Thank you New York Times news alerts. Without them, I don't really know how I'd find out about things like this (granted, this information is incredibly easy to find, I just like checking my email and not having to search for news much farther beyond that): Today in Washington, the Senate allowed for advances of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." They voted 63 to 33 -- that means that six Republicans voted with the Democrats. There was a huge desire for some action to be made on this issue, since the 111th Congress is coming to a close, and next Congress will be Republican-ruled in the House (the repeal of DADT had already passed in the House.) And Republicans had been filibustering the repeal for so long that it appeared as if this bill would die, just like the Dream Act (which just failed after a 55-41 vote, 5 short of the votes needed to bring debate to the Senate floor...the Dream Act would grant legal status to the illegal immigrant students. Cloture couldn't be reached, so Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins -- an independent and a Republican, respectively -- asked for Democratic leaders to try instead to vote on a repeal of the ban.
The Senate still has to vote again to approve this repeal and then send it to the President, as it is with bills, and if passed it will go into effect after sixty days. Lieberman said that forcing troops to lie, which is what the military has been doing, undermines its integrity. Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said that this is not something to be done during military conflict, but I don't really know anyone who respects the opinion of someone named "Saxby Chambliss." It sounds like a Costco boxed wine. Senator Inhofe, another Republican, but from the OK, basically said that if the system isn't broke, why fix it? But it is kind of broke when a simple civil right like this -- the right to serve your country -- isn't afforded to a whole group of people. And the Defense Secretary issued a report, along with military leaders, that this repeal should either have a positive effect or no effect at all on military morale/action. Senator Wyden, D-Oregon, said that "I don't care who you love. If you love this country enough to risk your life for it, you shouldn't have to hid who you are." (Thank you NYT for gathering all these quotes already.)
The idea for this bill has been around since the days of Clinton, and it's fantastic that it is so close to being passed. As for the Dream Act: that's incredibly unfortunate. The filibuster just couldn't be voted down, and now children are forced to live in this country without being able to truly call it home. Oh well. The Senate can't be expected to promise the American dream to everyone, right? (Sarcasm. I think.)
BREAKING NEWS: Senate voted 65 to 31 to REPEAL DADT. Go Senate! Next stop: Executive office!
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Response on Responders Responding to a lack of Response
So, HR 847: the Zadroga Bill. Zadroga was an NYPD detective who died from respiratory illness derived from working at Ground Zero. As in, the 9/11 Ground Zero. As in, the guy is fairly universally considered a hero. The proposed bill provides money for medical and financial benefits to 9/11 first-responders, many of whom have been suffering from respiratory illness themselves, and will be paid by fixing a loophole pertaining to corporate taxes. The House passed it...and the Senate's Republicans are filibustering the bill to death. This after the Senate passed the extension of tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 annually after taxes. That makes sense.
You know what else makes sense? The fact that the Republicans and the media -- the two groups who have routinely invoked the name "9/11" to gain outrage and patriotic support, who disparage the building of Islamic cultural centers in a two-block radius of Ground Zero, who have hundreds of montages of pictures of first responders set to Sarah McClachlan songs on tap for any situation -- are either not talking about the Zadroga Bill, or are busy filibustering it down. No main television news station is touching the issue. The Daily Show is the the only program really talking about the bill, and yesterday Jon Stewart hosted some first-responders from the FDNY and the NYPD on his show to discuss the absurdity of the bill still not being passed. Nothing like a comedy news show being the only emotionally viable and politically relevant thing on TV. Stewart then showed a clip of Senator Mitch McConnell crying after a friend's retirement -- where are the Senate's emotions regarding, oh, I don't know, people who committed heroic deeds and are now suffering from lung diseases?
So, Senate Republicans: can you please put aside party politics or whatever is going on in your hypocritical brains and pass this one bill?
Here's the link to the Stewart clip: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster
You know what else makes sense? The fact that the Republicans and the media -- the two groups who have routinely invoked the name "9/11" to gain outrage and patriotic support, who disparage the building of Islamic cultural centers in a two-block radius of Ground Zero, who have hundreds of montages of pictures of first responders set to Sarah McClachlan songs on tap for any situation -- are either not talking about the Zadroga Bill, or are busy filibustering it down. No main television news station is touching the issue. The Daily Show is the the only program really talking about the bill, and yesterday Jon Stewart hosted some first-responders from the FDNY and the NYPD on his show to discuss the absurdity of the bill still not being passed. Nothing like a comedy news show being the only emotionally viable and politically relevant thing on TV. Stewart then showed a clip of Senator Mitch McConnell crying after a friend's retirement -- where are the Senate's emotions regarding, oh, I don't know, people who committed heroic deeds and are now suffering from lung diseases?
So, Senate Republicans: can you please put aside party politics or whatever is going on in your hypocritical brains and pass this one bill?
Here's the link to the Stewart clip: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-december-16-2010/9-11-first-responders-react-to-the-senate-filibuster
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
War Reports
Reading about reports on the Afghan War in the New York Times, I feel like the art of war is a futile, pointless thing. The savage element is kind of funny, in a sick way; it doesn't matter how well an army can dress, how nice their weapons are, how clean their commercials look, or how fierce their fighting words may be -- ultimately, people end up killing each other brutally and dying in the same manner. War is a dogfight, no matter how well it's planned.
I was watching some of Restrepo a few weeks ago, and I do have respect for people who willingly enter military service. I do not want to sound like I hate soldiers, or that I'd be willing to do their jobs, because I know myself and I know that I'm not. I think they wind up battered, though, and no one should have to see the things that soldiers in every country are faced with. It's tragic. So, I don't wear yellow ribbons. I don't know anyone who is currently at war. I know veterans, but no one who likes to talk. I read reports in the New York Times and get inflamed and just want it all to be over, but that's as close as I get.
One report is on Afghanistan, and one is on Pakistan. They are called the National Intelligence Estimates, and they state that, although the US and NATO have had some success n this war, Pakistan won't shut down "militant sanctuaries in its lawless tribal region," and apparently this is a problem because insurgents are free to cross the border between the two countries. This is a border which can't be sealed.
I can't control anyone's actions. I can't comment on another country's government with any kind of authority; I can barely comment on my government without sounding like an idiot. I don't know. I don't want to make a point today. One war is supposedly over; there are still 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, however. I saw Fair Game on Sunday, about Valerie Plame and the CIA leaking her name, and it seemed pretty obvious that the CIA knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; they knew there was no uranium in Niger. But war commenced anyhow, and once it did, no questioning of the motives was tolerated, since that would "compromise security" and whatever. I know it was a movie, but it was based strongly in reality. That twists with my head, that people are willing to further their own reputations at the sake of their nation's people's intelligence and safety. But, I'm not really surprised.
I was watching some of Restrepo a few weeks ago, and I do have respect for people who willingly enter military service. I do not want to sound like I hate soldiers, or that I'd be willing to do their jobs, because I know myself and I know that I'm not. I think they wind up battered, though, and no one should have to see the things that soldiers in every country are faced with. It's tragic. So, I don't wear yellow ribbons. I don't know anyone who is currently at war. I know veterans, but no one who likes to talk. I read reports in the New York Times and get inflamed and just want it all to be over, but that's as close as I get.
One report is on Afghanistan, and one is on Pakistan. They are called the National Intelligence Estimates, and they state that, although the US and NATO have had some success n this war, Pakistan won't shut down "militant sanctuaries in its lawless tribal region," and apparently this is a problem because insurgents are free to cross the border between the two countries. This is a border which can't be sealed.
I can't control anyone's actions. I can't comment on another country's government with any kind of authority; I can barely comment on my government without sounding like an idiot. I don't know. I don't want to make a point today. One war is supposedly over; there are still 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, however. I saw Fair Game on Sunday, about Valerie Plame and the CIA leaking her name, and it seemed pretty obvious that the CIA knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; they knew there was no uranium in Niger. But war commenced anyhow, and once it did, no questioning of the motives was tolerated, since that would "compromise security" and whatever. I know it was a movie, but it was based strongly in reality. That twists with my head, that people are willing to further their own reputations at the sake of their nation's people's intelligence and safety. But, I'm not really surprised.
At Risk of Sounding Like a Crazy Liberal (which, come on, I am)
First, a couple of complaints. Just general complaints:
-Okay, so the Consumer Product Safety Commission has decided to allow manufacturers to determine how much cadmium can be in children's toys, and is calling this "regulating." That's not regulating. That's capitalism at its worst.
-Also, why won't Congress pass a bill offering benefits to 9/11 first-responders? They're also stalling on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal and on a bill to legalize children of illegal immigrants. I mean, I know why they won't -- the Republicans do not want to give the Left anything until they get what they want, which is immature and totally like American government. They said they wouldn't give him anything unless they got their Bush tax cuts continued, and the Senate voted to extend those for another two years. The cuts benefit people who have an annual income of $200,000 post-taxes; this is a very, very small portion of the population. The cut is, like, three-percent. Seriously. Suck it up rich people. I don't want the trickle-down argument, either; This is why Congress is not my favorite branch of government.
Speaking of regulation: I watched Food, Inc. for the first time last week, and felt like an idiot for not knowing that many members of the FDA have stock in the meat and corn industries. That's insanity. Regulation keeps people safe, keeps food sanitary and businesses from monopoly, protects small farms and small businesses, keeps lead out of children's toys and chemical toxins out of cat food. But there's this myth spread around people who are, for the most part, conservatives who get all their news from each other and the TV, that regulation is bad and undemocratic and socialist and fascist. Well, this is a republic, not a democracy, if that counts, and socialism and fascism are opposing political theories. Government regulation is a good thing. I just find it very annoying that the ex-business people who were recently running for office were supposedly so "pro-jobs" when businesses, to keep down costs and heighten profits, have increasingly (this is no Horatio Alger world -- unless you're born rich, you probably will never be). Whatever. Liberal idealists don't make me feel any warmer or fuzzier inside, either -- putting support in government to, like, reveal its flaws to you, instead of putting your support in WikiLeaks, which will gladly reveal everything to you, is just way to idealistic for me, and fairly naive.
Those are just my thoughts for the day, anyways.
-Okay, so the Consumer Product Safety Commission has decided to allow manufacturers to determine how much cadmium can be in children's toys, and is calling this "regulating." That's not regulating. That's capitalism at its worst.
-Also, why won't Congress pass a bill offering benefits to 9/11 first-responders? They're also stalling on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal and on a bill to legalize children of illegal immigrants. I mean, I know why they won't -- the Republicans do not want to give the Left anything until they get what they want, which is immature and totally like American government. They said they wouldn't give him anything unless they got their Bush tax cuts continued, and the Senate voted to extend those for another two years. The cuts benefit people who have an annual income of $200,000 post-taxes; this is a very, very small portion of the population. The cut is, like, three-percent. Seriously. Suck it up rich people. I don't want the trickle-down argument, either; This is why Congress is not my favorite branch of government.
Speaking of regulation: I watched Food, Inc. for the first time last week, and felt like an idiot for not knowing that many members of the FDA have stock in the meat and corn industries. That's insanity. Regulation keeps people safe, keeps food sanitary and businesses from monopoly, protects small farms and small businesses, keeps lead out of children's toys and chemical toxins out of cat food. But there's this myth spread around people who are, for the most part, conservatives who get all their news from each other and the TV, that regulation is bad and undemocratic and socialist and fascist. Well, this is a republic, not a democracy, if that counts, and socialism and fascism are opposing political theories. Government regulation is a good thing. I just find it very annoying that the ex-business people who were recently running for office were supposedly so "pro-jobs" when businesses, to keep down costs and heighten profits, have increasingly (this is no Horatio Alger world -- unless you're born rich, you probably will never be). Whatever. Liberal idealists don't make me feel any warmer or fuzzier inside, either -- putting support in government to, like, reveal its flaws to you, instead of putting your support in WikiLeaks, which will gladly reveal everything to you, is just way to idealistic for me, and fairly naive.
Those are just my thoughts for the day, anyways.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Shhh.....Whatever. Secrets Are Out.
Either because of an early exposure to All The President's Men, an over-intense admiration of the Pentagon Papers, or a lack of faith in governmental honesty, I really, really like WikiLeaks. Their server, however, is currently down, so I can't use any direct quotes apart from whatever I remember of the Russian and North Korea cables I was reading on Wednesday. More on the cables later. New York Times had them all sent to them, so I have decent summaries anyhow. Julian Assange, the mastermind, has reportedly been seeking extra assistance from Sweden, where he's been seeking refuge, even though Swedish police accused him (probably wrongly) of rape. INTERPOL wants him, the US wants him for treason (read: HE IS FROM AUSTRALIA. My god.) Assange is egocentric and abrasive, fearlessly tossing aside societal codes and giddily tossing about the information he gets so freely.
Apparently, of the 251,287 diplomatic cables (note: these are, basically, reports about not-secret-but-not-revealed-to-the-public treaties and such) released, only about 11,000 were marked as secret, and none were top-secret; no one's been harmed, no real diplomatic indecency has occurred, and the world's governments -- particularly the US, much to the chagrin of Secretary-of-State Clinton, going totally against the Hillary she'd been, the Hillary who liked the Pentagon Papers -- just look as shameful and nasty and embarrassed as they really are. I don't pity them, nor do I reproach them. If I was in international politics, I'd cover up my semi-dirty-but-not-really dealings, too. I'd also feel terrible about it. I guess, if really interested, the American populace could demand to view this information, but I'm fairly certain that no politician would really allow this all to go public. So, a large-scale journalistic showcase like this, with all the excitement of any other kind of heist, is really what's necessary.
When the war information came out (leaked by Pfc. Bradley Manning on a CD marked "Lady Gaga" -- he wasn't really the best info-leaker ever), WikiLeaks became a household name. Their upcoming revelation on bank fraud should be a blockbuster. But a lot of people have trouble embracing the leak of the diplomatic cables. I do not. It's like watching a history book play out in real life...it's finding out what actually happens in diplomacy...it's honest, it's exciting, it's a freaking Bourne movie. Some highlights from the cables include:
-A standoff with Pakistan concerning nuclear fuel, going on since 2007
-Talk of a unified Korea
-Negotiations to empty the prison at Guantanamo
-Corruptions in Afghanistan's presidency
-China's government-sponsored hacking of Google (ha! knew it!)
-Close ties between Russia and Italy (like...they give each other presents?)
-US failure to stop Syria from delivering arms to Hezbollah
-Human rights violation in Germany
The Times got the information, all of it, and have decided not to publish any of the secret or nonforn or "please protect" documents. The information is, therefore, public-but-not. And the cables are so detailed, with accounts of conversations between generals and foreign leaders. And there's the thing about the Libyan leader and his, um, nurse. It's pretty good stuff. There is talk of Assange being tried for some sort of espionage, and this saddens me: people should be lapping this up, basking in the wealth of information at our fingertips! We're political equals with world leaders! I mean, not really, but at least we can now imagine that, and have the proper information to justify our pipe dreams (if you daydream about international diplomacy).
Apparently, of the 251,287 diplomatic cables (note: these are, basically, reports about not-secret-but-not-revealed-to-the-public treaties and such) released, only about 11,000 were marked as secret, and none were top-secret; no one's been harmed, no real diplomatic indecency has occurred, and the world's governments -- particularly the US, much to the chagrin of Secretary-of-State Clinton, going totally against the Hillary she'd been, the Hillary who liked the Pentagon Papers -- just look as shameful and nasty and embarrassed as they really are. I don't pity them, nor do I reproach them. If I was in international politics, I'd cover up my semi-dirty-but-not-really dealings, too. I'd also feel terrible about it. I guess, if really interested, the American populace could demand to view this information, but I'm fairly certain that no politician would really allow this all to go public. So, a large-scale journalistic showcase like this, with all the excitement of any other kind of heist, is really what's necessary.
When the war information came out (leaked by Pfc. Bradley Manning on a CD marked "Lady Gaga" -- he wasn't really the best info-leaker ever), WikiLeaks became a household name. Their upcoming revelation on bank fraud should be a blockbuster. But a lot of people have trouble embracing the leak of the diplomatic cables. I do not. It's like watching a history book play out in real life...it's finding out what actually happens in diplomacy...it's honest, it's exciting, it's a freaking Bourne movie. Some highlights from the cables include:
-A standoff with Pakistan concerning nuclear fuel, going on since 2007
-Talk of a unified Korea
-Negotiations to empty the prison at Guantanamo
-Corruptions in Afghanistan's presidency
-China's government-sponsored hacking of Google (ha! knew it!)
-Close ties between Russia and Italy (like...they give each other presents?)
-US failure to stop Syria from delivering arms to Hezbollah
-Human rights violation in Germany
The Times got the information, all of it, and have decided not to publish any of the secret or nonforn or "please protect" documents. The information is, therefore, public-but-not. And the cables are so detailed, with accounts of conversations between generals and foreign leaders. And there's the thing about the Libyan leader and his, um, nurse. It's pretty good stuff. There is talk of Assange being tried for some sort of espionage, and this saddens me: people should be lapping this up, basking in the wealth of information at our fingertips! We're political equals with world leaders! I mean, not really, but at least we can now imagine that, and have the proper information to justify our pipe dreams (if you daydream about international diplomacy).
Bi-Partisanship? Well.....no......
Ok, so, for lack of a better intro, since I don't really have one, this is from Matt Taibbi's "Taibblog" on Rolling Stone's website:
"Social Security was never the cause of the nation's debt problems. This issue dates all the way back to the Eighties, when Ronald Reagan hired Alan Greenspan to chair the National Commission on Social Security Reform, ostensibly to deal with a looming shortfall in the fund. Greenspan's solution was to hike Social Security tax rates (they went from 9.35% in 1981 to 15.3% in 1990) and build up a "surplus" that could be used to pay Baby Boomers their social security checks 30 years down the road. They raised the SS taxes all right, but they didn't save the money for any old Baby Boomers in the 2000s. Instead, Reagan blew that money paying for eight years of deficit spending and tax cuts. Three presidents after him used the same trick."
Anyways, I found this interesting in a purely factual way, since I was raised to despise Reagan and I've spent a great deal of my life accumulating reasons as to why said hatred is so necessary. He seemed like a mask, very fake, not really in charge, unaware of a lot of things, given wayyyy to much credit for the hostage situation, and, I don't like his economic plan. This Social Security thing just feeds the flame, so to speak. I digress.
My point is actually the rest of Taibbi's blog, which consists partially of him saying how a former Nixon aide who he met confused him with Matt Bai, a writer for the NYT. Taibbi, apparently, doesn't like Bai. At all. I know very little about Matt Bai, but the image Taibbi gives is one of a really "agreeable" liberal--agreeable in the worst way possible, like, far too quick to bend for Republican appeasement, ready to mock more extreme liberals (or, really, non-moderates), without any solid liberal philosophy, and completely enamored with the idea that bi-partisanship is best executed as pure centrism without any dogma at all. Taibbi says that Bai wants Obama to bend for Boehner&Co., give the Republicans what they want. But the Republicans, currently, don't want that. When your entire platform revolves around hating someone, the last thing you want is for that person to become less-than-hateable.
In that sense, then, bi-partisanship is a myth, and would be detrimental to the US' political system. I'm not saying that I like how polarized the country is. I don't. I hate it very much. But centrism is boring, and I think the clash of ideologies is necessary in order for the truth to appear. That said, I also hate extremist ideologies. But I'm not a politician. I mean, I'm currently blogging about another blogger's blog, which is about another writer entirely. My opinion on anything, particularly the pros-and-cons of a political climate, are not really that valid. Whatever. I like politics regardless.
I also saw the federal reserve chairman on 60 Minutes. He's supposed to be non-partisan. I found that very confusing, since I'm so used to being in a world where people are clearly left or right. He was horrible on camera, very nervous and unprofessional, and I fail to believe that a guy who's job it is to watch a country's money couldn't see an economic meltdown (too harsh? panic? recession? what are we calling it?) coming. Hmm.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Ethics: Apparently, They're Totally Overrated
Last week, the House ethics committee decided that Representative Charles Rangel (D- NY) was guilty of 11 of the 13 ethics violations charges against him. The committee almost unanimously recommended censure, which is just one step, punishment-wise, shy of actual expulsion. The House will then vote on censure, and if that's passed, then the speaker (either Pelosi or Boehner, depending on when this will occur) will publicly rebuke Congressman Rangel. His accusations included accepting gifts over fifty dollars from a Manhattan developer, using his office to raise charity money from people with business motives, and a failure to report about half a million dollars worth of assets. He's also accepted trips to the Caribbean, and he's been unwilling to admit to his misdeeds.
Obviously, Rangel has been unethical, and a mere reprimand probably wouldn't be a just punishment, and his actions have to accounted for so as to, I don't know, preserve some scraps of congressional integrity. But Rangel is a twenty-term congressman, one of the strongest political voices to come from Harlem, a strong liberal and a good compromiser, and a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's not unproductive, and has actually proved to be a vital part of the House for decades, and, although I don't want to rationalize, it's not like the rest of Congress is completely pure in ethics, either. I don't feel that Rangel being punished is a race issue; ignoring blatant ethics violations so as not to seem racist is, in its way, racist, since doing so fails to look at actions objectively. It's just that Rangel is not a bad person, and he's a good congressman, too, so this situation is just very hard to watch. If he had just been ethical, things would be fine. There'd be no hearings about censure and whatnot, no reports of unreported money, etc.
But it's really, really difficult to be ethical, and popular, and successful. Although unrelated to the Rangel issue, there is also a clear lack of ethics in Sarah Palin's TLC special series...and in her job on FOXNews, and with her daughter being on Dancing with the Stars despite her lack of talent or celebrity status, and with Palin's constant blurring of the line between "political figure" and "spotlight-seeking nutcase." Her constant media presence is, I've decided, hilarious, given her constant sneering at the "lamestream media" (ooh, good job Sarah. Way to make up even more words which signify your adorably limited vocabulary. Refudiate that). I don't think it's ethical at all to have a TV series which is, ostensibly, a six-part endorsement that she doesn't even have to pay for. Mark Burnett, the reality show guru who produced the series, pays her six figures. I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT about Palin, and apparently her new book is set to rocket up the bestseller list, her TV show is a red-state hit, her daughter can't get voted off that dancing show (I saw Bristol on that once--she said that she's an "activist" for, I don't know, safe sex for teens. I think the terms she was looking for would be closer to "cautionary tale" or "case-in-point"), populist-ish folk adore her (like, 80% approval-among-conservatives adore), EVEN THOUGH all the candidates she endorsed in mid-terms lost (because they were insane) and the not-extremist Republicans can not stand her. Rupert Murdoch touts her as his prized pet, vouching for her obviously ghost-written policy op-eds. The point I got from the NYT column is that Palin and her fans don't hate liberals, or the rich, or the media -- they hate education, they rally against it, they despise it, view it as some elitist trick their opponents use against them. "Anti-elitist" currently means "pro-mediocrity," and, while that's a charming idea for a basic cable reality show, that's no way for a politician to behave. And for a politician to be actively supporting that -- now, that's a lack of ethics.
Oh well. If Palin does run in 2012, and the Mayan calendar doesn't run out and we don't all die, at least Tina Fey will be employed.
Obviously, Rangel has been unethical, and a mere reprimand probably wouldn't be a just punishment, and his actions have to accounted for so as to, I don't know, preserve some scraps of congressional integrity. But Rangel is a twenty-term congressman, one of the strongest political voices to come from Harlem, a strong liberal and a good compromiser, and a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's not unproductive, and has actually proved to be a vital part of the House for decades, and, although I don't want to rationalize, it's not like the rest of Congress is completely pure in ethics, either. I don't feel that Rangel being punished is a race issue; ignoring blatant ethics violations so as not to seem racist is, in its way, racist, since doing so fails to look at actions objectively. It's just that Rangel is not a bad person, and he's a good congressman, too, so this situation is just very hard to watch. If he had just been ethical, things would be fine. There'd be no hearings about censure and whatnot, no reports of unreported money, etc.
But it's really, really difficult to be ethical, and popular, and successful. Although unrelated to the Rangel issue, there is also a clear lack of ethics in Sarah Palin's TLC special series...and in her job on FOXNews, and with her daughter being on Dancing with the Stars despite her lack of talent or celebrity status, and with Palin's constant blurring of the line between "political figure" and "spotlight-seeking nutcase." Her constant media presence is, I've decided, hilarious, given her constant sneering at the "lamestream media" (ooh, good job Sarah. Way to make up even more words which signify your adorably limited vocabulary. Refudiate that). I don't think it's ethical at all to have a TV series which is, ostensibly, a six-part endorsement that she doesn't even have to pay for. Mark Burnett, the reality show guru who produced the series, pays her six figures. I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT about Palin, and apparently her new book is set to rocket up the bestseller list, her TV show is a red-state hit, her daughter can't get voted off that dancing show (I saw Bristol on that once--she said that she's an "activist" for, I don't know, safe sex for teens. I think the terms she was looking for would be closer to "cautionary tale" or "case-in-point"), populist-ish folk adore her (like, 80% approval-among-conservatives adore), EVEN THOUGH all the candidates she endorsed in mid-terms lost (because they were insane) and the not-extremist Republicans can not stand her. Rupert Murdoch touts her as his prized pet, vouching for her obviously ghost-written policy op-eds. The point I got from the NYT column is that Palin and her fans don't hate liberals, or the rich, or the media -- they hate education, they rally against it, they despise it, view it as some elitist trick their opponents use against them. "Anti-elitist" currently means "pro-mediocrity," and, while that's a charming idea for a basic cable reality show, that's no way for a politician to behave. And for a politician to be actively supporting that -- now, that's a lack of ethics.
Oh well. If Palin does run in 2012, and the Mayan calendar doesn't run out and we don't all die, at least Tina Fey will be employed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)