The Obama campaign has introduced its slogan for the 2012 campaign: "Forward."
This prompted an urgent warning from the right-wing media: The word "forward" is totally socialist!
This is unspeakably stupid. The word "forward" is not socialist. It is an English word that has aspirational connotations. The Obama campaign's decision to use it is not veiled evidence that he bears allegiance to Karl Marx.
Allow me to offer some proof that the word "forward" is something other than a coded message of love for the radical left.
The right-wing media continued their pattern of encouraging people to fear Muslims by hyping a thinly sourced column in an Egyptian newspaper about a supposed proposal to legalize necrophilia. Al-Arabiya has reported that members of the Egyptian parliament are denying that any such law was ever proposed.
The Daily Mail has published a misleading smear of President Obama's father, which is being promoted by the Drudge Report:
The April 17 story from the Daily Mail is headlined "Revealed: The official fears US and Britain shared about over President Obama's 'anti-American' and 'anti-white' father":
The top of the story references birther conspiracy theories about President Obama, and it claims that Obama's father was "categorised with others as 'anti-American and anti-white' when he moved to the United States in 1959."
The Mail cites documents to support this assertion, but the article admits that the documents don't actually mention Obama's father: "Mr Obama Snr, who died in 1982, is not singled out for concern in any of the documents."
Rush Limbaugh has spent the last 20-plus years proving that he has nothing to say about women that isn't horrifically sexist and misogynistic -- his verbal assault on law student Sandra Fluke in February was just the most recent attack of many. Limbaugh continued this pattern this week by hyping a Daily Mail article claiming that a "controversial study" concluded that "the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married." But the Daily Mail's interpretation of the study is bogus.
The study (payment required) in question, published in the April 2 edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, was actually titled, "Sex Ratio and Women's Career Choice: Does a Scarcity of Men Lead Women to Choose Briefcase Over Baby?" The study found that in geographic regions of the U.S. with "a scarcity of men," women were more likely to "seek high-paying careers and to delay starting a family."
Here's the Daily Mail's interpretation of the study: "Do girls only want a career because they can't attract a man? Provocative study casts high fliers in a new light." The article under that headline went on:
Forget ambition, financial security and that first-class degree.
A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married.
The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, 'women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby'.
The article also said the study found that the "plainer a woman is," "the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace," and that "[c]entral" to the study's "argument was the idea that women have evolved to become homemakers and men, providers."
Of course, Limbaugh couldn't resist a story like that.
The Daily Mail is a British tabloid that has repeatedly misrepresented climate research. Naturally, it is also one of Fox News' chief sources on climate science.
Last week the Daily Mail ran a story headlined: "Is this finally proof we're NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study." Fox Nation ran a Newsmax summary of the article under the headline "Study Refutes Manmade Warming."
The Daily Mail, along with Newsmax, Fox, and other conservative media, distorted the very research they are trumpeting. The study's lead author, Professor Zunli Lu, said his paper "has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets" and "does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend."
It is unfortunate that my research, "An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula," recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.
Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study "throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming," completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.
Lu also told Peter Sinclair that "The reporter of that Daily Mail article published it anyway, after we told him the angle that he chose misrepresents our work." If this reflects poorly on the quality of journalism at the Daily Mail, what does it say about outlets like Fox who simply parrot the tabloid's inaccurate reports?
After the British tabloid Daily Mail published a flawed article that distorted climate research to claim we could be "heading for a mini ice age," conservative media followed suit. In fact, the study did not project a decline in global temperatures.
Right-wing media are once again attacking President Obama over his vacations, this time for planning a "staggering" 17-day holiday trip to Hawaii. But vacations of that length are not unprecedented; President Reagan took a 25-day vacation in August 1983, and President George W. Bush took 27-day and 25-day vacations in August 2001 and August 2002, respectively.
"Has a central tenant [sic] of global warming just collapsed?" That's the first sentence of a July 29 Fox News article about a recent study which shows nothing of the sort, demonstrating just how broken climate change coverage is at news outlets like Fox, where scientific illiteracy meets political slant.
Last week, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH), one of the few climate scientists who think we don't need to worry much about global warming, published a paper purportedly challenging mainstream climate models that is both limited in scope and, by many accounts, flawed. After a Forbes column by James Taylor of the libertarian Heartland Institute misinterpreted the study and declared that it blows a "gaping hole in global warming alarmism," an avalanche of conservative media outlets, including Fox, followed suit:
Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, recently revealed that he is an undocumented immigrant. Right-wing media responded with virulent anti-immigrant attacks, with Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail writing: "kick the lying, illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas out."
Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer-prize winning reporter for the Washington Post, "outed" himself today as an undocumented immigrant in a self-authored New York Times Magazine piece detailing his experience as a young Filipino immigrant working hard to achieve the American dream. It wasn't until Vargas attempted to obtain a learner's permit at his local California DMV that he learned the citizenship documentation he had been provided by his naturalized grandparents was fake.
I decided then that I could never give anyone reason to doubt I was an American. I convinced myself that if I worked enough, if I achieved enough, I would be rewarded with citizenship. I felt I could earn it.
I've tried. Over the past 14 years, I've graduated from high school and college and built a career as a journalist, interviewing some of the most famous people in the country. On the surface, I've created a good life. I've lived the American dream.
But I am still an undocumented immigrant.
Predictably, it took almost no time for the right-wing slander machine to gear up its attacks on Vargas and his family.
First up, National Review's Daniel Foster accused Vargas of "fraudulent tax fraud," in a piece posted today:
Vargas entered the country illegally after his grandfather paid a coyote $4,500 to smuggle him in. The grandfather then obtained a fake passport and green card for Vargas, which they used to acquire a valid Social Security card. But that card, which subjected Vargas' right to work to the approval of the then-INS, was illegally doctored, allowing Vargas to secure job after job for more than a decade by showing nothing more than a photocopy of a fake document.
The first part of Vargas' story -- a kid living and loving America for years before his shocking discovery that he has been made complicit in a crime -- does indeed elicit sympathy. It's stories like these that make me open, at least in principle, to something like a narrowly-tailored version of the "DREAM" Act. But the second part of his story, in which a fear- and shame-driven Vargas, with the aid of his family, perpetuated and compounded those crimes (Vargas eventually got around to what you might redundantly call fraudulent tax fraud, repeatedly reporting himself as a citizen rather than a "permanent resident", when in fact he was neither), elicits from me nothing like the outpouring of support Vargas is already enjoying on the Left.
In the latest desperate attempt to criticize President Obama in the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, right-wing media are hyping a U.K. Daily Mail article to attack Obama for taking 16 hours to consider his decision regarding the assault on bin Laden--which reportedly had several potentially harmful consequences--by calling Obama "feckless" and "our sleepy president."
Fox Nation promoted a U.K. Daily Mail article that called President Obama's father a "slippery character." As we've already pointed out, it is problematic for the conservative media to continue to attack Obama's family in order to cast doubt on the president. But there is yet another serious problem with the article. The article suggests there were two problems with the marriage of Obama's parents: the fact that Obama's father might have already been married in Africa and the fact that his parents were involved in an interracial marriage at a time when such marriages "were still illegal in many parts of the U.S." From Fox Nation:
The third paragraph of the Daily Mail article stated: "Obama senior married Stanley Ann Dunham, a white student from Kansas, not only when he was said to have already been married to a woman in Kenya, but at a time when interracial marriages were still illegal in many parts of the U.S."
Here are the first four paragraphs of the Daily Mail article as republished by Fox Nation:
With a father like this, it is little wonder President Obama did not want to release his full birth certificate.
Though the proof that he was actually born in Hawaii may silence some critics, a new, rather more interesting side of his life has emerged - that his father Barack Obama senior was a serial womaniser and polygamist who government and university officials were trying to force out of the country.
Obama senior married Stanley Ann Dunham, a white student from Kansas, not only when he was said to have already been married to a woman in Kenya, but at a time when interracial marriages were still illegal in many parts of the U.S.
Documents obtained from the U.S. immigration service paint a picture of a man who 'had an eye for the ladies' and, according to his file, had to be warned several times to stay away from girls at the university.
Fox Nation and the Daily Mail both used the headline " 'A Slippery Character': New Details Emerge About Obama's Father" for this piece.
But while it is true that interracial marriages would not be legal throughout the United States until the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, one might well ask: Why is it evidence of Obama's father's "slippery character" that his marriage to Obama's mother took place at a time that half the states across America prohibited interracial marriage when Barack Obama Sr. married Ann Dunham?
It is not. It would only be important to someone who considers interracial marriage to be problematic.
Yet, the article still seemed worthy enough for the Fox Nation to republish it.
We've said it before, and we will probably say it again, but you shouldn't blindly believe the stories that come out of the British press. Today's story in the Daily Mail -- promoted by factually challenged conservative blogs like Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit, Weasel Zippers, and Glenn Beck's The Blaze -- claims that President Obama made some sort of insult towards the British when he said, "We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people."
Barack Obama has declared that France is America's greatest ally, undermining Britain's Special Relationship with the U.S.
The President risked offending British troops in Afghanistan by saying that French president Nicolas Sarkozy is a 'stronger friend' than David Cameron.
The remarks, during a White House appearance with Mr Sarkozy, will reinforce the widely-held view in British diplomatic circles that Mr Obama has less interest in the Special Relationship than any other recent American leader.
Mr Obama said: 'We don't have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy, and the French people.'
This is a ridiculous assertion to make. Nowhere in Obama's statement does he elevate the French above the British, or vice versa. He is using standard-issue diplomatic speech when addressing an ally during a White House visit.
Former President George W. Bush made similarly diplomatic statements about Japan, praising that nation in 2007 by asserting three times in one speech that there was "no stronger ally" than Japan. Bush again hailed the alliance with Japan in 2008, claiming that there was "no stronger ally in defeating terror" than former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
On May 11, 2010, President Obama said "the United States has no closer friend and ally than the United Kingdom, and I reiterated my deep and personal commitment to the special relationship between our two countries" while congratulating David Cameron on becoming the new British Prime Minister.
On July 20, 2010, President Obama said, "the United States has no closer ally and no stronger partner than Great Britain. And I appreciate the opportunity to renew our relationship with my partner, Prime Minister Cameron."
President Obama first addressed this issue in a press conference in March of 2009, after his first meeting with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown:
Q Nick Robinson, BBC News. Mr. President, it's often been said that you, unlike many of your predecessors, have not looked toward Europe, let alone Britain. Can you just respond to that comment? And also, the Prime Minister is talking to you about a global new deal today. Will that actually help hard-pressed American consumers?
And if I may briefly put a question to the Prime Minister.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, the special relationship between the United States and Great Britain is one that is not just important to me, it's important to the American people. And it is sustained by a common language, a common culture; our legal system is directly inherited from the English system; our system of government reflects many of these same values. So -- and by the way, that's also where my mother's side of my family came from.
So I think this notion that somehow there is any lessening of that special relationship is misguided. Great Britain is one of our closest, strongest allies and there is a link, a bond there that will not break. And I think that's true not only on the economic front, but also on issues of common security.
And in our conversations here, we talked not only about the need to coordinate around economic policy, but also I expressed to the Prime Minister America's extraordinary gratitude for their support in our efforts in Afghanistan, and the young men and women of Great Britain who have made enormous sacrifices there. Although there was a debate, obviously, around the issue of Iraq, nevertheless, whether you are for or against the war here in the United States, the recognition of Great Britain's friendship and standing tall with us during that period is something that will never be forgotten.
And so rest assured that the relationship is not only special and strong, but will only get stronger as time goes on.
In May of 2006, the New York Times' Mark Glassman reported:
''We have no better friend than Japan,'' Ms. Rice said at the State Department.
It was a familiar refrain. As secretary of state, Ms. Rice has said that the United States had ''no better friend'' than Jordan, Greece, Italy, Australia, Singapore, Britain and, separately, the United Kingdom.
Of course, diplomacy depends upon stylized language, and other administrations have been equally adept at recycling it. But ''no better friend'' seems to imply an intimacy at odds with too frequent use.
Thomas E. Patterson, a political scientist at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, notes that the term is semantically clever. ''You could at least argue that there could be more than one in a 'no-better-friend' category,'' he said.
James P. Rubin, assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said: ''In diplomacy, you want to give everyone the impression that they're at the top of the list and this is a way doing that, a way of leaving room for a lot of people.
In 2002, President Bush told an audience in Alaska that "we've got no better friends than Canada."
In a 2002 news conference, President Bush discussed America's relationship with France and President Jacques Chirac:
My most important job--and I suspect Jacques feels the same way--is to protect our citizens from further attack. And it's--we've got no stronger ally in that task. I mean, he is willing to take steps necessary, obviously within the laws and Constitution of this country, just like I'm within the Constitution of mine, to protect our people. And for that, I'm very grateful, Mr. President.
In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, former President Ronald Reagan wrote the following:
The future of the Phillipines was of great importance to the United States. Our huge military stations there, Clark Air Force Base and the Subic Bay naval base, were among our largest in the world and the anchor of our defense in the western Pacific; and we had had no stronger ally anywhere than [Ferdinand] Marcos.
When then-Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge 2004 met with the Mexican Secretary of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Security website noted:
Secretary Ridge reaffirmed President's Bush statement on Mexican President Vicente Fox's State Visit in September 2001 that "We have no greater friend than Mexico and our commitment never wavered." Secretary Ridge said of his meeting with Secretary Creel, "You can't choose your neighbors but you can choose your friends."
In a February 2008 visit to Australia, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "As has been for many years, the United States has no better partner and no stronger ally than Australia."
In 2008, CIA director Michael Hayden said America has "not had a better partner in the war on terrorism than the Pakistanis."
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), said in 2006 that "in the war against terror, we have no stronger ally than Israel."
In March of 2010, now-Speaker John Boehner said that "We have no stronger ally anywhere in the world than Israel."
Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) said that "Israel is our closest ally."
On the floor of the House, Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) referred to Israel as America's "best ally."
On March 23, 2010, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) said "The American people consider Israel our most cherished ally."