We watched the President's announcement of America's withdrawal from Afghanistan last night - and if you haven't seen it yet, we suggest you put aside about fifteen minutes and watch it. At the very least, read the transcript.
Frankly, there wasn't anything that surprised us about the speech.
It's not that we're jaded. We know the stereotype of people who work in media and communications - and while that cliché may have some basis in reality, it didn't color our opinion of the President's address - or the reactions of our colleagues in the media that we observed last night.
First, to the speech.
Several media organizations had already leaked earlier this week that President Obama would be calling for 10,000 troops to come home by the end of this year. Others leaked that Obama would call at least 30,000 troops back in the next fifteen months. Neither piece of news shocked us when the President confirmed them both.
We weren't even surprised that the President made his announcement this month. Eighteen months ago, at West Point, the President told the country then that he was sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in order to actually try and complete the mission initially assigned to those troops a decade ago. The initial mission was to subdue the Taliban, help bring back a secular government, and kill Osama Bin Laden. Eighteen months later, all three goals have been accomplished - and true to his word, President Obama is now beginning to bring the troops home.
Certainly, there were other factors in the President's decision, the cost of the wars being one of the largest. Overall though, this President has - more often than not - completed the goals he's set for himself, and worked to fulfill his promises. One look at Politifact's "Obmaeter" confirms that he's only broken his promises on 42 of 508 promises made before he took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sadly, we remain unsurprised at how the partisans on both ends of the simplified political spectrum attacked the President after his speech.
On the left, the anti-war liberals immediately jumped on the President as not moving fast enough, and harped on the fact there will still be more troops in Afghanistan than there were when he was inaugurated. Of course, they'll conveniently ignore the fact that his predecessor never even sent the recommended number of troops to either Afghanistan or Iraq in the first place.
On the right, the members of the 101st Kowardly Keyboard Kommandos' Chickenhawk Division immediately jumped to the idea that ANY significant troop reduction is a choice between a safe America and an unsafe America. As we've noted before, we'll never know if they'd feel the same way if they'd been the ones serving four or five tours of duty in war zones over the last decade, instead of living off the largess of their parents and others.
We're not even surprised at the general lack of reaction from Afghans and Pakistanis. Regardless of when we leave, the Afghans will likely revert back to their age-old habits of tribal squabbles and corruption. And Pakistanis still aren't sure killing Bin Laden was a good idea.
Everyone knows where they stand on this issue - and it's no different than it was before the President's address last night. The only thing that might surprise us about his speech is if we found someone who actually changed their opinion of the war after the President's address.
We won't hold our breath we'll find anyone like that.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Up In Smoke
When it comes to the combined idea of politicians and credibility, we're reminded of the old George Carlin jokes about "jumbo shrimp,", "business ethics" or "plastic glasses.". While the two ideas are not completely mutually exclusive, we can certainly understand how many Americans see the idea of a credible politician as something of a rare species. Many of the people on Capitol Hill who were screeching with righteous indignation for Congressman Anthony Weiner to resign (even though he did nothing illegal) still have little to say about Congressman David Vitter's solicitation of prostitution (which IS a crime), even several years later.
Take a look around - even the former main conductor of the "Straight Talk Express" seems to have once again singed his own credibility, after taking his tongue for a walk right into the tinder-dry thickets of arguably racist comments.
We admit that there's a lot of evidence that speaks again John McCain being a racist, not the least of which is the Senator's adopted daughter, Bridget. Still, a long-time veteran of the political process like McCain should know that just one unguarded or poorly phrased statement can be misconstrued, inflated, and come to dominate the news cycle. Even things not specifically stated - like McCain's adoption of a daughter from Bangladesh - can be twisted to make a political figure appear to be something they're not, as Karl Rove did to McCain back in 2000.
Unfortunately, just being aware of the pitfalls of a media environment that is constantly salivating for more juicy content isn't enough to protect someone from sometimes triggering a media feeding frenzy - which is exactly what Senator McCain has done over the last few days.
At a press conference last weekend, Mr. McCain made some comments about both wildfires and immigrants that - frankly - may have appeared racist to people who only saw clips of the press conference, or even read his main quotes. Those comments could easily be interpreted as inflammatory by a media consumer who isn't fully informed about the problems that affect the Senator's home state of Arizona, or even those who may not have seen the entire press conference.
The problem with Sen. McCain's credibility on this issue is that his media assistants seem to have forgotten how charged and primed the media environment surrounding his state is, with respect to any racial comment. The fallout created by SB 1070 still hasn't been settled, nor have the immigration challenges facing border states. These are all things that Mr. McCain is well aware of.
Sadly, in today's media environment, facts cannot always extinguish the blaze of inflammatory comments taken out of context in a 140-character world. That may have once been the case - and we still believe wholeheartedly in basing our viewpoints on facts. But going on the Today Show and saying that he was, "…puzzled ... that there should be any controversy," didn't help Mr. McCain's credibility. In fact, it may have hurt him, as some people now see him in the same light that they see Grandpa Simpson - old and out of touch.
We have family in Arizona - and we understand that what the Senator was saying may have some embers of truth to it. After all, fires in the desert are used for all the things he said immigrants use them for - as signals, to keep warm, and as diversions - by both immigrants and citizens alike.
The real burn for Mr. McCain - not to mention his staff - seems to be the inability to put out this kind of media firestorm.
Public figures take note: when you spark a flame with an offhand, easily misunderstood comment, apologize, and walk away. You may indeed have the facts on your side, but as one of our staff members has been known to say, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your message across?"
Take a look around - even the former main conductor of the "Straight Talk Express" seems to have once again singed his own credibility, after taking his tongue for a walk right into the tinder-dry thickets of arguably racist comments.
We admit that there's a lot of evidence that speaks again John McCain being a racist, not the least of which is the Senator's adopted daughter, Bridget. Still, a long-time veteran of the political process like McCain should know that just one unguarded or poorly phrased statement can be misconstrued, inflated, and come to dominate the news cycle. Even things not specifically stated - like McCain's adoption of a daughter from Bangladesh - can be twisted to make a political figure appear to be something they're not, as Karl Rove did to McCain back in 2000.
Unfortunately, just being aware of the pitfalls of a media environment that is constantly salivating for more juicy content isn't enough to protect someone from sometimes triggering a media feeding frenzy - which is exactly what Senator McCain has done over the last few days.
At a press conference last weekend, Mr. McCain made some comments about both wildfires and immigrants that - frankly - may have appeared racist to people who only saw clips of the press conference, or even read his main quotes. Those comments could easily be interpreted as inflammatory by a media consumer who isn't fully informed about the problems that affect the Senator's home state of Arizona, or even those who may not have seen the entire press conference.
The problem with Sen. McCain's credibility on this issue is that his media assistants seem to have forgotten how charged and primed the media environment surrounding his state is, with respect to any racial comment. The fallout created by SB 1070 still hasn't been settled, nor have the immigration challenges facing border states. These are all things that Mr. McCain is well aware of.
Sadly, in today's media environment, facts cannot always extinguish the blaze of inflammatory comments taken out of context in a 140-character world. That may have once been the case - and we still believe wholeheartedly in basing our viewpoints on facts. But going on the Today Show and saying that he was, "…puzzled ... that there should be any controversy," didn't help Mr. McCain's credibility. In fact, it may have hurt him, as some people now see him in the same light that they see Grandpa Simpson - old and out of touch.
We have family in Arizona - and we understand that what the Senator was saying may have some embers of truth to it. After all, fires in the desert are used for all the things he said immigrants use them for - as signals, to keep warm, and as diversions - by both immigrants and citizens alike.
The real burn for Mr. McCain - not to mention his staff - seems to be the inability to put out this kind of media firestorm.
Public figures take note: when you spark a flame with an offhand, easily misunderstood comment, apologize, and walk away. You may indeed have the facts on your side, but as one of our staff members has been known to say, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to get your message across?"
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Justice, Inc.
The golden rule was on full display in Washington, DC yesterday, right across from the Capitol Building, and just down the street from the Library of Congress - but it may not be the golden rule you're thinking of.
In case you missed it, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made a decision to throw out a long-struggling, class action employment discrimination lawsuit against the country's largest retailer, Wal-Mart. The decision was not the slam dunk that media outlets on either side are claiming it was.
The court was unanimous in saying that the lawyers for the plaintiffs had sued Wal-Mart using the wrong part of the law, one not concerned with monetary damages. That's the part of the story you'll hear crowed about in the right-wing media, when it comes to this story. Sadly, it was the failure of the lawyers for the former Wal-Mart workers to properly navigate the labyrinth of legal tangles that led to that 9-0 decision - which had nothing to do with the key part of the case.
The real meat of the decision was the 5-4 ideological split, which said - in short - that class-action lawsuits that seek money from employers for discrimination in the workplace are non-starters in the eyes of the Supremes.
As Columbia University law professor John Coffee said in the LA Times, this ruling "… largely eliminates the monetary threat facing big employers [if they decide to discriminate]… if there is no money relief at the end of the road, there is no incentive to bring the suit."
We've understood for quite some time now that the Roberts Court has been overly friendly to corporations, big businesses, and the wealthy, while treating the concerns of those the court is supposed to focus upon - the unjustly afflicted or unjustly accused - as annoying, uninteresting, or unworthy of justice.
Just to add insult to their injury to the justice system, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court also ruled, in a separate case, that states have no duty to provide legal counsel in civil court matters, "even if that individual faces incarceration," due to the circumstances of their situation.
This can - and likely will - open a huge can of worms for certain people caught in the gears of our legal system. Those people, once accused and arrested, if caught in the system, could then be punished not for their own failures but the failures of the system. Each time the system fails them, they - not the system - could be given an additional charge, but they won't be provided with legal counsel any more.
As the bipartisan Constitution Project noted Monday, the ruling "undermines the fundamental fairness of our justice system, putting Americans in danger of losing their liberty simply because they cannot afford a lawyer."
If this sounds eerily close to the skewed legal system Europeans often faced under unjust kings and other aristocratic rulers - one of the very reasons Europeans escaped to America in the first place - you're right.
The golden rule that we mentioned earlier, that the U.S. Supreme Court was displaying Monday, isn't the one in the Bible.
It's the rule that he or she who has the gold, makes the rules.
As history proves, that rule often works, for a time. As history also proves, that rule only works as long as they who have the gold can stay alive long enough to use it.
That version of the golden rule may be what our legal system is turning into - but don't call it a justice system.
Justice doesn't look anything like this.
In case you missed it, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made a decision to throw out a long-struggling, class action employment discrimination lawsuit against the country's largest retailer, Wal-Mart. The decision was not the slam dunk that media outlets on either side are claiming it was.
The court was unanimous in saying that the lawyers for the plaintiffs had sued Wal-Mart using the wrong part of the law, one not concerned with monetary damages. That's the part of the story you'll hear crowed about in the right-wing media, when it comes to this story. Sadly, it was the failure of the lawyers for the former Wal-Mart workers to properly navigate the labyrinth of legal tangles that led to that 9-0 decision - which had nothing to do with the key part of the case.
The real meat of the decision was the 5-4 ideological split, which said - in short - that class-action lawsuits that seek money from employers for discrimination in the workplace are non-starters in the eyes of the Supremes.
As Columbia University law professor John Coffee said in the LA Times, this ruling "… largely eliminates the monetary threat facing big employers [if they decide to discriminate]… if there is no money relief at the end of the road, there is no incentive to bring the suit."
We've understood for quite some time now that the Roberts Court has been overly friendly to corporations, big businesses, and the wealthy, while treating the concerns of those the court is supposed to focus upon - the unjustly afflicted or unjustly accused - as annoying, uninteresting, or unworthy of justice.
Just to add insult to their injury to the justice system, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court also ruled, in a separate case, that states have no duty to provide legal counsel in civil court matters, "even if that individual faces incarceration," due to the circumstances of their situation.
This can - and likely will - open a huge can of worms for certain people caught in the gears of our legal system. Those people, once accused and arrested, if caught in the system, could then be punished not for their own failures but the failures of the system. Each time the system fails them, they - not the system - could be given an additional charge, but they won't be provided with legal counsel any more.
As the bipartisan Constitution Project noted Monday, the ruling "undermines the fundamental fairness of our justice system, putting Americans in danger of losing their liberty simply because they cannot afford a lawyer."
If this sounds eerily close to the skewed legal system Europeans often faced under unjust kings and other aristocratic rulers - one of the very reasons Europeans escaped to America in the first place - you're right.
The golden rule that we mentioned earlier, that the U.S. Supreme Court was displaying Monday, isn't the one in the Bible.
It's the rule that he or she who has the gold, makes the rules.
As history proves, that rule often works, for a time. As history also proves, that rule only works as long as they who have the gold can stay alive long enough to use it.
That version of the golden rule may be what our legal system is turning into - but don't call it a justice system.
Justice doesn't look anything like this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)