Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Bush to Reporters: Lighten Up
As seen at today's Best of the Web, this remarkable anecdote from Holly Bailey, writing in Newsweek:
Wow.I Have Had My Differences With Members of the Press. But it's Nothing That Burying them Under Tons of Earth Won't Solve
Does President Bush have it in for the press corps? Touring a Caterpillar factory in Peoria, Ill., the Commander in Chief got behind the wheel of a giant tractor and played chicken with a few wayward reporters. Wearing a pair of stylish safety glasses--at least more stylish than most safety glasses--Bush got a mini-tour of the factory before delivering remarks on the economy. "I would suggest moving back," Bush said as he climbed into the cab of a massive D-10 tractor. "I'm about to crank this sucker up." As the engine roared to life, White House staffers tried to steer the press corps to safety, but when the tractor lurched forward, they too were forced to scramble for safety."Get out of the way!" a news photographer yelled. "I think he might run us over!" said another. White House aides tried to herd the reporters the right way without getting run over themselves. Even the Secret Service got involved, as one agent began yelling at reporters to get clear of the tractor. Watching the chaos below, Bush looked out the tractor's window and laughed, steering the massive machine into the spot where most of the press corps had been positioned. The episode lasted about a minute, and Bush was still laughing when he pulled to a stop. He gave reporters a thumbs-up. "If you've never driven a D-10, it's the coolest experience," Bush said afterward. Yeah, almost as much fun as seeing your life flash before your eyes.
Perhaps I'm misjudging the poor woman. But I have a feeling that Mr. Bush's predecessor would not have gotten this treatment; he would have been called "playful", or "carefree", or some such. He certainly would not have received a totally-unfounded accusation involving "burying [people] under tons of earth".
Honestly, I don't think the President was feeling homicidal. I suspect he was just experiencing what many men occasionally do -- hey look, there's a really cool big machine, let's fire it up and drive it around a bit! (In the process, he was also disproving the accusation that used to be standard about him -- that he's "all hat and no cowboy". Clearly, the man doesn't mind getting his hands dirty.)
I mean, have a look at the Wikipedia photo, which Ms. Bailey helpfully links. Doesn't that look like fun?
And frankly... given what the press, Newsweek included, has been writing about him these past six years, I'm glad to hear that he still has a sense of humor.
Of course, if Ms. Bailey finds the Presidential beat too nerve-wracking for her, she could always ask for a transfer. For example, she could cover Dick Cheney's hunting expeditions.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
More Self-Parody: "Poop for Peace"
Every time I get to thinking that, hmm, maybe the American peace movement should be taken more seriously, I come across something like this.
Is this for real, or is this a parody? No, it looks like people are taking it seriously -- here are instructions, from two years ago, for, uh, expressing your desire for world peace.
Personally, it looks to me just like a simplistic perception that War Is Bad, Dude, coupled with a juvenile desire to feel that you're Doing Something About It -- by giving a special name to something you were doing anyway. But I'm just a warmongering neocon Zionist; what do I know? (Answer: I may not know much, but I have enough dignity to keep my excretions private, thanks.)
Hat tip: LGF. (And thanks to my lovely wife for calling it to my attention.)
Labels: humor, U.S. politics
Sunday, January 28, 2007
On Self-Parody
Greetings to both of my regular readers! (Or to the one regular reader I have left, as the case may be.)
My apologies for the long hiatus; I've been busy with various non-blogging activities ("life", in other words). But perhaps it's time to get back in the saddle again... and where better to start than some ripe low-hanging fruit.
Or perhaps low-hanging fruit is a bit too close for comfort. It seems that an Israeli promotional event is causing widespread panic in southern Lebanon. Specifically, an Israeli local paper, called Ha'Ir, chose to use green helium balloons with their logo on them... and, after they were released, some of them blew across the border into Lebanon.
So now there are Lebanese who are being rushed to the hospital for suspicious symptoms, after inhaling the contents of these helium balloons. Lebanon's government-controlled news agency, al-Manar, is calling them "poisoned balloons" and claiming that they were dispersed by Israeli military aircraft. Some of the balloons have been exploded by the Lebanese army; others have been passed over to Italian UN troops for "examination".
(Thanks to Ha'aretz for the explanation; I don't read Arabic, I'm afraid. There is an English-language version of al-Manar, but it doesn't have the Green Balloon story yet; I'll have to check back again tomorrow.)
There's just so much wrong with this story, it's hard to know where to begin. Israel now stands accused of trying to poison innocent Lebanese... using helium balloons? (Only this past summer, remember, Israel was bombing Hizb'allah strongholds throughout southern Lebanon, and was criticized mercilessly for it. Are we to assume that the Israeli generals have started a "balloons, not bombs" campaign?)
And innocent Lebanese are now supposed to be stupid enough to pick up strange balloons, with Hebrew writing on them, and breathe them? (As my lovely wife points out, Israeli children are cautioned, practically as soon as they learn to walk, not to approach "suspicious objects". But in Lebanon we seem to have adults opening up strange balloons and inhaling the contents, just to see what would happen... and then blaming Israel for the results.)
It almost seems superfluous to point out that, if Israel ever did want to use, uh, helium balloons as an offensive weapon -- well, why on Earth would they be "dispersed" from Israeli military aircraft?
Please, just take a moment and picture this with me. We imagine a two-seater F-16, painted in Israeli colors and armed to the teeth, flying at several hundred miles per hour over the northern Galilee. The warcraft crosses the border into Lebanese airspace. Both pilot and navigator are remaining cool, prepared to react with split-second timing, ready for anything. And then, at a predetermined instant, a target is reached and the pilot says, "bombs away, Shmuel"... at which point the navigator, feeling like an idiot, releases several dozen green helium balloons. The balloons float serenely above the Lebanese landscape while the F-16 makes its getaway. Perhaps a half-hour later, a Lebanese couple, out for a stroll, look up; the woman says, "Look, Mahmoud, what do you suppose that is?" Mahmoud replies, "I don't know, it looks like some sort of strange green balloon with Hebrew writing on it. Let's pop it and take a sniff."
Unbelievable. Does the need to blame Israel know any bounds at all?
I do hope that Israelis exhibit their usual sense of humor about this. I could easily imagine an Israeli in a clown outfit, with a package of green balloons and a tank of helium and nothing better to do on his day off, driving up to the Lebanese border and having fun. ("You want helium balloons? I'll show you some helium balloons!")
UPDATE: A day later, the Green Balloons story still does not appear on the English-language al-Manar site. The original story, datelined January 27 2007, still appears on the Arabic-language site. A quick search on Google News finds 22 articles on the subject, including this Jerusalem Post article:
Balloons drifting from Israel into southern Lebanon sparked a panic among villagers over the weekend amid rumors they were filled with poison gas. The balloons were apparently part of an advertising campaign by a newspaper in northern Israel.I'd suggest "paranoia" as a likely diagnosis, Doctor.
Results of tests conducted by UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon showed the balloons did not contain any dangerous gases, a Lebanese security official said Monday. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give statements to the media.
. . .
After the balloons were first discovered Saturday in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh, the Lebanese army issued a statement warning residents not to touch them, pending an investigation. Pictures of the green, orange and black balloons were splashed across newspapers over the weekend and on Monday.
The state-run National News Agency and the Al-Manar TV channel of the Hizbullah guerrilla group claimed the balloons contained toxic gas and had been dropped by Israeli military aircraft, further stoking public fears.
At least five people were hospitalized in southern Lebanon complaining of nausea, dizziness and low blood pressure following contact with the balloons, Lebanese newspaper reports and hospital officials said.
Khalil Malli, a resident of Nabatiyeh, was the first to discover the balloons, finding a bunch tied together with ribbon in his backyard. He told Lebanese media that a "suspicious smell" emanated from them and when he spotted the Hebrew writing he alerted police and journalists in the area.
Not long after, Malli and other members of his family began feeling lightheaded and nauseous and were taken to a hospital for treatment.
Rana Jouni, a journalist in southern Lebanon, reported feeling the same symptoms after a visit to the Malli home during which she took pictures of the balloons. She reported the same suspicious smell.
"About a half an hour after taking the pictures I began feeling dizzy and out of breath. Soon I couldn't breathe and then I felt my arms become numb," she told The Associated Press Monday from her bed at the Najda al-Shaabiya hospital in Nabatiyeh where she was admitted Saturday.
Dr. Samer Suleiman, an intensive care doctor at the hospital, said that although Jouni and the other patients complained of symptoms that are consistent with exposure to toxic gases, blood and urine tests did not reveal exposure to such gases.
"We have no explanation for it," Suleiman said of the contradiction between the patients' symptoms and test results.
By way of contrast, this much shorter article appeared at India e-news:
Similar reports can be found at al-Jazeera and the UAE's Gulf News. The latter is an editorial, and it recommends that the UN deal "firmly" with Israel for having "dropped" balloons that were "filled with poisonous gas". (I have to wonder -- can the Lebanese take any of this seriously? They had firm evidence, not six months ago, of just how deadly the Israeli military can be when it wants to be, against the targets it considers important. And now we're supposed to believe that the IDF is playing games with balloons?)Israel planes dump 'suspicious green balloons' on Lebanon
Israeli planes violated Lebanese airspace and dumped green balloons over the southern port city of Tyre, Lebanese security sources said. Lebanese troops cordoned off the area around the coast of Tyre Saturday and prevented people from touching the 'suspicious balloons' after reports indicated that some people were poisoned when they did.
According to sources, similar green balloons were dropped over the market town of Nabatiyeh, 54 km south of here.
Five people suffering from nausea and dizziness were brought into hospital after they touched the 'suspicious green balloons', said a hospital source.
Google News gave the al-Jazeera article top billing, by the way. (Thanks, guys.)
Labels: humor, Israel, Lebanon
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Self-Contradiction at the AP
I wasn't intending to post today -- I've been busy lately. But this just made me laugh:
RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Democrat Mark R. Warner, the former governor of Virginia, has decided not to run for president in 2008, Democratic officials said Thursday.This is so self-parodying, I'm not sure where to begin. Is it not obvious that these two nameless "officials" are upstaging Gov. Warner by spilling the beans early? What was their reason for remaining anonymous, then?
Warner, 51, scheduled a late morning news conference in Richmond to make the announcement, according to two Democratic officials who refused to be identified because they did not want to upstage Warner's announcement.
It's well-nigh unbelievable that anyone would say such a thing. My officemate, the long-suffering Daniel T., suggests that perhaps the two "officials" remained anonymous for the usual reasons -- so as not to get into trouble for leaking information they had no business leaking -- and that it was the AP reporter who invented the "upstaging" reason. If so, however, it seems that some journalists, anxious to avoid saying anything negative about Democrats (or anything positive about Republicans), are going to absurd extremes. (Call it Journalistic Objectivity, 21st-century style.)
Or perhaps the leakers in question explicitly asked that the news not be released before Gov. Warner's press conference... and later insisted that, if the information was to be published, that their identities be withheld. (I could then see a reporter cheerfully filing the story anyway, and thinking "hmm, they seem reluctant to upstage Warner; let me say something about that too".)
I'm not sure who is less responsible here -- the people who leaked the information, or the journalists who published it. Frankly, I'm not overly confident of either at this point, even though the information is pretty trivial.
But isn't that the point of integrity -- to maintain high standards, even when the results aren't important? If you try to maintain standards for the important stuff, while allowing yourself to get lazy for the small stuff, then where do you draw the line -- and how do you know you've drawn it in the right place?
Labels: humor, journalism, U.S. politics
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Who Is The Democrats' Karl Rove?
Perhaps more to the point, if the Democrats had a Karl Rove -- or, rather, a secret diabolical genius, manipulating everything behind the scenes, which is who many people seem to think Rove is -- what would he say?
(Let me add, for the record, that I don't know Rove personally, and I haven't the slightest idea what sort of evil diabolical genius he may or may not be. My personal belief is that he's a clever political strategist, just as prone to making stupid mistakes as the rest of us. I will submit, however, that some members of the American Left do believe him to be an Evil Diabolical Genius, and have built it up into a full-blown conspiracy theory -- and, like many conspiracy theories, this one cannot be disproved. When things go well for Republicans, it's because diabolical Rove is pulling strings behind the scenes. When things go badly for Republicans, it's because Rove is trying to lull Democrats into a false sense of security, so that he can lure them in for the kill -- or perhaps he's trying to punish moderate Republicans for not siding with him, or something. In other words, no matter what happens, it bolsters the theory, helping people believe that they are powerless, or that they are opposed by Absolute Evil, or that they've finally figured out how Bush the Evil Idiot keeps running rings around everybody, or whatever feels good to a particular conspiracy theorist.)
A good many people do seem to believe this -- and some of them, despairing of not having their own Karl Rove to be an evil manipulator behind the scenes, have tried to create one. The Democratic Karl Rove, it seems, would say things somewhat like this:
In the past months, it's clear that you've avoided the Wrath of Rove by having nuanced, complex, and varied solutions to the problem in Iraq... all just to avoid the "cut and run" label. This is weak, and the polls support this assessment. Oh sure -- ducking the issue might just work if everything continues to get worse, but what if things moderate or even get slightly better in the next 10 weeks? What then?(emphasis added)
For the midterms this fall, follow this recipe to help ensure that your current leads are sustainable, even if things stop getting worse....
This would be funny, if it wasn't such a serious topic. People really are hoping that the war will continue to get worse -- that more American troops will die, for example, or that terror attacks will kill large numbers of innocent Iraqis -- because, if things start to actually get better, it could mean a Democratic loss at the polls!
I'm reminded of Michael Moore's famous cry, just after Sept. 11 2001, that the people of the World Trade Center didn't deserve to die -- because they were primarily Democrats who didn't vote for Bush! (I've sometimes wondered -- does that make the 9/11 deaths at the Pentagon somehow more acceptable?)
The ersatz Democratic Karl Rove continues:
Strategy #2:My God, isn't that beautiful? Don't worry, Democrats, that you don't have any coherent plan to offer as an alternative... because it's not your fault. The evil Bushies have been keeping secrets from you. (So much for the House Intelligence Committee, I suppose, and the Armed Forces Committee, and so forth. Remember the select group of Senators and Congressmen, of both parties, that were kept informed about the NSA wiretapping scheme, and were content to keep quiet about it until the New York Times exposed the story, at which point people were suddenly outraged?)
Do not get sucked into solving the problem in Iraq. You can't solve the problem, because you don't have access to the information you need to make a solid policy proposal. Only the Republican Party has full access to this information. And only the American people can give you the keys to access this critical information by voting you into the majority in Congress this fall. Only then can you come up with an alternative plan. Let your constituents know that if you gain majority status, you will instantly be chairing all of the committees, and finally restoring the balance of powers in Washington that should have been serving us all along.
And I just love the advice -- explain to the American people that, if they blindly vote for you, then you'll tell them what your plan is, and why voting for you was a good idea! (Buying a pig in a poke -- oh sure, that will go over well with the voters.)
Perhaps the problem with the Democratic Karl Rove is that he's just not very well informed.
* * *
In a different blog post, the Democratic Karl Rove (DKR) argues, surprisingly, that it is not to Democrats' advantage to support Lamont over Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race this year. And, in some places, he comes rather close to making sense:
Bloggers and concerned Democrats who support Lamont, you are falling into a trap. You are supporting a candidate based on a policy instead of his principles. Lamont appears to be a gimmick candidate who is benefiting from a populist campaign focused on a politically-charged topic. Lieberman might not have a popular position in his continued support for the Iraq War, but the Democratic Party will be stronger when it supports candidates of principle and integrity -- even when they appear wrong-headed on specific issues.See what I mean? The DKR is advocating principle and integrity of character here, and more power to him that he is.
Or is he?
How could Lieberman be principled, you might ask, when he supports such a horrible war policy and such a horrible President?Oops -- here the mask starts to slip. Is it truly necessary for DKR to explain how someone can be principled, even though he has the utter audacity to disagree with you? Apparently it is necessary.
He can be principled because while he continues to support the President in the Iraq War, he still believes -- rightly or wrongly -- that his position is the informed, mature, reasonable approach to seeing things through. If he were not principled, he might be seen careening and vacillating with the popular sentiments of the day, month or year. If he were not principled, he might be easily labeled as, say, a flip-flopper. If the man's a hawk (possibly due to an allegiance to Israel, among other things), then the principled thing for him to do is to be honest about his beliefs on the matter, no matter the popularity.I'm sorely tempted to discuss the borderline antisemitism here -- the man is "possibly" a hawk because of his allegiance to Israel, i.e. his loyalty to Israel dictates his domestic beliefs, i.e. his loyalty to Israel is more important to him than his loyalty to the United States. That's a heck of an accusation to make against a sitting three-term U.S. Senator, who has been active in American politics, just about continuously, since 1970. Why would anyone question his loyalty to the United States, if not for the fact that Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew?
But that's practically a minor issue. Watch this:
It's easy to see how Democrats might mistrust a politician who seems to be principled. After all, President Bush's ability to appear principled to the average voter was a significant factor in his ability to be almost elected and then re-almost elected. But, just because Bush turned out to be a politically savvy double-talker who merely appears to be principled doesn't mean that Democrats such as Lieberman -- who also appear principled -- should not to be trusted or supported. Conversely, it is arguable that any Democrat supporting the war today has quite a difficult position to manage politically. To contrast, what difficult political positions is Lamont taking?Now we're back in fever-swamp territory. President Bush was "almost elected" and then "re-almost elected" (what the heck does that mean?). Some Democrats cannot get over the election of 2000; they're the ones with the "re-elect President Gore" bumper stickers, and so forth. It seems that DKR is one of them. (The "stolen election" of 1876 doesn't seem to bother them, even though it was a lot more contentious than 2000 was; one doesn't see too many "re-elect President Tilden" signs these days.)
Please note also that people who disagree with progressive Democrats can only "appear" to principled. But sometimes people who "appear" to be principled can nonetheless be trusted -- just as, a paragraph ago, there did not seem to be anything wrong with being a "flip-flopper"; the problem was appearing to be a flip-flopper and being labeled a flip-flopper. It's all about appearances, in other words -- someone who claims to have principles and integrity, even though he doesn't toe the Democratic party line, is at best a weird zoo animal, fascinating (and a little disturbing) to look at.
There's plenty more where this came from... and all I can say is, if this is the best Karl Rove the Democrats can come up with, then the real Karl Rove has nothing whatsoever to fear from them. They don't understand him nearly as well as he understands them.
UPDATE: Would the Democrat's Karl Rove be this effective, do you suppose? (Hat tip: Jeff Harrell.)
UPDATE II: Or how about this?
MORE: [Instapundit] reader Dale Harkey suspects a Rovian plot, given that the full [NIE] document actually says that we're doing pretty well:Pretty amazing, when you think about it.The set-up is oh so beautiful. Rove (it has to be Rove, right?) has the worst-case-scenario portions of a generally favorable NIE leaked to a gullible and traitorous media salaciously eager to run with it. The left-wing nuts explode in glee and establish their bonafides with all manner of stupid utterances. And since it is easily observed to be a politically motivated leak, (here comes the left hook the appeasers have leaned into because they can’t see it coming) what more justification can there be than to de-classify the original so the whole picture is available (and oh by the way, get the good stuff out there before the elections.) They sure couldn’t just hand the media a copy of the NIE and say, “hey, check this out, it says we’re doing okay,” could they? A dirty trick inside a dirty trick that turns the passion of the Bush-haters onto itself.
Is Karl Rove really that smart?
MORE STILL: Maybe so, as John Wixted notes that -- the post-leak critics having built up the NIE into a document of vast importance and implicit reliability -- they have to cope with this angle:
On the plus side for President Bush, it says that if United States military forces withdrew anytime soon from Iraq, then al Qaida would use that perceived victory to recruit new members. That's bad news for any congressional Democrats who advocate removing troops in the near term.
He notes that this is sinking in (the quote above is actually from Tim Noah) and observes: "In other words, that vague little 3-page snippet from the NIE completely undermines the only substantive suggestion that Democrats have brought to the table with regard to Iraq (namely, a timetable for withdrawal)."
And no, I don't see this as a Rove conspiracy doublewhammy. (It takes a conspiracy theorist, truly, to see Rove's fingerprints every time the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot by behaving like Democrats.) It's notable that others do, though.
Labels: humor, Loony Left
