Recently, I pointed out that the Bush campaign ads feature blacks, Latinos, whites and Asians, but no Arab faces.
I was wrong.
This ad, released March 11, does feature a Middle Eastern face – just when the voice over says John Kerry wants to “weaken the Patriot Act used to arrest terrorists and protect America.”
Oops, my bad.
C’est la guerre
I saw another Bush league campaign ad the other day – this one was anti-Kerry, rather than pro-Bush. According to the ad, Kerry is “wrong on terrorism” because he supported the idea of waiting for UN support for an Iraqi invasion.
What a bad man.
The latest Republican slur against Kerry, in the ongoing attempt to make him look bad, is that people outside of America like and support him. That can only be bad, right?
Specifically, the GOP accuses Kerry of having family in Europe – France, damningly – and of having the support of the European media:
You said it, sister
Bush league advertising
Now that Kerry has clinched the Democratic nomination, the Republican party is gearing up for the campaign. There are three new ads to remind people what a great guy George W. is – two of which include images from 9/11, which the Bush league had promised not to use for political gain.
According to Alternet, on a CBS morning show, “Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters that using images of Ground Zero was fair game because ‘9/11 was the defining moment of these times. Because of that day, America is at war and still is.'”
I’m not a fan of Bush (I know, the surprise is a little underwhelming), and I am not at all surprised that his campaign is exploiting the images of Ground Zero – but after watching the ads, I did wonder that no one has commented on the complete lack of Arab Americans in the ads. There are blacks, Asians, Latinos, whites (naturally), but not a single person of discernibly Middle Eastern heritage. Hmmm…
Anyway, as I said, I’m not surprised, or even particularly put off by the use of 9/11. After all, Mehlman is right; it was a defining moment in Bush’s first term, and arguably the catalyst for the current war. It’s certainly a more compelling argument for war than, say, going to war cuz Dad did first. Given the perceived American collective self-image as a country born on the battlefield, images of war are just part and parcel of any evocation of patriotism; as such, using images of the WTC devastation is no better or worse than relentlessly using the Star Spangled Banner in the ads (which they do, believe me).
On the other hand, if you promise that you’re not going to do something, don’t do it.
Conspiracy theory
Here’s a first – L. Ian MacDonald made me laugh this morning, and not in the usual derisive, cynical way:
Paul Martin said he was unaware, because as finance minister and chief financial officer of the government at the time, he was out of the room when it all happened.
This is, of course, in reference to the so-called Quebec Sponsorship Scandal. What I love about this scandal:
And Kerry clinches the nomination
Recently, I suggested that what was missing in the US Democratic primary race was raciness.
Well, the Drudge Report, which brought us the Lewinsky scandal, is now pleased to report that John Kerry, the current front-runner in the race, may have what it takes.
This scandal has all the ingredients – a Democrat, an intern, and an apparent cover-up. At this point, it’s strictly rumour and innuendo.
Timing is everything – Kerry now needs to keep the rumour going, yet unproven, until he’s safely ensconced in the Oval Office. If the allegations prove true prior to the election, Kerry will be the new Gary Hart. But if he can keep the whole thing under wraps until he’s redecorating the Lincoln bedroom, he’ll be the new Bill Clinton.
Update:
According to the Sun, who interviewed the alleged other woman, “He invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it.”
Woo, steamy stuff.
via Alternet
Sex sells
It recently occurred to me that what’s missing from the current Democratic primary race is sex.
Let’s look at this historically: in the last 50 years, the most successful US presidents (Dem.) are Kennedy and Clinton, both of whom were plagued by sex scandals, and the more we learn about them, the steamier they get.
Carter kept the “lust in his heart” and the beast in his pants – and lost his reelection bid to some actor from California.
LBJ, meanwhile, branded all the females in his entourage with his initials, but although he followed through on several Kennedy initiatives, such as civil rights and the space program, he failed to keep up, well, “it.”
Kennedy and Clinton, on the other hand, were randy buggers who, it seems, were willing to boff anything in a skirt (or a blue dress). I’m willing to admit my ignorance when it comes to American presidents pre-1960, but I bet there are even more examples of the Democratic Ass gettin’ some.
So, Democratic candidates, listen up – get out there and get dirty. Your country needs you (note the very, very subtle wordplay. Shakespeare did it first).
Unelected Officialdom
Canada has bid a farewell, fond or otherwise, to Jean Chretien, after more than a decade at the helm. His successor, Paul Martin, is currently experiencing the pendulum swing of media favour. During the federal election campaign in 2000, rumours were rife that Chretien was planning to retire practically as soon as he was sworn in – and that Martin was the presumed heir to the Liberal throne. In other words, a vote for Chretien was a vote for Martin – and the votes were cast.
Now, however, there seems to be a growing sentiment of “well, we didn’t vote for you, buddy.” Particularly in light of the most recent little oopsie: in February 2003, the government reported that it had paid about $137,000 to a shipping company owned by Paul Martin. The numbers, as it turns out, were a little off.
By a factor of 1,175.
New figures released this month show that in fact, the government gave the shipping company contracts worth $161 million.
Martin’s response? He said he knew immediately upon hearing it that the $137,000 figure was wrong.
“I was appalled when I saw what the original answer had been,” he said.
So, about a year ago, he saw the number, knew it had to be wrong, and didn’t say a word???
Well, I didn’t vote for you, buddy.
Meanwhile, away down south, Senator John McCain is putting the blame for Iraq on – wait for it – Bill Clinton. According to McCain, it was Clinton who was snowed by faulty intelligence, and since Clinton signed the Iraqi Regime Change Act in 1998, the Bush league cannot be held accountable.
That’s right – the Democrats did it.
Call me a cynic, but…
Sharon’s right-hand man, Ehud Olmert, says that killing Arafat is definitely an option. This follows Israel’s threat to force Arafat into exile. It also follows widespread demonstrations, in reaction to the exile idea, from Palestinians and others in support of Arafat.
Prior to the initial threat of exile, many Palestinians would have been nonchalant about the voluntary resignation of Arafat, and would likely have rallied behind a new leader in the hopes of finally resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. ‘Let’s get back to the so-called road map’ was the prevailing sentiment.
Not surprisingly, at the first hint of an imposed exile, Arafat is newly popular, a beloved leader that Palestinians are 100% behind.
Imagine what their reaction would be if Israel makes good on the assasination threat.
First of all, removing Arafat is a useless gesture that will only serve to ascerbate the situation and create a martyr around whom the anti-Israeli movement can rally. In the introduction to her newest edition of The Demon Lover, Robin Morgan makes the point that removing the leader from a terrorist organization will no more end terrorism that would Bill Gates’ having a heart attack end capitalism – nor, as a friend commented, would it end Microsoft.
Secondly, many would argue that the only difference between Arafat and the hawkish Sharon is international recognition – and that the only difference between the Palestinian war effort and that of Israel is tanks and uniforms. Can the Palestinians reply that sure, they’ll dump Arafat, provided the Knesset ousts Sharon? We’ll depose our leader if you depose yours? How can the Israelis legitimately call for a clean slate on one side without putting forth some of their own representatives who are a little more flexible and a lot less retaliatory?
It all makes me wonder if the Israeli leaders are even remotely interested in the famous road map. Maybe what they’re really looking for is an excuse to eradicate the problem – if we can provoke a big enough Palestinian revolt, we’ll have no choice but to go in there, guns blazing, and just get rid of the problem once and for all. After all, if there are no Palestinians, there can be no Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
The “great drama of gay rights”
Douglas Farrow, a professor of Christian Thought at McGill, states in today’s Gazette that marriage “is about children and what’s best for children.” He continues: “the hidden premise of so-called gay marriages… is that children are a secondary issue at best.” (my italics)
I have already submitted my letter to the editor, but there’s plenty of rant to go around.
If marriage is about children, what happens to childless heterosexual couples in Farrow’s world? Do their marriages automatically dissolve after a prescribed amount of time without offspring? Despite Farrow’s definition of marriage, hetero couples do get married for reasons beyond procreation; in fact, many straight couples deliberately opt out of parenthood. There are also plenty of frustrated couples who cannot, for one reason or another, have children – does Farrow propose to compound their unhappiness by telling them they shouldn’t be married?
As for gay marriages and children, it seems to me that gay parents have a better motivation to marry for the sake of their children. Children of straight couples are related biologically to their parents, and therefore require no legal definition of parenthood, family or marriage to protect their interests. Children of gay parents, on the other hand, cannot be biologically related to both parents. What happens if disaster strikes – the biological parent dies or disappears, leaving the other, nonbiological parent with potentially horrible legal battles to maintain the relationship with the child.
I’m not sure what Farrow believes is the “hidden premise” of gay marriage – apparently it’s hidden from him as well – but surely there are plenty of gay couples who’s prime incentive for marriage is to provide a safe, stable, socially recognized family unit for their children.
It’s disappointing to read statements like these from a professor of Christian Thought. One would hope that some one with that level of education, not to mention “Christianity,” would (a) be more tolerant and accepting, and (b) at least be able to present a rational argument, rather than resorting to the language of intolerance. For instance, he makes sarcastic comments about the intellectual capacity of Martin Cauchon, to whom her refers as our “minister of justification.” A few more examples from Farrow’s article:
– “the word ‘fishers’ [was created] so as not to offend that largely fictional character, the lady fisherman”
– “the grand farce that is being played out in place of a marriage debate”
– “the great drama of gay rights”
– “the innocuous-sounding Act Respecting Marriage”
I have said before that the debate on marriage, gay or straight, should be considered outside the realm of religion. Churches, sects, congregations, and so on should have the right to choose not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. But they should stay out of the legal debate – that’s what the separation of Church and State is all about.