Mort aux ordiphones!

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Pierre Lescure, formerly the head of French TV channel Canal Plus. You may be agape right now at the fact that, in the middle of over a week of massive Washington scandals, I’m reserving my harshest criticism of the week for a French media executive. Well, that’s because we need a laugh, preferably from a foreign country, after being so thoroughly disappointed with the American government. And, by God, did Lescure – and, by extension, French President François Hollande – ever bring it. Allow me to quote the great Al Bundy:

A toast . . . to the French. It’s a foul little country, but they sure do know how write a check, don’t they?

They sure do, and that check will come from a new tax on companies that manufacture any device that links to the Internet: smartphones, tablets, e-readers, gaming consoles and, presumably, laptops and desktops. Hollande tasked Lescure with coming up with a list of “recommendations on how France should adapt its commitment to preserving French-language culture in the . . . digital era.” The tax would initially be set at 1 percent, possibly raised to 3 or 4 percent later, with the money funding “the production of French art, films and music.”

My feelings on government arts funding in general haven’t changed a bit since I first wrote about it. But the idea that this tax would correct the “excessive imbalances” posed by the availability of digital content is absolutely ludicrous. People from all over the world come to France to see its artistic contributions up close and personal. That element of its national identity hasn’t changed just because it’s easier for French citizens to look at other countries’ art. There’s no “threat” to traditional French arts; there is only competition.

The weird part is that not all of Lescure’s recommendations are terrible. One is to scrap a holdover from President Nicolas Sarkozy’s administration that bans Internet connections and imposes penalties on anyone guilty of illegal downloading. Another is to reduce the delay in the release of movies and foreign TV series to video . . . which isn’t as good as realizing that the government has no business setting delays like that, but it’s a good start. And a levy on French telecom operators to subsidize filmmaking will now be based on revenues, instead of being a flat amount. Yeah, that’s considered an improvement by their standards.

I’m sure neither Hollande nor Lescure would ever want to be caught saying French culture is so weak that international culture needs to be discouraged. But that’s what they’re saying, without even trying.

The case of the touched-up talking points

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland. (Is there a pool yet on how long it’ll be before she turns in her resignation? I’m giving it two weeks.) There are probably a lot more people to blame for what was revealed about the department’s revisions to government talking points during and after the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya. Here’s why I’m singling her out:

One of the emails obtained by ABC shows . . . Nuland objecting to a paragraph in the talking points that referenced specific terrorist threats in the region because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

So, uh . . . how’s that going? Anyway, the story gets even more confusing:

A source . . . [says] Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress: 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.

Whatever her true motivation, we know this: Despite the insistence of the administration, they did have a hand in crafting the talking points and they weren’t purely the work of intelligence agencies. Initial reports that the attack was sparked by protests against a stupid anti-Muslim video were flat-out wrong. The CIA knew there were terror threats in the region. And requests for bulked-up security went unanswered.

Until someone produces a document showing that President Obama and/or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were also directly involved with the talking points, lower-level officials will be the only ones who belong in the firing line. I hate to disappoint Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who is already talking impeachment despite there being no evidence of an impeachable offense on Obama’s part, not even what would qualify as perjury. (Just kidding. I love to disappoint Inhofe.) But, so far, his and Clinton’s only mistakes were to trust their subordinates not to screw things up.

If you don’t want Congress to “beat up” your department for ignoring warnings, there’s a simple way to avoid that: Don’t ignore warnings. And don’t ignore requests for security that relate to said warnings. If you can’t do that, tell the truth before people see you piling misstep on top of misstep.

No Labels starts to suck

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by . . . oh God, it kills me to have to say this . . . No Labels. Yes, after years of being one of their most passionate proponents and defenders, I’ve started to have enough. Since achieving a few successes in terms of their proposed changes to political procedure – the bipartisan seating trend at the State of the Union (SOTU) address, No Budget, No Pay – they really haven’t been doing much of anything. Or if they have, you won’t know it from their online activity.

On Twitter, the last time No Labels mentioned a procedural fix was April 23, when they tweeted an Ezra Klein piece about budget conferencing. Most of their tweets fall into one of three categories:

1. Exhortations for followers to send an online postcard to legislators, demanding that they #FixNotFight.
2. Giving credit to politicians and No Labels brass who are “Problem Solvers,” or at least quoting them.
3. Political trivia (with no prizes).

Their Facebook page is worse, especially when it comes to category #1. Their website is a bit better, with descriptions of their other procedural ideas, although those haven’t made headlines to the extent that No Budget, No Pay did. It has a section for legislation, although they don’t discuss the bills; they simply list their sponsors, always at least one Democrat and one Republican, which isn’t new. All told, No Labels has been doing the shtick for which various commentators have criticized them (at times wrongfully) from the beginning: the shtick of nothing at all.

This is what I wrote the last time I mentioned No Labels here:

Should No Labels achieve its procedural goals, it could eventually move on to identifying and funding candidates who suit their message, and perhaps even putting together a real policy shop, drafting and lobbying for the most mutually beneficial solutions for various legislative issues.

They’ve identified office-holders, and they’ve achieved a couple of procedural goals. But where are the signs that they’re expanding their infrastructure? Where is the indication that they’re becoming a truly influential nationwide movement? In Washington, No Labels is becoming this girl.

Washington’s problems are much more complicated than “fixing, not fighting.” No Labels is sticking to the most simplistic of one-liners in response. That’s not how anyone in that city gets things done; being opposed to catchphrase politics among wingers, they should be aware of that.

Rape-isn’t-a-big-deal culture

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail, and another early contender for Fail of the Year – I don’t think we’ve ever had two contenders so close together – was brought to you by Forest Hills Central High School in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In a case only slightly less heinous than the Steubenville High School rape case, only because of the absence of video of the perpetrator(s) bragging about it, we have another instance of a school (students and administration) prioritizing athletic prowess over student safety. I don’t want to repeat the details myself, because they make me want to punch things, but you can read up on it here. (Also, special thanks to David Frum for putting a national spotlight on it.)

I should emphasize that this is an alleged sexual assault, although the Kent County Prosecutor’s office charged the unnamed perpetrator with two counts of criminal sexual conduct against the two victims, also unnamed. If you attend the school or know someone who does, you may know their names. Just like the victim in the Steubenville case and so many others involving the sexual assault of teenage girls, their classmates have used social media to accuse her of lying and/or being a whore, not to mention verbal and physical abuse. Why? Because they all want some worthless little prick to get a Division I recruitment.

Young women often complain that they are taught to avoid getting raped, while young men are not taught not to rape. I didn’t always take this complaint seriously, because I assumed anyone with half a brain is fully aware that rape is wrong. Apparently I was wrong. So, for anyone at Forest Hills Central who has helped make these girls’ lives miserable, here are a few things to note:

1. Rape is never funny or cool.
2. Anyone who commits rape is a worthless subhuman whose life should be ruined.
3. Anyone who defends a rapist, or attacks/blames a rape victim, should be publicly shamed and charged with harassment if necessary.
4. Any member of a school administration who helps protect a student who commits rape should be fired and publicly shamed.
5. The victim’s drunkenness, wardrobe or sexual history does not matter.
6. In the worldwide hierarchy of important stuff, rape > sports. Every damn time. Athletes who rape have disgraced themselves out of deserving any praise, along with the schools who shield them.
7. Anyone who laughs at the above points is at the top of my punch list.

Got it, you little brats? Now go to your rooms. Better yet, go to hell.

You’re already singing “Blame Chechnya!”

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rep. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). Much like me, he appears to have an urge to respond to a crisis by looking for policy problems that might have led to it or exacerbated it. I can’t fault him for that. Unfortunately, he’s looking at the wrong problem. With Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev having been identified as the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, and their ethnicity and country of origin having been identified as, respectively, Chechen and Kyrgyzstan, Grassley is one of several to wonder if immigrants are the problem. No, he didn’t phrase it that way. But it’s heavily implied:

While we don’t yet know the immigration status of the people who have terrorized . . . Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system. How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.?  How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?

Actually, we do know that Dzhokhar was a naturalized citizen, and Tamerlan had a green card. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Grassley made the above comment took place at 10 a.m. yesterday, so he might have gotten the word on their status a bit later. Announcing what the real story is before having all the necessary information is something we shall now call “pulling a John King.”

But that’s not the real problem with Grassley’s comment. The problem is the assumption that a newcomer’s radical politics can always be detected when they go through the citizenship process, or are always there early in said process. It’s entirely possible that the brothers Tsarnaev – you know they’ll be known forever as such – were radicalized after they spent some time on U.S. soil. If there’s going to be a policy fix stemming from their attack, its objective should be to cut off homegrown radicalization at the pass.

That the brothers were not natural-born citizens may galvanize some anti-immigrant sentiment, but only among those who have conveniently forgotten that Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner, Timothy McVeigh, etc., etc. were natural-born citizens, and they all had their own motivations. That includes Rep. Steve King (R-IA), who was advising “caution” on immigration before we knew anything about the suspect’s ethnicity or citizenship status. What is it with Iowa Republicans and people with the surname “King” this week?

Sometimes you need to uncover your eyes

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail, and probably this year’s fail (we’ll revisit this in December but I can’t imagine that anyone will do anything more heinous than this), was brought to you by whoever let Kermit Gosnell perform abortion procedures – or, his deranged version of them – and whichever media outlets didn’t report it until everyone started pointing out that it was going unreported. Philadelphia’s NBC affiliate broke the story on April 5; USA Today columnist Kirsten Powers took it national; then Slate, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast and the Washington Times all started asking why there weren’t more headlines. Now there are plenty, and they all introduce allegations so disgusting that I will not repeat them here; that’s what the links are for. Brace yourself for an unpleasant read.

How to explain the media’s neglect? According to Megan McArdle, also of The Daily Beast, it was because she was too grossed out. This may be why other writers she cites in her piece made up all manner of flimsy excuses to avoid covering it. It’s a likelier story than some notion that all journalists want to keep public opinion on abortion on the side of choice; I have no doubt some active pro-lifers have made that accusation. But pro-life vs. pro-choice is immaterial to this story. No pro-choicer could conscionably defend Gosnell. But if they do, give me their names.

But the media’s neglect is nothing compared to that of any of the multiple health authorities who could have cracked down on Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society.” The above Atlantic link supplies the best information on this; he mentions the Pennsylvania Department of Health, the medical examiner of Delaware County, the Board of Medicine operated by the Pennsylvania Department of State, the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and the National Abortion Federation (yes, they exist) as potential sources of accountability. All failed, for their own reasons, none of them acceptable.

The grand jury suggests it all comes down to racism (Gosnell’s victims – let’s not call them patients – were by and large poor and black) and politics. I chalk it up to fear. Politics may certainly turn out to be an element of that fear. But mostly it’s because we can’t imagine something like this happening post-Roe v. Wade, and when it does happen, we don’t know how to deal with it – so we choose not to deal with it at all.

How can we trust any health authority to stand up for the public’s health when they’re too chickenshit around its worst violators? They’ve hurt their reputations immeasurably by refusing to hurt their digestive systems for more than a few minutes.

The “who cares?” rule of political compliments

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by President Obama, and I’m sure you can guess why. No, it’s not his budget proposal, although I’d hardly call that a triumph of good economics. It was what he said about California Attorney General Kamala Harris during a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser in Silicon Valley:

She’s brilliant, she’s dedicated, she’s tough . . . She also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general. It’s true, c’mon.

Following the inevitable groan/eye-roll chorus, Obama apologized to Harris personally for the “distraction,” which is exactly what this is. Is it sexist? Well, he prefaced the mention of her looks with a mention of three various attributes that good attorney generals ought to have, so I would hardly accuse him of not taking her seriously as a woman. But it’s the sort of thing that leads to accusations of sexism, however spurious, and puts one in a position where they have to eke out an embarrassing apology. You’d think a president with a reputation as a smooth talker would be mindful of such considerations.

For her part, Harris isn’t offended, or at least has enough class not to say so. (If this happened to me, my official response would be something like “Pssh. Whatever.” And that’s why I’m never going into politics.) Female officials do not react to such comments the way the average tweep does, for that only creates more distractions. She and Obama pitched their statements on the aftermath of his comment in a way that it will be forgotten quickly. Nonetheless, it didn’t need to happen.

Something akin to this happened in Canada last week, when Fisheries Minister (yes, we have one) Keith Ashfield told the teenage daughter of a government prop family that her baking would make her a “wonderful wife for somebody.” She wasn’t offended, either. This situation differs somewhat in that she’s in high school, dude, sick. But whenever a politician is tempted to compliment anyone, they should ask whether the compliment is designed to build up both the recipient and the giver professionally. Unless you’re talking about a loved one or someone who just died, stick to the résumé.

I hope none of you are deluded enough to buy the myth that any publicity is good publicity. It’s never been true for presidents of the United States. Future coked-out actresses, maybe, but even they have their limits before bad publicity starts to get old. More than anyone else, Obama needs to keep his reputation confined to the professional as well as his compliments.

The word “slapdash” was invented specifically for . . .

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Gov. Bob McDonnell’s (R-VA) transportation plan. As far as high-profile Republicans go, McDonnell is generally at the more likable end of the spectrum. But likability isn’t enough to save him from the thumping he is enduring over his transportation plan. You may have seen some headlines decrying the extra fee he plans to impose on registrations for hybrid and electric vehicles. Some of you may consider that a way to make up for all the federal subsidies that owners of those vehicles enjoy, and for paying less in gas taxes, for obvious reasons. But there’s much more to this than hybrid fees.

McDonnell initially thought it would be a great idea to scrap the state gas tax entirely. Thankfully, he’s been talked down from that ledge. But he did decide to scrap the 17.5 percent excise tax on gas in favor of a 3.5 percent wholesale sales tax. Then, when defending the hybrid fee – originally $100, now $64 – he quoted President Ronald Reagan’s 1983 speech on the necessity of doubling the national gas tax in order to fund infrastructure projects. If McDonnell’s ideas and Reagan’s florid prose on infrastructure seem at odds to you, you’re not alone. But there’s more:

• The wholesale sales tax will end rise to 5.1 percent if Congress does not authorize states to collect online sales taxes.
• The plan expands some tolling throughout Virginia, most or all of whose revenue will fund the expansion of the Silver Line, a rapid transit project. Tolling along I-95 south of Fredericksburg will be prohibited.
• The car titling tax will rise to 4.3 percent from 3 percent.
• Sales taxes will rise to 5.3 percent from 5 percent; the increase will be diverted to transportation.

We’re supposed to believe that nickel-and-diming Virginians is the key to reliable funding for road and bridge repair? This plan closes or narrows almost as many revenue streams as it opens, and the magnitude of the narrowing of the most obvious revenue stream is astounding. It gives one the impression that he started with the idea of slashing the gas tax, then wrote out ways to make up for the losses on a Post-It note.

If he wants advice on how to do these things right, he might call on Steve from Winnipeg, who was instrumental in helping me flesh out the idea for today’s post. If this blog had a cabinet, I’d appoint him to run the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development departments.

This would have meant something in 2008

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

We have a rare double-barreled fail this week, brought to you by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for making a video, and right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro for the way he reacted to it. It’s been funny to watch the American political establishment coming to grips with the fact that 4 out of 5 under-30 Americans support same-sex marriage (SSM); people who remain opposed to this day look even more out of touch now than they ever had before. The people who were opposed five years ago don’t look much better, as in the case of said video.

As a 2008 presidential candidate, Clinton favored civil unions federally, supported states’ rights on SSM and opposed it personally. That she’s talking about it now, after having retired from public life, will certainly stir up hopes among the “Draft Hillary” crowd. If that’s what she wants, the timing of this video could not look more opportunistic – as if she’s just noticed the bandwagon rolling by and is eager to jump on it. Unlike Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), there’s no sign that she had a significant perspective-changing experience. No empathy or humility. Just politics.

Now you might call that hypocritical, since I’ve stated my preference for admitting to the logic behind SSM. Clinton didn’t do that, either. The phrase “I was wrong” was not a part of her video. Instead she played up aspects of her past support for other gay rights and the fact that America generally likes civil equality. Never mind the fact that this thing didn’t need to be six minutes long and her delivery was a little too Shatnerian for my liking. The whole concept was simply off-key. Which brings us to Shapiro and his post-video tweet:

Hillary comes out for same sex marriage. In other news, those 4 dead Americans in Benghazi are still dead.

There is not enough SHUT UP, BEN! in the world to describe this one tweet. If he’s trying to convince anyone that he genuinely mourns the loss of those killed in the Benghazi consulate attack, he’s not. Clinton was opportunistic in endorsing something worthwhile; Shapiro was opportunistic in taking a cheap shot against her for no apparent reason, other than to make his fans retweet him. In short, he out-fails her this week. This was just obnoxious.

Actually, in all fairness, Shapiro out-fails Clinton every week, because there are countless reasons to trash him. I may devote a post to those reasons one day, if there’s nothing else going on in the news. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Take this Action Plan and shove it

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the Harper government of Canada. (They are the Harper government and don’t you ever forget it.) The centerpiece of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s stint has been Canada’s Economic Action Plan, ostensibly the name for the stimulus-oriented federal budget of January 2009, but since then the umbrella term for every economic initiative the government can dream up. Of those initiatives themselves, we can’t say too much, as our economy has been fairly stable under Harper – due in no small part to our heavily regulated banking sector, which wasn’t his idea. Of their promotions, on the other hand, we’re forced to say a lot.

Seriously. $21 million of taxpayer dollars on ad campaigns for the government’s agenda. If you’re the agency behind these ads, there’s your stimulus. The rest of us, having been bombarded with reminders of Canada’s Economic Action Plan online, on TV, on billboards and even inside buses, haven’t been stimulated at all, except when it comes to our blood pressure. But don’t tell that to spokesman Andrew MacDougall:

The government has an obligation to inform Canadians about the programs and services available to them and one of the channels through which we inform Canadians is advertising. . . . [The government] assesses the effectiveness of the ads and will incorporate any feedback it receives into the next series of advertisements.

Do you now? Well, Andrew, here’s all the feedback you need: This is what Canadians want to do to those goddamn ads. If he saw the same 30 seconds of government masturbation six times per show under a different prime minister, I’m sure he’d agree.

It wasn’t always that way. In 2009, some Canadians did visit the “plan’s” website, some even registering for the many boutique tax credits it had to offer. Since then, the majority of us, according to an independent survey, don’t want to spend any more money on the commercials, some of which have aired during the Super Bowl and the Oscars – not exactly cheapo. The government’s “internal survey” disputes the independent one, pointing out that 42 percent of Canadians approve of their performance. But we don’t need ads to tell us how to feel about their performance. We have lives.

If we want to know about available programs and services, we know how to a) research them online and b) drop by or call the nearest Service Canada branch and ask. What we don’t know how to do is convince THE HARPER GOVERNMENT that their ads have become our drinking game.