Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: September 2007

SHUSTER VERSUS BLACKBURN, AND SHUSTER VERSUS HIS OWN INCOMPETENCE

Posted on by Posted in The Media

The blogosphere is full of references to the very clumsy attempt at “gotcha” journalism, put forth by MSNBC’s David Shuster on September 24th, when he was substituting for Tucker Carlson. His guest was congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Shuster mocked her for not knowing the name of the latest soldier to die in Iraq from her district. Not surprisingly, it turned out that the young man mentioned was not actually from Blackburn’s district.

Shuster was then forced to make an on-air apology, only as to the facts, and I would bet that he won’t be guest hosting again for Carlson anytime soon. Missing from the apology was any contrition for exploiting the dead soldier in the first place;

This whole matter is so stupid on so many levels—even for MSNBC—that it is worthy of some comment.

Supposedly, this was all about demonstrating GOP “hypocrisy” regarding the attacks on MoveOn.org for their smearing of General Petraeus. I have to quote Shuster directly…

“I still think it’s a little bit surprising that you didn’t know the name of this last soldier killed in Iraq who’s only 18 years old, yet you do know so much about the MoveOn.org ad and the tactics you didn’t like.”

Does the term “non sequitur” come to mind? “Hypocrisy” means the act or practice of pretending to be what one is not, or to have principles or beliefs that one does not have. You’d think that even a hack like Shuster might understand that attacking MoveOn, while not knowing the name of a particular soldier has nothing to do with hypocrisy.

Indeed, the point he COULD have made, and even this would be pushing it, would have been to express some regret over how Blackburn might have spent more time learning about her dead soldier constituents, rather than piling on a gamy Leftist organization, that is already being kinda sorta condemned by the Democratic leadership. He could have trotted out some whiny flower child “Can’t we be positive instead” mantra to gain points with his fan base.

As was pointed out by Rich Galen…

[T]his is journalist crapola. Anyone can find a fact—important or not—which the subject of an interview is not likely to know and then beat him or her over the head with it.

Do you think al-Anbar province is important to the stabilization of Iraq? You do? Name the current provincial leader. Can’t do it? HYPOCRITE!

You voted against raising the minimum wage. What’s the average hourly wage in your district? Don’t know? IGNORAMOUS!

Beyond this, Shuster would have made a more compelling case by providing a bit more information on the soldier than just his name and age; of course, doing the fact checking would also have helped, and should not have been terribly difficult. Even after Rathergate, ham-handed ideology still drives a goodly portion of mainstream journalism.

Then we come to the next point: Why is anyone watching these shows? You can get unlimited news and commentary on the Web—with no commercials—so that can’t be the reason. Maybe it’s entertainment. Perhaps people watch these programs hoping to see some mindless confrontation, gaffe, or meltdown.

Or maybe the audience for these shows are those nerdy good student types (mostly liberals, but with some also on the Right), who were imbued at an early age with the notion that it is smart and intelligent to inundate yourselves with current affairs. Don’t poison your mind with series TV, and don’t rent action videos like that Joe Sixpack guy next door.

Show that you are better and smarter by watching David Shuster or Dan Rather. Yeah, that’s it.

WHAT YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ARMY-MCCARTHY HEARINGS

Posted on by Posted in History

I must admit that I was unaware just how deep the calumny against Senator Joseph McCarthy was until a friend of mine, supposedly an arch-conservative, invoked the infamous Joseph Welch line

“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

to decry the unfair treatment of a current political figure. My friend did not realize that Welch’s statement was no more than bluster, and has been forever (and successfully) quoted out of context—a context that has apparently been lost to most.

The exchange between Welch and McCarthy—especially the above line uttered on June 9, 1954—has been immortalized in the Leftist archives as what finally brought down the senator. In fact, this assessment is a gross oversimplification of what actually occurred, and deliberately obfuscates what led up to it.

Joe McCarthy first took on the Army establishment in earnest with his blistering March 14, 1951 speech blaming General George C. Marshall for losing China.

“When Marshall was sent to China with secret State Department orders, the Communists at that time were bottled up in two areas and were fighting a losing battle, but that because of those orders the situation was radically changed in favor of the Communists. Under those orders, as we know, Marshall embargoed all arms and ammunition to our allies in China.”

“He forced the opening of the Nationalist-held Kalgan Mountain pass into Manchuria, to the end that the Chinese Communists gained access to the mountains of captured Japanese equipment. No need to tell the country about how Marshall tried to force Chiang Kai-shek to form a partnership government with the Communists.”

At the time, there was considerable public uproar over what seemed to be an almost systematic losing of the peace. Indeed, Dwight Eisenhower, a close associate of Marshall during World War II, not only resoundingly condemned Truman, but refused (some say with reluctance) to defend Marshall’s postwar policies during his successful campaign for the presidency.

As it is, there is hardly unanimous agreement on the supposed greatness of Marshall as a military leader. Critics point to his complicity in a Pearl Harbor cover-up; his orders to MacArthur that exacerbated losses at Bataan; his humdrum Army career until playing politics with the Roosevelts, and being promoted over hundreds of more senior and arguably more qualified men to Chief of Staff; his constant favoring of the Soviets, especially at Yalta; and his virtually unique status as receiving such high rank with almost no combat duties on his record.

Many also wonder how Marshall, who had been relieved of the command of a regiment by Douglas MacArthur [the Inspector General reported that under one year of Marshall’s command the regiment had dropped from one of the best in the army to one of the worst], would be placed by Roosevelt in command of the entire United States Army six years later.

In 1953, McCarthy focused his attention on the Army Signal Corps, former home of convicted atomic spy Julius Rosenberg, as well as Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant who both defected to the Soviet Union upon Rosenberg’s arrest. McCarthy was following-up a request from Fort Monmouth’s commanding general, Kirke B. Lawton, although an alleged espionage ring was never found. Even so, a considerable amount of damaging evidence was discovered, and much of Monmouth’s top-secret operations were moved to Arizona soon after.

Then came Camp Kilmer, NJ, and the case of Army Captain Irving Peress, a New York dentist who had been drafted into the army in 1952 and promoted to major in November, 1953. Peress had declined to answer questions about his political affiliations on a loyalty-review form, and took the Fifth Amendment 20 times when questioned by McCarthy. On the very same day, Peress requested and received an honorable discharge, from commanding officer General Ralph Zwicker. Surely, this looked like a cover-up.

McCarthy summoned General Zwicker to his subcommittee on February 18, 1954, and the general, on advice from counsel, refused to answer some of McCarthy’s questions and reportedly changed his story three times when asked if he had known at the time he signed the discharge that Peress had refused to answer questions before the McCarthy subcommittee.

In frustration, McCarthy compared Zwicker’s intelligence to that of a “five-year-old child,” and said he was “not fit to wear that uniform.” This was not to endear the senator to the Army or a segment of the public, who were simply not prepared to accept that serious problems existed in the military—even after the Rosenberg case. Plus, it was to change the entire momentum whereby McCarthy would be put on the defensive.

The Army was determined to get McCarthy, far more than they were determined to clean up their act, it appears, as the Peress matter seemed to disappear from sight. Big-time Boston defense lawyer Joseph Welch was hired, and jumped on the foolish activities of McCarthy aide Roy Cohn to secure favored treatment for recently drafted former McCarthy aide David Schine.

It was only after Welch grilled Cohn for hours that McCarthy countered with an attack on Welch aide Fred Fisher, who had been a member of a Communist front organization, evidently for longer than he had originally admitted. But the far-from-telegenic McCarthy would prove no match for the polished New Englander, and his popularity would fade. Aware of the damage he had done, Cohn resigned.

McCarthy was certainly not without his faults, but hardly deserved the media treatment he received, nor does Welch deserve to be lionized for his part in preventing a proper investigation of the Army at such a critical time.

SHAGGY-DOG STORIES

Posted on by Posted in Cliches and Folklore

shaggy-dog story noun

a:  a long-drawn-out circumstantial story concerning an inconsequential happening that impresses the teller as humorous but the hearer as boresome and pointless      b:  a similar humorous story whose humor lies in the pointlessness or irrelevance of the punch line

 

I used this expression the other day, but it was not understood by the guy I was speaking to—a fairly sophisticated Washington hand. I then tried it out a few more times, and found that people had heard it, but many did not know its meaning. That’s too bad, since we have all been exposed to shaggy-dog stories, even if we did not know what to call them.

One typical example is frequently told around campfires: Long before the era of cell phones, a solitary woman is driving home late at night and hears an ominous announcement on the radio. A homicidal maniac has escaped from a local asylum, and is said to be wandering the streets.

The woman drives on for awhile (and the story can pointlessly describe various things she passes along the way) but then one of her front tires gets a blowout. This happens on the outskirts of town, and she knows that there is a 24-hour service station about a half-mile away. She has no choice but to walk to the station for help.

She starts walking and soon notices a shadowy figure a block or so behind her. He is walking fast, and she begins to panic. She picks up her pace, but so does he. He is gaining on her! (Again, this whole business can be dragged out.)

He is getting nearer and nearer. Now, she breaks into a full sprint, but it is no use, he has caught up to her! He reaches out to grab her. She sees her life passing by her; it’s all over. Then he does grab her shoulder, and says this to her: “Tag! You’re it!”

Other shaggy-dog stories exist solely to set up a punchline that is an elaborate bad pun. Since the idea in these stories is to give some fractured rendition of a stock phrase, such as “The spirit was willing, but the flash was weak,” “Ah, Sweet Mr. Rhee of Life, at last I’ve found you,” or “One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian,” laying down all the elements necessarily will involve a lengthy and otherwise pointless narrative.

One of the best examples of a shaggy-dog story is a tale known to virtually everyone—Rumpelstiltskin. As you recall, the entire point of the story is revealed in its title, and simply comes down to guessing the man’s name. To achieve this, though, there must first be an incredibly elaborate build-up.

A miller tells the king that his daughter can spin straw into gold. The king orders her to do so under penalty of death three separate times, but if she succeeds the third time, he will make her his queen. A strange little man appears each time to help her, and asks some gift in return for accomplishing the amazing feat. The first time, she gives him her necklace, the second time her ring. But, on the third occasion, being poor, she has nothing left. So, she agrees to give him her first child, should she become queen.

Having spun straw into gold the third time, the girl is made queen, and within a year, she has given birth to a beautiful son. The little man returns, demanding the agreed upon payment. The queen’s reaction is so sorrowful that it melts the heart of the little man, who agrees to relieve her of the obligation if she can guess his name within three days. Hedging her bets, she sends out a messenger to discover any odd names that might exist in the hinterlands.

The little man returns to the palace the first day and the second day, but the queen cannot guess his name. The queen is desperate, and when the messenger returns that evening, she asks him if he has heard any new names. He says that he has not, but tells her that he did see a grotesque little man dancing around a fire singing…

“To-morrow I brew, to-day I bake
And then the child away I’ll take;
For little deems my royal dame
That Rumpelstiltskin is my name!”

On the next day, the queen guesses his name, and saves her son. Rumpelstiltskin is so angry that he tears himself in two.

All this for the punchline of his name.

It’s not too much of a stretch to observe that a great deal of contemporary politics seems to be like a shaggy-dog story. It is pointless, drawn-out, and tedious—only it’s not funny at all. And, the joke—if there is one—is on all of us.

IT’S NOT A PROBLEM UNTIL IT’S A PROBLEM: LARRY CRAIG AND SEUNG HUI CHO

Posted on by Posted in Current Events, Politics

If you would like a quick course in what’s wrong with America, take a hard look at the Sen. Craig mess, and the report on the Virginia Tech shootings—as well as the reaction to both.

There is little doubt that Craig was soliciting sex in that men’s room, so his denials make it even more pathetic. Beyond that, if it were not true, why did he cop a plea? Please note that this little encounter goes way past simply being gay. The object here is fast, anonymous gratification, performed in a tawdry, risky environment. And this man was a multi-term US senator.

Note also the mendacity surrounding Craig: Can you believe for one minute that his wife and family were unaware of his dual life? Can you believe for one minute that his fellow senators were unaware either? In both cases, they were quite happy to reap the benefits of being attached to Mr. Craig, and in the case of Team “R,” were also quite happy to jettison him with great dispatch.

Team “R” seems to be taking a hit on this matter, since it typically espouses family values (although this term has never been defined). On the other hand, Team “D” tends to get a free pass on the morality side, since it typically espouses immorality, and, as such, has not commented on Craig’s fall. It is clear that the Republicans—as a matter of convenience—were content to keep the guy around, since he did represent one more vote in their favor, even though sooner or later, his peccadilloes would bury him, to say nothing of them.

Let me assure you that Craig’s fall will not be the final one of this political season, as fund raising nightmares start haunting Team “D,” and its front-runner, Lady Macbeth Clinton.

As to the Virginia Tech shooting, the recently released report does confirm my earlier remarks regarding the foolish manner in which the university handled the first two dorm homicides. The campus warnings were done too late, and the campus was not secured as well as it should have been.

Predictably, V-Tech president Steger kept up his mantra that he could not have done anything more, aided and abetted by Governor Tim Kaine’s jaw-dropping statement that the college president and administration have “suffered enough.” Gee, Timmy, if getting criticized is suffering enough, what would you say about the victims and their families?

Have you caught the misdirection here? A horrific incident occurs on campus, that never should have occurred, or at worst, should never have become as grotesquely large as it became. Yet, a blindingly incompetent college president and his Keystone Cops police force (please remember that Cho killed himself to end the rampage) are somehow absolved of all blame and even garner majority campus support by feeling their pain, and portraying themselves as co-victims. Apparently, the more nauseating high-profile communal grieving ceremonies the better.

Tragically, there is a long-established tradition in American history whereby devastating blunders in leadership are transformed into “situations” suddenly inflicted, as if they were natural disasters, upon those same leaders. The leaders, then, must “courageously” deal with them.

Thus, in our standard versions: Abraham Lincoln did not cause the Civil War, nor could he even stop the hostilities of his own volition; rather, he had to “lead” our nation through that troubled time. John F. Kennedy did not by his own recklessness provoke what came to be known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Rather, he “led us” through that incident, even if he never admitted that the crisis was defused only by him taking our missiles out of Turkey. And Steger did everything he could, even if he could not be bothered to remove a single psychopath from campus—although he did agree to kick him out of Nikki Giovanni’s class, because her satisfaction trumped the safety of the students. Moreover, he has “suffered enough.”

While many of us deplore what passes for leadership these days, it is clear that lots of folks are still drinking the Kool-Aid. I can’t say it any better than Craig’s arresting officer: “No wonder why we’re going down the tubes.”