Politician shock

Ed Brayton uncovers an exchange between Anderson Cooper and Rep. Debbie Riddle, which is notable for the shock, followed by deployment of BS, when Cooper demands some evidence from Rep. Riddle for her repetition of the "terror babies" claim also advanced by another idiotic Texas politician, Rep. Louis Goehmert. Riddle's response to a challenge is priceless for it's utter chutzpah:

When your folks called me in the preliminary, that was part of the conversation. They did not tell me that you were going to grill me for this specific information that I was not ready to give to you tonight. They did not tell me that, sir.

Well, I would give the woman a couple of points for honesty...but my indulgence stops there. She marches onto network television to make a claim, and is not in possession of any evidence that she can present to back up the claim?
I guess I am amazed by her sheer chutzpah in showing up with nothing other than an empty slogan, but also by her working assumption that she would not be challenged on the slogan, which in itself tells you a lot about how far the media has fallen in presumed capability. For me, this is yet more evidence that the USA is becoming a zero-accountability society.

08.21.2010 • Current Affairs • Send feedback » • PermalinkPermalink

Yet another political candidate is caught in a lie about his past achievements

For reasons that are not entirely clear to me, many political candidates are discovered to have exaggerated or (in some cases) flat out lied about their past achievements.
Currently, senate candidate Richard Blumenthal appears to have been caught claiming that he served in the armed forces in Vietnam, when he in fact served in a military unit that never went to Vietnam. The original national media report in the New York Times was deficient in that it did not tell the whole story, since the newspaper apparently decided to major on Blumenthal's alleged deceit over statements he made that he served "in Vietnam".
Blumenthal's attempt to claim service in Vietnam is part of a pattern of behaviour by many candidates for public office in the USA, who try to talk up any aspect of military involvement or service.
The irony in all of this is that, based on recent presidential election results, having any form of military service record is far from essential to winning elections. In 1972, Richard Nixon, who had not served in a war, beat George McGovern, a highly decorated WW II bomber pilot. In 1980, Ronald Reagan, who had no military service, beat Jimmy Carter, who had served in the military in WW II. In 1988 the story was more equal; George H.W. Bush, a WW II flying veteran, beat Michael Dukakis, who had served in Korea. Normal service was resumed in 1992 when Bill Clinton, who had avoided military service, beat Bush Sr. In 1996, Clinton beat Bob Dole, a WW II veteran with permanent disabling battle wounds.
Blumenthal's exaggeration of his military record is nothing new. Numerous candidates for public office have been discovered to have either exaggerated or invented aspects of their past.
My hypothesis is that this is common because the USA is moving towards becoming a low-accountability society. Electors and the media lack any consistent interest in fact-checking pronouncements by politicians and political candidates. As long as there is insufficient interest in checking on claims made by political actors at the time those claims are made, other candidates are likely to conclude that the risk of inflating their past achievements is worth the reward.
UPDATE - Another candidate has been apparently borrowing language from other politicians for his primary campaign. The irony here is that this is a Republican Party candidate apparently borrowing whole chunks of a speech by President Obama...a double whammy of hypocrisy and insulting the intelligence of smart electors.
UPDATE 2- Mark Kirk has been progressively caught in a web of duplicity and deceit over his military service...
UPDATE 3 - And now the best word on the whole sorry mess so far, from The Onion...
UPDATE 4 - And here is yet another example of a state-level elected representative who has apparently been claiming a professional football career that did not actually exist...

08.12.2010 • Other • Send feedback » • PermalinkPermalink

Target CEO apologizes - or does he?

I am having trouble determining whether this letter from the CEO of Target, responding to criticism of his personal decision to donate money to a Republican electoral candidate who is quite clearly hostile to equal civil rights for gay people, is really an apology. Although he does use the word "sorry":

The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation. While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

The fact that he feels the need to add the word "genuinely" ahead of "sorry" suggests that he is worried that he will be regarded as insincere.
My take on this letter: I think it does not really qualify as an apology. He does not say "I should not have donated money to this candidate". He merely apologizes for upsetting people, while neatly side-stepping the root cause, namely that he donated money to a candidate who appears to be of the opinion that gay people do not deserve equal civil rights (what part of "we hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal" do these people not understand?).
So my verdict is; nice try, but I think I am about to add Target to my list of Places That I Will Not Buy From.

08.5.2010 • Current Affairs • Send feedback » • PermalinkPermalink

Good article in The Economist

...about the scandal of the prison system in the USA.

08.1.2010 • Current Affairs • Send feedback » • PermalinkPermalink

Ferrari team orders - the 350 pound gorilla

Following the original justified invective heaped on Ferrari for its blatant use of team orders in the German Grand Prix, it is time to take stock and think outside of the box.
One major underlying issue that surreptitious team orders in Formula 1 have been trying to address is the reality that even if one driver has a faster car than the driver in front, it is currently almost impossible for the faster driver to overtake. The Overtaking Working Group's attempts to define changes to the regulations to reduce downforce have been totally undermined by the slide back to diffuser-generated downforce, beginning at the start of the 2009 season.
It is my belief that the OWG has been compromised because it is composed of insiders - engineers and designers who are familiar with the current regulations and principles of car design and aerodynamics. Ideas implemented thus far have centered on reducing aero grip and downforce in favour of mechanical grip. The move to slick tyres has increased mechanical grip, but the increases in downforce have nullified this gain.
One idea that has been surfaced, which seemingly has not been seriously discussed, is to move to a very hard tyre. Superficially this seems at odds with the OWG principles. However, one of the challenges with overtaking in a Formula 1 race is that after a few laps, there is usually only one racing line, due to tyre material (the infamous "marbles") accumulating off-line and reducing grip. A very hard tyre would more or less eliminate marbles, allowing drivers a lot more overtaking options and spots on a circuit.
The reality is that, with overtaking next to impossible on many circuits, teams are resorting to artificial methods to establish race-time position relationships between drivers. This artificiality cannot be reliably managed as long as it is officially against the regulations. Hence the occasional slipping of the mask that we saw last weekend...
Allowing team orders will simply consolidate this dysfunctional way of managing competition, which will open Formula 1 to the (justified) allegation that the race positions are being "fixed". Trying to continue with the ban on team orders as per the current sporting regulation risks opening Formula 1 to more ridicule when the next team is caught managing race-time positions for its drivers.
The reality is that the pressure to manage driver relationships would be less if drivers could actually overtake. Some radical solution is needed. The OWG was supposedly radical, but it has proven to be toothless.

07.31.2010 • Formula 1 • Send feedback » • PermalinkPermalink

:: Next >>