Out and About: Political Signs
A cafe window at Market and Castro.
Yes on Prop. K fliers on a pole on Market, near Embarcadero
Ferry Building Farmers Market: complete with McCain and Palin cutouts!
Ferry Building Farmers Market: opposite the McCain-Palin table, Obama-Biden (sadly, no cutouts).
Cindy Sheehan for Congress sign in an apartment window on Carl and Hilway.
I wanted photos of signs and political materials from around the city, but since I haven’t seen any No on Prop. 4 signage anywhere, here’s my window.
Some Welcome Humor
Yesterday, I thought that this blog snarkifying comments made by Prop. 8 supporters was the funniest thing I’d seen in ages.
I was wrong. This picture is the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages. McCain looks immature, undignified, and cretinous.
LizardOC’s snarky reframing of the “fundamental repugnance of the confidently bigoted” makes me laugh and provides some much-needed cheering up. I’m working hard and so are many other people, but sometimes, I’m so tired. I’m tired of constantly having to fight for rights and social justice, and I’m tired of encountering bigotry and hatred. It can be wearying. But it’s necessary and I will never stop. And so endurance and laughter are key to staying in for the long haul.
To quote the inimitable Molly Ivins,
As a life-long Texas liberal, I have spent the whole of my existence in a political climate well to the right of that being created by Ronald Reagan and his merry zealots. Brethren and sistren, this can not only be endured, it can be laughed at. Actually, you have two other choices. You could cry or you could throw up. But crying and throwing up are bad for you, so you might as well laugh. All you need in order to laugh about Reagan is a strong stomach. A tungsten tummy. – The Progressive, March 1986. p. 84 in Molly Ivins…Can She?
Bias, Media, and McCain 3
Some more headlines on McCain – but these actually express reality-based opinions!
WSJ, 08/09/15, “Obama Questions McCain’s ‘Honor’” – McCain scrapped whatever honor he once had ages ago, when he reversed his stance on virtually every position he once held, including lobbyists, warrantless wiretapping, and torture.
U.S. News & World Report, 08/09/15, “John McCain’s Journey From Maverick to Liar”
Boston Globe, 08/09/15, “Obama ad says McCain campaign one of dishonor”
The first and second headline unabashedly challenge the idea of McCain as an honorable person (which is tied to his personal story as a POW) and a maverick. By putting ‘Honor’ within quotes, the WSJ headline questions whether that honor is real – if the headline had been “Obama Questions McCain’s Honor,” the nuance would have been that Obama is unfairly questioning McCain’s honor. At the very least, not putting honor in quotes would have taken for granted that McCain’s honor is real. The quotes suggest that although McCain claims he has honor, the WSJ, as represented by its headline writer, disagrees or is skeptical. Compare that headline with the Boston Globe’s “Obama ad says McCain campaign one of dishonor,” which essentially says the same thing but in different words. “Says…dishonor” seems like the Obama campaign is just putting an ad out there saying the McCain campaign is dishonorable or making an accusation – the Boston Globe headline doesn’t take a position one way or the other on the veracity of the Obama campaign’s claims. “Questions…’honor,’” on the other hand, uses a more active verb and suggests that there’s little true honor left to question.
As for the second headline, it neatly acknowledges the maverick story and then points out that although it might once have been true, it no longer is (McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007). Not only that, it casts McCain as a liar now.
Sen. Obama: Racism and the Race Card
I saw this article a few weeks ago in the FT but haven’t had time to sit down and write about it yet. FT, Gideon Rachman, “Why Obama Looks Vulnerable” (08/08/25) is a crappy op-ed that can be summed up thusly: Obama’s black/elitist/exotic/New England liberal elitist/BLACK BLACK BLACK and that makes me uncomfortable! So he’s going to lose.
The header graphic is what really pisses me off, though:
The race card. Hardy har har. The thesis of the cartoon is that using the “race card” is going to crush Obama and that there is such a thing as a “race card” and it’s used by people of color (POC).
That’s bullshit. The idea of a race card (or gender card or any other card) is that when POC, women, or any group that differs from the rich, white, straight, able-bodied, cisgendered male form in any way brings up their race, gender identity, sexuality, disabilities, they’re engaging in special pleading and making an unwarranted fuss about nothing, rather than raising legitimate concerns about the very real discrimination and prejudices they face. The idea of the race card denies that persons of color are systematically and constantly discriminated against and is in itself prejudiced, assuming that white is the norm. Not only does it assume that different experiences don’t exist, it also seeks to silence and shut down discussions about them.
That deck of cards ought to be labeled racism and it ought to be looming over McCain and the GOP, because they’re the ones engaging in racist tactics. May it blow up in their faces.
Bias, Media, and McCain 2
In the comments to my last post on McCain and the media (here), hlynn said, “Sadly, there could be a 1000 part series on how many misleading headline the biased media has produced about McCaine. [sic]“
In light of that, here are some recent headlines (courtesy of Google Alerts):
Telegraph, Simon Heffer, 08/09/05: “John McCain offered Republicans vision rooted in reality, not Barack Obama’s empty promises“
My take:
- John McCain offered Republicans vision rooted in neoconservative jingoism, not Barack Obama’s empty promises
- John McCain offered Republicans speech written for 2000, not current election
- John McCain offered Republicans vision rooted in misinformation and lies about Iraq
Here’s an excerpt from the article, which fawns all over McCain:
I very nearly didn’t make it to the hall for the McCain speech because riot police; National Guardsmen and a regiment of various other law enforcers had barricaded several approach roads in a stand-off with anti-war protestors.
There were hundreds of the former, and a raggle-taggle army of a few dozen of the latter. The security presence was a hysterical over-reaction. The sight of unflinching men in visors armed with staves and guns was exceeded only by some menacing National Guardsmen pointing cannons that fire rubber bullets straight into a knot of about 20 protestors.
They provided about as much of a threat to US democracy as Batman. When one sees these obscenely heavy-handed tactics at close quarters, one understands why America made the job it did of it in Iraq.
Does the “they” in that last paragraph refer to the protestors or to the security enforcers? Although the meaning of the sentence changes, the ultimate effect, which is that the Republican leadership are destroying democracy, remains the same.
U.S. News & World Report, 08/09/05: “Media Generally Positive On McCain Speech“
To be fair, the article is more about media coverage of McCain’s speech than coverage of the speech itself, and “Media Generally Positive” is a good description of that. However, the headline frames that positivity as either approval or a neutral evaluation, when it isn’t (see the last McCain post for discussions of headlines and how their framing matters).
My take:
- Media Unduly Positive on McCain Speech
- Media Earns Its Title as “McCain’s Base” (Wolfrum, Shakesville)
- Media Unquestioningly Praises McCain’s Speech; Fails to Fact-Check Content
For an example of an headline that effectively portrays McCain’s double talk and the falseness of his “maverick” image, check out the Times of India, 08/09/05: “McCain casts himself as peacemaker amid continued war-talk.” The article itself does a good job of covering all of McCain’s claims–portrays himself as against the D.C. establishment, calls for change–and then remarkably, exposes those claims for the falsehoods they are.
While going through a laundry list of domestic issues he’d address if he became President – simpler and lesser taxes, education reform, energy independence etc – McCain’s remarks also suggested that the world would not see serenity anytime soon despite his peace talk.
While Palin served up the domestic red meat for a mostly white audience last night, McCain replayed all the misplaced machismo of the Bush era. …
“We have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they’ll strike us again if they can,” McCain said, without elaborating on the area the administration now says is the chief source of terrorism, before turning to his broader concerns, Iraq and Iran. “We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I’m not afraid of them. I’m prepared for them.”
Bragging about his military background and experience – four generations of McCains have served in the military – McCain said, ”I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don’t.” …
But much of his address was devoted to rousing Americans for a domestic scrap against the establishment, of which he has been a part for quarter century (he used the word fight or fighting some 25 times in his speech) albeit as a frequent dissenter. [emphasis mine]
Well played, Chidanand Rajghatta and Times of India.
Final Thoughts On Palin
After a few days of thinking about it, my thoughts on the choice of Governor Palin for VP remain more or less what they were Friday: she solidifies the conservative Christian base, the pick is aimed at conservative women, it’s not going to appeal much to Democratic women, and the media are going to blather nonstop about how Clinton-voters-who-voted-for-her-just-because-she’s-a-woman-are-going-to-swing-to-McCain-OMG!
Preliminary Pondering on Palin
Off the cuff:
1. I’m afraid my head is going to explode between now and January 20, 2009, if I keep following national politics so closely. The MSM is a cesspool of misogyny and tokenism and facile analysis. And my mind is running in so many different directions over the pick of Palin for VP that it’s sending up the blue screen of doom and saying, “CANNOT PROCESS. NEED MORE RAM.”
Of course, as S would point out, I have a hard time letting go of obsessions. So I definitely won’t stop following politics, but I have to find some way of finding the positives, too.
2. Palin is anti-choice, anti-GLBTQ, anti-environment, pro-death penalty, and supports teaching creationism. Astonishingly enough, this particular pizza-y Vaginal American is still not voting for McCain, even though he chose a woman for his VP. This particular pizza-y Vaginal American wouldn’t vote for McCain if he were the only candidate on the ballot, the only candidate in the whole world, and writing in wasn’t an option. I’d eat the ballot first.
3. Discussion of Palin is going on at Shakesville in McCain Picks Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin Sexism Watch #1, Quote of the Day, and For The Record.
4. Because it bears repeating, from Melissa’s the For the Record post:
McCain’s selection of Palin is opportunistic, disingenuous, cynical, and an egregious insult to women in that it suggests women are: A) interchangeable; B) monolithic; and C) too unsophisticated to cast a vote based on issues.
5. As AB said, “Do the women who vote on gender people notice that McCain is also male?” It’s insulting in the extreme to assume that women who voted for Clinton based on her gender* are going to somehow miss the fact that McCain is an anti-choice, anti-equal pay, anti-reproductive health care, misogynist, asshole man who is running for president, whether or not his anti-choice, anti-reproductive health care, misogynist VP is a woman.
6. There are so many things wrong with the women who voted for Clinton based on her gender and the black people who voted for Obama based on their ethnicity memes* that my head throws up the blue screen of doom trying to sort out which essentialist, sexist, and racist assumption to tackle first.
Rambling below the cut.
Bias, Media, and McCain 1
Dear Financial Times,
While your recent headline is a description of Senator McCain’s speech, and therefore might not be representative of your views on his speech and candidacy, it remains misleading:
By headlining your article with “McCain puts faith in sober experience,” you lend credibility to the idea that McCain has experience and that it’s worth something. I’ll grant you that he’s held state office since 1983 and does have experience working in the House and Senate, but to imply that his experience is “sober” and that it’s something that he, or you, or any voter should put “faith” in is highly misleading, primarily because his performance in the past few years consists of rejecting his former principles and stances.
For instance, in February the Senate voted 51-45 to ban waterboarding and torture by the CIA. McCain, despite previously opposing torture, voted against the ban. There are some principles and experience, right there–the experience of caving into the Republican party and abandoning not only personal principles, but the principles of humanity as well as the Geneva Convention and international law, all in one vote. From the NYT,
Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture, and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques….
The prohibition of harsh interrogation techniques is part of a wider intelligence authorization bill and would restrict all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army Field Manual, which bars the use of physical force.
The House approved the bill in December by a vote of 222 to 199, mostly along party lines. Wednesday’s vote in the Senate was also along party lines. All the “no” votes were cast by Republicans, except for those of Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Five Republicans and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, voted “yes.”
But the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.”
…
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon. (emphasis mine)
In another instance of betraying past principles, McCain once advocated for lobbyist reform. From the Washington Post,
Appearing as a witness on the opening day of a Senate hearing on lobbying reform, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was one of several senators to denounce earmarking, a practice he called “disgraceful.” He outlined one of several proposals to tighten rules and require greater disclosure of lobbying activities. But he told the committee, “We’re not going to fix this system until we fix the earmarks.”
Nowadays, however, he is receiving money from 507 bundlers and 70 lobbyist bundlers. Among their number are representatives of large financial institutions (e.g. JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, UBS, Blackstone, Granite Capital, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns [heh], Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, NYSE Group, Goldman Sachs), health care firms (e.g. Vanguard Health Systems, Blue Cross Blue Shield, AMN Healthcare), energy firms (e.g. Mosbacher Energy, TXU), and assorted large corporations (e.g. Disney, Sony BMG Music, Starwood Hotels, Anheuser-Busch, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, Visa, MGM, FedEx). He’s not just taking cash from lobbyists, however; he’s also staffed his campaign with them. From Washington Post,
But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O’ Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.
More recently, McCain’s campaign declared that warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch is A-OK, no court oversight required. This position might come as a shock, considering that he had previously said,
“There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”
From the NYT, his position these days is,
A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.
In other words, McCain is saying that four more years of the Imperial Executive and unfettered power above the law are what he believes in. Corporations have no need to obey the law and respect the privacy of the little people, individual citizens, and neither does the executive branch.
McCain has repeatedly turned his back on his principles and abandoned the policies he once advocated in order to pander to the Republican party and its supporters, corporate and otherwise. He’s demonstrated experience in casting integrity and convictions aside for the sake of political expediency–and not for the sake of the public good, but for his ambitions. That is not the kind of experience that anyone with an interest in fixing the corruption and devastation wrought by the Bush administration should put faith in, sober or otherwise. So I’d like to suggest some alternate headlines for the article, which more accurately reflect the nature of McCain’s candidacy and are more in keeping with the content of the article:
* McCain Favors Extending Bush’s Aggressive, Imperialist Foreign Policy
While Mr Obama favours engagement with US foes and wants to end the war in Iraq, Mr McCain would seek to increase pressure on Iran, North Korea and Cuba and keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely.
* McCain Remains In Denial About Iraq. Possibly Contemplates Another Marketplace Stroll with Armed Troops and Helicopters As Escorts.
Mr McCain set out his case against the Illinois senator in Tuesday’s speech, portraying him as dangerously inexperienced on foreign policy and dangerously liberal on domestic policy.”He is an impressive man who makes a great first impression,” the Arizona senator conceded, before going on to explain why Americans would reject him once they got to know him better.
“Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he’s ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn’t travelled to Iraq to meet with General [David] Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,” Mr McCain said, highlighting the two main foreign policy differences with his rival.
* McCain Puts Blind Faith In U.S. Efforts In Iraq
Mr McCain accuses his opponent of an ideological commitment to “surrender” in Iraq, ignoring evidence that US forces are making progress since last year’s troop surge.
Headlines are important because they’re the visuals that people first see and remember; they’re the first words people read in an article and therefore shape how they perceive the content of the article; and they’re nifty tag lines or summaries that people remember. Knowing that, I find the FT headline “McCain puts faith in sober experience” troubling. It presents a misleading image of McCain as a sober, rational person rather than the hot-tempered jerk he is–the article cited there was also published by the FT, back in April–and presents his experience as something worth a damn. He has all the wrong kinds of experience, in pandering, in working with lobbyists, in abandoning principles, in supporting the abrogation of the separation of powers (and therefore the Constitution and the limits it places on the executive branch), in serving the interests of corporations rather than the people, in ignoring the rule of law, and in voting for evil legislation.
————————————-
Financial Times, Andrew Ward, “McCain puts faith in sober experience,” 2008/06/05
NY Times, David Herszenhorn, “Senate Passes Interrogation Ban,” 2008/02/13
Washington Post, William Branigin, “McCain Calls to Reform Pork Barrel Politics,” 2006/01/25
Public Citizen
Washington Post, Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists,” 2008/02/21
NY Times, Charlie Savage, “Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps,” 2008/06/06
