Archive for the ‘Stupid’ Category
Writer Fareed Zakaria Suspended from Time and CNN for Plagiarism
On August 10, 2012 — two days ago, to be exact — Fareed Zakaria, a writer for Time magazine and a host at CNN, was suspended for plagiarism. Something like this happens only rarely to top-level, nationally-known pundits, which is why I wanted to see what the fallout would be before I wrote about it.
Here’s what happened. Zakaria wrote a column on gun control for Time that used a number of passages from a similar article by Jill Lepore that appeared in the April edition of the New Yorker. Here’s a copy of what Lepore wrote back then:
“As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, ‘Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.’”
Now, see Zakaria’s version of the same thing from his recent column in Time magazine:
“Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. “Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the ‘mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.’”
As you see, there’s little difference.
What’s worse, there’s no excuse for this — none whatsoever — because Zakaria did have other options than to simply lift a passage from Lepore’s piece without proper attribution.
The first and easiest thing Zakaria could’ve done is this — give Lepore her due. Say, “Recently, in the New Yorker, Jill Lepore wrote an excellent article on gun control. As I cannot improve upon her words, here’s what she said back in April:” and go on from there.
But Zakaria had a second option available as well if Time wouldn’t go for that. He could have either used a different source, or if he really liked Adam Winkler’s book, he could’ve interviewed Winkler directly, thus getting different words but getting at the same thing. This would not have been plagiarism because Winkler, as an author, is allowed to cite his own words whenever he feels like it. And if Winkler wanted to point out that Lepore had written an article back in April that was really good, Zakaria could’ve mentioned that without using any of Lepore’s words, too.
And do you know what else shocked me? This isn’t even the first time Zakaria has been accused of plagiarism. Because as an article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic back in 2009 points out, Zakaria lifted some of his words, too!
So it appears that Zakaria has been lifting quotes from other people and not giving proper attribution for years. However, this time, he lifted a whole paragraph, which is why he got caught.
So what did Zakaria do after he got caught? He apologized, which is here:
Media reporters have pointed out that paragraphs in my Time column this week bear close similarities to paragraphs in Jill Lepore’s essay in the April 23 issue of The New Yorker. They are right. I made a terrible mistake. It is a serious lapse and one that is entirely my fault. I apologize unreservedly to her, to my editors at Time, and to my readers.
The problem with the apology is, it’s too little, too late. Zakaria knows better than this. Writers, reporters, journalists, and even hosts — like he has been on CNN for years — know that the only thing we have going for us, ultimately, is our bare word that we’ll tell the truth as we know it. Any writer worth his or her salt knows that. And we know that if we plagiarise, our credibility is completely and utterly blown. Forever!
And as I said before, Zakaria had other options. He did not have to do this. He should not have done this. And he deservedly got suspended for doing it anyway.
What’s truly sad and shocking about all of this is that Zakaria still has the potential to go back to work, when so many other writers who would never have done what Zakaria just did either aren’t working at all, or are working far below their capacities. No other writer I know would catch a break like this, yet it appears Zakaria just might due to his celebrity status.
And that’s wrong — so wrong that I do not have the words to explain just how wrong it is.
Look. Writers write. But we don’t crib from other writers intentionally, then refuse to give proper attribution. Because it’s ethically utterly wrong, and we know this, so we just don’t do it. Which is why Zakaria should not have done this, period.
So what comes next for Fareed Zakaria? My guess is that he’s going to have far fewer speaking engagements, he’ll be closely monitored at CNN, and if Time allows him to write any more articles, they will be extensively fact-checked so that no repeat performance is possible.
That’s better than what he deserves. Because after doing something like this, he really should be fired, celebrity or no. Because he’s proved he has no honor.
Weird NBA Story: Commissioner Stern Insults Sportscaster Jim Rome During Interview
Folks, I really don’t understand what the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, David Stern, thought he was doing on Wednesday afternoon, June 13, 2012, but here goes: Stern intentionally insulted sportscaster Jim Rome during Rome’s live call-in, nationally syndicated radio show after Rome asked a perfectly legitimate question regarding the upcoming NBA Draft. This happened about twelve hours ago, and is all over the news.
Here’s what happened. According to the Yahoo Sports blog “Ball Don’t Lie,” Rome asked the question everyone’s been asking since the New Orleans Hornets won this year’s NBA “draft lottery,” meaning the Hornets will get to pick first, consequently getting the best player available in the 2012 NBA Draft. As the Hornets are currently owned by the NBA (and have been since December of 2010), this didn’t look very good. Rome, being a well-known sportscaster, asked the question in what surely appears to be a rather non-confrontational way.
To wit (as transcribed by Yahoo Sports from the article referenced above):
“You know, New Orleans won the draft lottery, which, of course, produced the usual round of speculation that maybe the lottery was fixed,” Rome said. “I know that you appreciate a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy — was the fix in for the lottery?”
“Uh, you know, I have two answers for that,” Stern said. “I’ll give you the easy one — no — and a statement: Shame on you for asking.”
“You know, I understand why you would say that to me, and I wanted to preface it by saying it respectfully,” Rome replied. “I think it’s my job to ask, because I think people wonder.”
“No, it’s ridiculous,” Stern answered. “But that’s OK.”
“I know that you think it’s ridiculous, but I don’t think the question is ridiculous, because I know people think that,” Rome said. “I’m not saying that I do, but I think it’s my job to ask you that.”
“Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” Stern asked.
Now, this was a truly ridiculous answer, especially as Stern had already said above that the draft lottery wasn’t fixed. It’s especially dumb because Stern is sixty-nine years of age, an accomplished and learned man, and really shouldn’t have said any such thing, especially because his asinine statement has for the moment eclipsed the NBA’s premiere event — the NBA Finals.
Rome handled this pretty well, as you’re about to see from the transcript:
“Yeah, I don’t know if that’s fair,” Rome responded. “I don’t know that that’s fair.”
“Well, why’s that?” Stern asked.
My aside — oh, come off it, Commish! You’re playing dumb here. (Or were you having a “senior moment?”) Whatever you’re doing, it’s wrong. Cut it out.
Back to the transcript:
“Because I think that there are — and I know you read your emails and I’m sure you follow things virally on Twitter — people really do think it, whether it’s fair or not,” Rome said. “You don’t think the question’s fair to ask if your fans think it?”
Good question. So, how does Stern answer it? (Warning: this next exchange is rather lengthy.)
“People think it because people like you ask silly questions,” Stern said. “I expect it to be written about — and actually, I commented last night in my presser that there was one guy who I won’t dignify by naming who says, ‘I have no reason to know anything, and I don’t know anything, but I tell you, I believe it’s fixed.’ OK, that’s good. Why is that? ‘Well, because this team won.’ And if that team won, it would’ve been fixed also, and if that team won, it would’ve been fixed also. And if every team was invited to have a representative there, and there were four members of the media there, and if Ernst and Young certified it, would you still think it? ‘Yes.’ So, I guess …”
“I think two things, which responds to this,” Rome interjected. “Number one, I don’t think so. I don’t think so — and I’m not covering myself — I don’t think so, and I think by asking the question, it would not suggest I think so. But the one thing I would say: The league does own the team, does it not?”
“… Yes,” Stern said, a question mark at the end of his sentence.
“Does that not make the question fair?” Rome asked.
“I don’t think so,” Stern said. “Number one, we sold it. We’re gonna close this week. We already have established our price. I think that if it had gone to Michael Jordan, which was the next team up with, in terms of a high percentage, they would’ve said, ‘Oh, David’s taking care of his friend Michael.’ And if it had gone to Brooklyn, which is going into Barclay Center, it would have been fair to speculate, I suppose, that we want to take Brooklyn off of the mat. So there was no winning. And people write about it, and it’s OK to write about it, and we sort of expect it, but that’s not a question that I’ve been asked before by a respectable journalist.”
This actually is a logic chain that makes sense. But why did it take Stern so long to come up with it? And why did he have to needlessly insult Rome before he got there?
———
Edited to add:
Upon further reflection, it seems that Stern wished to “frame the narrative” by giving a reason that explained why Stern had said something so insulting to Rome. Notice the slur about “respectable journalists” who supposedly wouldn’t ask such a question about “rigging the draft” — what was the point of that, especially as Rome had asked a perfectly legitimate question? (And am I really supposed to think that other sportscasters and journalists hadn’t asked Stern this question before Rome got around to it? Because I have a hard time buying that, too.)
That’s why, upon further reflection, I don’t think that Stern’s attempt at framing the narrative passes the “smell test,” even with the proviso that Stern’s logic chain regarding the other teams does make sense.
Back to the original blog.
———
From the transcript:
“I think I understand why you’re frustrated by that; I think that I understand why that would upset you,” Rome said. “I would hope that you would not hold that against me.”
“I wouldn’t hold it against you — you know, you and I have been into more contentious discussions than that,” Stern said.
“I don’t know, I’d put that one right up there,” Rome replied.
That’s the understatement of the year. But Stern was not yet done; check out this next line:
“Well, you know, it’s good copy, and you do things sometimes for cheap thrills,” Stern said.
I don’t know what Stern thought he was doing here, but that just escalated an already tense situation. And by this time, Rome was obviously getting exasperated:
“I did not do that for a cheap thrill,” Rome answered.
“Well, that’s what it sounds like,” Stern said.
“No, not at all,” Rome answered. “See, that’s where you and I — that’s our point of disconnect. That was not a cheap thrill and I was not throwing anything against the wall, and I was trying to be as respectful as possible. I’m just saying that people wonder about that. And here’s what I don’t want to do — I don’t want to say, ‘Hey commissioner, people would say …’ Because I’m going to ask a direct question. But people do wonder. But that was not a cheap thrill. I got no thrill out of that.”
“Well, it’s a cheap trick,” Stern said.
“No, flopping is a cheap trick,” Rome said.
Good one! (I get tired of watching NBA players, especially the stars, doing this all the time. It weakens the game and slows down the action.) This was an excellent way for Rome to re-direct the conversation back to basketball rather than whatever it was Stern thought he was doing. But once again, Stern didn’t take the high road:
“Well, no. But listen, you’ve been successful at making a career out of it, and I keep coming on, so …” Stern said.
“Making a career out of what, though, commissioner?” Rome interrupted. “See, I take great offense to that. Making a career of what? Cheap thrills?”
“What offense are you taking? You’re taking offense?” Stern asked.
I really do not buy Stern’s “I didn’t do anything” response here. Neither did Rome.
“I am. Now I am,” Rome answered. “If you’re saying I’ve made a career out of cheap thrills …”
“… taking on the world, and now Jim Rome is pouting? I love it,” Stern said.
Um, excuse me? Why do you wish to keep escalating an already bad situation, Mr. Commissioner? (Especially when this was entirely your own fault.)
Here’s the rest of the transcript:
“I’m not pouting; I take offense,” Rome said. “There’s a difference between pouting and taking offense. I take offense like you took offense to the question. What if I said — were you pouting when I asked the question?”
“What offenses? Do you want to hang up on me?” Stern asked.
“No, I can’t hang up on you, because I’m running out of time — I would never hang up on you,” Rome said.
“OK,” Stern said. “Listen, I’ve got to go call somebody important, like Stephen A. Smith, right now. He’s up next.”
“All right, you go make that call, and I’ll go talk to somebody else, too, I guess,” Rome said.
“All right,” Stern said.
“All right, commissioner. Have a nice day,” Rome said. “I did not hang up on him — we are officially out of time. We will come back and reset that momentarily. Stay tuned.”
As writer Dan Devine of “Ball Don’t Lie” said, Stern should not have done this because Stern is a “grown-ass man.” Devine also said, earlier in his critique:
Setting aside the moral/ethical/sensitivity argument you might make — “Hey, we probably don’t need to evoke domestic violence during a sports talk radio interview, especially when it’s not one about, y’know, domestic violence” — this wasn’t a loaded question. There most certainly was a way for Stern to answer Rome’s question — which, again, was “Was the fix in for the lottery?” — without in any way implicating the league in any impropriety.
Exactly right.
This is undoubtedly the strangest sports story in the past ten years or more, because here, we have a commissioner in David Stern who’d rather cause trouble for a sportscaster than talk about his own product — the teams who are playing in the NBA Finals (the Oklahoma City Thunder and the Miami Heat, to be exact).
Let me say it again, louder this time: David Stern would rather score cheap shots off Jim Rome than do his job, which is to promote NBA basketball. Stern shouldn’t behave this way no matter what questions Rome or any other sportscaster asks (even though Rome’s questions were fair), because it’s part of Stern’s job to handle the tough questions. (Otherwise, why accept the paycheck?)
And if I were an owner of any of the twenty-nine NBA franchises that aren’t owned by the NBA at this time, I’d be furious at Stern and be looking for a way to oust him over this. Because it’s just not right when a commissioner of a professional sport makes the story all about him, rather than about the players, coaches, or even the owners.
Brewers Fans: Leave Lucroy’s Wife Alone
I never thought I’d have to write this blog, folks. I never thought that anyone — much less a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers — would criticize any of the players’ wives for anything, as any given wife has little influence (if any) on her husband’s performance on the field.
But it appears some ill-bred Brewers fans are criticizing Mrs. Jonathan Lucroy due to the odd, off-the-field accident he suffered, resulting in a broken hand. Lucroy was reaching for a sock that had fallen under his hotel bed when his wife dropped a piece of luggage; this luggage landed on his hand, resulting in a very unusual “boxer’s fracture.” Mrs. Lucroy, by all accounts, feels terrible about this, because of course she never wanted to injure her husband.
Yet because Lucroy was hitting a ton, doing well as a Brewers catcher, and was garnering some national support for the National League All-Star team, these same ill-bred Brewers fans appear to believe that Mrs. Lucroy hurt her husband on purpose. And because they apparently believe this mistaken view should be shouted from the rooftops — or at least listed at Facebook, where Mrs. Lucroy apparently has a page (I haven’t been able to find it) — Mrs. Lucroy has actually received hate mail over this.
Here’s a link to the story from Fox Sports Wisconsin:
And here’s a relevant quote:
“It’s tough for me because it’s already a freak thing as it is,” Lucroy told WSSP. “My wife has been getting hate mail on her Facebook, messages and stuff. It’s really sad that these kind of things happen from a freak thing. She didn’t do it on purpose, man. It was an accident. Stranger things have happened.
“It’s been a battle for me, personally, because there’s no one to blame, and my wife is getting killed by this. It’s not like she’s not hurting enough already, feeling guilty enough already. I really wish people would leave her alone, leave us alone, just let us try to move forward and get this behind us.”
Now, this shouldn’t even need to be said, but since this has happened, apparently it does. Brewers fans, no matter what you think about Jonathan Lucroy’s accident, please leave Mrs. Lucroy alone. She feels bad enough as it is.
Now, let’s get back to watching the Brewers play rather than criticizing a player’s wife, shall we? Because as Brewers fans, we should have the class to leave players’ wives out of it.
When Big Brother Goes Wrong: Pair Fired for Affair in AZ
Recently, a student caught a secretary and a school principal kissing lustily on camera. The two people, Stephen McClenning and Billie Madewell, are married to other people; worse yet, they kissed on school time.
The student, Myranda Garber, 16, posted the video of the kiss online at YouTube; it’s several minutes long. Then, outraged condemnation followed — first other students were upset, then parents were inflamed, and then, of course, media outlets glommed on to the scandal, including the UK’s Daily Mail (where I found this article).
The narrative framing here is simple: how dare these two consenting adults kiss on school time? (With the additional parental framing, to wit: My children saw this on school time? For shame!) They’re married! It’s wrong! And how disgraceful these two did this, when they should’ve been working!
Now, I put all those exclamation points there for a reason, which is this: the artificial “shock and awe” over two adults over the age of consent having an affair is way overblown.
Here’s the truth about this affair: it was stupid. It wasn’t morally admirable. It hurt the two spouses unnecessarily, and no matter how hot these two were and are for each other, it never should’ve happened on school time.
But notice the words I used there — stupid. Not “morally admirable.” Hurt. “(Not) . . . on school time.”
Did you notice which words I didn’t use? (Hint, hint: anything that says this was a shocking, outrageous thing to happen in the 21st Century, and how dare this happen in front of supposedly-innocent kids, is what I was going for.)
I’m not personally offended by this couple even though I am against married people straying outside their given vows and word. Instead, I’m far more offended by the fact this 16-year-old student taped these two people kissing without their consent. I’m also upset that no media source has quoted a parent, or a student, who seems to think this simple act was wrong, even though it was.
Just because “everybody does it” doesn’t make it right.
In this case, the student was wrong to post a video of these two consenting adults publicly; she had every right to bring it to the school board, she had every right to bring it to her local news outlet, even — but to post a video at YouTube in order to shame these two while ousting them? That’s not just outrageous — it’s disgraceful.
That’s why my personal outrage is saved for the “Big Brotherish” aspects of this case. For example: the student doesn’t feel any remorse; in fact, her mother is upset that the girl has had to have been pulled out of school rather than the fact her daughter was using a cell phone on school time. Then, consider that neither the parent nor the child seem to feel that posting the video on YouTube was wrong, even though it blew up two families (which, granted, would’ve eventually blown up anyway) and was a blatant invasion of their privacy.
Worse yet, no lawsuits seem to be in the offing, because videos of this nature are now so commonplace that they hardly even get reported on any more (witness the lack of outrage by most United States newspaper outlets if you don’t believe me).
In American culture today, too much of what we used to expect as part of the United States Constitution — our right to privacy, which is codified under the Fourth Amendment — has been violated as a matter of course. Everyone, seemingly, has a cell phone, and most cell phones have cameras. People take pictures of everything and post it online, sometimes to make fun of someone doing something that’s minor but odd (such as picking your nose in public), sometimes to make fun of someone for not wearing any underwear (a la Britney Spears).
And no one thinks anything of this anymore, because so many people do it.
But that still doesn’t make it right, which is why I urge you to consider the following questions:
Where has the right to privacy gone?
And why aren’t more people complaining to get the word out that the erosion of our personal rights must stop forthwith?
Now, all that said, I reiterate that these two lovers definitely should not have kissed on school time. Getting caught doing that deserved reprimands and possible suspensions for a first offense (which as far as I know, this was); one of the two, probably the secretary as she was the lower-ranked person, should’ve started looking for another job. (It’s a sad truism that usually the higher-ranked person, who is almost always male, tends to get away scot-free in such cases.)**
Here’s the upshot: if the principal was a good educator, as he’s been alleged to be, and if the secretary was a good secretary who didn’t make mistakes on the job and actually helped the running of the school (as good secretaries the world over tend to do), they shouldn’t have lost their jobs for one indiscretion — especially as it was an indiscretion that was captured by a student who had a cell phone and felt the world had a right to know what these two people were doing.
And the fact these two lost their jobs over this seems extremely disproportionate, especially as the student, herself, has lost nothing at all.
————–
** Note: I believe that the principal was far more at fault than the secretary; he’s the one in the position of power, and he’s the one who should’ve been fired if anyone was. Yet the secretary was forced out — this is what I meant by “sad truism” — while the principal was allowed to resign.
This is wrong, as the principal had all the power in that relationship, both personal and professional.
If the school, the parents, etc., were really so outraged, the principal should’ve been fired instead, and the secretary should’ve been allowed to submit her resignation.
Limbaugh Issues Weak Apology; Blames Rhetoric on the Democrats
Folks, the Rush Limbaugh story continues to have legs; while Limbaugh has issued a rather weak apology, he also blamed the Democrats for making this a “political issue” last Friday (something I somehow missed in the ensuing firestorm)** and hasn’t backed down from that stance one iota even though advertisers are deserting Limbaugh en masse. (Tonight’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC show said that twelve different advertisers have now deserted Limbaugh, and the Rachel Maddow show said that two channels have said publicly they will drop Limbaugh due to this.)
The Los Angeles Times discusses Limbaugh’s written apology, which was originally issued on his Web site, here; a relevant quote from Limbaugh’s statement follows:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week,” Limbaugh wrote in a statement posted to his website. “In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
Oh, would those wrong words be “slut” and “prostitute,” words that never needed to be said? Or are they the words you still haven’t explicitly taken back asking for pornographic videos of Ms. Fluke having sex? (Limbaugh said on his radio show Monday, March 5, 2012, that he’s sorry for calling her the former, but never mentioned the latter.)
Continuing on in Limbaugh’s written statement, he continued to mis-state the initial issue, saying that he personally believes no one should have to pay for anyone else’s sexual behavior. That was never at issue; what was at issue was whether or not insurers should cover contraception in the same way they cover, say, Viagra. (Speaking of that, why is it that women aren’t up in arms that their insurers are “forced” to include Viagra as an essential medication, considering it’s not something any woman will ever be able to use? Is it because we’re not stupid?)
Today on his radio show, Limbaugh explicitly apologized to Sandra Fluke, again, but still didn’t apologize for those terrible comments he made about wanting to watch videos of Ms. Fluke having sex with the contraception the insurer must now carry; to my mind, that makes Limbaugh’s apology extremely weak and unworthy at absolute best.
Ms. Fluke, after reading Limbaugh’s apology, said on ABC’s “The View” this morning that she does not accept Limbaugh’s apology; she believes that Limbaugh apologized only because his advertisers are angry with him, and due to the pressure being put on him by various groups. (A sensible reaction.)
However, many conservative groups are angry now and are striking at “liberals” — that is, anyone but them — who have made mistakes in the past. This mostly means they’re yelling at Ed Schultz, the MSNBC host who called Laura Ingraham a nasty name on his syndicated radio show last year (I wrote about that here); however, Schultz accepted a week-long unpaid suspension, apologized for nine minutes on the air, apologized directly to Laura Ingraham, and talked about how embarrassed he was, considering he’s a husband and a father, to have ever mischaracterized any woman in that way — which was the right reaction.
When you contrast Schultz’s behavior, which was genuinely repentant, with Limbaugh’s, there is no comparison.
As for the Republican Presidential nominees, their comments on Limbaugh’s bad behavior (last week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, he repeatedly attacked Sandra Fluke) leave much to be desired except for one man: Ron Paul. Paul is the only candidate to say flat-out that what Limbaugh said was wrong; he even called it “crude,” and intimated that no reasonable man would say such a thing. This makes sense to me; what doesn’t make sense is Mitt Romney’s reaction (accepting Limbaugh’s weak apology for the use of two words, “slut” and “prostitute,” to mischaracterize Sandra Fluke), or Rick Santorum’s reaction (trying to turn the issue to the Democrats’ supposed politicization of contraception, the same way Limbaugh is), or Newt Gingrich’s reaction, which more or less was to give Limbaugh an “attaboy.” (For such a smart man, Gingrich’s reactions are enough to perplex a saint.)
So there you have it; Limbaugh has apologized, but it’s weak. The R Presidential candidates, with the sole exception of Ron Paul, don’t seem to have enough sense to come in out of the rain (as women are half the electorate, don’t you think any male candidate would say, “While I applaud free speech, there are some things that shouldn’t be said by sane, smart people, and this was one of them,” rather than behave the way they are right now?). And Sandra Fluke, who two weeks ago was someone most of us wouldn’t have been able to pick out of a crowd if our lives depended on it, is our newest unwitting celebrity.
Bottom line is this: Limbaugh’s apology is not enough. He needs to be fired — since Don Imus was fired due to his inappropriate comments (which weren’t anywhere near as bad, or as lengthy — one occurrence versus several days worth of occurrences — as what Limbaugh had to say), Limbaugh should also be fired.
This story will not go away until he is.
————–
** Can we please, please, take it as read that this issue isn’t such a big deal because of the Democrats, the “liberals,” or anything other than Rush Limbaugh stirring up a hornet’s nest? Thank you.
US Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) Approves of Racist, Polarizing Ad
Pity former United States Representative Pete Hoekstra (R-MI). He recently approved of an ad that, to put it charitably, is both racist and xenophobic. This ad aired on his campaign’s behalf in the state of Michigan during the Super Bowl, which just goes to show that there’s no accounting for taste.
The ad, featuring an Asian-American girl speaking broken English while biking through a bunch of rice paddies, is an extremely tone-deaf way to say that current US Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) spends too much money (as the Chinese girl says, “Thank you Debbie SpendItNow” and there’s an associated Web site, to boot). Here’s the text of what this young woman actually says in the ad:
“Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spenditnow. Debbie’s spent so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow.” (Transcribed this evening while listening/watching to it on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” and Current TV’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”)
Do I even need to start in on how wrong this ad is? (Or will you just go look at it for yourself in order to see how a candidate for the high office of US Senator can waste his money while offending nearly everyone in the process?)
Please see this link from Real Clear Politics, which has an embedded link to the commercial in question:
As the Detroit News put it, “Hoekstra Super Bowl ad Raises Sensitivity Question:”
GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad.
“Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done.”
Good for De Leeuw. I’m glad he stood up and called this ad exactly what it is: racist and xenophobic.
Going on (still from the Detroit News article sourced above):
A media consultant who has advised Democrats also thought it could prove problematic.
“Some Asian-Americans may be offended by the stereotype that is portrayed in the spot,” said Robert Kolt, who teaches advertising part-time at Michigan State University and had previewed a number of Sunday’s Super Bowl ads. “Pete seems like a nice guy in the ad, but I think he is wasting a lot of money now. … It’s just not Super Bowl-worthy. It’s not cute, it’s not funny and it’s not memorable.”
Ah, but I beg to differ — it’s memorable for all the wrong reasons, which is far worse for Rep. Hoekstra than if it were simply a mealy-mouthed, wishy-washy ad of the type we’ve all seen many times before. (And if you think “some Asian-Americans” only “may be offended,” I have some prime real estate in Antarctica for sale.)
Hoekstra is not the only one running against Stabenow, mind you; Gary Glenn, of Midland, MI, is also vying to become the Republican general election candidate for the US Senate Seat. And according to the same article sourced above from the Detroit News, Glenn is most unamused:
“Saving America from the Washington, D.C., politicians who gave us this crippling debt and deficit crisis, Republican and Democrat alike, means Hoekstra and Stabenow should both get benched,” Glenn said in a release.
And Michigan Democratic Party Chairman was equally unamused (quoted again from the Detroit News article):
“Hoekstra’s ad is nothing more than a hypocritical attempt at a Hollywood-style makeover because the fact is, Pete spends a lot,” Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer said. “Hoekstra voted for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout and voted for trillions more in deficit spending before quitting Congress to get rich at a Washington, D.C., lobbying firm. Hoekstra is using the big game to play games with Michigan voters.”
So let me get this straight. We have an ad that some members of the GOP have condemned roundly, along with some members of the Democratic party. We have an ad that’s meant to “make a big splash” (why else be so offensive?). And we have an ad that, on the offensiveness meter, is totally off the charts.
And, of course, it’s an ad that Hoekstra and his campaign defends; they call it “satirical” (they must not be using the word the same way I would, then), and say that their real meaning is that Stabenow simply spends too much money, that’s all. (Any racism that might be present — pshaw! How can we think it? We’re all Americans here, right? Or so Hoekstra and his campaign prays.)
About the only good thing I can say for this ad is that it has brought disparate segments of the population together — the Ds and the Rs — who normally wouldn’t touch each other with a ten-foot pole. But that’s the only silver lining in an otherwise dark and offensive cloud.
——————-
Further thoughts . . . otherwise known as, “After further review:”
As for what I’d do, were I Hoekstra? (Inquiring minds wanted to know.) If for some reason I’d been stupid enough to make this ad in the first place, then have been even more stupid in putting it on the air to cause big-time trouble, I’d first apologize. Then I’d pull the ad. And finally, I’d do whatever I could to put this behind me as quickly as humanly possible.
But because Hoekstra apparently isn’t very smart, he’s standing by his “I didn’t mean any harm!” and “It’s satire!” defenses.
Nothing says Hoekstra must be intelligent, now, is there? (But if he has even two brain cells together, he really should pull this ad because it is beyond offensive. It is disgusting.)
Powerball Execs Stupidly Raise Price to $2 per Line — Hello, Bad Economy, Anyone?
Remember how I said a few days ago that I was having trouble coming up with meaningful blog subjects?
Well, forget that, because today’s blog subject is so easy I’m surprised no one else has taken a whack at it.
Put succinctly: who came up with the idea that Powerball should cost $2 per line rather than $1 in this terrible economy? And why hasn’t that person been fired by now due to this atrocious idea, rather than Powerball being about to institute their new $2-per-line “fee schedule” on January 15, 2012?
As of that date, Powerball will raise its opening jackpot to $40 million (meaning you can never win less than this if you take the multi-year option prize) and will guarantee that you’ll win $1,000,000 if you match five of five numbers (rather than the current $200,000). And they’re touting that the “overall odds” to win a prize will be better — I don’t see it, but whatever — which must be the reasoning they used.
But that is not enough to justify raising the price from $1 to $2 per line, especially as the popular “multiplier” feature is not included — it’s still separate. So if you want to “multiply” your prize, you’ll now have to pay $3 per line rather than $2. While this isn’t as big a jump — because the multiplier feature has remained the same at $1 per line — this is still a jump and most people won’t bother.
Now, as to the reality of why people play Powerball and other lottery games of chance? It’s because we all want to hope for better, and Powerball plays off that in its advertising. The typical Powerball ad says, “With one dollar, you can buy a ticket — and a dream.” And that’s pretty much what you’re buying with regards to Powerball, as the overall odds aren’t that great (view current odds here).
Anyone with half a brain knows that playing the lottery is a fool’s game. You’re better off, really, to bury your dollar in the backyard than you are to play the lottery, yet many people — including myself — do play the lottery mostly because they want to dream about something better. And hey, there’s lots of ways to waste a dollar — so why not?
But when you’re talking about putting $2 down for each ticket rather than only $1, things change. Suddenly, you’re having to pay double the amount of money and that doesn’t seem reasonable — especially as the economy remains awful in many parts of the country, including my own Wisconsin.
Which is why this is such a stupid idea that I really don’t understand why anyone would want to roll this out just past the New Year, especially considering how many people are struggling just to pay for the basics, much less optional luxuries like a lottery ticket.
Here’s what’s likely to happen with regards to Powerball as of 1/15/2012; sales will plummet. Those who have a dollar and a dream will play MegaMillions instead (which draws on Tuesdays and Fridays in many states and has kept its price, sensibly, at $1 per line), or will play their own state’s lottery, or will maybe just save it and bury it in the backyard.
And the reason Powerball sales will plummet is this: the economy is bad. It is brutal. And in the Midwest, where money is at a premium, lottery sales have already gone down — so why do the Powerball execs want to make it even worse?
So if I can see this new “fee schedule” as a non-starter as a regular lottery player who’s spent more than her share of cash on the Powerball over the years, why can’t the Powerball execs?
Oh, yeah. They must not have been hit by the horrible economy, so they actually think there’s enough money out there to do something like this.
I have news for you, Powerball execs: think again. Or watch your business go south. Way south.
WI Rs sue to put Recalls in “New” Districts: Ds countersue
Folks, this takes the cake.
I live in Wisconsin — more specifically, I live in District 21, which is comprised of the City of Racine and most of Racine County. We are recalling our state Senator, Van Wanggaard, who was voted into office in 2010, took office in January of 2011, and has served as my state Senator for eleven months.
However, the state’s Republican Party has decided that the recall of Wanggaard should be held in the “new” District 21 — which is comprised of the vast majority of Racine County and Kenosha County, while the cities of Racine and Kenosha are lumped together into the “new” District 22. There is a federal lawsuit that is pending in this case, because the “new” map amounts to gerrymandering on the part of the Republicans — most particularly with regards to Van Wanggaard’s district.**
Or, to be more blunt, Wanggaard is helped more by this new map than is any other candidate facing a recall election — the other three Senators facing recall at this time are Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), Pam Galloway (R-Wausau), and Terry Moulton (R-Chippewa Falls) — and that’s the main reason why the Rs want the “new” map rather than the old one in place.
See this link for further details:
A relevant quote from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article referenced above:
A group of Republicans has asked the state Supreme Court to require any recall elections for state legislators to be conducted in new districts, a move that would favor their party.
Republicans who control the Legislature drew new legislative and congressional maps this year to account for changes in population, and they explicitly wrote in the law that the maps were not to take effect for elections until November 2012.
Now, Democrats are trying to recall four Republican state senators, and Republicans want any recall elections to be held in the new districts, which would make it easier for them to hold onto their 17-16 Senate majority.
Going on, this article points out that the new R plaintiffs are being represented by Michael Best & Friedrich — or as the Journal-Sentinel puts it:
. . . the same firm that helped GOP lawmakers draw the maps and write the law that said they were not to go into effect until November 2012. In all, taxpayers paid $400,000 to Michael Best and the Troupis Law Office for their work on the maps.
So, did you catch all that? The Rs are trying to “have their cake and eat it too” by filing this lawsuit, and are doing so under the auspices of the people who made up the terrible maps (that are now in litigation) in the first place.
I view it this way, folks: my own District 21 voted Wanggaard into office in 2010. We are the only people who should have the right to recall and/or retain him — not the people in the “new,” largely ruralized District 21 that may or may not ever come to be (as there are some really big problems with that map). And we are the ones who should make this choice — no one else.
For the Wisconsin Republican Party to do something like this isn’t just disingenuous. It’s downright disgraceful.
Because think about it, just for one moment; if the Rs were that confident in themselves, or their message, why would they be resorting to political trickery like this?
Short answer? They wouldn’t.
This is yet another reason why we must recall and replace Van Wanggaard. Because if he were an honest and ethical person, he’d not want this lawsuit; instead, he just wants to hold on to his job. And that’s just not a good enough reason to be a Senator to my mind — not at all.
Instead, this lawsuit is yet another reason as to why I keep saying, “Throw the Wisconsin Rs out!” (Or if you use Twitter, the shorthand form #ThrowWIRsOut works quite nicely, too.)
——-
** Thus far, there are at least two lawsuits in progress. One was started by the Latino advocates Voces de la Frontera, and is a federal lawsuit. And the Ds have vowed to countersue in both state and federal court over these “new” maps . . . all I know is, most of the time in WI, the only way maps get drawn is by impartial observers to do it because the process is just too contentious, else. That’s why I am for a similar process to the one used by the state of Iowa, where the political theatre is absent and the work gets done without all this sturm und drang.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 