the same time. Even many conservatives now see George Bush’s tenure as a series of betrayals. The past eight years have been a dark time – with the specter of terrorism hanging over our lives – with an economy that has only benefited the elites – with America’s standing and influence in the world dropping precipitously – and with a government flailing about in attempts to prevent the next attack, attempts that have primarily succeeded in undermining our inherent liberties.

There is clearly a broad consensus that the Bush presidency has been a failure. A recent poll of historians recently ranked George W. Bush’s presidency as the worst in history; late last year, The Atlantic ran a cover story asking what lessons we can learn from Bush’s failed presidency; the American people have given George W. Bush the lowest approval ratings for a president since polls have been taken; and recent news reports have shown that over three quarters of Americans believe our country is on the wrong track. The consensus clearly is that Bush’s presidency has failed. It’s true that a number of conservatives have tried to defend Bush – Ross Douthat for example pointed out that Bush’s disasters do not rival the catastrophes of Civil War or Great Depression yet. But even the group considered the architect of many of Bush’s policies – the neo-conservatives, have begun to argue – as have failed ideologues again and again throughout history – that it was not that their ideas that failed – rather their ideas were never truly tried. Bush must know he is in trouble when even the neoconservatives are attacking him as weak and ineffective – or to use the term they use, “liberal”.

Having a somewhat contrary nature, I’m not so sure this almost universal consensus is true.

While I do see Bush’s presidency as a disaster, I believe a kind of redemption can be found in this disaster because Bush’s presidency: (a) could have been much worse; and (b) has created a unique historical opportunity.

My postulate is that George W. Bush’s presidency has been just bad enough to avoid destroying the core institutions that form the backbone of our society while creating a virtuous backlash that will strengthen these institutions in the long term. Bush has abused his power just enough, and aggravated festering issues just enough, and presided over a decline that was so sudden that he has created near ideal conditions to move the country in a positive direction.

Throughout history, the price of radicalism has been steep and the chances of reversing deep-seated trends has been long. Conservatives who opposed the social welfare programs of the New Deal tried and failed for a generation to rollback the programs that Franklin Delano Rooselvelt instituted in the wake of a Republican-abetted disaster. Unsuccessful and marginalized, these conservatives finally settled on a strategy of indirection. They called this strategy “starve-the-beast.” Seeing that they could not win by attacking the institutions of the New Deal directly, they decided to deliberately increase government spending to irresponsible levels while cutting taxes – which would leave no choice for a hypothetical future administration but to raise taxes massively or to reduce the size of government. ((What else but this strategy could explain Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s massive deficit spending?)) These conservatives realized that the only way to achieve the ends they sought was to create a set of circumstances that proved their opponents wrong, to discredit, through their actions, the basis of liberalism and create a virtuous backlash against excessive governance. They had seen that effective change throughout history had only occurred when the reigning ideology was proved bankrupt by circumstances. These conservatives believed that if they could undermine the credibility of government enough, their ideology would be the only alternative.

Unfortunately for these conservatives, whatever George W. Bush’s intentions were, his administration has been the most effective proponent of liberalism in modern times – as it demonstrated the bankruptcy of contemporary conservatism, undermined the credibility of the Republican Party, and created precisely opposite virtuous backlash than which they intended.

Bush’s effectiveness in advancing the goals he stood against comes has taken several interrelated forms:

  • Theoretical extremism: Although Bush has asserted virtually unlimited power – to torture, to detain anyone without charges, to engage in military action and wiretap without congressional approval – he has been relatively modest in his use of what he asserts are near unlimited powers. This has allowed significant forces to grow in opposition to this power grab without the widespread societal chaos that would have arisen out of a president fully exerting the powers he has claimed. (If Bush used the powers he asserts are his on a greater scale in America, our society would clearly be a totalitarian one. Instead, we remain a fragile liberal democracy until either Bush’s assertions of power are repudiated or are fully asserted.)
  • Overuse of a single method: Karl Rove directed three national campaigns – using national security, patriotism, and September 11 as partisan tools to bludgeon the Democrats. In each successive election dominated by these themes though, they lost effectiveness until 2006 when finally, they ceased being the controlling factor as the people – fooled for some of the time – handed an historic loss to the Republican Party. (If Karl Rove hadn’t used these themes so promiscously and shamelessly, more people might have put stock in the current smear campaign and fear-mongering being used against Obama and the Democrats.)
  • Exacerbating existing conditions: Bush has accelerated a number of longstanding trends: towards domestic inequality and the stratification of Americans into a class-like system; towards the decline in America’s power in the world; towards the government’s fiscal insolvency; towards the expansion of executive power; and towards the increase in the price of oil. This acceleration has exacerbated these issues so as to make them more noticeable.
    A lobster will not realize it is being cooked if it placed in a pot of water at room temperature and gradually boiled to death. In the same way, many Americans did not realize the dangers and the extent of the changes to American society that have been ongoing since at least the 1970s. The Bush administration – in a number of areas – raised the temperature fast enough and carelessly enough that many people have begun to notice. (If the price of oil had increased more regularly, people would be less worried about how it would be affecting them – and less attention would be paid to the largest transfer of wealth in human history that is currently taking place. If Iraq hadn’t demonstrated the limits to American power, it might have taken much longer for policy-makers to realize that we no longer live in a unipolar world.)
  • Suddenness: The suddenness of America’s decline in relevancy has led to a widespread desire for America to re-assume some leadership role with the next president – a desire reflected most significantly in the worldwide and domestic support for Barack Obama.

Bush has – in almost every respect – pointed America in the direction it needs to go. He has demonstrated what not to do. It is hard to imagine the libertarian or the progressive movements achieving their widespread support and strength if not for Bush’s presidency.

This election cycle has already demonstrated the strength of two responses to the Bush administration’s legacy – the libertarian response as embodied in the unlikely success of Ron Paul and the progressive response as embodied in the progressive netroots which powered Obama’s campaign. As a card-carrying civil libertarian and a lifelong progressive, Barack Obama has an opportunity to synthesize these two competing movements – to create a rough political consensus of the next steps we need to take. (I’ve written before both about how the libertarian movement and liberalism seem to be converging and about how Obama represents some part of this.) However, Obama’s vote for the FISA Amendments Act was a poor start to the creation of this alliance – as he took a position in defiance of both of these movements.

In a very real sense George W. Bush’s legacy depends on how well the next president is able to capitalize on the opportunity given to him – in this campaign and in his potential presidency. The final judgment on Bush will not be knowable when he leaves office. Rather, some years later we will be able to make a definitive judgment – after we see how intractable the problems he leaves for his successor are and when we see what precedents the next president will reject and which he will build upon. Bush may be forgiven for his disrespect for the Constitution if the next president repudiates these precedents. (After all, Washington was forgiven for Hamilton’s army; Lincoln was forgiven for becoming a tyrant for several weeks; and FDR was forgiven for trying to pack the Supreme Court.)

But while I argue that Bush’s primary legacy is that of a uniter-not-a-divider whose presidency set America on a better path, this rosy evaluation of Bush’s legacy still leaves three areas uncovered – areas in which Bush created unique problems rather than exacerbating existing ones: Iraq, the War on Terror, and global climate change.

Complications

Iraq

It is hard to imagine another president invading Iraq under the circumstances that George W. Bush did. The many American and the far more Iraqi dead that resulted from this foolish gamble, this dumb war, will surely burden his soul and must undermine any positive legacy he leaves behind. Even assuming the best of intentions, the Iraq war has proved to be a strategic blunder that has empowered Iran, destabilized the region, inspired more extremism, degraded our military, and only achieved the removal of minor antagonist. Making this strategic error worse was the hubris and idiocy that dogged every step of the occupation. Although our alliance of convenience with the Sunni extremists who were fighting us just a few months ago has helped to stabilize Iraq and even given the recent show of independence by the Iraqi president in his call for us to set a firm date of withdrawl, Iraq still has a long way to go before we can get out of this quagmire. Until we get out, the Iraq war will continue to eat our resources, undermine our global position, and strengthen our enemies.

The War on Terror

Domestically, the Bush administration has done virtually nothing to harden potential targets of terrorism – allowing the use of the funds appropriated for this purpose to be pissed away on pork barrel spending. The main steps it has taken within America seem designed primarily to expand executive power rather than to achieve any particular goals related to terrorism – asserting the power to crush the testicles of a potential terrorist’s child, to detain individuals without charges for indefinite periods of time, to torture, and to ignore any laws that limit the president’s power. Abroad, the Bush administration squandered our best opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda when it began to shift resources to Iraq and away from those who attacked us. The nexus of world terrorism shifted as a result of the War on Terror from the center of Afghanistan to the lawless areas of the Afghani-Pakistani border – where Chechnyan islamists, the remants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, veterans of the Zaraqawi’s Iraqi campaign, and other terrorists from around the world are now working together and with greater freedom than at any time since the attacks on September 11. The successes we have had in the War on Terror seem largely to be the fruits of our failures – as the islamist ideology has proven to be an unattractive one once it begins to rule any territory.

Global Climate Change

It is hard to imagine another president ignoring the growing signs and consensus of global climate change so steadfastly. The eight years the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gases has wasted ignoring the problem – despite the near universal consensus of the scientific community – have made more drastic steps necessary to correct the problem before it is too late. What other president – with a legacy on climate change such as this – would have bragged at a recent G8 summit about being the “world’s biggest polluter“?

Conclusions

Lincoln Chafee, the Republican Senator from Rhode Island, observed upon first meeting Bush that Bush did not seem up to the job of being president. The past several years have proved this observation prescient. I cannot argue that Bush’s actions have been wise, although I do generally think that they have been well-intentioned. ((I know there are many who disagree.)) But while George W. Bush and his administration have committed petty crimes, war crimes, and constitutional violations, attacked liberties, advocated the preemptive surrender of American values, usurped independent branches of the government for partisan ends, and caused the injury and death of thousands of Americans citizens and citizens of the world – it is Bush who created this moment – this moment for renewal that has traditionally been what sets America apart.

While Ron Paul believed we needed a revoliution to begin to reverse the growing encroachment of government (even if that required the exploitation of poisonous racial resentments) – all we really needed was George W. Bush.

If America truly is a great nation – and in order to redeem the vision of the Constitution of the Founding Fathers, of that great address of Abraham Lincoln, of the square deal of Teddy Roosevelt and the four freedoms of his cousin, of the city on the hill that an old Hollywood actor once invoked – we must take advantage of this opportunity. The American moment is now – as all of us, feeling the fierce urgency of now, must work to restore the America that we grew up believing in – to restore the ideal and to form a more perfect union. Throughout the dark times in American history, Americans have believed and fought for this idea of America – to make this idea a reality and to protect this idea from the encroachments of tyranny and totalitarianism.

Change doesn’t come easy – but the greatest legacy of George W. Bush is that he has made it easier – and given us this opportunity to create a more perfect union. There will be obstacles and compomises in the days ahead – but (yes) we can achieve real change. Bush, more than anyone, deserves responsibility for that.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

A New Pro-Cindy McCain Obama Smear Email

via belandil.

The pro-Cindy McCain angle of this piece is new – as well as the weird way in which it includes a link to a flattering picture of Cindy McCain after almost every sentence.  As far as I know, the facts about Cindy McCain are generally true, even if it glosses over the elements of Cindy McCain’s dark side that George W. Bush exploited to beat McCain in South Carolina in 2000.  Also ignored is the fabulous wealth that Cindy McCain grew up with and has today – the wealth that leads you to find nothing exceptional with buying a private jet to save commuting time.

The quote at the end however about Obama “standing with the Muslims” is inaccurate and has been used in previous smear emails.  The quote was “inspired by” this passage from Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope, but adapted to make it sound ominous.

Obama’s Lead Has Faded, Poll Says – Hallelujah!!!

I’ve seen this one before but there is more info in this one…she’s a smart lady!

Bet you would have never guessed this one! No matter your politics. The media will never tell of this, so pass it on.

http://www.care.org/photos/about/board/CindyMcCain_full.jpg

Cindy McCain

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal on Cindy McCain, John’s wife. All I ever saw was this attractive woman standing beside John. I was surprised how talented and involved with world problems she is. This is a summary of the article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080416/tv-the-view-cindy-mccain/images/b579de49-8786-4cbe-ab4c-704368a7851d.jpg

She graduated from Southern Cal and was a special-needs teacher.
After her Dad died she became involved with his beer distributing firm and Is now the chairwoman. Sales have doubled since she has taken over from her father.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/pics/1213cindy1212-autosized258.jpg

They have a marriage prenuptial agreement, her assets remain separate.
She is involved around the world clearing land mines – travels to these countries on a detonation team and serves on their board.

http://images.politico.com/global/071129_mccain_shen.jpg

They have a 19 year old serving in Iraq , another son in the Naval Academy , a daughter recently graduated from Columbia Univ. , an adopted daughter in high school, and a son who is the finance guy at the beer firm.

http://babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/mccains.jpeg

Raised kids in Phoenix , AZ rather than Washington DC . (better atmosphere) He commuted.

http://bigheaddc.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/mccain-sisters.jpg

In 1991, Mrs. McCain came across a girl in an orphanage in Bangladesh .

Mother Teresa implored Mrs. McCain to take the baby with severe cleft palate. She did so without first telling her husband. The couple adopted the girl who has had a dozen operations to repair her cleft palate and other medical problems.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Nightline/ht_ecardfamily_071029_ssh.jpg

They have a Family Foundation for children’s causes.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/nm_cindy_mccain_080416_mn.jpg
She’s active with ‘Halo Trust’ – to clear land mines, provide water and food in war ravaged and developing countries.

http://wonkette.com/assets/resources/2008/04/AP080326011717.jpg

She will join an overseas mission of ‘Operation Smile’, a charity for corrective surgery on children’s faces .

She has had two back surgeries and became addicted to pain killers. She talks openly about it which she says is part of the recovery process.

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/cmp-2.jpg

I’m surprised the media is so quiet about her attributes. She sounds more capable than Hillary or Obama. We would really get two for the price of one. A person with business and international experience. John did work for the firm for awhile when he left the Navy. She, however, has the real business experience. Very interesting.

http://www.johnmccain.com/images/about/pict_mccains1.jpg

John McCain’s Sons

Talk about putting your most valuable where your mouth is! Apparently this was not “newsworthy”enough for the media to comment about. Can either of the other presidential candidates truthfully come close to this? Just a question for each of us to seek an answer, and not a statement.

You see character is what’s shown when the public is not looking. There were no cameras or press invited to what you are about to read about, and the story comes from one person in New Hampshire .

One evening last July, Senator John McCain of Arizona arrived at the New Hampshire home of Erin Flanagan for sandwiches, chocolate-chip cookies and a heartfelt talk about Iraq . They had met at a presidential debate, when she asked the candidates what they would do to bring home American soldiers, soldiers like her brother, who had been killed in action a few months earlier.

Mr. McCain did not bring cameras or press. Instead, he brought his youngest son, James McCain, 19, then a private first class in the Marine Corps about to leave for Iraq . Father and son sat down to hear more about Ms. Flanagan’s brother Michael Cleary, a 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant killed by an ambush a roadside bomb.

No one mentioned the obvious: In just days, Jimmy McCain could face similar perils. ‘I can’t imagine what it must have been like for them as they were coming to meet with a family that Ms. Flanagan recalled, choking up. ‘We lost a dear one,’ she finished.

Mr. McCain, now the Republican nominee, has staked his candidacy on the promise that American troops can bring stability to Iraq . What he almost never says is that one of them is his own son, who spent seven months patrolling Anbar Province and learned of his father’s New Hampshire victory in January while he was digging a stuck military vehicle out of the mud.

Two of Jimmy’s three older brothers went into the military. Doug McCain, 48, was a Navy pilot. Jack McCain, 21, is to graduate from the Naval Academy next year, raising the chances that his father, if elected, could become the first president since Dwight D. Eisenhower with a son at war.

I chose to share this with those who I believe will pass it on, to others who will pass it on. We hear so much inflated trash out there. How about a simple act of kindness and dedication to others placed above oneself?

Has anybody heard if Barack Hussein Obama has served in The American Armed Services? This is for all you Barack voters.

From Barack’s book, Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

HE DID NOT SAY STAND WITH AMERICANS!!!!!

Categories
Humor Life

How I Roll…

‘ Yes well, legibility and correct punctuation might not be “street”… [Link to cartoon.]

Categories
Election 2008 Humor McCain Obama Politics The Media The Opinionsphere

Faux outrageous: The New Yorker’s Political Cover

[digg-reddit-me]The political cartoon by David Horsey of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer currently making the rounds (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

For all those who laughed when they saw this (like me) but are offended by the Obama New Yorker cover (unlike me) – how do you justify the differing responses?

My position is that I agree with the popular reddit post yesterday citing Donklephant:

That New Yorker cover is clearly satire. We can’t get offended every two minutes. It’s not healthy.

Is anyone offended by the New Yorker cover but appreciative of this faux National Review cover?

Update: Lenny Bruce wisely observed:

Satire is tragedy plus time. You give it enough time, the public, the reviewers will allow you to satirize it. Which is rather ridiculous, when you think about it.

This doesn’t excuse the double standard that I see as the only explanation for not being offended at both or by either picture – but it does offer an explanation as to why this is considered more offensive now than it might be otherwise.

Updated again: One thing, upon reflection, that differentiates the two cartoons is that David Horsey’s cartoon has the virtue of merely exaggerating the truth while the New Yorker cover is based on outright lies.

Still – I feel that this makes the depiction of McCain more damaging than the ridiculous depiction of Obama.

Categories
Election 2008 McCain Obama Politics

Obama and McCain: The Younger Years

If you're still thinking about voting for Obama...

Yet another classy Obama email going around.  The text:

If you’re still thinking about voting for Obama ; I have a question for you…Is your head up your ass?

Then at the bottom, the picture links to a ridiculous site that seems to be designed to turn people off from Obama with over-the-top praise.

Sample quotes from the site:

He may just be divine after all.

It is apparent and knowledgeable that a man of your caliber possess a certain divinity about himself. The evil Republican party is bent on crucifying you, politically speaking. If this comes to pass then you must relay on your faith and disciples to carry our message of hope and divinity to those who do not hear. You must allow the blind to see the light.

You are the MESSIAH!

The footer to the site mentions that every quote is made up but that it’s not supposed to be negative about anyone – it’s for “entertainment purposes only.”  Yet this made-up story about Nestor Todd is now associated with a smear email.  It’s all a bit odd.

If it weren’t for the strength of the Obama smear campaign already, I could easily see this as a harmless spoof.  The owners of obamacures.com (who wish to remain anonymous) might intend their email to be a spoof of the negative smears circulating about Obama – and their website to be a spoof of the over-the-top praise Obama has gotten – but the practical effect of this is to target those people who will miss the irony of the faux-smear email and whose stereotypes about Obama supporters will be reinforced if they take the extra time to check the website associated with the email.

This is of course a different tact than taken most of the previous email smears which seem to have been based on the premise that their target audience was lazy and gullible Americans.

Some of those previous smear emails are discussed here: