Friday, September 04, 2009
Van Jones
Lots of to-do lately about the checkered past of Van Jones, the Prez's Green Jobs czar. First he admitted to being a communist, then he called Repubs a**holes, then he railed against white polluters and white environmentalists for directing the poison to minority neighborhoods. In the last couple of days it came out that he signed the 'truther" petition asking for an investigation whether the attacks of September 11, 1991 were an "inside job." (All of the above facts appear in the Wikipedia article on Mr. Jones, which bears a disclaimer that the neutrality of the article is disputed, so you might not see what I saw if you visit that page.)
Now Jones has issued one of those "politician special" non-apology apologies--you know, the kind where he says "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" without admitting doing anything wrong. He also says he does not now and never did agree with the truthers' claims. Query: why, then, did he sign the petition? Mr. Jones' office has issued a statement to the effect that he didn't review the document carefully before signing. I call bushwa--whether he read it or not, he certainly knew its tenor and purpose at the time. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I for one do not accept so-called "apologies" that are really insults in disguise; i.e., "I'm right and you're wrong but if you're too stupid to see that then I didn't mean to hurt your feelings while trying to educate you." I further believe that the statements Mr. Jones made before becoming a part of the Obama administration more truly demonstrate his real thinking than the measured, massaged and vetted comments that he makes now. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Jones is a racist, radical communist who wants to overturn the capitalist system that the United States has done so well by these last 220 years and replace it with something he calls the "Green Collar Economy" that pretty much has the government running everything. I don't want a guy like that advising any president.
Assuming the facts are true (and some undoubtedly are, as they appear in video clips available on YouTube in which you can see and hear Jones speak), then either the Obama administration did a really crappy job of vetting this guy before bringing him aboard, or they knew about all of this stuff and made a conscious decision that it didn't matter. Either way, in my view it doesn't reflect well on the Obama administration.
You're judged by the company you keep, Mr. President. Better keep that in mind.
(0) comments
Now Jones has issued one of those "politician special" non-apology apologies--you know, the kind where he says "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" without admitting doing anything wrong. He also says he does not now and never did agree with the truthers' claims. Query: why, then, did he sign the petition? Mr. Jones' office has issued a statement to the effect that he didn't review the document carefully before signing. I call bushwa--whether he read it or not, he certainly knew its tenor and purpose at the time. Was he lying then or is he lying now?
I for one do not accept so-called "apologies" that are really insults in disguise; i.e., "I'm right and you're wrong but if you're too stupid to see that then I didn't mean to hurt your feelings while trying to educate you." I further believe that the statements Mr. Jones made before becoming a part of the Obama administration more truly demonstrate his real thinking than the measured, massaged and vetted comments that he makes now. Accordingly, I believe Mr. Jones is a racist, radical communist who wants to overturn the capitalist system that the United States has done so well by these last 220 years and replace it with something he calls the "Green Collar Economy" that pretty much has the government running everything. I don't want a guy like that advising any president.
Assuming the facts are true (and some undoubtedly are, as they appear in video clips available on YouTube in which you can see and hear Jones speak), then either the Obama administration did a really crappy job of vetting this guy before bringing him aboard, or they knew about all of this stuff and made a conscious decision that it didn't matter. Either way, in my view it doesn't reflect well on the Obama administration.
You're judged by the company you keep, Mr. President. Better keep that in mind.
Labels: Czars, Economy, Environmentalism, Obama, politics, weasel words
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Letterman's Second Apology ...
Should have been his first.
If he'd said last week what he said on the 15th the whole thing would have blown over within a day or two. As it is, some people are still screaming for his scalp.
I'm not a Letterman fan and haven't watched his show for more than a couple minutes at a time. I just don't think he's that funny. His "Top 10" lists used to be funny but they've lost their spark (or something) in recent years. I thought the "knocked up" remark in regards to the Palin daughter was despicable, mean and low, irrespective of whether he was referring to Willow or Bristol. I thought the same about his "slutty flight attendant" crack, but I figure Sarah Palin is a big girl and can take it.
The problem was, Letterman's first "apology" sounded more like a justification/rationalization than an apology, with the effect that the second, real apology seems like an act of desperation after the loss of at least one sponsor and who knows what kind of conversations with CBS and other sponsors. Like many similar cases, the apology that comes after the s--t hits the fan always has the stink of being more sorry about being caught than about the original act.
I frankly don't care if Letterman gets fired or stays on; either way he's damaged goods to some extent. I'm certainly not going to start watching him because of this, although if I had been a regular viewer before the incident I probably would stop watching due to his lack of class.
(0) comments
If he'd said last week what he said on the 15th the whole thing would have blown over within a day or two. As it is, some people are still screaming for his scalp.
I'm not a Letterman fan and haven't watched his show for more than a couple minutes at a time. I just don't think he's that funny. His "Top 10" lists used to be funny but they've lost their spark (or something) in recent years. I thought the "knocked up" remark in regards to the Palin daughter was despicable, mean and low, irrespective of whether he was referring to Willow or Bristol. I thought the same about his "slutty flight attendant" crack, but I figure Sarah Palin is a big girl and can take it.
The problem was, Letterman's first "apology" sounded more like a justification/rationalization than an apology, with the effect that the second, real apology seems like an act of desperation after the loss of at least one sponsor and who knows what kind of conversations with CBS and other sponsors. Like many similar cases, the apology that comes after the s--t hits the fan always has the stink of being more sorry about being caught than about the original act.
I frankly don't care if Letterman gets fired or stays on; either way he's damaged goods to some extent. I'm certainly not going to start watching him because of this, although if I had been a regular viewer before the incident I probably would stop watching due to his lack of class.
Labels: Humor, Media inanity, Sarah Palin, weasel words
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Obama's "Lipstick on a Pig"
My take on the remark, after reading dozens of blogs and other accounts, as well as seeing the video, is that Mr. Obama said what he said on purpose, in a way that gives him "plausible deniability." Unfortunately, the video doesn't include the immediately following remark about "old fish", which context is the clincher for me that it was intended. Likewise the video from several months ago in which Mr. Obama may or may not have indirectly given Hillary Clinton "the finger," which I believe was also carefully staged to provide plausible deniability. In both videos the crowd reaction clearly shows that they "got it," just as in both videos the context of Obama's own words and behavior strongly suggests that the remark/gesture was intentional.
That said, I don't think it's a big deal in the sense that bribery or being bankrolled by a foreign entity would be, but it does give an insight into the candidate's character. In my view, it makes Obama look like an eighth grader in a suit. That kind of tactic is sophomoric and very "unpresidential."
Mr. Putin, Mr. Ahmadinijad and Mr. Chavez won't be impressed, although Mr. Chavez might be miffed that Mr. Obama is copycatting.
UPDATE 20080910:1030PDT: Here's Obama's "explanation" of his remark. I rest my case.
(0) comments
That said, I don't think it's a big deal in the sense that bribery or being bankrolled by a foreign entity would be, but it does give an insight into the candidate's character. In my view, it makes Obama look like an eighth grader in a suit. That kind of tactic is sophomoric and very "unpresidential."
Mr. Putin, Mr. Ahmadinijad and Mr. Chavez won't be impressed, although Mr. Chavez might be miffed that Mr. Obama is copycatting.
UPDATE 20080910:1030PDT: Here's Obama's "explanation" of his remark. I rest my case.
Labels: Election, Obama, politics, weasel words
Friday, September 05, 2008
US Weekly Subscription Cancellations
Michelle Malkin's site has a post about thousands of people canceling their US Weekly subscriptions because of the misleading cover about Sarah Palin. Michelle's post cites an article on MSNBC's Scoop page, containing the following:
Needless to say, the woman got her back alimony.
The point of the story is, of course, when the question contains too much detail, it's easy to give a technically truthful but misleading answer. Likewise when someone makes a statement that contains a precise number of any kind. People should keep that in mind, especially during election season.
The media are supposed to be smart enough to pick up on weasel words like this, and continue questioning until the facts are revealed, or the subject refuses to answer. From what I've seen, they're only that smart when they're interviewing Republicans and others who are "out of favor."
(0) comments
"A spokesperson for Wenner Media, which publishes Us, says “it is completely false that we are losing 10,000 subscribers.” As for the 5,000 estimate, the spokesperson only said “that is false, too,” but wouldn’t comment further."That statement reminds me of an anecdote from law school:
A deadbeat ex-husband was brought before a Michigan judge for failure to pay alimony. He (naturally) claimed he didn't have the money. The wife blurted out, "That's a lie! He has $100,000 in a bank account in Cleveland."
The judge turned to the man and asked, "Do you have $100,000 in a bank account in Cleveland?"
"No, your honor."
"Do you have a bank account in Cleveland or anywhere else in Ohio?"
"Yes, your honor."
"How much is in it?"
"About $98,500, your honor."
Needless to say, the woman got her back alimony.
The point of the story is, of course, when the question contains too much detail, it's easy to give a technically truthful but misleading answer. Likewise when someone makes a statement that contains a precise number of any kind. People should keep that in mind, especially during election season.
The media are supposed to be smart enough to pick up on weasel words like this, and continue questioning until the facts are revealed, or the subject refuses to answer. From what I've seen, they're only that smart when they're interviewing Republicans and others who are "out of favor."
Labels: Election, media bias, weasel words
