Chad Comello

Tag: politics

  • The Obama Relationship For President

    Of the many reasons why I will be voting for Barack Obama come Election Day, this is one of the big ones.

    It’s something that has not been talked about at all, but that doesn’t make it less important. After eight years of watching George and Laura Bush, who are rarely seen together and appear to show little affection for each other in public; and before that, the Clintons, who have a strained marriage that seems more political than personal–it would be nice to have a strong marriage of two equally capable and loving partners in the White House.

    I noticed that way back in the early primaries when I watched a few speeches by Michelle Obama and read about their home life–how grounded and normal they were. It was refreshing to see a potential First Lady be willing to chip away at the facade of the “inspirational politician” in order to be real.

    Plus–and I know this sounds superficial–but I just really want to see the Obama family in the White House. Barack and Michelle’s obvious loving relationship plus their two girls just looks a little more appealing than seeing Grandpa McCain and his wife Cindy for four more years. In many ways it would be like the Kennedys, albeit without the serial philandering.

    Anyway… I’ve been thinking about that for a while. With the GOP’s obsession with “family values,” I find it disappointing how the Obamas don’t get credit for being a great family (as far as we can tell). For their sake, I hope Barack wins so they can become the example of what an American family can look like.

    # , ,

  • The Absurdity Of Campaign ’08

    Presidential elections, for all their consequence, can get laughably ridiculous. This year we’ve been subjected to conversations about pigs with lipstick, arugula, Paris Hilton, and field-dressing moose. Standard fare, these days, but at least these trivialities don’t stay in the news cycle for too long.

    The bigger issues like sexism and which candidates have more experience don’t really go away, however. In fact, with Sarah Palin now in the mix and the campaigns’ attacks going into overdrive, the back-and-forth about sexism and experience within the media and between the campaigns have revealed two deep hypocrisies both campaigns and parties want to ignore.

    For John McCain and the Republicans, it’s sexism. Up until August 28 of this year, the GOP had no problem tearing Senator Hillary Clinton down in every way. Her politics, her appearance, her personal life, her gender-nothing was sacred. Whenever Clinton or her surrogates cried sexism, they were told to stop whining. After all, if a woman candidate couldn’t handle criticism from the press, she wouldn’t be able to handle being president.

    Then, on August 29, everything changed. John McCain chose Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. Suddenly, Republicans were feminists. A bit on “The Daily Show” spliced footage of conservative commentators ripping into Hillary from months before and then defending Palin on the same grounds later. It was ridiculous. I sat there watching, aghast at the blatant hypocrisy and hugely selective memory of Karl Rove and Sean Hannity and Dick Morris.

    Part of the calculation of the Palin pick was to win over some women Clinton supporters who are still bitter about losing to Obama. But my guess is that those same supporters also have not forgotten how poorly Hillary was treated by the same people who now support McCain. The pick may eventually backfire, or it may not; but it still won’t make McCain and the Republicans champions of women’s rights. At least in the eyes of Hillary supporters.

    The second Grand Hypocrisy of ’08 involves Palin too, but instead of sexism, it is about ‘change vs. experience.’ In terms of narratives, it was pretty much established that ‘Obama is to change as McCain is to experience.’ Each candidate bludgeoned voters with their respective catchphrases at every debate and every stump speech.

    But Obama was the first to stray from his own manufactured narrative by choosing Senator Biden as his running mate. It was a logical and safe choice for him to have a respected expert on foreign policy on the ticket in order to reassure voters of his readiness to lead. Even if the pick did pollute his message of “change,” the very foundation of his candidacy, it mostly went under the radar.

    Then McCain broke with his own message by choosing Palin, just as he claims he breaks with his own party (maverick!). There were probably few vice-presidential contenders on either side of the aisle with less foreign policy experience than Palin had, yet McCain chanced polluting his own message by picking her anyway.

    This is where the hypocrisy kicks in: the Obama campaign released a statement in response to the Palin pick ridiculing the governor’s lack of executive experience and foreign policy credentials, conveniently ignoring the nearly equal lack of experience Obama has. In a way, Palin has more experience than Obama because she was a mayor and a governor (if only for a short time) which are positions that equip the politician with executive experience.

    Both campaigns have ignored these double standards, of course, because they are on one-track minds-tracks that lead to the White House. It’s politics, after all. You don’t run for president to be nice to everyone all the time.

    This whole election has become absurd, hasn’t it? Important and historical, certainly, but absurd nonetheless. It’s no wonder many people throw up their hands in disgust and dramatically declare they’re never voting again. Never!

    But vote we must. After what essentially will have been a two-year campaign for president, what we do on Election Day will be the collective response to everything we’ve learned, endured, and debated in that time. It would seem even more absurd to allow ourselves to be subjected to such nonsense and not have the final say on November 4.

    So keep that in mind as the mud flies to and fro. Both candidates will be dirty when it’s all over, but we get to decide which man will be able to shower in the White House.

    # , , , ,

  • Forty-One

    I’m watching the video tribute to George H. W. Bush at the Republican National Convention. It reminded me how great a person and American he is. World War II fighter pilot, Congressman, Ambassador to the U.N., envoy to China, Director of the CIA, Vice-President, and finally, President — there are few public servants with such a record.

    Seeing him at the ripe age of 84, he reminded me of my grandpa Cliff, both by his appearance and by his resume. Grandpa Cliff served as a lieutenant in Patton’s Third Army, trudging through the Battle of the Bulge, then through decades of service in the FBI. Both men are decorated members of the Greatest Generation.

    I watched the Bush Sr. episode of American Experience a while back and it explained that regardless of some of Bush Sr.’s decisions in office, he held true to his own code of honor and dignity. That code guided him through some tough times and hard decisions. Even when the decisions were unpopular. Perhaps we’ll be thinking the same things about 41’s son Dubya one day. Or not.

    # , , , , , , ,

  • And So It Begins…

    Barack Obama and Joe Biden versus John McCain and Sarah Palin. Now this is a race.

    The first thing I thought when I heard the news of McCain’s VP choice was that it was brilliant on his part. Not only is he trying to siphon Hillary supporters away from Obama with the choice of a younger woman, but he announced it the day after Obama’s convention speech in order to neutralize his post-convention bump.

    Then, as I read up on Palin and read a few opinions of the choice, I see a fascinating paradigm between the two tickets. First, there’s Obama and Biden. Obama, an unconventional and historic candidate with limited legislative and foreign policy experience, pairs with an old seasoned Washington insider who is an expert on foreign policy.

    Now look at the McCain-Palin ticket. McCain, the old seasoned Washington insider who is a self-proclaimed expert on foreign policy, chooses Palin, an unconventional and historic candidate with limited legislative and foreign policy experience.

    Within each ticket, the contrasts are stark. One is a young black man, the other is an old white guy. One is an old white guy, the other is a young white woman.

    Clearly, McCain wanted in on the Change narrative of the election. If he had picked Romney or Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman, there would not have been anything special about the ticket. But now McCain has something to offer those who want to see some sort of change.

    Time will show if the Hillary Hold-Outs will actually defect and vote for McCain simply because he will have a female vice president. But that also brings up another thought: with McCain’s health and age in question, America will have to wonder if they want the possiblility of having a female Commander in Chief. We’ve just assumed that question concerned Hillary Clinton. But not anymore.

    Who is Sarah Palin? We’ll be finding out shortly. She’s going to have to debate Joe Biden, who’s foreign policy experience is deep and respected. But in an election that has quickly become a mandate on the economy more so than the wars or anything other pressing issue, both tickets will be fighting for supremacy.

    There are approximately 67 days until the election. It’s going to be a long 67 days, that’s for sure.

    # , , , , , ,

  • Liveblogging History

    I’ll be updating this post throughout the night, reacting to the candidates’ speeches…

    John McCain’s speech tonight is painful to watch. It has nothing to do with what he’s saying, but rather his delivery and the crowd’s reaction. Have you ever noticed how he smiles awkwardly after taking a jab at an opponent or says something clever?

    He’s a competent public speaker–though not as good as Obama–but sometimes it’s just painful sometimes. What’s more weird is his supporters at the speech. At various times, they’ve chanted “Go John McCain” and “John McCain”. I don’t know–it’s just kind of funny to me.

    ………..

    As of 8 p.m. on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, a black man is a major nominee for president. I’ve been watching the cable news responses to the historic moment. I’ve heard comparisons to the moon landing, mentions of RFK and Dr. King.

    Though I won’t commit to a candidate until another time, I can say that I’m proud to be an American who appreciates the historical significance of this night. As a 20-year-old, I don’t see race the same way as my parents or grandparents, so I’ve been frustrated when race becomes an issue in the campaign. It doesn’t make a lick of difference whether the President of the United States is a black man or a white woman or a white man. The person who wins the presidency will win it for a reason. That’s just true.

    ………………..

    This is even more interesting: Clinton supporters started chanting “Yes, she will!” Contrast that with the Obama refrain “Yes, we can!”

    Fascinating. It’s not about the people with Hillary. It’s about her actions, her politicking. Plus, it implies the classic politician’s false promises, that things will get done. History shows that campaign promises are bullshit. Obama’s chant doesn’t focus on him and it doesn’t make any promises. Given his past as a community organizer in Chicago, this makes sense. It’s about trying and working.

    —Great Scott. Clinton supporters are chanting “Denver! Denver!” Yeah, that’s a good idea. Might as well shout “President McCain!”

    ———————–

    Obama, the presumptive nominee, walks out to his speech to U2’s “Beautiful Day”. The lyrics, fittingly, go, “It’s a beautiful day. Don’t let it slip away.”

    Wow. Compared to Clinton and McCain, Obama is so composed and even. He barely even smiles. You would think that would be a negative, but McCain and Clinton visibly react to their own lines, which weakens their performance.

    It’s so funny to watch and listen to the supporters at each of the speeches. Whenever the candidate mentions the other, the crowd boos and hisses. But then they qualify their jab with a noble statement about their opponent, and the boos turn to polite applause. I don’t know…I just think it’s funny.

    Obama’s speech was pretty different from the others, mostly in terms of presentation and rhetoric. But that’s nothing new. I just keep thinking about how much Obama’s slogans and platitudes are larger not about him at all: “Change We Can Believe In”, “We, Yes Can”. He’s more focused on a larger movement.

    # , , , , ,

  • Great Scott And Last ‘Lost’

    Somehow I’m not surprised by this bit of news. At least McClellan is willing to admit he was wrong about something.

    In other, happier news: Lost finale tomorrow! I have high hopes for another mind-blower. Don’t let me down, writers. The finale of The Office was uninspiring, so give me something to love on TV again.

    Also, I went to see Barbara Walters tonight. She is promoting her new book. It was awesome.

    # , , , , ,

  • War Is Hell

    Published in the North Central Chronicle on February 8, 2008.

    John Edwards is out of the race. I think he would have made a fine president. His fight against poverty and corruption did not jive well with mainstream media narratives, though they were well-publicized cornerstones of Edwards’ stump speech. But his other equally important message also failed to catch on. After voting to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, Edwards soon reversed his position on the war, and last year created a movement called “Support the Troops. End the War.”

    Today, the country’s attention has become fixed on the state of the economy more than the war in Iraq. Of course, as a capitalist nation we like to know how our dollar is doing (for those less interested in current events: it’s not doing so well), but our collective mammonism has diverted our attention away from the war, where men, women, and children are being killed.

    Killed. Every single day.

    It is hard to fully grasp this concept. Unlike previous American wars, those holding down the home front don’t have to sacrifice anything to keep the war going. During the Civil War, families lost their only income when men served and died on bloody battlefields. During World War II, Americans rationed food and supplies, worked in munitions factories, and were drafted to topple tyranny.

    But for this war, there is no draft or call to service by the president, so all we have to do is watch B-roll of chaotic Iraqi marketplaces and argue broad talking points from the comfort and safety of our computer chairs.

    That is why, I would argue, the war has not been ended yet. We remain complacent and unaware of what it means to fight a war. I’ve become so desensitized to war images that it seems like no big deal, like it is a video game. I suppose we should ask the family of Spc. Richard Burress, who died two weeks ago from a roadside bomb, if his death was no big deal.

    The truth is that war is hell. Soldiers know this, and politicians know how to prevent us from knowing this. They ban images of Americans being killed from appearing in media because, as we found out after the Abu Ghraib scandal, that would cause the public to realize what is actually happening and demand that something be done to stop it.

    Regardless of what pundits say, it is possible to support the troops yet not support their mission. President Bush seems to do the opposite. He sends insufficient and ill-equipped troops into a situation even Vice President Cheney knew would become a “quagmire,” then fails to remedy the horrific conditions at Walter Reed hospital and others like it. Yet he said, and kept saying, that we all should support the troops, and implied that anyone who did not was a terrorist-sympathizer. So much for being the “uniter.”

    Still, I support the troops. I don’t support their mission, whatever that is (the president has yet to make it clear), but I absolutely, resolutely will support the troops. I don’t have bumper stickers or American flag lapel pins to prove it, but since when did a flimsy piece of plastic indicate one’s amount of patriotism? These men and women volunteer to serve at the high risk of injury, maimedness, or death. They leave their families for weeks, months, even years, to secure and maintain order in a disorderly country while trying to avoid getting a bullet in the brain or shrapnel in the eye. They inspire me – and relieve me from fighting a war we have no business fighting.

    I trust you, the (hopefully) well-informed and sensible voter, have been able to see through the malarkey the candidates have been feeding us and decide who will better determine our future in Iraq. I’m living on a prayer that our next president will at least have the gumption, like Edwards did, to support the troops and end the war.

    # , , , , , , , , ,

  • Standing Tall: Comparing ‘High Noon’ and ‘On The Waterfront’

    Published in the North Central Chronicle on Jan. 25, 2008

    “I have here in my hand…” said Senator Joseph McCarthy in February 1950, effectively hoodwinking the country into a hysterical anti-Communism era known as the Red Scare. McCarthy claimed the list identified 200 Communists within the American government, so he and the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) spearheaded a movement to eradicate Communist spies and sympathizers from the government.

    The most infamous consequence of the Red Scare was the blacklisting of workers in the entertainment industry. Ten Hollywood screenwriters and producers refused to admit to HUAC that they were Communists or Communist sympathizers and in doing so were barred indefinitely from working in Hollywood. These “Hollywood Ten,” plus one hundred more working professionals, struggled to find work for many years following their blacklisting.

    Loyalties within the industry became fiercely divided, and soon writers and directors directly affected by the blacklist voiced their opinions through their films. The two most notable films that resulted from the blacklisting gave sharply contrasting, yet oddly similar views of the ordeal. These films were High Noon (1952) and On the Waterfront (1954).

    Fred Zinnemann’s tense Western High Noon tells the tale of Sheriff Will Kane (Gary Cooper) defending his Kansas town from vindictive criminals hell-bent on killing Kane. It’s a simple task, complicated by the fact that his new wife Amy (Grace Kelly) is a pacifist Quaker trying to talk him out of it. Plus, the deputies who were once loyal to him choose not to fight with him out of fear and cowardice.

    Kane tries to rally support from the townsfolk, who cower in the shadows and resent his presence. Amy then threatens to leave him because of her pacifist principles (so much for “‘til death do us part.”) Ultimately Kane decides to take on the bandits alone, despite his wife’s wishes and despite knowing that if he left, the bandits would probably leave as well.

    High Noon is the classic American Western. But unlike the traditional Westerns of the time, it takes place in almost real-time, heightening the tension for the viewer as we watch Kane desperately try to defend his town and his pride. Like Rear Window, not much action happens until the final act, when the boiler-pot full of despair and helplessness finally explodes. More importantly, it is an allegory of the fight against blacklisting, which I will discuss shortly

    In Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront, Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) is an ex-prizefighter-turned-longshoreman who works for a gang that controls the New York City waterfronts. Terry inadvertently helps the gang kill a police informer, who happened to be his best friend, and his conscience starts to take a toll.

    Terry is indicted by the police but refuses to testify against the gang, fearing deadly retribution. His friend’s sister Edie (Eva Marie Saint) and a local priest try to convince him to work against the mob, but it’s not until Terry’s brother Charley, a mobster who is ordered to kill Terry to stop him from testifying, is killed when Terry decides to become an informer. Terry eventually testifies against the mob, breaking the waterfront code of not ratting out one’s friends and earning the scorn of his fellow dock workers.

    On the Waterfront won eight Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Actor for Marlon Brando. His performance is widely regarded as one of the best in history (you might recognize his “I coulda been a contender” speech), while the film itself placed eighth on the American Film Institute’s all-time list.

    Another key reason for the film’s greatness is its symbolism: a train whistle blows as Terry “blows the whistle” on the death of his friend; Terry carries a hook on his shoulder after he is beaten up by the mob to signify a Christ-like suffering. The allegorical nature of this film elevates it from a by-the-numbers melodrama to a thoughtful masterpiece.

    These films can stand alone as two classic and important American films, but they, as well as a few other films at the time, share a unique purpose in their making. Carl Foreman, the writer of High Noon, was a former Communist who was called before HUAC to identify other Communists in Hollywood. Foreman refused and was blacklisted, so he went into exile in Britain, recognizing a lack of motivation among his colleagues in Hollywood to combat the spread of McCarthyism and to speak up for their blacklisted friends.

    With this in mind, the subtext of High Noon becomes clearer: the townsfolk (people in Hollywood) are afraid to support Kane (the blacklisted) when the criminals (McCarthy and HUAC) come to town. You’ll have to watch the film to see what happens, but rest assured, Foreman felt that he would survive the national nightmare, and did: he co-wrote the Academy Award-winning The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) with a fellow blacklisted screenwriter.

    On the Waterfront tells the same story through a different lens. Director Elia Kazan and writer Budd Schulberg both named names at the HUAC hearings – like Terry did in the film –and their peers condemned them for it. By portraying Terry as the hero when he testifies against the villains in the film, Kazan and Schulberg justify their own real-life actions.

    Since these films tell essentially the exact same story, which view is more justified? Both have a strong central character defying the persuasive masses to do what they think is right. Is the man who exposes injustice justified in his revelation, even if it means betraying his friends? Or are the masses, who refuse to help their leader because they don’t agree with him, more justified? It’s the job of the viewer to decide.

    Fifty years later, these films are no less relevant today than they were back then. If anything, these films defend the right of art to give voice to a momentarily unpopular opinion that would have otherwise been ignored. They also demonstrate the power film has to launch new ideas into the public consciousness, ready or not. New and unpopular ideas abound in our culture, regardless of how many people vilify them (I’m talking to you, Bill O’Reilly), and it’s important for filmmakers to capture these ideas for humanity’s and history’s sake.

    # , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Murdoch Expands His Mega Media Empire

    Published in the North Central Chronicle on September 14, 2007.

    First published in 1889, the Wall Street Journal has won countless Pulitzer Prizes and worldwide acclaim for its quality reporting and editorials. It also was the first news outlet to report Enron’s financial disaster, as well as the Sept. 11 attacks. So what lies ahead for such a highly regarded and successful newspaper?

    Rupert Murdoch buys it.

    That’s right. The same man who owns American Idol, Fox News Channel and MySpace now owns one of the most prestigious names in U.S. news – possibly the world. The average citizen, however, may see nothing wrong with this. After all, we live in a capitalist society. Aren’t businesses allowed to grow?

    In fact, the buyout of the Wall Street Journal illustrates the very thing that’s wrong with our capitalist society and our democracy. We’re much more interested in making a buck than preserving our sacred constitutional rights. But hey, if one man can afford to own dozens of newspapers, cable channels, magazines, a film studio and two publishing companies, what’s the sense in stopping him from buying more? Why even fight it?

    What most people fail to grasp is that when media businesses merge, a voice in the media is lost. Pretty soon, when most mainstream media outlets are owned by just a few corporations as they are now, there are few remaining independent, credible voices left. This is when our basic right to information starts to diminish.

    We all have a right to truth from the media. James Madison, Founding Father and architect of the U.S. Constitution, said that “a popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.”

    Essentially, we need a free press. In order for this country to survive this crazy thing we call politics, we need to know what’s going on. Fox News and CNN, the two highest rated and well-known cable news outlets, can’t tell you whole truths because their bosses depend on an uninformed public that is not willing to step up and force change.

    But here is the truth: The only thing stopping this country from becoming an even greater nation is the people itself. We are apathetic, unaware and unwilling to force our media and our country to serve the basic rights of its citizens, rather than the greed of its stockholders.

    Democracy and capitalism can work well together – so long as they keep each other in check. Our democracy may be the most bragged about democracy in the world, but that doesn’t make it the best. Right now, our capitalism is beating the hell out of our democracy. And Murdoch’s latest move is just kicking democracy while it’s down.

    The Wall Street Journal buyout should be a wake up call to all Americans who love their country. We can’t see the truth about the Iraq War, global warming, the 2008 Presidential election or concentrated ownership in the media if the media moguls are consistently pulling the wool over our eyes. Do yourself a favor and open your eyes and see for yourself.

    # , , , , , , ,

  • A Loathsome List

    I linked to a list of the Most Loathsome People in 2007 in an earlier post, but I want to repost a part from that list because it’s so freaking true. Check out the rest of the list for a gut-shot of truth.

    The Founding Fathers

    Charges: Lionized as moral pillars and demigods ad nauseam without the slightest hint of irony. Can’t be judged by today’s tandards. Electoral College? Dumb f*cking idea. Invoked by every a*shole in the last two hundred years to support every stupid idea ever. The original liberal elite. Able to withstand lightning strikes and the British military; unable to fathom poor people voting.

    Exhibit A: Owned wigs, Africans.

    Sentence: Depicted as cartoons on rapidly devaluing currency; beaten at effective democracy by former monarchies.

    You

    Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism — it’s nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears’ children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you’re going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques.” You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can’t spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don’t want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy’s doing well. You’re an idiot.

    Exhibit A: You couldn’t get enough Anna Nicole Smith coverage.

    Sentence: A gradual decline into abject poverty as you continue to vote against your own self-interest. Death by an easily treated disorder that your health insurance doesn’t cover. You deserve it, chump.

    # , , , ,