John McCain, R-Ariz.

Letters to the Editor

Wouldn't you worry if your daughter was a prostitute? Plus: Lower socioeconomic status suggests lesser intelligence; Buchanan will protect America from the "global democrats."

  • more
    • All Share Services

I cannot tell a lie

BY TRACY QUAN


(10/15/99)

I can’t help wondering whether Quan is really incapable of imagining reasons other
than petty personal or class hang-ups for a parent to be unhappy about
their adult child becoming a sex worker, or whether she’s in denial
about them. Yes, it’s sad and telling that most of her co-workers’
mothers are too “prudish [and] neurotic” to be told anything about their
kids’ sex lives, let alone that the kids are prostitutes. But I could
hardly applaud Quan’s own parents for blithely supporting her job choice
just because it’s sanitary and lucrative.

I hope I will never be shortsighted enough to let any of my kids’ choices, short of violent
crime, permanently interfere with our relationship or stop me from
being fully supportive of them, but I know I would worry if one of them
ended up in a job that was as likely as I suspect prostitution is to
interfere with their ability to sustain a long-term, intimate love
relationship or anything approaching a stable family life. Not
everyone wants those things, but many parents
probably associate them with happiness and fulfillment. I would also
worry about how my kids’ self-esteem and mental health would survive
such work in the long term, given the fact that, right or wrong, sex
work is widely considered degrading and shameful — probably by the
clients as much as by the general public.

Bringing sex work, and sex itself, out of the closet may well help to
make these problems less likely for sex workers, which I applaud. But
until that happens — which won’t be anytime soon, I’m afraid — I suspect
that most sex workers will continue to face some tall hurdles, imposed
specifically by the realities of their jobs, in trying to make full,
meaningful lives for themselves. Any loving parent would be remiss to
not consider that.

– Beth Gallagher

In the tiresome tradition of daytime talk-show guests, Tracy Quan
wears her unabashed pride in her profession and her materialist credo as
supposed proof of a self-awareness worth sharing with the public.

Any awareness worth sharing moves beyond boring narcissism and tries to
contextualize one’s existence and activities, thoughts, emotions, etc.
within a larger picture: the range of one’s life, the sweep of human
history or the variety of human culture. Quan has done none of this.

Let’s hear from Quan in 10, 20 or 30 years — when the johns quit calling, the
looks start fading, the biological alarm clock rings and peters out and the
husband or boyfriend starts cheating; or when some potential employer
remains unimpressed by her supposedly hip calling. Then she might have the
perspective from which to say something worthwhile.

In the meantime, don’t give her the platform from which to capitalize on
her current “profession” or try to segue into a new one. Quan’s banal
prose and mercenary, materialistic ethic offer nothing of value to the world.

– Kathryn Minnick

Beijing, China

How Cindy McCain was outed for drug addiction
BY AMY SILVERMAN
(10/18/99)

It seems that Amy Silverman wants what most current journalists want: to have
it both ways: Journalists want their subject to tell the truth — but only after
said journalists have broken the story.

When a journalist’s anger is primarily about being scooped, it’s petty and, even
worse, whiny. Silverman all but admits that the three-page diatribe
simply boiled down to the fact that they knew the story was going to get
out, so they got out ahead of it. I’m sorry, but that’s simply sound public relations — tell
your story your way, don’t let someone else do it.

But the weakest part of the article lies in Silverman’s point that there
was manipulation of the judicial system because Cindy McCain didn’t receive a
harsh sentence. I don’t know what the judicial system is
like in Arizona, but the fact that a rich white woman didn’t
go to jail for a crime for which a poor black woman would have served time
isn’t news. It’s status quo.

– Rica Guarnieri

What is the big deal about Cindy McCain? Since
when do a wife’s misfortunes or misdeeds impact on a candidate’s platform?
I am no fan of John McCain’s, but if he tried to cover up for his wife’s
past, it rather humanizes him in my eyes. Wouldn’t we all do the
same? Get back onto the real issues and leave Cindy the heck alone.

– Eve Golden

Striving to stay alive
BY CLAIRE BARLIANT

(10/18/99)

Claire Barliant implies that the SAT is unfairly measuring students from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds because such students have lower scores. She also
implies that the SAT doesn’t predict college performance but cites no evidence.

Studies by ETS show that SAT scores alone are better predictors of college
performance than high school grades alone. And a weighted average of the
two predictors is better than either predictor alone. Without high school
grades or the SAT, colleges would have no way of knowing whether an
applicant was capable of doing college-level work.

Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds score lower on the SAT because
the SAT primarily measures intelligence, and people from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds are, on average, less intelligent. Intelligence is primarily a
genetically inherited trait. (This has been proven by numerous kinship studies involving
adopted children, identical twins reared apart, etc.) Our nation is in part
an intellectual meritocracy, where people with higher intelligence obtain
better jobs, higher levels of education and higher socioeconomic status.
Because intelligence is hereditary, the children of low socioeconomic status
parents inherit their parents’ lower intelligence.

– Michael Kantor

Phoenix

Application blues
BY LUCAS HANFT

(10/18/99)

What a pitiful testament to the state of the youth poised to
embark on an important stage of their life’s development. I’m not saying college is the most important time of their life, but it is an experience that can define them, give them
innumerable opportunities, prepare them, mold them, liberate them,
disappoint them, sour them, change them or just bore them. It’s up to them
for the most part. But it’s a fairly sure bet that it will bore Hanft.

I dare say Hanft and his generation declare amusement and disdain for the
’50s-type questions for their essays because, in reality, they
find the questions too damned difficult to attempt. They shy from any
introspection and fear their shallow responses to the questions would
belie the shortcomings of their education up to this point. For this, Hanft and the Gen X-ers can place
some blame on their elders, for they are the caretakers of the education of
each new generation.

– Mike McAnally

Eleven years ago, Oberlin College asked me who the most
significant person of the century was. I told them Ray Kroc,
founder of McDonald’s.

I got in.

– Matt McIver

Brooklyn, N.Y.


For all the girls


BY LEE UTTMARK

(10/18/99)

Lee Uttmark’s essay captures the fulfillment of a wish shared by many
lesbians and gay men: to share their life with
the people who gave them life in the first place. My father passed away
when I was 25, before I was able to come out to him, and my mother died
when I was 27. I was out to her and we were slowly coming to terms with
it — I like to think she would have gotten to the place Uttmark is, and it
gives me comfort that other lesbian and gay folk have a chance at it.

I know it’s not easy — my sister and I have been on again/off again
in our closeness and comfort level with each other. But we keep trying,
because we love each other.

– Charles Flowers

Pot on the brain
BY DAMIEN CAVE

(10/15/99)

The truth is, there is no need for a marijuana “pill,” as we already have the ability to inhale.
Damien Cave repeats the claim that the NIH opposes smoking marijuana
because of its detrimental effect on the lungs. If the effects on the lungs are supposedly
so bad, why not ingest it in a food form? If Cave is ignorant of
admittedly obscure and relatively unknown concepts such as a hash brownie,
then I suggest he has no business writing about this subject.

J. Michael Walker claims that a new marijuana pill would be healthier and better than marijuana. He compares it positively to Advil, which he claims works without any side effects.
Since the pill doesn’t exist, however, there is no way to measure its pros and
cons. The case of Marinol may give a clue: The synthetic THC pill is quite
unpopular with patients, who, among other problems, have difficulty
swallowing the pill, dislike the hour’s wait for the effects and often become
totally knocked out from the refined THC dosage when it finally kicks in.
Among the side effects are irritability, insomnia, anorexia, hiccups and
diarrhea, as well as disorientation, amnesia, depression, paranoia,
hallucinations and manic psychosis. An overdose
of Marinol can kill you, something which is not possible with
marijuana.

Despite all this, as well as the near unanimous preference of pot
over Marinol by those who have taken both, the feds still insist Marinol is
superior to nature-made marijuana. Such dishonest insistences are the norm in the battle against
marijuana, and to think that the deceit will disappear when the new “wonder
pill” hits the market would be naive at best.

This is really about money. Marinol can cost up to $30,000 a
year (according to a 1996 Los Angeles Times article) for treatment, much more
expensive than even buying marijuana on the black market. Marijuana is also
not something that can be monopolized and patented.

Just as politics is perverted by dollars, so is science. Walker can gush
about the supposed neutrality of science, but I’m fairly certain he’s not
doing any research for free. He is investigating derivatives that can lead to more
cash for the chemical industry rather than the benefits of a natural product.

– Robert Sterling

An empire after all
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

(10/16/99)

Globalists and one-world government advocates lambaste those like Buchanan
who courageously stand up to them and expose their vile
objectives — making our nation a province of their one-world government
scheme. This has been done by destroying America’s industrial might and
converting it into a service-sector economy, miseducating America’s youth and waging undeclared wars against sovereign nations like Iraq, killing and maiming their residents. These one-world
government advocates do not advocate a “global democracy,” as they claim.
These monsters are the true advocates of totalitarianism; they want to plunge our nation and the world into a new Dark Age.

– Sean P. Porter

Metairie, La.

Christopher Hitchens takes to task those liberals
who look the other way on some of the more unpalatable aspects
of Pat Buchanan simply because he opposes trade agreements like NAFTA.

Wasn’t the same criticism leveled against Hitchens during
his dalliance with Ken Starr and Bob Barr? Didn’t Hitchens look the
other way when it came to some of the more unsavory aspects of these
gentlemen, simply because they shared his hatred of President Clinton?

– Ted Paliobeis

Will “Joe the Plumber” run for Congress?

And if so, how many minutes will it take for him to say something embarrassing to a reporter? Ten?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Will

“Joe the Plumber,” a man named Sam who is not a plumber, may run for Congress. Joe, a briefly famous desperate attempt by the John McCain campaign to paint Barack Obama as an enemy of the working man, is mulling a run against Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, who’s been in the House since 1983. Joe told Yahoo’s “The Ticket” his thoughts on the potential campaign:

“I’m not ruling anything out,” Wurzelbacher told The Ticket in an interview Thursday. He added that he thought it was an “interesting idea” and that people have been asking him to run for office since he confronted Obama four years ago. He’s spent much of his time since then on the speaker’s circuit, he said, encouraging others to run for office.

“I like the idea of it — just regular Americans running. If a regular guy runs, right away the media’s going to attack him,” Wurzelbacher said. “What kind of education does he have? What does he know about this? My answer to that is, regular Americans aren’t experts, but dammit, look where the experts have gotten us. Maybe we need some regular guys in there. That’s what I’ve been doing the past two and a half years, just encouraging regular Americans to run. Tell the liberal media to go to hell and I don’t care what you guys say about me, I’m going to try to fix this country.”

Man, I hate it when people condescend to regular Americans! Especially when people like Joe the Plumber condescend to “regular Americans.” Regular Americans don’t have publicity agents, Joe!

The local Republican Party is begging Mr. The Plumber to enter the race, because while running against a 30-year veteran is usually a pointless task, a pseudo-celebrity candidate can at least make a game of it. Kaptur won with 60 percent of the vote in 2010 and 74 percent in 2008, though there’s a chance redistricting could make her vulnerable. (Kaptur also introduced a bill restoring Glass-Steagall! So basically I like her.)

Local Republicans say there’s about a 90 percent chance Joe will enter the race, at which point once again he will be asked questions on camera and he will say embarrassing things, like he did last time.

But as dumb and small-minded and tiresome as Joe the Plumber is, there’s no reason why he couldn’t be a congressman. Ben Quayle is!

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Whoops, no one told the right that their Libya talking point doesn’t work anymore

President Obama is far to weak to have accomplished what just actually happened in Tripoli

  • more
    • All Share Services

Whoops, no one told the right that their Libya talking point doesn't work anymore

It’s obviously premature to celebrate “victory” in Libya when no one knows what will happen next, or how difficult and bloody the process of state-building will be. (And Gadhafi is not yet actually gone.) But the news is good, and Obama’s strategic approach to the conflict — allowing France and NATO to take the lead to minimize the chance that America was seen as leading another Iraq-style war of aggression — seems to have been the right one. (Strategically. Not necessarily legally.) As Steve Kornacki wrote this morning, this should be the end of the “Obama is too weak to lead” talking point from the right. It should be, but … it isn’t.

Today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page takes a break from excusing the criminality of the executives in charge of its parent company to deliver an official house reaction to the developments in Tripoli that starts off cautious and then just descends right back into the exact same lame arguments it’s been using for the last six months:

Having helped to midwife the rebel advances with air power, intelligence and weapons, NATO will have some influence with the rebels in the days ahead. The shame is how much faster Gadhafi might have been defeated, how many fewer people might have been killed, and how much more influence the U.S. might now have, if America had led more forcefully from the beginning.

Planning for this moment is precisely why we and many others had urged the State Department to engage with the rebels from the earliest days of the revolt, but the U.S. was slow to do so and only formally recognized the opposition Transitional National Council in mid-July. The hesitation gave Gadhafi hope that he could hold out and force a stalemate.

Libyans will determine their own future, but the U.S. has a stake in showing the world that NATO’s intervention, however belated and ill-executed, succeeded in its goals of removing a dictator, saving lives, and promoting a new Libyan government that respects its people and doesn’t sponsor global terrorism.

I’m not sure how long the editors of the Wall Street Journal think your average revolution lasts, but assuming Gadhafi’s hold on power is as weak as it appears today, I would argue — as a layman, of course — that NATO’s intervention seems neither “belated” nor “ill-executed.” (I mean, it seems well-executed, in the sense that it seems to have accomplished its goal?)

But it’s the line about America leading “more forcefully from the beginning” that the neocons and GOP hawks will continue to cling to no matter what actually happens in Libya. It’s the same argument BFF Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham used in their joint response to this weekend’s developments: “Americans can be proud of the role our country has played in helping to defeat Qaddafi, but we regret that this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower.”

All-out war! From day one! With the full force of American airpower! One definite way to make a civil war faster and less bloody is for a foreign country to enter it fully, right? (It tends to unite the populace, for one thing!) And conflicts are always less bloody when America drops more American bombs. That’s how we won Vietnam!

There’s no point in countering McCain and the Journal’s arguments with reason, of course, because these are not actually fact-based responses to news, they’re just rote recitations of Republican dogma: Obama weak! (Except domestically, where he is an autocrat.)

And this is the “respectable” Republican talking point. The line from the real nuts — I’m guessing something along the lines of “radical Obama allows Muslim Brotherhood to seize control in Libya” — will begin bubbling up from the sewers to talk radio and Fox News and Michele Bachmann’s campaign soon enough.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

McCain: Afghan drawdown ‘unnecessary risk’

John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham express concern about withdrawal plans

  • more
    • All Share Services

McCain: Afghan drawdown 'unnecessary risk'U.S. Senator John McCain, R-Ariz, speaks with other U.S. Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Conn, and Lindsay Graham, R-SC, unseen, during a press conference in Kabul, Afghanistan Sunday, July 3, 2011. Three U.S. Senators visiting Kabul on Sunday say they worry that President Barack Obama's planned withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by September 2012 could undermine Afghan morale, embolden the insurgency, and hamper efforts to defeat Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Musadeq Sadeq)(Credit: AP)

Three U.S. senators visiting Kabul said Sunday they are worried that President Barack Obama’s planned withdrawal of 33,000 American troops by September 2012 could undermine Afghan morale, embolden the insurgency and hamper efforts to defeat Taliban fighters.

John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham said they are heartened by the progress of Afghan security forces, but worry that Obama’s withdrawal plan could deplete American military strength before dealing a decisive blow to the Taliban, especially in eastern Afghanistan. That part of the country is a haven for the Afghan and Pakistani wings of the Taliban, and al-Qaida affiliates.

“I believe that the planned drawdown is an unnecessary risk,” McCain, a Republican from Arizona, who claimed that no military leader has spoken in favor of the timetable.

Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, a Marine general expected to carry out the president’s drawdown order, has said the schedule is a bit more aggressive than the military had anticipated. Allen has cautioned that successfully winding down the war will require new progress on a wide front, including more help from allies and less Afghan corruption.

McCain — during a stop at the Kabul headquarters of the foreign military contingent, called the International Security Assistance Force — said he’s concerned there may not be enough American troops for a move from southern Afghanistan to the east to “finish the job there.” There are currently about 90,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan among a total international force of more than 132,000.

NATO has deployed the bulk of its forces to Helmand and Kandahar, two southern provinces where Afghan Taliban influence is strong, but international terrorist groups are less influential.

McCain said the drawdown will deprive NATO “to a significant degree” as it attempts to pacify eastern Afghanistan next summer.

Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, cited gains in Afghan security force recruitment and capability and said he was optimistic that native forces would soon be ready to take over security. But Graham also worried Obama’s withdrawal plan may reduce U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan too quickly.

“Withdrawal is what the enemy hopes to hear,” said Graham. “Our goal is to make sure that the enemy doesn’t hear withdrawal and the Afghan people don’t hear withdrawal.”

Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, said it was important to reassure Afghans that they will continue to receive help long after the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

“We’re certainly going to be here in great numbers until the end of 2014 and I hope as a result of a strategic long-term partnership with Afghanistan that we will have a military presence here and cooperation here with our Afghan partners for a long time after that,” said Lieberman.

The senators were skeptical about Western efforts to reach a negotiated peace with the Taliban’s leadership and suggested that political compromises with the insurgents could betray the Afghan people.

“I don’t think there will be serious negotiations with the Taliban until they are convinced that they cannot succeed in the attaining their goals through the force of arms on the battlefield,” said McCain, who lost to Obama in the 2008 presidential race.

Lieberman said that the Taliban would not seriously consider peace until coalition and Afghan forces “basically beat down and wear down the Taliban fighters and they lose their will increasingly and the leadership is isolated.” Lieberman called the idea that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, NATO leaders and insurgent commanders could talk out their differences at a peace conference “a dream, a fantasy.”

The senators’ harshest observations were reserved for Pakistan, home of many of the insurgent groups NATO forces are currently fighting in Afghanistan.

“There’s growing anger, it’s not just impatience, in the Congress of the United States toward Pakistan,” said Lieberman. “We want to have a good relationship with them but we’re tired of seeing them be both our allies and our enemies and supporting our enemies at the same time. They’ve got to decide to be our allies and we’ll be good allies to them, or we won’t.”

Shortly before the senators’ news conference in Kabul, an improvised bomb exploded on the other end of the capital, wounding three Afghan policemen, the Afghan Interior Ministry said. Insurgents have focused many of their attacks on Afghan security forces to undermine their development and NATO’s plans to transfer security operations to Afghan control.

Continue Reading Close

Puppet John McCain returns to “The Daily Show”

Jon Stewart grills the senator's cloth doppelganger about illegal immigrants' responsibility for wildfires

  • more
    • All Share Services

Puppet John McCain returns to

Sen. John McCain made some controversial claims over the weekend about illegal immigrants’ responsibility for border-region wildfires. “[W]e are concerned particularly about areas down on the border where there is substantial evidence that some of these fires are caused by people who have crossed our border illegally,” McCain said at a news conference, suggesting that “the answer to that part of the problem” was to “get a secure border.” (The senator has since denied that he was referring specifically to Arizona’s devastating Wallow fire with his remarks.)

As Salon’s Justin Elliott has pointed out, McCain’s “substantial evidence” has been hard to confirm — and last night, Jon Stewart tried to clear things up by interviewing the politician’s cranky puppet counterpart.

See the full clip here:

The Daily Show – Aliens vs. Senator
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Stewart’s McCain puppet debuted in January with this appearance:

 

Continue Reading Close

Emma Mustich is a Salon contributor. Follow her on Twitter: @emustich.

What other American problems can we blame on immigrants?

Why stop with wildfires?

  • more
    • All Share Services

What other American problems can we blame on immigrants?Sen John McCain. Right: The Monument Fire burns a hillside just south of Sierra Vista, Ariz. on Sunday, June 19, 2011.

John McCain said last Sunday that there is “substantial evidence” that illegal immigrants started “some of” the wildfires consuming hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the American Southwest. While “officials” and “people who know what they’re talking about” have not produced or even claimed to have any evidence that illegal immigrants specifically were responsible for starting any of the fires that have burned across Arizona this month, that has not stopped certain brave commentators from speaking truth to the massive political power that is Big Mexican Arson.

The Corner’s Mark Krikorian has the next best thing to “substantial evidence”: He has secondhand anecdotal evidence from a guy on a panel at his anti-immigration think tank:

This is an empirical question — some fires are caused by illegal aliens and drug smugglers (either campfires that got away from them or deliberate diversionary fires) and others are not. But the authorities are unwilling to discuss in public the possibility that a politically favored group (illegal aliens and smugglers) might have caused the fires — kind of like the unwillingness to identify the religious tradition that Europe’s rioting “youths” belong to.

Arizona reporter Leo Banks talked about this recently:

The thing that kills me about these fires is Border Patrol and Forest Service won’t discuss that they are started — that they are sometimes started — and we don’t have 100-percent probability on this but we can be 95-percent sure — that illegal aliens and smugglers start fires.

It’s an empirical question! And … there is still no evidence for it, but that’s because of a conspiracy of silence. Every single authority involved is merely protecting a “favored group” of … drug smugglers.

It’s not just wildfires, either. I have substantial evidence — based on some stuff I heard some guys say — that illegal immigrants are also behind most of the rest of our problems.

  • Unemployment: Immigrants stole all the jobs.
  • Rising sea levels: While no one will speak on the record about it, because of “political correctness,” most scientists and experts agree that the sea levels are rising because so many thousands of immigrants are swimming to America to sell drugs (the effect is akin to adding ice cubes to a glass).
  • Tornadoes: Immigrants are often “hopped up” on the illegal drugs they are sneaking in the country to sell. With enough of a “buzz,” meteorologists say (off the record), a couple dozen illegals could excitedly run in circles with enough speed and force to cause the deadly twisters that tore through the nation last month. 

We must build the danged fence before thousands more die.

Continue Reading Close
Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

Page 1 of 225 in John McCain, R-Ariz.