I Hate What You Just Said

In-between throat clearings, Fred Thompson spoke last night at the RNC. For several minutes of the speech, I thought Fred was reading from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs instead of the teleprompter. But I was wrong. The Mel Gibson-grade torture porn Fred was spouting was actually a recounting of John McCain’s experience as a POW in Vietnam.

The truly curious thing about this speech is that it doesn’t present McCain the strong, McCain the Top Gun pilot, McCain the patriotic hero; rather, it presents McCain the victim, McCain the martyr, McCain the lying in his own feces. I assume that this is all about getting the attention of the Christian right, for whom Thompson’s speech will read like a fifth gospel.

The Gospel of St. McCain begins on October 26, 1967, high above the dense jungle of North Vietnam. It was on that day that “a surface-to-air missile slammed into John’s A-4 Skyhawk jet, blowing it out of the sky.” During the escape from the plane, McCain broke “his right leg, his right knee, his left arm and right arm in three places.”

As Thompson relates, what greeted him on the ground was even worse:

An angry mob got to him when he fell to the ground. A rifle butt broke his shoulder. A bayonet pierced his ankle and his groin. They took him to the Hanoi Hilton, where he lapsed in and out of consciousness for days. He was offered medical care for his injuries if he would give up military information in return.

John McCain said, “No”.

I’m sorry, but there is something in the description of the bayoneting of McCain’s ankle and groin — and the refusal of succor — that sounds a bit too much like the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. The only difference is that while Jesus got a postmortem spear in the side, McCain got a bayonet in two places — and one of them was the crotch. Which is like one-upping the suffering of the Son of God. In short, Jesus was a pussy. And probably a community organizer.

Anyway, thank God McCain didn’t die. Just think of the theological confusion this would have created. Who would I worship then?

Thompson continued:

After days of neglect, covered in grime, lying in his own waste in a filthy room, a doctor attempted to set John’s right arm without success and without anesthesia. His other broken bones and injuries were not treated. John developed a high fever and dysentery. He weighed barely a hundred pounds. Expecting him to die, his captors placed him in a cell with two other POWs who also expected him to die.

At this point, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house. Nothing makes a Republican misty-eyed like the story of a man who can’t get adequate health care or one who experiences arbitrary imprisonment and senseless torture. There are 47 million citizens without health care in America. But doing anything other than praying for these people will introduce inefficiencies in the market. Jesus, CEO would be very displeased. And I have it on good authority that America would never torture. I prayed hard for that.

But Fred Thompson was just clearing his throat:

John McCain fought on. He persevered. So then they put him in solitary confinement for over two years — isolation, incredible heat beating on a tin roof, a light bulb in his cell burning 24 hours a day, boarded-up cell windows blocking any breath of fresh air, the oppressive heat causing boils the size of baseballs under his arms, the outside world limited to what he could see through a crack in the door.

For five-and-a-half years this went on. John McCain’s bones may have been broken, but his spirit never was.

We hear a lot of talk about hope these days. John McCain knows about hope. That’s all he had. [. . .]

He’d smile and give ‘em a thumbs-up.

The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at their gums. They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew back his shoulders. Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm.

John was beaten for communicating with other prisoners. He was beaten — beaten for NOT communicating with so-called peace delegations. He was beaten for not giving information during interrogation. [. . .]

Whenever John was returned to his cell — walking if he could, dragged if he couldn’t — as he passed his other fellow POWs, he would often call out to them.

Obama can form the word “hope” with his mouth. But it’s a mouth that hasn’t been repeatedly kicked by the boot of Charlie. And that makes all the difference. McCain has suffered more than Obama. Perhaps more than Jesus. Therefore, we can be sure that God loves him and favors him to lead our nation.

I can’t wait for Mel Gibson to buy the rights to this story.

The AP’s supergenius, Darlene Superville, decided to do us all the public service of “fact-checking” some of the speeches at last night’s Democratic convention:

The shotgun-style charges Democratic National Convention speakers fired at Republican John McCain Tuesday night weren’t necessarily half-truths. But in some instances, they weren’t the whole story either.

Some examples of who said what and what they left out:

SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: “John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That’s not a maverick. That’s a sidekick.”

PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: “And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain.”

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn’t always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush’s position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

So let’s get this straight. Looking at the total votes cast by John McCain since George Bush took office in 2001, he has — on average — voted with the president 90 percent of the time. But WAIT! If you only look at 2005, these statements aren’t true — Casey and Rendell are LIARS! Sorry, but those are THE FACTS.

I don’t want to get all Orwell on this, but what the hell does it mean when you say that these “shotgun-style” charges “weren’t necessarily half-truths” but “in some instances, they weren’t the whole story either”?

I spent about 15 agonizing minutes dividing “not the whole story” by a “not necessarily half-truth” to determine the percentage. I still don’t know.

I hate you Darlene.

h/t TPM

Why does this idiot have his own show? Glenn Beck needs your help to screw the Democrats, even if it destroys the planet in the process:

This week the Democratic party will attempt to hold its first convention that is totally green. They will talk about recycling, buying carbon offsets, and even serve multi-colored foods for some reason.

What’s the problem with their going green? Well, the Democrats know all of these things are pointless gestures, but they’re using them to try and convince voters that they love the earth more than Republicans. If this works they will put into place policies that will hurt our economy and cause real disaster–not the fraudulent type they constantly whine about.

What can you to help? Take part in our carbon ONset program. We are asking you to make just a few small sacrifices to completely wipe out any potential energy savings the Democrats claim credit for.

The “sacrifices” include driving extra miles, running empty dishwashers, taking long showers, and replacing CFL bulbs with incandescent ones.

One of the more annoying behaviors of our political pundit class is the wholesale substitution of their own views for those of “the voters,” or “the military,” or “soccer moms,” or “people who drink beer.” When a talking head states that “the voters” don’t care about a candidate’s age or that “the military” doesn’t trust a candidate who favors diplomacy, they describe large, diverse populations as if they were homogeneous, unified groups. Utterances such as these magically make all diversity and complexity disappear into a smoky cloud of generality.

It’s like those real estate shows on HGTV where an anonymous real estate maven tells a pair of nervous homeowners that “the buyer” wants an open floor plan, or granite counter tops, or stainless appliances, or a neutral color for the bedroom walls. Who is “the buyer”? Not me. My bedroom wall has a mural depicting the life of Red Auerbach. Suck on that, buyers.

Pundits who parrot such an essentializing discourse perform a grave disservice to our national conversation on important — even critical — issues as they utterly misrepresent the true nature and variety of opinion in favor of a reductive shorthand. But since that is easier than doing research or conducting surveys — you know, reporting — we can be certain that “the reporters” will pretty much stink it up forever.

Hey, here’s a good example I found today on the website Open Secrets. Turns out one of the best-kept secrets of the 2008 election is that “the military” isn’t really giving a lot of their hard-earned, tax-free, wartime dollars to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — even though everyone knows that “the military” supports the conservative candidate automatically. In fact, as it turns out, “the military” seems to be giving more money to the Democratic nominee for president this time around. A lot more:

According to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrat Barack Obama has received nearly six times as much money from troops deployed overseas at the time of their contributions than has Republican John McCain [. . .]

And significantly, this isn’t only the case with the military personnel who’ve been getting shot at and blown up in war zones:

Despite McCain’s status as a decorated veteran and a historically Republican bent among the military, members of the armed services overall — whether stationed overseas or at home — are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin. Although 59 percent of federal contributions by military personnel has gone to Republicans this cycle, of money from the military to the presumed presidential nominees, 57 percent has gone to Obama.

Seems to me that this should be a pretty big story. Or at least make it to the news ticker at the bottom of my screen. Nope, Man Catches Fish.

I wonder what’s on “My House is Worth WHAT??”

UPDATE:

Several leading eschatologists weigh in.

We live in an age of information, we are told.

Indeed.

I just looked at CNN.com. As I am writing this post, under “Latest News,” the site lists twenty news stories. Some of them are rather important. However, among the twenty stories that CNN considers important enough to label “Latest News,” one also finds the following eight headlines (my comments in italics):

“Singer Winehouse admitted to hospital” (Wouldn’t it be easier to report when something bad doesn’t happen to Amy?)

“Space-tourism mothership unveiled” (O…K…)

“Man deposits millions, one tattered bill at a time” (WTF?)

“Moustache pulls batter out of slump” (Giambi’s porn ’stache is hideous. Is it news?)

“Huge shark caught with bait, hoisted” (Let me see if I understand this - someone went fishing, used some bait, caught something, and hoisted it up? Holy sh*t!)

“Are you a millionaire in the making?” (Incidentally, no. But can anyone consider this “news?” Is CNN suddenly a sweepstakes? Is Ed McMahon lurking on the website somewhere?)

“Honey, I cheated with your checkbook” (Write your own joke here).

“Beer marathoners run, drink, vomit” (“CNN.com readers read, think, vomit”).

“Cop on desk duty after decking cyclist” (Dear cop: please visit editors of CNN.com and get busy).

There you have it. “Latest News.”

Just hours after getting hit-and-run by the McCain campaign, Bob Novak became the author of his own:

Syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak was cited by police after he hit a pedestrian with his black Corvette in downtown Washington, D.C., Wednesday morning.

A Politico reporter saw Novak in the front of a police car with a citation in his hand; a WJLA-TV crew and reporter saw Novak as well. The pedestrian, a 66-year-old male, was hospitalized at George Washington University Hospital with minor injuries according to DC Fire and EMS. Novak was later released by police and drove away from the scene.

“I didn’t know I hit him. I feel terrible,” a shaken Novak told reporters from Politico and WJLA as he was returning to his car. “He’s not dead, that’s the main thing.”

But don’t feel too bad for the Novakula, there’s more to the story:

As he traveled east on K. Street, crossing 18th, [a cyclist named David Bono] said a “black Corvette convertible with top closed plowed into the guy. The guy is sort of splayed onto the windshield.”

Bono said the pedestrian, who was crossing the street on a “Walk” signal and was in the crosswalk, rolled off the windshield and then Novak made a right into the service lane of K Street. “The car is speeding away. What’s going through my mind is, you just can’t hit a pedestrian and drive away,” Bono said.

He chased Novak half a block down K St., finally caught up with him and then put his bike in front of the car to block him and called 911. Traffic immediately backed up, horns blared, and commuters finally went into reverse to allow Novak to pull over.

Bono said that throughout, Novak “keeps trying to get away. He keeps trying to go.” He said he vaguely recognized the longtime political reporter and columnist as a Washington celebrity but could not precisely place him.

Finally, Novak put his head out the window of his car and motioned him over. Bono said he told him that you can’t hit a pedestrian and just drive away. He said Novak responded:  “I didn’t see him there.”

A concierge at 1700 K Street said that she saw a bicyclist yelling and walked outside to see what the commotion was about.

“This guy hit somebody and he won’t stop so I’m going to stay here until the police come,” Aleta Petty quoted Bono as saying, as he stood in K Street, blocking traffic.

Bob, I call “bullshit.”

[Updated Below]

I believe it was Emerson who wrote that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

Yesterday, our nation’s media showed why they think Emerson is full of shit.

The truth, according to the Washington Press Corps(e), is that politicians show that they are big-minded and serious by never, EVER, changing their views–no matter what.

In a press conference Barack Obama stated that he would continue to “refine” his policy about Iraq as he traveled to the embattled country and met with our commanders on the ground.

How is a reporter supposed to respond when a politician uses a word like “refine” in a sentence? By doing the only thing you know how to do, of course: manufacture fake controversies.

Take the AP story, for instance, which was titled “Obama opens door to altering his Iraq policy”:

Democrat Barack Obama opened the door Thursday to altering his plan to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq in 16 months based on what he hears from military commanders during his upcoming trip there.

The Washington Post’s headline was “Obama Softens on Iraq Withdrawal Timeline”

And Mike Allen, of The Politico:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month. [. . .]

Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to stick to the timeline.

Nice work, Mike, you hack. Really going out of your way to construct a “flip-flopper” narrative.

Refining something, to our nation’s media, apparently means something akin to “reject,” “alter,” or “change.” But not according to the dictionary. There I find that “refine” can mean the following:

• S: (v) polish, refine, fine-tune, down (improve or perfect by pruning or polishing) “refine one’s style of writing”
• S: (v) complicate, refine, rarify, elaborate (make more complex, intricate, or richer) “refine a design or pattern”
• S: (v) refine (treat or prepare so as to put in a usable condition) “refine paper stock”; “refine pig iron”; “refine oil”
• S: (v) refine, rectify (reduce to a fine, unmixed, or pure state; separate from extraneous matter or cleanse from impurities) “refine sugar”
• S: (v) refine (attenuate or reduce in vigor, strength, or validity by polishing or purifying) “many valuable nutrients are refined out of the foods in our modern diet”
• S: (v) refine (make more precise or increase the discriminatory powers of) “refine a method of analysis”; “refine the constant in the equation”

Two points about all this.

First, I think that this dust-up is absurd solely on the basis of the language Obama used. To “refine” something does not mean to fundamentally “alter” or “change” it. If anything, refining something suggests a process whereby something becomes more concentrated, more itself — free from impurities or mistakes. Essentially, Obama is saying that he wants to end the war better.

Secondly, this event is evidence of the pathetic “gotcha” school of journalism where the objective is to expose a candidate as a “flip-flopper.”  God knows there is plenty of self-serving equivocation, waffling, and politically expedient reversal going on in Washington. And these things should be exposed for what they are. But we must also acknowledge that a “change of mind” based on the consultation of authorities and the study of new evidence is actually an indication of a sane, healthy intellect–not a suggestion of duplicity or dishonesty.

To our journalists and the preposterous commentator clowns who construct our media narratives, only a “flip-flopper” would state that they intend to thoughtfully consider evidence and take great care when making decisions about things like war and the lives of soldiers. And a “flip-flopper” is incapable of being a good president.

I suppose this means that the platonic ideal of the American president is someone like George Bush who gets an idea in his head and stubbornly refuses to alter course regardless of facts, evidence, objective data, polls, and the opinions of learned professionals. That kind of consistency takes character. And integrity. Better to be ruled by your “gut” than by your mind.

Way to go, media elites!

UPDATE I:

Not to be outdone, NPR issues this ingenious statement:

Democrat Barack Obama says he is not shifting his policy on troop withdrawals from Iraq, just hours after he said he was open to “refining” his policy.

Oh, snap! NPR, you just busted Obama wearing five pairs of flip-flops! Previously, Obama said he was committed to ending the war, but now he’s completely “refined” his policy and will probably keep our soldiers there for 100 years. McCain wins!

“Open to ‘refining’ his policy” is the equivalent of saying that Barack Obama is “open to perfecting his policy” on Iraq. Shock! Gasp!

One of the more popular statements on this issue (judged by Google) was penned by this budding philologist:

Does Barack Obama’s “Refine” Mean the Same Thing As Evolving, or Flip Flopping?

Refine, evolve, changes his mind…..they all mean the same thing…..Flip Flopping.

Can’t you just hear the rustle of the Cheetos bag?

UPDATE II:

This MSNBC write-up is pretty fair.

Watch the clip of Wes Clark’s statements on John McCain. Then compare it to the media response: a self-feeding loop of evidence-free outrage and effrontery that boggle the mind.

Watching televised news literally makes you stupid.