June links

Negotiations with Iran. Trump does a U-turn because he wants something done. Also he might be trying to head off Bolton's push to war.

Hong Kong protests. China is trying to depress freedoms in Hong Kong, again. That's a difficult situation, and those are brave people.

Did tax cuts help the economy? Economists were in a race to check for the indicators before they were swamped by Trump's trade wars. The data is rather muddy.

Shaming Congress. Jon Stewart speaking with such humanity and passion to a bunch of butt-kissing politicians. This is the kind of person we need in Congress, not the ones we have now. (Scroll down for video of his full speech.) An economist tells Trump why too many sanctions are harmful.

Shaming a politically correct college. Oberlin College was hit with a massive judgment for abetting trumped-up demonstrations by students against a local business.

Special considerations when pregnant women are jailed. I have never considered this issue, but it seems that the jail and prison managers haven't either, and they have no excuse.

Forged videos and fake news. The fakers now have even better tools for the lies they may want to spread. Yikes!

The internet remembers everything. And Twitter rewards 'mean,' so you're screwed if you've used it, and you're nobody if you haven't.

Image: giphy.com

Outrage du jour

So a leading major high-profile semi-recognizable star person from a reality show got rather anatomical when he was explaining why he didn't understand homosexuality or perhaps he was being a homophobe. I don't know why anyone cares because reality TV participants aren't filmed for their mild observations or platitudes, but for their crazy antics.

Then a gay pressure group pressured the cable network (A&E, but it could have been any of them), and the network caved immediately and "suspended" the "star." Publicity ensues. Charges of abrogation of the First Amendment ensue. The news media is delighted because it finds next injection of controversy, especially needed right now because the congress critters (Damn them!) patched together an agreement and went home for Christmas.

I've never given a damn about what a reality star said. Not anyone on Jersey Shore, not one Survivor, not any of the numerous glitzy, boozy, over-made-up Housewives. These people are the lowest, and I don't know what they are doing on my TV (a topic that might deserve a discussion), but what they say is of NO CONSEQUENCE AT ALL.

So ignore it. Don't get involved in a controversy about what an empty-headed media whore says. That also goes for: Ted Nugent, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And Sarah Palin too. She has to decide whether she's a reality star (which is how she behaves) or a politician. If she's a reality star, she doesn't have to been careful. Instead, she can trash talk all she wants. If she's trying to be an influential political leader, her words should matter, and they shouldn't fall to the low level of the reality TV personality, like these:

"Just finished a long week-thinking in a few weeks we could be living in a very different America-pls Excersise your right and Vote.Pls"

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care." 

"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."

"Don't Retreat. Reload."

 Image: humorismy.biz

Extras. Other stupid Palin quotes. More here and here and here. Some people laud stupid. More on the Duck Dynasty person here and here, if you want to research it more. Personally, I regret the time I've wasted on this story, but I did decide one thing: Call them stupid and move on. No boycotts required.

Finally, to be honest, one of the Palin "quotes" above came from a real (dumb) celebrity. Read the other celeb quotes and then you'll realize why we can't hold celebs to the same standards as our politicians, reporters, or pundits.

Romney as a terrible candidate

Lots of writers have covered this ground, but I'm compelled to trod on it too.

On the one hand it's amazing how terrible Romney is doing. After all, he successfully managed to sell himself to a reluctant Republican party. The job of selling himself to a more moderate electorate should be easier, shouldn't it? Besides, Romney is supposed to be good at this kind of salesmanship due to his background in business.

Somehow it turns out that selling yourself as a candidate is maybe harder when the audience is more diverse. Some of the positions that are taken for granted in the GOP (lower taxes are just plain good) require more explanation for the broader audience not steeped in GOP orthodoxy. Romney (unlike Perry, Palin, Bachmann, or Cain) is smart enough to know that some of those GOP orthodoxies aren't very solid, and he can't manage to enthusiastically lie about them the way other candidates might have. So he is bland, avoids specifics, and postpones the date of reckoning until after the election.

Luckily, all that hedging and feinting isn't going unnoticed. Of course Obama points Romney's dodges, but also Romney is just not that good at it. He gives himself away when he's eluding a question--I'm not sure quite what the tells are, but a lot people can see them as clearly as I do. I think perhaps his speech patterns change--the sentences are shorter and more disjoint. They just don't flow in the same way that the longer diatribes against what Obama do.

Gingrich was a speaker who could flawlessly pull off this kind of thing. He could deliver reams of analysis of Obama, or the merits of GOP policy, and they all sounded great. Unfortunately, he could do the same when he talked about space colonies, so we knew that he could make anything sound good, thereby demonstrating that he was a silver-tongued charlatan who couldn't be trusted.

In comparison, Romney is more like us--nervous when he lies or prevaricates. And that's exactly what he has to do now until Election Day. May God have mercy on his soul, but Americans shouldn't.

Grit your teeth, Mitt. Just X more days of this.

Image: blogs.e-rockford.com

Extras. Nate Silver says the Romney is trying to be the generic Republican candidate. Jon Stewart says the same thing, but with much better jokes. It turns out a generic Republican can win over Obama, but actually flesh, blood, and flawed Republicans can't. What is a real person to do? Bleach out those personal bits.

Herman Cain proclaims he'd be doing better. Many at conservative site HotAir disagree. Lots are resigned, few have buyer's remorse. Not many analyzing why the choices for GOP presidential nominee were so poor this time.

On the Republican Menu: Just the leftovers

The low caliber of the Republican candidates is proving itself again. Today, I watched a compilation of clips from a Rick Perry speech last Friday where he seemed drunk.  Bachmann, Newt, Santorum ... nobody wants these egomaniacs with no realistic sense of themselves to be president. It would be too dangerous.

This should be a great year to run for president as a Republican. Then why is the field so bad? Because of the Tea Party. Romney is the only major candidate not pandering to them. I suspect that other potential candidates couldn't stomach the political atmosphere. They weren't prepared to spew hate the way the Tea Party demands, and they didn't want to be the Tea Party's target either.

Does the Tea Party run the Republicans now, or is it just the only part with a voice that still works? I think it's time for Republicans to push back. Some sane Republican should talk some sense--talk respectfully about Obama's successes and failures, talk about how to compromise on deficit reduction and tax reform. Instead of having 8 flavors of Not-Romney, we should have at least 4 flavors of Not-Tea-Party. That would be a Republican race that I and most of the country would cheer on. As it is, we're laughing, or just shaking our heads. 

P.S. I know these ideas aren't news. However, today it's all I can think about, so I'm exorcising it onto my blog. That's part of what my blog is for.

Extras: Flashback 2008, no more hacks, this devastating bit from Jon Stewart that I've cited elsewhere in the blog and is completely relevant here too.

Republican Goldilocks

Not too hot, not too cold, just right.

It's so hard to find a candidate who's just right. The Republican have been trying to find and draft "President Right" since 2009. Think of all the names that have been floated: Palin, Scott Brown, Marco Rubio, Mitch Daniels, Huckabee, Trump, Cain, Bachmann, Perry. Now there's talk of drafting Christie because he maintains his bulldog demeanor in all circumstances and no one can imagine him getting flustered.

This is reminiscent of 2007 when the Republicans went through these front-runners: Fred Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee (any others?). When they eventually decided on McCain, it was with great reluctance. I remember long-time Republicans talking about holding their noses when they voted in the primaries, and again, if less so, in the election. Just after the election, they were again complaining that McCain wasn't a real Republican, and that's why he lost. If only the Republicans knew the same sentiment is endemic among the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, and their words are practically interchangeable with the words of their prime target.

Nothing cures that longing better than giving in, going whole hog, and picking a really strong conservative candidate. So the Republicans shouldn't pick Romney. He may be more electable, but he's walking buyer's remorse. They should choose a through-and-through conservative like Perry, Cain, or Bachmann. Then they'll either win the presidential election, and they can celebrate without reserve; or there will be a rocky campaign as the candidate either flubs the message or the country rejects the extreme version of conservatism.

If the election is lost with a strong conservative at the head of the ticket, Republicans will get the lesson they need: You can nominate a candidate who is too far right. Democrats got this lesson back in 1972, and they've never forgotten. That's why Nader or Kucinich can run in the Democratic primaries, but they'll never get close to the nomination. The Democrats learned that lesson but good. No repeat needed.

In A Progressive's Dream

Update 9/29/11. You have got to watch Jon Stewart's much funnier take on the Goldilocks situation. If you watch from the beginning you'll get to enjoy some ribbing of teachers, then continue with the clips for edgier jokes about Santorum, Perry, and Brit Hume. I recommend watching the whole thing.

Update 10/24/11. I've changed my mind.  The Republicans should think long and hard, realize that they are not doctrinaire in their conservatism, and pick Romney. There is no candidate who is both "very conservative" and "intellectually coherent."  It should be possible for the Republicans to find someone who is both, just as there are people who are both kind and beautiful. But it isn't happening with the current crop of candidates. No more names are being tentatively floated. I draw the conclusion that the Republicans have gotten so extreme that they've spooked their own best and brightest. Time for some balance, guys, though it looks like it's too late for this nomination. Romney is your punishment.

Funny Moment in Class Warfare: The Jon Stewart Edition

Mitch Daniels, Republican governor of Indiana and declined Presidential candidate, was interviewed by Jon Stewart last week. Daniels generally comes off well, but he does start mouthing Republican talking points, and Jon Stewart nails him.

Mitch Daniels mentions Obama's "obsession with wealthy people," "constant bashing," and "you could confiscate all..."

Jon Stewart interrupts: "Obsession, bashing, confiscate. I can understand the language of unity, and I'm not sure that that's it... The language that you just used, and slipped into quite easily, sounded ..."

Then Daniels explains that Stewart had asked him to defend policies that weren't his own. Stewart cordially lets him off the hook, while explaining that it's hard to get a Republican like Paul Ryan on the show to answer these questions.

Jon Stewart's point, which others can use, is to show that it's not class warfare to raise taxes from a 36% rate to a 39.5% rate. But it sounded better when Jon Stewart said it. Most people would pale pretty quickly if you told them they'd have to start paying either 36% or 39.5% taxes. Democrats need a bigger plan than this.

Funny moments in conservative media bias

This is Jon Stewart territory. Anyone who watches Fox News needs to watch Jon Stewart too. Only then can they see the bias so exposed. CNN watchers should check out Jon Stewart too. He does it better than I ever could.

Funny moments in liberal media bias

#1. Terry Gross vs. Bill O'Reilly

Terry Gross invites Bill O'Reilly onto to Fresh Air and, surprisingly, he accepts. She thinks that she's going to be able to pummel him with all these "tough" questions about his perhaps inflated claims of winning journalism awards.

So, she's going in for the kill, and he turns the tables so deftly. He asks her (inexact paraphase), "Is this how you treated Al Franken when he was on your show?" Awkward silence, followed by ums, followed by sheepish concession of the point. Too bad this incident isn't on YouTube for all media hawks to review.

How did Bill O'Reilly do this? Because he's aware of how media bias works. He's a master practitioner. He knows when he's doing it, why he's doing it, how he's doing it, how others do it. Terry Gross, she's blind to her own bias. That's how O'Reilly did it.

#2. Jon Stewart vs. Chris Wallace

Jon Stewart says on Chris Wallace's Fox News Show: "[The New York Times] bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn't say it's toward a liberal agenda."

Jon, it is sad for someone, who so exquisitely skewers blatant bias and foolishness, to give a pass to the New York Times. OK, half a pass. Most media in this country is lazy and sensational. That is so absurdly evident I won't even provide proof beyond one name --Lindsay Lohan. But it's also true that the NYT has a liberal bias.

Stewart conceded as much earlier in the interview: "I think they are to a certain extent... Do I think they are relentlessly activist? No." Most of Jon Stewart's criticism is right on target, but that was a miss. However, Chris Wallace had the worst of it when he had to eat crow for accidentally admitting that Fox News told "the other side of the story."  Overall score: Stewart: 80,000; Fox News 1.