Politics and Culture

Wow, what kind of man clips out the last seconds of a McCain quote to twist his true meaning? Howard Dean's DNC did it with McCain's "100 years in Iraq quote" and now Jamie Rubin does it with a McCain interview. Does the Huffington Post apologize for promoting this lie? No, it doubles down and finds some other, probably out-of-context quotes to "keep lies alive."

This is getting sad and I don't find the lies interesting. I just put them up so that you guys can be aware in case one of the lied-to works with you or something.

All: Today, Jamie Rubin made a charge against John McCain. Every one of your news organizations put him on the air and covered his charges that John McCain flip-flopped on engagement with Hamas. Now we know that Jamie Rubin didn’t tell the truth.As the entire video — just posted on SkyNews — clearly shows, John McCain absolutely did not advocate unconditional engagement with Hamas. Indeed, Rubin conveniently cut off his follow-up question to which McCain was clear that any engagement with Hamas would be conditioned on their actions and policies — that any actions would be “dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts...

RUBIN INTERVIEW W/ FOLLOW-UP:

[youtube]4A-o2U4Y7DQ[/youtube

Jamie Rubin: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have been in the past, in working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is in now charge?”Sen. John McCain: “They’re the government and sooner or later we‘re going to have to deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice, so, but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a decent future then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

Note this matches up with Sen. McCain’s CNN interview that same day in Davos, in which McCain conditions any engagement on Hamas renouncing its commitment to the extinction of Israel:
From Davos, John McCain Says Hamas Must Renounce Its Commitment To The Extinction Of The State Of Israel. CNN'S BETTY NGUYEN: " All right, let's shift over to the global front. The Bush administration is reviewing all aspects of U.S. aid to the Palestinians now that Hamas has won the elections. And I do have to quote you here. A State Department spokesman did say this: 'To be very clear' – and I'm quoting now – 'we do not provide money to terrorist organizations.' What does this do to the U.S. relationship with the Palestinians?" MCCAIN: "Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process." (CNN's "Saturday Morning News," 1/28/06)

Peggy Noonan took Republicans to task, piling on the evidence that the Republican "brand" is tarnished.

Perhaps the Republican troubles go deeper than a little tarnish and only some Democratic rust will shine the Republicans up. Explanation:

When do you feel more conservative: When money's low and your neighbors are acting up or when you live off your fathers trust fund in his gated mansion?

Likewise, good times prompt Democratic victory, as the populace grows weary of improvement and just wants to relax. To put it another way, people will only vote for Republicans, the "course-righteners" in times of danger or perceived Democratic malfeasance.

The "malfeasance" manifests itself in the "giving away the store" idea, or, the belief that Democrats have or will irresponsibly damage society to benefit the object of their pity du jour. On social issues, this means affirmative action, gay marriage, sex education in kindergarten, etc. In economics, look at California where, after Grey Davis and Arnold Schwarzenegger's inability to reverse Davis's spending, and despite large increases in revenue, we have a 14 billion dollar deficit and the same horribly-achieving schools.

Nixon won because of the radicalization of the Democratic party.

Reagan and Thatcher won because of the inevitable stagnation that comes from socialism.

Arnold Schwarzenegger won liberal California because he vetoes the most outrageous of Democratic ideas like drivers licenses for illegal aliens, gay marriage, and high taxes. Republicans won congress in 1994 because of Clinton's desire to run health care like one giant DMV and allow open gays in the military.

The problem for Republicans, nationally, is that most people have forgotten the seventies doldrums and the prevention of Clinton excesses by Republicans (It's no coincidence that the youngest Americans support the liberal Obama.). It's why "liberal" isn't as scary word anymore- people don't remember that frightening "malaise." It's why 1 per cent growth, 5% unemployment, a 20 per cent dip in housing prices after a fantastic run of five years has many Americans thinking they're in 1930s Oklahoma- they don't have a proper frame of reference.

Right now, in national security, the lack of terrorist attacks and the failure to find WMD in Iraq have caused attentions to wander, a natural and hopefully harmless reaction. Do people remember Carter or Clinton's handling of foreign policy?

If Obama wins, I don't hope that we have a political, Democratic-caused disaster and won't trumpet bad news like many Democrats do now with a Republican in the White House. But, if modern conservatism is the reaction to bad liberal policies and Democrats only louse up the country a little by, say, raising taxes only enough to slow growth and run a few businesses overseas, I don't see a break for conservatism anytime soon.

Reason number one why people will never elect a comedian to high office:

During a speech to the National Rifle Association convention in Louisville, Kentucky Friday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee joked to the audience that an offstage noise was Barack Obama avoiding gunfire.

"That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak," Huckabee said. "Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor."

The line was met with laughter.

What a dummy. I'm sure he didn't mean anything bad by it, but it's not good when a candidate is making jokes instead of just "having a sense of humor."

Barack Obama wants to give undergraduate students $4000.00 to pay for tuition.

In a time of virtually free information and the ability to distribute learning digitally or through teleconferencing at a low cost, college tuition continues to increase faster than the rate of inflation. Some schools have billion-dollar endowments (Harvard's is 35,000,000,000.), but the reason that colleges charge so much, according to this article, is simply because they can.

Now, setting aside that singles and the majority of parents with children who won't attend college will be subsidizing children who are probably better able to pay; the dubious proposition that the United States needs more sociologists; and that by adding some fraud magnet, BS service requirement, the program will be much more inefficient and costly; why wouldn't universities simply increase tuition by $4000.00? It's not like most of them are under-enrolled.

The left equivalent of gas tax holiday- or worse, it's a difficult thing to fight, politically. Who's going to say, "We spend too much money on education."

Despite it almost drifting into Obama-like utopianism, I liked the speech. It sure was different- the kind of thing that makes an impact- perhaps a lasting one. Such ads tend to be ripe targets for satirists, but you can't be scared of that. They also create conversation. Here's Joe Biden feigning even more ignorance than he already has:

In his speech, Senator McCain says that by 2013, "the Iraq war has been won." How? What's the strategy?

Ever heard of the surge?

Here's the full text of the ad.

Oh, that Huffington Post. They're so clever! They propose that Matthews "eviscerated" Kevin James (who isn't my favorite talk show host).

Besides the fact that the HuffPo's get all giddy to what was essentially a "gotcha" argument (Why didn't Matthews simply tell James what he meant?), the whole scenario is a big burst of dishonesty.

1. If they had no hope of being appeased in some way, why would our enemies negotiate? They're going to surrender unconditionally? Why would they attend a meeting where they'd be dictated to?

2. Mark Green is against analogies? Obama's whole campaign strategy is an analogy (McCain is like Bush). Does that mean the left will never bring up Iraq (if Obama manages to lose it) or Vietnam whenever they oppose a future conflict? Ridiculously dishonest.

California Supreme court judge listens to arguments before issuing his decree.

Apparently, the California constitution guarantees that men can marry other men.

Asymmetric thoughts:

1. Patriarchy/ traditional marriage-phobes might be cheering, but only because their side won- not because the California Supreme Court did any justice. They will say the CASC just wanted to apply the law equally to everyone.

Since homosexuals had as much right to marry somebody of the opposite sex as anybody else, the issue obviously had nothing to do with equal protection. Yet, my untraditional brothers and sisters will dismiss the California electorate as wrong and in need of "education." Those unwilling to succumb will face worse. Some will mention Martin Luther King and blacks.

What does this minority want? They want the traditional structure of society to fail. Why? One, it helps foster the kind of chaotic social situations that cry for government intervention. Two, it deals another blow to the traditions that compete with the state. Third, it gives people an opportunity to redo society according to their ideals.

Go to a feminist or communist book store for details (They can be more honest amongst themselves.).

2. As always, some won't care.

3. Emotionalists who felt sorry that some of their best gay friends couldn't have a wedding that "counted," will be happy. They won't be able to articulate any advantage gay marriage gives society. These will be the majority of those in favor of the ruling.

4. Some people will oppose it out of hate.

5. Some people will oppose it, but not be able to articulate why in a PC-acceptable way. These will be the majority of those opposed to the ruling. They can be intimidated into not caring.

6. Then there's me. I don't want a long post, but it has to do with natural law, children, and what I feel is the best (only?) way for a society to succeed. Don't tell me that I think the "gay boogie man is going to end my marriage." I'm immune to those tactics.

7. What will eventually happen if homosexuals are allowed to marry:

a. As in other countries such as the Netherlands that have allowed people of the same sex to marry, marriage will decline in both numbers and prestige, the latter probably effecting the former. Reaction to this development will be according to the above types of citizens. Some will deny it's happening.

b. Children in school will receive textbooks with gay couples. Health textbooks will emphasize that all families are equally valuable. Guest speakers, perhaps. History books will refer to the "dark ages" when the government limited marriages to one woman and one man along with sidebars dedicated to notable gays. Administrators will politely listen to the "hateful" parents (and then complain about a lack of parent involvement) and then confuse most of them with something or another.

c. The state will spend more money for something.

d. Once gays get the recognition they want, they'll consider marriage a joke along with everybody else except some religious people whom many will see as some kind of suburban Amish.

e. It might help make the conservative (and the McCain campaign's) case for judicial restraint.

f. Obama will try to avoid the issue.

What are the qualifications to write for CNN? Ruben Navarrette proves that even the most banal PC drivel can make it onto a major network.

His ten points:

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In a recent commentary, I wrote that, as a Mexican-American, the ugliness of the immigration debate offends me -- not as a Mexican, but as an American.

The topic: the immigration debate and what she called a wave I of hate sweeping the land -- one that isn't limited to illegal immigrants, but which is now affecting all Hispanics regardless of where they were born, what language they speak or what flag they salute.

Hispanics sometimes say this, but when I ask for examples, they more often can't come up with one- it's more like a theoretical oppression like, "Considering the history of the United States, Americans are probably oppressing us somewhere." Let's not lower the bar for problematic "hatred" so much that it includes legitimate policy discussions.

The way Murguia sees it, immigration is "on the verge of becoming one of the largest civil rights issues of our generation." And, Hispanics are playing the piñata.

Securing the border isn't a "civil rights" issue. Nobody has a "right" to enter the United States or stay illegally. You might want more or less immigration, but let's be clear: If immigration is a civil rights issue, what isn't?

Murguia was right on the button. To borrow a phrase, it's getting ugly out there. And U.S.-born Hispanics see it as plain as day. Here are 10 things they find distasteful about this debate:

Lay it on me:

• The hypocrisy. We have two signs on the U.S.-Mexican border: "Keep Out" and "Help Wanted."

I think the sign should say: "Help wanted from legal immigrants." Employers hire illegal immigrants because of their greed, their need to compete with the more greedy, and the current chaos in some employment sectors like construction and care-giving, where verification and alternatives to illegal labor are difficult. Once we set up an orderly system, employers won't feel the need to hire illegal immigrants.

• The racism. With lightning speed, the debate went from anti-illegal immigrant to anti-immigrant to anti-Mexican.

Most people opposed to illegal immigration make a point that it isn't just Mexicans, but Mexico happens to be the country with the most illegal immigrants. What do you want people to do: Allow illegal immigration because illegal aliens aren't proportionally represented?

Besides: Do Mexicans or Hispanics bear any responsibility for their collective reputation? (Uncharitable readers may think what you like, but I've made my feelings known before and, besides, somebody sane has to say it.) Without being specific, if Mexicans didn't have social problems at a greater rate than the general population, would people still have the same kind of negative reaction towards them (Navarrette doesn't help people to think Hispanics especially deep, either.).

Why is it OK for Navarrette to generalize on non-Hispanic hatred based on Nazi video games (below) and 100 interviews and not for anybody else to generalize about Mexicans?

Hypocrisy. (Although generalization is the major problem in immigration today.).

• The opportunism. Too many politicians are trying too hard to portray themselves as tough on illegal immigration.

Yes, politicians should be less opportunistic. I never thought of that.

• The simple solutions. "Build A Wall." "Deport All Illegals." A quick rule of thumb: If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's not a workable policy.

How about this bumper sticker: "If it fits on a bumper sticker, it's not a workable policy."

• The naiveté. People ask why Mexico won't help stop illegal immigration. Hint: Last year, Mexicans in the United States sent home $25 billion.

Yes.

• The profiling. Dark skin and Spanish surnames shouldn't be proxies for undocumented status. Been to Arizona lately?

No, it shouldn't. Examples? Is this a huge problem that should prevent us from enforcing immigration rules?

• The meanness. Nazi-produced Internet video games let players shoot illegal immigrants crossing the border. Fun stuff.

Let's not have a sound immigration policy because Nazis make video games. Another good one and not at all stereotypical.

• The amnesia. Americans think grandpa was welcomed with open arms and that he plunged into the melting pot. Whatever.

Most people did OK, or they would have joined the third of immigrants who went back. That being said, we should treat legal residents as the national assets they are. The best way to do this is to stop illegal immigration. Most of the anger comes from a sense that people are taking advantage of the system. Eliminate that feeling and the only problems Mexicans will have with Americans is being constantly hugged by them.

• The buck-passing. Americans love to blame Mexico for their choices, yelling across the border: "Stop us before we hire again."

This is a rephrasing of point one. It's really nine points, then.

• The double standard. The same folks who have zero tolerance for illegal immigrants easily tolerate those who hire them.

Does Navarrette have a stutter problem. Similar to points one and nine. We really only have eight points, then.

Some of this is painfully familiar, recalling earlier versions of this debate as it played out a hundred or two hundred years ago. Hispanics are the new Germans, the new Irish, the new Italians. But it's also ugly. It was then. It is now.

I hope they're the new Germans, Irish, and Italians. That would be great! Let's have the same policies as the turn of the century?

Actual illustration accompanying Willamette Week’s endorsement via Slog

When I figured out that the savings from a doubling of my gas mileage would pay for a new fuel efficient vehicle, I decided to dump the old Isuzu Trooper and buy a small car.

Auto thoughts:

1. Amazingly, I decided this all on my lonesome! I didn't need CAFE mandates, tax rebates, or Al Gore public service announcements (Don't tell him; he might get angry.) to convince me. Not only could I (and thousands of other independent Americans) choose to help the environment (and my wallet) without help, I, an often "bitter," sometimes "victimized" minority also negotiated with the "predatory" and "greedy" dealer for the price of the car with no government representative looking over my shoulder. Well, not quite: The government does have rules to assure a transparent transaction (which is a legitimate government function). Californians don't stop at the necessary, however: Each car in California has a sign saying:

WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.**

Somebody's going to see this and prefer to walk?

2. Here's my car-choosing philosophy: Don't be ridiculous. Being a Pythagorean at heart, I try to live by the Golden Mean: Proportion, harmony, moderation and all that (Of the many examples- both natural and human-designed- of near-perfect proportionality, I chose Iris Chacon [below].). I had a silly car, once. It was a 1994 Pontiac Firebird that I ordered from the factory. I got the beefy-looking Firebird with leather, alloy wheels, upgraded stereo, and...a six cylinder engine. Yes, I subjected my rear passengers to torture while the people in the back of Accords not only rode in comfort, but mocked me as they more-quickly reach 60MPH.

What a voice!

3. Specifically,

a. If you buy a sports car, make sure it can beat a Yaris.
b. Leather is for luxury cars.
c. Easy on spoilers and ground effects. Again, only on sports or, at least, "sporty" cars (Maxima, Corolla S, etc.).
d. Don't worry if the people outside of your car can hear your music. Nobody will ever tell you to "turn it up" at a stop sign.
e. One odd trend is the devolution of the hub cap. (I myself would get alloy wheels no matter what car I buy.), Budget wheels usually have plastic hubcaps that mimic the more expensive wheels. To me, they give off a counterfeit Rolex, fake-cellular-antenna-on-the-roof vibe.

16" SET OF 4 HUBCAPS TOYOTA CAMRY WHEEL COVERS DESIGN ARE UNIVERSAL HUB CAPS FIT MOST 16 INCH WHEELS

4. Amongst domestics, Ford is the best right now. Their simple lineup- small (Focus), medium (Fusion), and large (Five Hundred or "500," if you prefer.) makes sense and they're all attractive cars. Conservative, yet distinct styling.

5. Chrysler has the odd Caliber- a small car that reminds me of a John Deere lawn-mower. All of their other cars are huge or huge-looking Challengers and Chargers. In other words, the worst cars to be building in 2008.

6. At least Chrysler is different. Who knows what's going on at GM. Everything is ugly except for the new Malibu which only has an ugly grille. The Pontiac Vibe is attractive, but they're just re-badged Toyota Matrixes.

7. Other cars: I like the Mazda 3 a lot. The new Nissan Sentra doesn't look sporty at all and its steering is too loose. The Corolla is good. The Honda Civic is nice outside, but it has a weird split-level dash with a digital speedometer separated from the rest of the car. What for?

8. The foreign auto industry has experienced luxo-creep. All of the models seem to have been bumped up one in class and price. The Civic, once the choice of college sophomores who wished to navigate cramped university streets and parking lots as economically as possible, is now a $20,000 ride you can use to impress the girl in the next cubicle. The Accord costs $25,000! The same thing has happened to the aforementioned Sentra and Corolla. In fact, Nissan, Toyota, and Honda have introduced the Versa, Yaris, and Fit, respectively, to fill the economy niche.

9. I like the Scion cars. While American manufacturers are consolidating makes, Japanese companies are expanding.

10. I didn't look at the Korean cars.

11. It's not worth buying a slightly used Japanese car as they depreciate so little that they're almost as expensive as new ones.

12. Used domestic cars, on the other hand, are good deals.

13. I now see huge SUVs as a wasteful and non-socially responsible choice unless somebody absolutely needs one.

14. People have a right to choose whichever car they want- within reason (No tanks).

15. I got a cherry 2001 Ford Focus that I love.

**This is proposition 65:

The legislation is very controversial. Most of the Proposition 65 lawsuits are filed by private attorneys some of whose entire business is built on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits.

Labeling requirements conceded the reality that listing and classifying substances did not help the consumer if the contents of a purchase were unknown. At the same time, there were no other labeling requirements to support the proposition. Industry critics and corporate defense lawyers charge that Proposition 65 is "a clever and irritating mechanism used by litigious NGOs and others to publicly spank politically incorrect opponents ranging from the American gun industry to seafood retailers, etc."

In addition, because the law allows private citizens to sue and collect damages from any business violating the law, there have been cases of lawyers and law firms using Proposition 65 to force monetary settlements out of California businesses. The Attorney General's office has cited several instances of settlements where plaintiff attorneys received significant awards without providing for environmental benefit to the people of California, resulting in the requirement of the Attorney General's approval of pre-trial Proposition 65 settlements.