GOP and the Strength of (Malleable) Convictions

The GOP primary marches on as Mitt Romney wins both Arizona, by a large margin on the back of the Mormon voting bloc, and Michigan, albeit by an all to tight 3.2% margin as reported in the NY Times. The close margin in Michigan, ostensibly Romney's home turf, means that this primary will continue on with no absolutely definitive front runner for, at least, the medium term.

Part of the problem for Romney seems to be systemic problem when it comes to the Republican party in general; they have no actual convictions. As has been well documented, Mr. Romney has been on both sides of just about every issue. Honestly, as many times as he has changed direction in tune where the voting public's wind has blown (not a fart joke), his new nickname should be Weather vane (no, seriously. That's a good nickname. I'm trademarking it. (TM) No Mas Paine 2012.). Especially since his current nickname is Mitt (what's up with that? Oh, right, his actual name is Willard). This is true of almost every candidate who has run this primary though. Either they have changed their tune (Romney, Gingrich) or they never really knew exactly what their tune was to begin with slash were a joke (Bachmann, Cain, Trump). The only true core conviction that has seem to come from the GOP has come from Congressional leaders such as McConnell and Cantor (whose weaselly properties have been previously documented) in moments of candor (see what I did there) when they state that the real goal is to make the President of the United States a one term president. Not to lower the deficit or return to a smaller, better run federal government, but to defeat the current POTUS. Kind of a time limited goal that does not exactly qualify for a core conviction, dontcha think?

The GOP likes to fashion itself as the party of strength against the effete liberal elites on the other side. Strong on national security. Strong on family values. Strong on protecting religious freedom (if you are a Christian or Israel loving Jew). On all point, however, the party tends to go overboard. Statements declaring that Iran needs to be blown off the map, before any provocation or proof of possession of nuclear weapons, in order to protect the sanctity of Israel, where there is not such thing as Palestinians by the way, seems to belie an insecurity present in the Grand Old Party. It has shades of one walking around with a chip on their shoulder and going out of their way to prove their mettle. This also, along with the shift of focus to social issues, helps explain Santorum's surge (seriously, editor's choice in re: Santorum headlines have to be on purpose). Santorum may be extreme and an enemy of personal liberty who is not nearly as electable as Romney in the general, but at least he says what he believes (unlike Romney who only convinces himself to believe what he says). People can viscerally feel who is forthright and Romney does not fit the bill.

I do not think the Democratic Party, as a whole, is much different. One of the many reasons that I think the duopoly of political parties, which the founding fathers argued against from the beginning, is no bueno. In contrast to all this noise, however, President Obama (the head cheese) stands alone. He pisses off nearly everyone on the Right and a whole lot on the left, but he is who he said he is. Repeatedly. And clearly. He's a center left democrat who has come through on a ton of the promises he made during his initial campaign. He's cerebral and thinks things through before acting, but he's plenty fiery when he needs to be. Long story short, aside from the hot mess that is the Republican party, I think we are going to see four more years because the POTUS is nothing if not mostly consistent.

Cheers to that.


Image: From Boston Globe (via Google Images)

Daily Show's Stewardipity

A new segment where we just let Jon Stewart gets his Stew Beef on. Here he blasts Fox News for blatantly following the Republican National Convention's talking points and accidentally revealing that they are doing so.

Normally I'd just post the video up to but, as Comedy Central's website seems to be down for maintenance, here is a link to the video on Mediaite.

Keeping the Church Separate from the State... and Out of Our G*#damn Bedrooms

The latest uproar coming from the crazypants tag team of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church and the evangelical right has honed in on the Obama administrations requirement that religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges have to cover birth control in insurance plans they offer. Bishops, backed up by evangelical foot soldiers, screamed about the imposition caused by this attack on religious freedoms. Despite the fact that very few of the Catholic fold support the Church's position on contraception (or masturbation, or sex for pleasure, et al.), the ruckus was enough to get the administration to walk back from their position, but not enough to satisfy the Church hierarchy. This is not at all surprising considering that this is a battle that U.S. Bishops have been planning on for awhile.

Some commentators, such as Andrew Sullivan, believe that the U.S. Bishops, with the evangelical right hanging on to their cassock tails, have committed a great overreach. Much of the right, including some of the establishment, vehemently disagree and continue to screech about attacks on religion; I, however, fall wholeheartedly in Sully's camp surprise surprise. First and foremost, the Church cites moral authority when bringing down their ecumenical hammer on the use of contraception, or any type of sexual activity not for procreation. Call me crazy, but I do not think the Church has much capital when it comes to the boudoir. Let me know when the Church makes a full throated apology, that resounds from Pope Benedict on down, about the worldwide sexual abuse of the least powerful of their flock. That is just step 1. Second, the position they have chosen has almost no support. The fact that this is coming during the GOP primaries means that the Church is, probably quite literally, preaching to the choir. The party most likely to be against such moves, single white women, is a likely independent group that either party will need to win over to win. Smooth move on that one evangelical right.

The enormity of the miscalculation is playing out right now. Despite what some on the right are deluding themselves into believing, Rick Santorum is very much not electable. At least not in the general election. Due to that fact, however, he shouldn't be the current leader of the GOP primaries unless they are desperate to lose. However, the contraception issue, and the highlight of social issues over economic that it has caused, has propelled Santorum to heights that he would not previously have dreamed of just a month ago. And, in Michigan, the joke is quite literally on them yet they don't seem to realize it. The Daily Kos has asked Michigan Democrats, who are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, to vote for Santorum to help him win and help take Romney out. Further, and much more hilariously, Santorum has embraced this move; respectability be damned! According to Talking Points Memo:

It’s a controversial tactic. Bill Ballenger, a longtime Michigan politico and the editor of Inside Michigan Politics, spoke with TPM about the call earlier in the day. He said the call piqued his interest because it sounded like it could have come from a union targeting Romney ahead of the Feb. 28 primary. The call focuses on Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout and calls on Democrats to vote for Santorum Tuesday because of it.

“It went on and on like this and I kept listening because I kind of smelled a rat,” Ballenger said. “And finally at the very end, in a tagline it says, ‘this call was paid for by the Santorum for president committee.’

If I was a Republican, I'd probably be crying into my Vatican approved Wheaties and doing some Opus Dei style self-flagellation right now. I style myself a moderate, was feeling Huntsman a bit, but the state of the GOP since I came of voting age has prevented me from having any sane choice rather than the Dems.

#Team Obama. (with a Sully hat tip).

Jeremy "Shao" Lin: Welcome to the 17th Chamber

As many have recently discovered, Jeremy Lin, the new starting point guard for the New York Knickbockers, raw is how he is going to give it to you, with zero trivia, like cocaine that was recently stripped straight from Bolivian air space (paraphrasing "Da Mystery of Chess Boxing"). Unfortunately, Mr. Lin's glorious emergence also occurred during my absence but, trust, I've been paying pretty close attention (full and sad disclosure: I'm a big Knicks fan).

The Linsanity phenomenon started on February 2 when Lin came into the game against the Nets as a sub. The Knicks were coming to the point where they'd either have to sign Lin for the year and guarantee his contract or release him and have so further obligation. Thus, Coach D'Antoni decided to give him some run to help in the decision making process and Lin responded, with AUTHORITA, going for 25 points, 7 assists and only 1 turnover. He went on to start his next game and a historic 5 game run after his next 4 starts.

During that run, and ever since, there has been much discussion about Jeremy Lin's importance, often concentrating on his race. To a degree, this makes sense. You definitely do not see too many players that look like Jeremy in the NBA, especially not at point guard. This was compounded by how important Jeremy was, understandably so, to the Asian community, both here and abroad. The roar of the crowd after he hit the game winning shot in Toronto, which has a large Asian community with youth sports organizations representing both the Taiwanese and Chinese in attendance at the game, made it seem as if it was a home game at MSG. This, of course, has led to all sorts of responses that skirt or urinate all over the "offensiveness line" such as this, this, or this. Recently, an ESPN editor was fired for an oversight on a headline that could definitely be seen as offensive to Asians. I, for one, do not think that the ESPN slur was intentional. That is a common phrase when it comes to sports and I could easily see how he just plugged it in without thinking about the possible consequences (yay for a post-racial world!). If anything, he was fired for laziness.

All of this has lead to one common question, would Jeremy Lin and his accompanying Linsanity be as big of a deal if he were black (or white for that matter). This is a difficult question for me as it seems clear that, at least coming out of high school, he was underappreciated because of his race. You do not play at his level in the NBA if you did not have the skills to at least get a look by D1 colleges. Right now though, for me and, I think, for a lot of Knicks fans, his race matters not a wit. Personally, I've been starved for a legit point guard running the show at MSG for, well... forever. I mean, I grew up with Greg Anthony (admittedly pretty solid) and Charlie Friggin Ward (YA, THE HEISMAN WINNING QB WHO NEVER GOT DRAFTED AND THEN WENT TO THE NBA) running the show. If you move from the point guard pu-pu platter, especially after the struggles this year trying to find someone who could run the offense, to someone with Lin's court vision, people are going to get excited. Especially if the team starts to reel of a win streak. Especially at the basketball mecca of MSG where a crowd that will kick you with an extra pointy pair of Jimmy Choo's if you are down but lift you up in the embrace of Hulkamania on uppers if you are winning. The long and short of it is... Lin got playing time and the Knicks start winning. When you are talking NYC basketball, that is all that really matters.

We are not yet living in a post-racial America, but Linsanity would still be in full effect whether he was black, white, yellow, red, purple, or an off turquoise. When you step into MSG, color is often replaced by game recognizing game. Say what you want about the 17th Chamber, but he's definitely got game.

LINSANE CLAN AIN'T NOTHING TO F*#K WITH! Riight? Riight guys? No, too much? Whatever... I still say that nickname is sick.

(Image from: Yuku, via Google images [natch])

The Prodigal Son Returns... Yada Yada Yada, Clever Segue into Syria's Assad

Look, I've been regrettably absent for just about a month so kindly excuse my weak sauce title. My wholehearted apologies to my legions of four readers but the past month or two have been somewhat busier than anticipated. However (!), I hope to be more attentive in the coming months.

Meanwhile, during my absence, the decidedly unapologetic Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (see the even weaker tie in there?) has continued to indiscriminately shell and murder his own people. Although he is truly terrible person to whom human being shouldn't even be applied, I understand his motives to a degree. After what happened to Gaddafi, it would not be completely surprising that al-Assad might think he is not only fighting for his grip on power, but also his life (this, mind you, in no way excuses his actions. He and his supporters are despicable subhuman beings). In his fear, he is retreating to the methods of his father, which were effective at the time. This, however. is not 1982. The general Arab spring (and fall and winter) has shown the people that their continued rebellion can win in the long run and the fear and despair of an earlier time has seemingly dissipated. The people are emboldened and although, especially in Syria, the revolution has not been televised, it will also not be so easily tamped out.

Less understandable, even from a purely rational viewpoint, is the stance being taken by Russia and China. Sure neither want "the western world" nosing their way into the sovereign business of either nation, especially in regards to either human rights violations (both, but China really) or election fraud/lack of actual democratic processes (Russia). Sure Syria hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean region and buys large amounts of ruskie weapons. The intervention into Libya that led to the death of Gaddafi clearly freaked both nations out. But are these reasons really enough for these two nations to force themselves to stand apart from the rest of the world and back someone who is clearly killing scores of his own people to maintain an increasingly tenuous grip on power? As the positions of the opposition harden, even in the face of near constant shelling, abduction, torture, and death, it becomes increasingly unlikely that al-Assad will ever be able to peaceably hold power again. What could Russia and China possibly get by standing on the wrong side of history and with a murderer? Yet, there are still quotes like this:

At a news conference in Moscow, Sergey V. Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said he regretted that the Friends of Syria conference in Tunisia last week had failed to foster the conditions that would encourage all Syrians to engage in political dialogue, according to an official transcript.

“It’s not realistic to demand that the government end its action against militants and keep the militants free of any obligations whatsoever,” Mr. Lavrov said. He lauded the Syrian referendum as “movement toward democracy.”

 And this:

In Beijing, the official People’s Daily newspaper said the United States had no right to criticize Chinese and Russian policy. The Obama administration, the newspaper said, “has not considered how to allow the Syrian people to put an early end to this disaster at minimal cost.”

These Russian and Chinese officials are either completely divorced from reality or are simply sipping the al-Assad regime's kool-aid* despite all the evidence to the contrary. The situation in Syria is not something developing into a political discussion; it is a burgeoning civil war that is going to get much worse before it gets any better. The tragedy here is that if two of the four BRIC nations were not being obstinate in the name of a foreign policy power play, both could actually be power players by leading a transition of power that deposed al-Assad. Further, especially for Russia, this could be in their self-interest as they would, seemingly, be looked upon more favorably by whatever government replaced al-Assad.

This will be looked upon as a tragic situation that reflects poorly on the leaders of Russia and China and makes a  21st Century mass murderer of al-Assad.

* Does the name of this delicious drink strike anyone else as weird? Like it somehow aids you in being cool while forcing you to misspell? Anyway, I do not know where that came from and I clealry I digress...