sex, lies and the internet

Lies and sex, not to mention lies about sex, are nothing new to the world of politics. Back in 1884, Grover Cleveland’s opponents famously chanted, “Ma, Ma! Where’s my pa?” in hopes that drawing attention to Cleveland’s reported illegitimate child would defeat his run for President.

Sort of what Karl Rove’s minions did to John McCain in 2000; except in the Cleveland case, where the charge was probably true, it didn’t work and in the McCain case, where it most assuredly was a lie, it cost him the primary and probably the election.

Last week the New York Times, a paper I love and rely upon and one that is held in great esteem by professional journalists around the world, ran a story about McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist a few years back.

A female lobbyist, the item noted, going on to say that “convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him.”

What bothered me, and many others, about the story was the way it was received, which of course resulted from the way it was presented.

The substance of the Times story was to call into question McCain’s sincerity in opposing lobbyists’ influence while under the influence of at least one lobbyist himself. But you can guess what the TV news shows, pundits and wall-to-wall talk shows picked up, and you’re right: The sex angle, complete with a photo of the very attractive lady lobbyist, stunningly decked out in evening attire.

I believe it was a newsworthy story, with or without with an extra dollop of drama; I just think the romantic angle itself warranted waiting until the reporters had indisputable evidence because they could have anticipated that sex rather than lobbying might become the story.

As it turned out, the New York Times became the story because they published it, and on page one, and now everyone’s attention is somewhat diverted from the seriousness of the matter alleged.

In the last dozen years, sex and lies have been joined by the Internet as weapons of choice in political struggles.

To be sure, there are great enhancements to public discourse in the incredible amount of information that’s available to anyone with access to the Internet, and the value to candidates who want to get their messages out and bring in contributions is, well, immeasurable.

But the use of the Internet for mischief has, sadly, become almost an institution in our politics. For those who would destroy a candidate for public office by publishing lies, it’s a piece of cake now: easy anonymity, free distribution to the entire world if one so chooses, and of course the liberty we enjoy to speak freely and say just about anything.

A couple of months ago I wrote about an Internet rumor that had been circulating for well over a year; I pointed out that it may have originated with Insight Magazine, a Washington Times (that would be Rev. Moon, of course) publication, but if not then certainly it was given a significant boost from there through the Fox news network and onto the Internet.

The rumor, about Barack Obama, was reported on and thoroughly debunked repeatedly in the mainstream media, then and since, but like those trick candles we all hate it just keeps on keepin’ on.

Last week, the Fort Worth Star Telegram reported that Barack Obama, again, “is the subject of a shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet that falsely suggests he's a Muslim intent on destroying the United States. Obama is a Christian and has been fighting the e-mail hoax, which also claims he doesn't put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and he's been trying to correct the misinformation.” Link.

Those emails also claim that Obama took the oath of office with one hand on the Koran, obviously confusing him with Congressman Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, an African-American who actually is a Muslim and who did take his oath of office upon a copy of the Koran. (A copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson, by the way.)

The Star-Telegram also reported that Obama, at last week’s rally in Austin, addressed the issue head-on:

“Well, I've been going to the same Christian church, praying to Jesus for the last 20 years. So don't insult me, and don't insult the Muslims.”

I find even more distressing than the non-ending clearly questionable rumors and lies the fact that some people are apparently willing to believe them. Anyone accessing the World Wide Web knows – or should know – about web sites like snopes.com, which check the truthfulness of Internet rumors.

I Heart Huckabee?

Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas now running for the GOP presidential nomination, in some ways could be a man after my own heart, and not just because he plays a mean bass guitar in a rock ‘n roll band.

The other day, during a campaign stop in Iowa, he agreed with a questioner that America’s education system must be improved, and that more math and science majors are needed. But then he added that he thinks the arts are just as important.
Here’s what his web site says about that:

Music and the arts are not extraneous, extra-curricular, or expendable — I believe they are essential. I want to provide every child these "Weapons of Mass Instruction."

As a pretty close follower of the primary campaign I believe I’ve heard just about every candidate, in both parties, champion a need for more math and science graduates, but I do believe Governor Huckabee is the only one I’ve heard remark on the importance of the arts.

A cursory check of web sites for the front-running candidates finds that what we offer our children by way of education merits scarcely more than a mention by Clinton, Giuliani or McCain; Romney gives a slight nod to math and science; Edwards and Obama both offer a variety of good ideas, Edwards in the most detail. But so far only Huckabee has talked about the arts. He elaborated at a Republican debate, saying that (I paraphrase) if we don't educate the right AND left brain of a child, the result will be a person out of balance, a balance needed to be a good citizen.

Every child, from kindergarten on, should be instructed in the arts. From the primary grades, children should be taught the rudiments of the graphic arts, both appreciation and hands-on. Dance can be incorporated into physical education classes (which should be required through all twelve grades). Children who wish to learn to play an instrument should be given the opportunity; choral music should be taught right along with appreciation of the classics, and interested students encouraged to join a drama club, school chorale or musical production group.

Begun in school, a lifetime connection with the arts will be a comfort and a pleasure throughout life. So much of the world around us is better understood — and enjoyed — when we have a broad foundation in the arts from the early years. In fact, I dare to date the decline in our educational "product" from the decision, in the late 'fifties or early 'sixties (after Sputnik beat us into space), to focus our public education on science and math.

Of course, to provide quality public education in America we simply must increase what we are willing to pay for it. We all know that “you get what you pay for,” and that a society is better off when its population is truly well educated, yet for some reason this is a hard concept to sell.

Every child in America needs to know how to read, how to speak and write proper English, how our government works, and some rudimentary science, as well as how to perform calculations using at least basic arithmetic. Geography and history — state, national and world — should also be required, although the depth of study may vary with the student's goals in life. Now that we see how the international world of the 21st century is evolving, a case can be made for requiring computer skills and at least some foreign language. Right there you've got enough to fill most of a present school day, but we can do more.

English literature classes should teach the classics, including the great essayists and poets, and plays from Shakespeare to modern American classics. History classes should include biographies of ancient and contemporary notables.

Ranchers and policemen, doctors, lawyers and merchants, cooks and crossing guards and truck drivers all benefit from exposure to these arts. Steeped in the past and great works that were produced over the centuries, our children will develop a sense of our evolution and place in time; they will find models and inspiration and understanding of the present.

Foreign language should be taught as early as possible, preferably beginning in elementary school, and for at least two or three years at a stretch. Early study of another language leads to a better understanding of English, teaches the concept that there is a world beyond us, and builds the foundation for future proficiency in whatever language (including computer) the student may elect to study.

Every eighth-grader should understand our political system, be required to read the national and international news section of a major newspaper or news magazine at least weekly, and to participate in classroom evaluations of the election process at election time. Too many Americans base their opinions on hearsay, talk shows, trash writings, and TV sound bites; worse yet, they impart their misinformation to their children who, without a decent civics education, perpetuate the problem.

It may be argued that there just isn't time in the school day to teach all the new material there is, let alone art "extras," that there is no time or staff for extracurricular activities. And of course that we don't have the money . . .

I say we go for broke and spend like crazy to get the best education for our children, the future of our country: Longer school days, offering the fringe benefit of reducing the cost of child care for working parents, as well as reducing or eliminating the latchkey population and related opportunities for trouble; longer school years, which would also give teachers year-round employment. Let’s create an educational system that will attract the "best and brightest" teachers because they will be well paid and know they will be able to count on the respect and commitment of parents and students.

Then, regardless of the number of youngsters who go on to college or university, we will have produced a new generation of educated, informed, acculturated citizens who are qualified to take on the responsibility for America.

Every one of us has an interest in spending what it takes to achieve greatness.

Sauce for the Gander

Last week in this space I wrote about the importance of paying close attention to each candidate as the primary season moves along, because what you see can be a really good indicator of what you would get.

On the other hand, especially in politics it seems, what you see or hear may cleverly mask reality, usually because the reality might also be called the unpleasant truth.
The “Healthy Forests Initiative” comes to mind, designed as it was to expand private logging access to old-growth trees in federal forests.

Since my comments last week on the upcoming primary election focused on the putative front-runner in the Democratic race, it seems only fair to now talk about the man the pundits tell us is the Republican front-runner.

And in this case what you see is most definitely not what you get.

I have to admire, in a way, a person whose aura is so strong as to overcome everything and everyone in the room, including an elephant or two (no pun intended).

Imagine yourself at an elegant dinner in a five-star restaurant; the entree has just been set before you, the hundred-dollar bottle of cabernet has proven to be worth every penny, and a guy at the next table lights up a cheap cigar.

When word began to buzz that Rudy Giuliani was thinking about running for President, the pundits all predicted that he would never be accepted in polite society, so to speak, because of his quite liberal views, and that there was no way he could win the nomination of the Republican party.

So here we are, surrounded by the aura of strength, with a candidate who is not what he seems, and not what the country needs.

On the assumption that most non-New Yorkers don’t really know Rudy (funny, isn’t it, how both front-runners have first-name identity), I’d like to offer a short profile here. (This is where I ‘fess up to part of my roots, the formative years spent in New York, whose vestiges have remained; even though I have now lived in Waxahachie twice as long as anywhere else, formative is formative and I have never stopped paying attention to events in the Big Apple.)

Rudy Giuliani’s tenure as mayor of New York was fraught with controversy and cronyism.

There have been terrible decisions, reckless behavior, outright lies, and disastrous judgment in public appointments. Just this week one of his good-buddy appointments, Bernie Kerik, was indicted for tax fraud, corruption, and lying to the White House. (That old saw about judging a man by the company he keeps persists for a reason.)

Terrible decisions: Giuliani was elected mayor soon after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic terrorists. Nonetheless, in 1997, despite opposition by wiser folks, he insisted that the city’s emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center. A terrible decision that cost many lives.

Reckless behavior: In May of 2000, then-mayor Giuliani revealed at a press conference that he and Donna Hanover, his wife of 17 years, would be separating. It was a surprise announcement, not least to his wife, to whom he had not yet delivered the news.

At that same time he identified Judith Nathan, with whom he had been frequently seen around town, as “a very good friend.” She later became the current Mrs. Giuliani.

Disastrous judgment: And then, of course, Bernie Kerik, the ol’ buddy pal with past mob connections (that Rudy claims he didn’t know about) and a long trail of scandal before, during and after his appointments by Rudy to important positions such as NYC Police Commissioner. He even got the President to nominate Bernie to head Homeland Security, a nomination soon abruptly withdrawn.

Rudy stayed by his friend through it all, until about six months ago when he began to put some distance between himself and Kerik. About the time he declared for President, actually.

Lies: Giuliani told reporters he spent more time than many first responders in the toxic dusts of Ground Zero after 9/11, enraging the New York City firefighters because it was flagrantly untrue.

And of course Giuliani likes to take full credit for bringing down crime rates in New York while he was mayor, when in fact credit should go to William Bratton who, while he was still head of the New York Transit Police and even before Giuliani appointed him Police Commissioner in 1994 initiated the “quality of life” approach that so dramatically cut crime in the City. (After too many people became aware of his role, Bratton was moved on and out.)

Allow me to pause here to say that as I write all this I feel a little seedy, as if this were some gossip column or worse, even though these facts are out there already. I just think they are relevant in assessing the character and qualifications of a man who would be President of the United States and leader of the free world.

But still, enough. There’s just too much.

In short, the candor and authenticity that voters seem to crave this season are not Rudy’s to offer. Nor is there any evidence that he actually has the “strength” that he claims should qualify him for the presidency.

What he has, as any New Yorker can tell you, is Attitude. Now, I don’t think that Attitude gets you very far with the rest of the world, but hey! You want Attitude? Choose Rudy.

There are several quite honorable, worthy and even honest men running for the Republican nomination, but Rudy Giuliani is not one of them.

I will agree, though, that he seems to be really effective at reassuring folks AFTER a disaster, so perhaps the next president will consider him to head up FEMA.