At Your Own Risk

Last week I participated in a book discussion at the college where I work. We were discussing a book by a journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban while reporting on the war in Afghanistan. During our discussion, one of my colleagues mentioned how dangerous these combat zones have become for journalists. She then said, “Look what happened to Lara Logan in Egypt. I mean, what was she thinking?”

Today as I listen to reports of the filmmaker and photojournalist killed in Libya, I can’t help but notice that not a single person has questioned their decision to be there. Instead, these men are lauded for bringing us the truth and taking risks in the process. Despite the fact that they chose to put themselves in harm’s way without protective gear, no one is questioning their judgment.

Several reports I’ve heard have pointed out the sensitivity with which Tim Hetherington captures images of war. I dare to suggest that Lara Logan brought a similar sensitivity to her work in Egypt. Simply due to her gender, she was better able to gain access to Egyptian women’s experiences, a perspective often overlooked in the coverage of that story.

The recent loss of these brave journalists in Libya is tragic, and I am not suggesting that they should not have been in a combat zone. I do, however, wish to draw attention to the very different narratives surrounding male and female journalists in conflict areas. With Lara Logan, the story was about her appearance and her gender, and it was chock full of victim-blaming. Newsweek immediately did a story about “Women in Harm’s Way.” Some even suggested she was enjoying all the attention her assault would bring her. She was not viewed as a brave journalist willing to venture into a dangerous situation to bring us the truth, but rather as a woman who took an unnecessary risk.

Over the next few days as you learn more about the story unfolding in Libya, please notice the narrative surrounding Tim Hetherington and his colleagues. They are described with praise, admiration and dedication. All of these words are undoubtedly appropriate, but should not be attributed selectively, based on the person’s gender.

 

When Prayers Turn Ugly

Scary times:

Psalms 109:8, An Ugly Prayer for President Obama

Any time the citizens of a state, particularly a democracy, invoke their faith to pray for the demise of those they oppose politically, we should be concerned. When the call for such prayers becomes one of the most popular Google searches in the country, we should shake, especially those of us who believe in God, prayer and the Bible. Psalm 109, verse 8, went viral this morning in just that way.

Among the world’s top Google searches today are phrases that contain the words “Psalms 109 8”, and “Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama”. For those of you who may not know that particular verse, it reads “May his days be few, may another take over his position.” And before anyone excuses this toxic use of scripture as nothing more than the wish that President Obama not be re-elected to a second term of office, the next verse in the psalm reads, “May his children be orphans and his wife a widow”.

In fact, the entire chapter is about the prayed for death of an evil person. Not to mention that anyone who knows enough Bible to have thought about this verse in particular, surely knows the entire chapter and appreciates its message. Pretty scary stuff.

All this is especially upsetting in light of the last weeks’ events at Fort Hood. Exactly how long is it going to take us to figure out the danger of linking faith claims and violent fantasies? How is it that the very same people who would have wanted to curtail access, and rightly so, to the hate-filled, violence-inducing, sermons to which Major Hasan listened, do not cry out against these prayers and those praying them?

The issue is not the scripture quoted or the name by which God is called by those doing the praying. The issue is invoking the God in whom any of us believe, to act as executioner of those with whom we disagree.

From Yigal Amir, who murdered Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, to Major Hassan who murdered 13 and wounded 30 more, to whomever might step in on behalf of a “Christian nation” to make the words of the Psalm 109 a reality, each was inspired by prayers and scriptural readings not unlike those of the millions who made verse 8 a top Google search this morning. There is no place for such prayers in any of our faiths and until we all stand up and say so, at least a little blood will be on all of our hands.

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield

 

Cranky and Delusional

Do we really want another President who lives on some other imaginary planet? One who denies the troubling realities when they are not politically convenient? One who can’t admit to any mistakes…ever?

Today John McCain insisted that Iraq is a “peaceful and stable country now.”

Q: Some members of the [Iraqi] government have made it clear in the last month or two that they might want to withdraw before complete stability, before totally secure borders, before some of the completeness of victory as you described. Is there any change, do you think there is some wiggle room there because what you described with Petraeus was an end point that was rather complete – a peaceful, stable country.

MCCAIN: Its a peaceful and stable country now. (ThinkProgress)

Wow. This guy’s on the armed services committee? I can only imagine how the military servicemen and women and their families feel when they hear a statement like this.

It seems to me that at the expense of rambling and making yet another gaffe, McCain’s advisers have really muffled him. However, when sticking to short responses such as these, he comes off “prickly” and uninformed. Delusional, perhaps.

 

The Genie Ain’t Going Back in the Bottle

John McCain, you do not speak for me. I consider it very presumptuous for anyone to ever claim to speak for “every American.”

Your view that the use of force is the best option in many situations, and your promises of more wars, are not what I want in a President, nor even a Congressman.

Your posturing on the war between George and Russia disgusts me. It has given us a glimpse into how you would lead. I see that your decisions will not be based on measured reactions to intelligence or reflections on history. You consistently promote the use of force over diplomacy, and we’ve seen the damage caused by that approach during these last eight years.

UPDATE: And McCain can’t make up his mind from one day to the next if countries in this century invade each other (like he voted for us to do in Iraq).

 

It May Be Close in the National Polls, but…

…what about the electoral college?

Thank you to Mark Nickolas for pointing out what I’ve been screaming at the TV (well, in my case, the computer) every time I hear/read about how close the election is. They’re basing this conclusion on national polls. We don’t vote by a national popular vote, how hard is this to figure out?

Why is the media focusing on national polls when they don’t matter at all? It gives people the false notion that the race is close, and, as Nickolas points out, a small percentage lead in the national poll can actually equal a huge landslide in the electoral college vote. Yet nobody is talking about this fact, despite a mountain of evidence from past elections.

Nickolas gives us a nice summary of how things have played out historically in terms of the popular vote and the ultimate electoral college results. Check out the table he created here. Other key points:

Take note of just how large of an electoral landslide results from a five-point popular vote victory. It’s pretty massive and usually results in an Electoral Vote margin of about 200. The elections that most closely mirror the margin in the current contest are:

• 1992: Clinton won the popular vote by 5.6 points, winning the Electoral College by a 370 to 168 margin (a difference of 202);
• 1948: Truman won the popular vote by 4.5 points, winning the Electoral College by a 303 to 189 margin (a difference of 114).

So next time you hear people the media comment about how close the national polls are, please be reminded of the fact that that narrow gap can translate into a landslide victory in the electoral college.

 

Fox Poll: Unbalanced Questions

I came across a recent FOX poll (full PDF here) and wanted to share some of the questions that were asked. The respondents are 900 registered voters, almost an even number of Obama supporters and McCain supporters, including a fair number of independents. I’m not a statistics expert, but I do recognize a leading question when I see one. Bias becomes especially obvious when a question is asked of one candidate, but not the other.

First, they ask fairly predictable questions about who people plan to vote for, how much they approve of the President, and favorability ratings of various politicians or parties. One question that surprised me:

19. Have you heard any of your friends and neighbors say there is something about Barack Obama that scares them?

To their credit, Fox asks this question about both Obama and McCain. The next question, however, is only asked with regard to Senator Obama:

23. Based on the campaign so far, has Barack Obama offered any truly new ideas?

And there is a follow-up, in order to catch you in case you think he does have new ideas. Prove it!

(If yes on Q. 23) Can you please tell me one of Obama’s new ideas?

And this pair of questions had me laughing out loud:

27. Some people believe Barack Obama, despite his professed Christianity, is secretly a Muslim. Others say that is just a rumor and Obama really is a Christian as he says, and point out he’s attended a Christian church for years. What do you believe — is Obama a Muslim or a Christian?

28. John McCain was held captive for five years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp. Do you think that experience would make McCain a better president or a worse president?

Hmm…First, have you heard this completely false lie about Candidate A? Second, do you think heroic stories about Candidate B’s past will make him a good president?

Finally, there are a slew of questions only about Barack Obama related to his overseas trip. No questions at all about McCain in this section.

31. Does Barack Obama’s popularity overseas make you more likely or less likely to vote for him for president?

Surprise! Republicans report that Obama’s popularity overseas makes them four times less likely to vote for him.

32. Do you think Barack Obama’s trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East is better described as a fact-finding trip or as a campaign event?

33. Do you think Barack Obama had already made up his mind on Iraq before the trip or could this week’s visit to Iraq change his mind?

As if fact-finding, campaigning, or mind-changing are the only reasons to travel abroad. And finally…hey, how did that McSurge talking point make its way into our ‘fair and balanced’ survey in the form of a question?

34. Do you think the increase in U.S. troops has led to major improvements in the situation in Iraq, minor improvements, or has the troop surge not made much of a difference at all?

 

McCain = Not Presidential

For so many reasons, but I’d like to add this one to the list.

Joe Klein (TIME) points out:

John McCain said this today in Rochester, New Hampshire:

This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

This is the ninth presidential campaign I’ve covered. I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.

Scurrility Update: Readers should note that I said that I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. Smart politicians leave the scurrilous stuff to their aides; in fact, a McCain spokesman expressed these words almost exactly on July 14. There is a reason why politicians who want to be President don’t say these sort of things: It isn’t presidential.

 

‘Winning’ the War in Iraq?

As Obama’s trip gets positive media attention at home and abroad, McCain has upped his attacks on Obama’s stance on the Iraq war. McCain claims that Obama was wrong about the surge, and that McCain was willing to do what was less popular politically (because most Americans are against the war in Iraq), in order to ‘win’ the war in Iraq.

Headlines read:

‘Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign’ (FOX News)

‘We will withdraw. The fact is, is whether we withdraw in victory or whether we withdraw in defeat’ (MSNBC)

‘Lieberman: Obama choosing the lose Iraq war’ (CNN)

Interestingly, General Petraeus advises against using the phrases ‘we’re winning’ and ‘victory in Iraq.’ Yet McCain continues to repeat soundbites about the success of the surge, despite the fact that many experts agree that progress in Iraq was in motion well before the official ‘surge.’ Many also note that voters don’t care about the surge, they care about ending the war. Another fact McCain is ignoring, less than half of Americans think the U.S. can win in Iraq.

As a proponent of a war that the vast majority of Americans oppose, that is helping to ruin our economy with each passing day, one would think McCain would want to distance himself from Bush’s war in Iraq, not embrace it.

UPDATE: Wow…if this is going to be his big issue, he should probably get the facts straight. Check out: ‘Not a gaffe: A fundamental misunderstanding of Iraq’ over at HuffPo.

 

Getting Uppity

Much like Hillary Clinton was referred to as “ambitious,” Barack Obama is being called “arrogant.” Both are meant to call them “uppity,” suggesting that they don’t know their place in the traditional order of things.

The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve points out that the term “arrogant” is really two coded messages for the price of one.

But ol’ Karl, he’s a clever little piggie. (And, hey, no one’s more convinced of Karl’s cleverness than Karl himself.) Why shoot one irritating barb into the the flesh of the angry working class white guys when you can fire two? “Arrogant,” you see, has two coded meanings. Use it in connection with a black man and it means “uppity.” Use it in connection with anyone, however, and it means “smart.”

Read the whole article here.