Politics

Bad Journalism Award

Samuel Hooper3 Comments

You know how it is when you read an article that is just so weak, so clearly living in a hermetically-sealed bubble of similar opinions, so insulated from opposing viewpoints, so grandiose in its self-righteous assuredness and yet so utterly wrong that it makes you just want to issue a point-by-point rebuttal of every stupid thing that the author committed to print (hopefully at this point you are not nodding and thinking “yes, that would be the last article I read here…)?
Well, Charles Hurt, writing in The Washington Times, stepped up to the challenge and magnificently managed to push all of my buttons with his piece entitled “Obama’s South Side Chicago Thuggery” (yes). So here you are, Charles: this is why you are wrong. From the top:

Now that we know just what President Obama thinks of people who succeed in business, it is no wonder that the economy is so much in the crapper. In his desperation to avoid any discussion of his own disastrous handling of the economy, Mr. Obama announced last week what he thinks of the struggling spark plugs of commerce: They are a bunch of felons.

Of course, he did not come right out and directly say that himself, because that would risk drawing renewed questions about whether he is actually an American with the slightest whiff of respect for private industry and ingenuity that defines America.

The economy being “in the crapper”, of course, is all Obama’s fault. Nothing to do with the huge credit crisis and other systemic and structural flaws developed under the previous eight years of Republican oversight.

And what’s this? “…that would risk drawing renewed questions about whether he is actually an American with the slightest whiff of respect for…” Actually an American, what an interesting turn of phrase. Almost as though the author were trying to subconsciously plant the idea that the president is, in fact, actually not an American. But we’ll say no more about that.

So he did what gangsters from the South Side of Chicago have always done. He dispatched one of his bloodthirsty capos to handle his dirty work. Then he strolls up onto the scene all clean and innocent-looking in his fancy, pressed duds and shiny spats and plays the wise guy.

Oh really? Valerie Plame. Scooter Libby. Dick Cheney. George W. Bush floating serenely above the fray. That is all I have to say to that.

As Mr. Obama misquoted Harry S. Truman the other day: “The buck stops with you.” Obviously he was confusing Truman with his real hero, Al Capone.

This political thuggery straight off the streets of Chicago signals desperation in the Obama campaign and a level of deception unrivaled in recent presidential politics.

Yeah, I don’t know what he is talking about either. But will someone please explain to me the American right’s frequent use of of the terms “thug” or “thuggish” in describing left-wing activism? You read or hear it all the time, on any right-wing blog. Why thugs? Is this a remnant from the Jimmy Hoffa days, or something else? Why is a left-wing person who uses strident language and occasional overstatement a “thug”, while a right-wing person is just understandably carried away because of their deep and abiding love for America, and should be given a free pass? Huh?

And most decent people would not suggest that the president’s hero is a murdering gangster. You can say it, Charles, that is totally within your constitutionally guaranteed rights, but I’m going to call you a low-life, slanderous, sanctimonious moron for having said it.

Democrats howled when John Kerry got “swift-boated” during the 2004 election with questions about his deservedness of medals he won during Vietnam — medals that he later threw away in protest of America and the military.

Okay, this one really annoys me. “…threw away in protest of America and the military”? Charles Hurt, could you be any more of a stereotypical US conservative? All about institutions and paternalism and respect for authority, and livid whenever anyone questions any of these. John Kerry loves his country, I’m sure, having served it in so many ways throughout his career, and it is disrespectful in the extreme for you to suggest otherwise. I would venture to say that Kerry threw away his medals in protest at the US foreign policy of the time, as conducted by the US military, and not at the idea of America and the US military in themselves. Many people, patriots also, would defend the right to burn the flag as a protest, but then I’m sure you would consider them traitors and anti-Americans too. Because anything but total, blind, unswerving allegiance to the government policy of the day is treason, of course. Oh, wait – unless there a Democratic administration that you disagree with in power, in which case you exercise your patriotism by making warm noises about armed uprisings and overthrowing the government.

And it’s just so much easier to win an argument when you grossly mischaracterise someone else’s actions and arguments, isn’t it, Charles?

Okay, I’m not going to spend any more time on Charles Hurt. I should not have risen to the bait. But the thought of him sitting there, reading the daily papers and getting outraged about all of the terrible policies that liberals are enacting, and the dirty processes by which they operate, whilst wilfully forgetting everything bad that happened under the previous Republican administration, was too much for me.

So I’m calling you on this one, Mr. Hurt.

Your article sucks, and you are the first winner of my Bad Journalism Award. Not that what you do – based on this example, at least – can really be called journalism as such.

In case you are wondering, your prize was the fact that I called you a low-life, slanderous, sanctimonious moron on my blog.

The Worsening Lunacy Of Michele Bachmann

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

It takes a lot for an article about Michele Bachmann to get under my skin these days – there are few taboos that she has not broken, and few lines that she has not crossed – but this one from Politico managed to do the job:

In a June 13 letter, five GOP congressmen – Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Trent Franks of Arizona, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tom Rooney of Florida and Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia – called on the State Department’s deputy inspector general to investigate whether Abedin and other department officials were trying to influence U.S. foreign policy to aid the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes. The congressmen cited a report by the far-right think tank Center for Security Policy.

The report alleges Abedin has three family members — her late father, her mother and her brother — who are connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives or organizations.

“The State Department and, in several cases, the specific direction of the Secretary of State, have taken actions recently that have been enormously favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood and its interests,” the five House Republicans wrote Harold G. Geisel, the acting inspector general.

It seems that the congresswoman from Minnesota’s 6th congressional district – Minnesota Palin – has decided to pick up where McCarthy left off, and start a witch-hunt against Muslim Americans working for the US government. In this case, the target was Huma Abedin, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton in the State Department.

The unfounded allegations of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and of harbouring anti-American ideals and seeking to use her position to promote pro-Islamist policies within the US government, proved too much even for John McCain, who chastised Bachmann in a Senate floor speech:

“I know Huma to be an intelligent, upstanding, hard-working, and loyal servant of our country and our government, who has devoted countless days of her life to advancing the ideals of the nation she loves and looking after its most precious interests,” McCain, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee and a leading voice on defense and foreign policy, said in his floor speech.

“Put simply, Huma represents what is best about America: the daughter of immigrants, who has risen to the highest levels of our government on the basis of her substantial personal merit and her abiding commitment to the American ideals that she embodies so fully,” McCain added.

McCain’s political integrity ebbs and flows much like the tide, but I think we can all be grateful that it was working on this occasion at least.

And shame on Michele Bachmann and her fellow Republican joint signatories of this letter.

The fear that grips so much of today’s Republican Party – fear of cultural change, fear of terrorism and “the homeland” no longer being an impregnable fortress, fear of people who look or behave differently to a black-and-white 1950s television show – leads to the type of controlling, paternalistic, paranoid behaviour that drives so many people, myself included, away from supporting them.

Which is a real shame, because there are some solid, proven, and much-needed conservative policy solutions to many of America’s problems being buried by the GOP under big piles of precisely this type of nonsense.

Diagnosing The Coalition

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

It is hard to disagree with this uncompromising assessment of the UK Coalition Government’s performance over recent months, by Trevor Kavanagh at The Sun.

In particular:

Unless the PM and his deputy reach a truce soon this partnership will be lucky to survive the year.

A split would force an early election and, incredibly, put Labour back in power after one richly deserved term in Opposition.

The Lib Dems, with only nine per cent of the vote according to a new poll, would be wiped out as a political force.

Labour’s recovery is as astonishing as the slide in Coalition support. Ed Miliband can claim some credit. But this collapse is due entirely to Government bungling on just about every major issue.

Somehow it has allowed the impression that the Coalition, not Labour, is to blame for our economic woes.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. It is ridiculous almost to the point of complete disbelief that this government, and the senior Tory ministers within it, have allowed a situation where Labour’s economic policies and statements are given serious consideration only two years after they were so utterly and thoroughly debunked. That really takes a sustained level of incompetence to achieve, and the more you look at it, the more inescapable becomes the conclusion that the majority of the blame lies with George Osborne:

The PM has to decide whether the Chancellor is a statesman devoted full-time to keeping Britain’s precious Triple-A credit rating. Or a political bruiser who risks his credibility in unseemly brawls with Ed Balls.

It is Mr Osborne, not Nick Clegg’s Lib Dem rabble, who is to blame for the Government’s collapse in public esteem.

People don’t mind Westminster thuggery if it works. But torpedoing his own Budget with a catalogue of unforced errors and crass incompetence is unforgivable.

In a few short weeks, Mr Osborne has shredded his reputation and turned the Coalition into a lame duck administration.

It takes a special talent to cast Mr Balls on the right side of an economic argument but Mr Osborne somehow managed to do so.

If the Prime Minister cannot grasp this nettle, he is finished. A job swap with William Hague is the solution.

This is a genuinely interesting idea, though I very much doubt that David Cameron is about to replace his Chancellor in the upcoming reshuffle. But people expressed doubts at the time of his appointment about Osborne’s youth and inexperience, and while he is certainly a political bruiser, it must also be remembered that it was under his political stewardship that the Conservatives failed to gain an outright majority in the 2010 general election, tarnishing his credentials as a political operative as well as a Chancellor of the Exchequer.

It is also amusing that Hague’s name is now being floated as a potential replacement, given the sniping and complaining about his own performance that was taking place a year ago – “Hague Has Lost His Mojo”, etc. etc. In terms of cabinet minister performance, it would appear that slow and steady is winning the race at the moment.

Reasons To Be Cheerful

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

Yes, even in these economically stagnant, rainy, sunless times, there are plenty – as The Commentator reminds us today.

Some of my favourites, together with my responses:

3.  Only people born before 1940 really know what ‘austerity’ means. Remember this, whining lefties, particularly students upset about paying for their university educations.

4.  You are perfectly entitled to ignore the weird bleating emanating from any Bishop. This includes the one with the eyebrows and silly beard.

11.  You have never experienced a food riot or a bread queue. Indeed. The daily chaos at the Tesco Express does not count.

14.  There’s been a little tinkering but you still have freedom of expression. Hmm. As long as you don’t “use insulting or threatening language”.

17.  Gordon Brown is nowhere near the country’s finances. THANK THE LORD.

20.  David Cameron hasn’t left anything in the pub for a while. As long as Britain’s nuclear codes are not sitting abandoned underneath an empty seat at Wimbledon Centre Court we should be okay.

23.  The Royal Marines are on our side. And so are the Paras. And if they weren’t, I would change sides pretty quick-smart. I would not bet against those people.

See the link for the full list.

So there we have it – our Prime Minister may have lost his political radar leading to the horrifying spectacle of Labour economic policies once again being given credence, and the sun may not have made an appearance in weeks, but things could be much, much worse. And that they are not, let us all give thanks.

When No One Takes A Stand

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Islamophobia

 

This morning I came across a thought-provoking piece by Mehdi Hassan, now of Huffington Post but writing here in The Guardian, about the rising tide of Islamophobia in British political commentary, and what he considers to be the insidious attempt to smear or question the pro-western credentials of all moderate Muslims in public life so as to create the impression that there are no moderate Muslims to be found.

Hasan speaks in candid terms about the effect that the ignorant, baseless abuse which he has received in response to his work at the New Statesman magazine has had, both on himself and his family:

To say that I find the relentlessly hostile coverage of Islam, coupled with the personal abuse that I receive online, depressing is an understatement. There have been times – for instance, when I found my wife curled up on our couch, in tears, after having discovered some of the more monstrous and threatening comments on my New Statesman blog – when I’ve wondered whether it’s all worth it. Perhaps, a voice at the back of my head suggests, I should throw in the towel and go find a less threatening, more civilised line of work. But that’s what the trolls want. To silence Muslims; to deny a voice to a voiceless community.

And the money passage, summing up the aggregate effect of this abuse, and the fact that too few commentators in the mainstream media are willing to take a stand and denounce it when they witness sloppy or prejudicial reporting of Muslim life or the rise of radical Islam written in their own publications:

The truth is that the fear-mongering and negative stereotyping is out of control. I’ve lost count of the number of websites that try to “out” every Muslim in public life as an extremist or Islamist of some shape or form. The promotion of Sayeeda Warsi to the Conservative frontbench in 2007 provoked the influential ConservativeHome website to describe her appointment as “the wrong signal at a time when Britain is fighting a global war against Islamic terrorism and extremism”. Labour’s Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, was accused of holding “extremist” views after he called for a “more independent foreign policy” and was spuriously linked to Hizb ut-Tahrir. In April, Labour peer Lord Ahmed was suspended from the party after he was falsely accused of having put a £10m bounty on Barack Obama’s head (the suspension has since been lifted).

If Muslims such as Warsi, Khan, Ahmed and me are all secret extremists, who are the moderates? That, of course, seems to be the implicit, insidious message: there aren’t any. But if those of us who try to participate in public life and contribute to political debate are constantly painted with a broad brush of suspicion and distrust, then what hope is there for the thousands of young British Muslims who feel alienated and marginalised from the political process? I used to encourage Muslim students to get involved in the media or in politics, but I now find it much harder to do so. Why would I want anyone else to go through what I’ve gone through? Believe me, Muslims aren’t endowed thicker skins than non-Muslims.

The targeting of ConservativeHome here is a little unfair; I followed the link and the quote about the “wrong signal” refers to a press statement by the pathetically-named “Margaret Thatcher Center [sic – yes, American] for Freedom” at the Heritage Foundation, not the most intellectually robust of groups these days and certainly not representative of ConservativeHome editorial positions or the views of their readership (though I concede that there is likely to be a degree of overlap in this case).

But Hasan’s broader point is valid – if even those Muslims in British public life who have impeccable records of patriotism and public service have their motives and allegiances called into question, this most certainly does feed the perception that there is no such thing as moderation within the Muslim community, a situation that no one interested in reasoned, free debate should allow to stand.

The only area where I would take issue with Hasan is where he states:

I’m a fan of robust debate and I’m not averse to engaging in the odd ad hominem attack myself. This isn’t a case of special pleading, on behalf of Britain’s Muslims, nor do I think my Islamic beliefs should be exempt from public criticism. But the fact is that you can now say things about Muslims, in polite society and even among card-carrying liberal lefties, that you cannot say about any other group or minority. Am I expected to shrug this off?

Are Muslims getting a rough deal at the moment, and is it shameful and wrong and concerning? Absolutely. But are they the only group? Hardly. Has no one reading this moaned about gypsies lately, or perhaps laughed at a “pikey” joke?

Let’s take a stand when we hear untruths being spoken about moderate Islam, Muslim public servants or commentators. But let us also apply this same standard to every community; trying to silence people with threats, or drumming them out public office based on false evidence or highly selective interpretation of their past statements is not a route that we should be going down.