Futility in Gaza
Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, kicks things off by passing on a reader's report of seeing a bumper sticker with a picture of a mushroom cloud and the caption "Obliterate Israel." Dreher concludes that "Jew-hatred is getting to be very scary." Dreher is, of course, correct. Dreher doesn't point out that Muslim-hatred reached scary levels years ago, but selective umbrage is nothing new for Dreher. As usual, blog readers who pointed this out had their comments deleted.
But that's not what drew me into the discussion. One reader accused Israel of firing weapons containing white phosphorous into Gaza. White phosphorous has an incendiary effect that greatly increases the chances of collateral, civilian casualties. Reader "Peterk" dismisses the accusation with "the WP allegation is a non-starter." Reader "ce" pointed out that a UN relief and works compound had been hit by Israeli shells, which, according to a UN spokesman, allegedly contained white phosphorous, "according to breaking news on CNN." Reader "ce" then says, either defensively or sarcastically, "I realize this is not fair and balanced like Fox, but it is where I get my news."
Chalk up a minor victory for conservatives. People are all too aware that CNN's reputation has been tarred, that it is no longer considered a legitimate news source, that a news report can't be trusted until it's reported by Fox News. This has gone too far. Don't ever let anyone make you feel like you need to apologize that you get your news from CNN. Just make sure that you also check out other news sources as well, including Fox News. By the way, Fox News is reporting that UN "spokesman Chris Gunness says the building was hit by what was believed to be three white phosphorous shells." Also, that Ban Ki-moon "says Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told him it was a 'grave mistake.'"
Over on the Religion blog, reader "DeSoto" defends Israel with, "If a group of thugs is threatening my family, I'm not going to be very judicial in my defense." With all due respect, the dilemma here is the very real doubt that Israel's tactics are making Israeli families safe or only perpetuating a cycle of violence. If Israel can capture or kill the "group of thugs" threatening Israeli families, all well and good. But perhaps Israel's actions spawn more "thugs" than they eliminate. If so, then Israel is not getting closer to its goal.
Dirty Politics in Richardson
The Richardson Coalition sent out an email asking a lot of vaguely alarmist questions.
"Which City Council candidates got union PAC money during the 2007
election?"
"How much did they get?"
"What might that mean to our city?"
The accompanying editorial reports the results of a push-poll conducted by the Richardson Coalition to promote the allegation that union PACs are bad and city council officials who accept union PAC money are suspect. The question asked in the push-poll:
"During the last election, the largest contributor of funds to City Council candidates was a union-oriented political action committee. The primary receivers of this PAC’s funds are also the four newest members of the City Council. Do you see this as an attempt to influence votes to support the union’s cause?"So what? Isn't any PAC contribution to political candidates an attempt to elect representatives sympathetic to the PAC's interests? The purpose of the poll and the email seems to be to cast doubt in voters' minds about certain City Council members, who just happen to be the most recently elected members and the newly elected mayor Steve Mitchell.
What the Richardson Coalition doesn't tell voters is that the Richardson Coalition is itself a Political Action Committee, or PAC, the same as the "union PAC" that the Coalition tries to scare voters about. This hypocrisy, this lack of transparency, this attempt to taint council members by association, amounts to nothing more than dirty politics.
I am generally sympathetic to the agenda of the Richardson Coalition, but I am disappointed by this attack. The Richardson Coalition should stick to promoting better government, not attacking others who get involved in local government as well, not using scare tactics to divide our city. The Richardson Coalition does Richardson no good with these tactics.
Sarcasm is the Protest of the Weak
John Knowles, in "A Separate Peace," has his character Gene say, when reflecting on his youth, "This was my sarcastic summer. It was only long after that I recognized sarcasm as the protest of people who are weak."
Two essays today remind me of the wisdom in Gene's self analysis. The first, by former Dallas Morning News columnist William Murchison, is titled, "Those Poor, Poor Terrorists." The second, by NRO's Jay Nordlinger, is titled, "Cheney's a Monster, W.'s Stupid & Palin's a Bimbo." Both headlines drip with sarcasm. Nothing demonstrates more how weak the Republicans are.
By the way, I didn't bother to read either essay. Gene's reminiscences made valuable reading because of the benefit of hindsight (Gene's). Maybe someday, Murchison and Nordlinger will gain that wisdom of hindsight, too, but for now, sarcasm is all they offer, and there's not much value in that.
2 comments:
You've got a few things wrong about the Richardson Coalition
e-mail/editorial or whatever you want to call it.
First, the piece was so short then why not copy it for all to judge?
Your circumspect description leads me to question your motives. Why do I say this? Because I got the e-mail, I read it once, and my recollection was different than yours, so I pulled out the e-mail to examine your claims. I found your description not just lacking but inaccurate. Sure they are trying to spin a position but the claims you make about what the e-mail said are factually untrue.
It's fair to question the Richardson Coalition's motives but it's fair to question anyone's motives. Mine and yours.
I am wondering why the Richardson Coalition didn't say more because there is a lot more to say. Most of these Union donations come from people who don't live or work here. I think that ought to concern us. That being said we have at least two council candidates who won their seats with help of people who don't live or work here and whose interests might not be in the residents best interests. (Before someone misinterprets this: Yes Firefighters live and work here but that is not where most of their PAC money seems to come from.) That is certainly noteworthy.
Ed Cognoski said:
What the Richardson Coalition doesn't tell voters is that the
Richardson Coalition is itself a Political Action Committee, or PAC.
That claim is false.
The e-mail I received and every e-mail from them I still have in my
inbox says, "Richardson Coalition is a part of Richardson Residents
for Responsive Government, a PAC, Joe Mathews, Treasurer." Go to their webpage and you find it there too.
Let's step back even further. You call it a "push poll" but I find
that description dubious. I took the poll. They sent letters out, with a code, and you went to an internet website and you entered the code and you took the poll. I have no idea why I got it in the mail. I know neighbors got the poll as well.
The question in question is a bit pushy but as I recall its about as pushy as it got.
I expected a push poll. I think some questions were clearly aimed to probe particular political areas but that isn't push polling. If I recall right, one of the choices was "dont know/no opinion" so people could respond in neutrality or disagreement.
Lastly, the poll did something I had never seen in a poll, either
internet or phone. It was that they allowed you to enter comments
about questions and there was a spot at the end to enter general
comments.
You call it "dirty" but it doesn't seem dirty to me to "follow the money." Those public records exist so that a citizen can look at them and see where a candidate's funding comes from. It is certainly reasonable to publish that information.
What I think is dirty is the implication from firefighter endorsement literature that the fireman's PAC is homegrown Richardson firefighters while at the same time the bulk of the money comes from outside the city.
While I have a problem with people with outside interests trying to influence somewhere they don't live, it would be fair and square if they would state their interests in endorsing candidates. Why exactly are they endorsing anyone? To what end? Is it to gain union strength in the city? If that is it, the voter ought to know that. I'd have a lot less problem with it if it was the clear about what their intentions were.
I agree that the Richardson Coalition would be better off staying above the fray but I don't think its dirty or that it is hypocrisy to point this out.
That doesn't mean I agree with their implied position. I would suggest we need more analysis of contributions and polling about Richardsonians think and not less.
I apologize for implying that the Richardson Coalition nowhere identifies themselves as a PAC. They do. I meant they did not so identify themselves in the section of the email where they criticized another PAC for doing what they do, involve themselves in city politics.
Whether this poll is properly identified as a "push poll" or not is probably a matter of opinion, not fact, as I know of no legal definition of the term. I felt the question was phrased in a way to generate a particular response. That the poll allowed the respondent to disagree with the question doesn't change its nature as a push poll, in my opinion. Neither does the fact that it allows you to enter comments.
The bottom line for me is that Richardson Coalition is attacking city council members for their associations. I consider anything less than a debate on the issues to be dirty politics. I recognize that's a matter of opinion, too.
Post a Comment