How Benghazi And Watergate Differ

In no sense is Benghazi the Watergate scandal of the Obama administration.

Benghazi is unlike Watergate in that no one was murdered during Watergate. In this sense, Benghazi is much more serious.

However, unlike Watergate, there is little evidence that the US president or his administration broke any laws during the Benghazi affair. The behavior of the President and his minions was a crime by any definition of the word. However, no crimes were committed under US law.

This is an important point.

The Watergate investigation was driven by three prongs.

First, since the whole thing began with a crime (a third-rate burglary), the local police, the FBI, prosecutors, and judges were the first to get involved, and by all accounts they behaved honorably in trying to get to the bottom of things. No matter how Nixon and his cronies tried to sweep things under the rug, they discovered that they could not make the scandal go away because of these criminal investigations.

Second, there were congressional investigations which did not stop until Nixon was impeached. In the beginning, no doubt many of the people involved in these investigations were politically motivated and were engaged in a witch hunt. However, by the end, it was clear that the motivation of most of the people involved was honorable–they were looking for the truth, and fulfilling their constitutional duty.

Third, there was the press. The role of the press has been overemphasized in the legends that have been spun about Watergate, but it did play a role. Even if Woodward and Bernstein only knew half the story, given to them by government investigators who were doing all the heavy lifting, and even if they got a lot of facts wrong or were distracted by trivia (such as the dirty tricks campaign), and even if they were practically the only reporters digging into the mess when many others were simply uninterested, they at least kept the story alive and in the public eye, and this was an immeasurable help to those in Congress who wanted to get to the bottom of things.

One must understand that both the congressional investigations and the reporting by the press were driven by the criminal investigations. Without the criminal investigations, the whole Watergate scandal would have died.

So, how does Benghazi compare?

Unless new evidence is found suggesting that US laws were broken, there are and will be no criminal investigations. Some are now suggesting that a special prosecutor be appointed. This is a non-starter for several reasons, the most important of which being that previous special prosecutors were all seen as engaging in witch hunts. No one really wants a special prosecutor involved. And, if somehow there were a criminal investigation, what are the odds that the justice system of the US would want to get to the bottom of things? The Fast and Furious investigation went no where, yet it involved serious crimes and people died because of these crimes.

Regarding the press, it is largely silent on Benghazi or actively engaged in the coverup. There is only one reporter from a major news source who is actively pursuing the story, and now it seems that her job is in jeopardy. This is a non-story to most reporters, and will stay that way, as more than 90% of them are avid supporters of Obama, and most plan to vote for Clinton if she runs in 2016.

The only hope for keeping the investigation alive is congressional investigations. However, unless more people come forward, the investigations have already reached their high point and will soon stall. And unlike the Watergate investigations, any congressional investigation into Benghazi will never get bipartisan support, for the simple reason that the Democrats in Congress are not interested in the truth or holding the administration accountable–they are only interested in holding power and seeing their agenda enacted.

This is a gut check moment for the GOP leadership in Congress. There is some evidence (a lot actually) that many Republicans in Congress are just as craven as the Democrats, that they are willing to have an investigation to score points against the Obama administration and please their constituents, but at the end of the day really see the investigation as a distraction and would like it to go away so they can get back to business as usual.

If this is true, then the investigation will die, and may indeed already be dead.

Roger Simon, whom I respect, believes that the current investigation will end in impeachment. Here I disagree. This is indeed another area where Benghazi differs from Watergate.

Impeachment has two parts. The first is a vote for the articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives, and the second is an impeachment trial in the Senate.

The last time the House voted to impeach, the GOP was destroyed in the mid-term elections afterwards because the public thought that it was engaged in a witch hunt. This was not all that long ago, and there are a few members of Congress who still remember that incident. It is hard to believe that the House would vote to impeach Obama unless a smoking gun were found in his hand and a body at his feet, and unless the public were also crying for Obama’s head on a platter. Neither of these things are true today, and if the last election is any guide, even if a dead body were found at Obama’s feet and smoking gun in his hand, the public would treat it as a big yawn.

Now, even if the House did vote to impeach, the Senate is in the hands of the Democrats. It may be that the Republicans will take the chamber in 2014, but if it happens it will be by a small margin. What is the likelihood that any Democratic senator would ever vote to remove Obama from office? Nil. What is the likelihood that every single one the Republican senators would vote to remove Obama from office, especially when he is guilty of crimes that were also committed by his VP, who was actually more engaged with what happened on September 11 than the POTUS? Nil. And if the Senate will not vote to remove him from office, then it is unlikely the House will ever vote on articles for impeachment. They have been down that road before, and the result was not good.

It is highly unlikely that Obama will be impeached and removed from office over Benghazi, so anyone investigating this mess has to have another motivation (for example, finding the truth and seeing justice served) and they will have to be reconciled to a long, hard, lonely slog.

Don’t get me wrong: It appears that Obama and Clinton are essentially guilty of murder, committed in the pursuit of personal political goals. However, given the current political climate and what we know now, Benghazi is not going to drive Obama from office, and is unlikely to hurt Clinton in 2016.

Related articles

• Benghazi vs. Watergate: Which Was Worse? Part 1
• Benghazi Cover-Up: Richard Nixon was a Better Man Than Barack Obama
• Will Benghazi Be Obama’s Downfall?
• Unraveling the Benghazi cover-up – by Douglas J. Hagmann
• Benghazi News Round-up: The Dam Is About To Break (Video)
• WaPo fact checker: Who rewrote the Benghazi talking points?

“Let Me Help You Shift It”–The World’s Creepiest Auto Repair Ad

Watch this local TV commercial for  Arlen’s Transmission in Burbank, California, and your life will be changed forever, but not in a good way.

We kind of like the ethnic soundtrack, but that last look at the end was truly disturbing.

Related articles

• And the most awkward and creepiest ad goes to…
• Creepiest Transmission Shop Commercial EVER!
• SHIFT IT! Local Auto Repair Shop Goes Viral With Hilarious Commercial
• Is This Local Auto Ad the Best – or Weirdest – of All Time?
• WATCH: Amazing Commercial For Transmission Repair
• Video: Watch the most amazing and creepy transmission shop ad ever made

The New Prerequisite For Joining The Ruling Elite: Illiteracy

There are those who are prone to making typos and spelling errors (people like myself), and those who are simply illiterate. As an example of illiteracy, we have Emma Lewell-Buck, the new Labour MP for South Shields. Lewell-Buck has a Masters in Social Work, and an honors degree in Media Studies. Here is the bio she wrote for herself:

One wonders how she could have graduated from high school, much less gotten a degree.

Before we jump to the conclusion that she is a moron, consider this: She is now a member of the ruling elite of the UK, with a good salary, plenty of perks, and a lapdog press eager to hear every word that drops from her lips.

Meanwhile, we are sucking eggs. So, who is the moron here?

Earlier, we had posted about the high illiteracy rate in Washington DC, speculating that many of those in the ruling class in the US might be similarly afflicted. Perhaps, however, we have unwittingly stumbled on a brutal truth: Illiteracy is not an affliction of the ruling class, but is one of the basic requirements for becoming a member.

If this is so, then the joke is on us.

(Note: As always, when someone else’s grammar or punctuation is being commented on, Muphry’s Law is in full force.)

Related articles

• Emma Lewell-Buck is first woman MP for South Shields as Ukip benefit from Lib Dem disintegration
• The Tyranny, and Idiocy, of the East Coast Ruling Class Elites
• Labour: South Shields win is a ‘really good solid result’
• Labour claims victory as voters punish Lib Dems
• South Shields’ Emma Lewell-Buck vows to be ‘different sort of MP’

Selective Outrage

Today, a friend posted a long rant against Israel on Facebook because Israel had bombed Syria. All of his points were good and true.

Funny thing, though: He did not rant when Syria used chemical weapons against its own people, and he did not rant when Hamas bombed Israel.

Then, several months ago, another friend posted a long rant because some conservatives were upset when Michele Obama appeared at the Oscars. All of her points were also good and true.

Funny thing, though: She did not rant when liberals–then and now–fantasized publicly about killing George W. Bush.

Why is it that some people cry “Peace! Peace!” or plead for tolerance and understanding only once in a blue moon, when even worse travesties are being perpetuated daily without being noticed by them? Is it that they don’t even notice these other injustices, or are they so filled with hate that they can only get upset when their own particular ox is being gored?

They may claim to be fair and evenhanded, but their selective outrage only proves their bias. Not that all bias is bad, but to have bias and make the claim that one is being objective and fair-minded is the height of hypocrisy.

If there is any hint that Syria has or will use chemical weapons, then if I were Israel I would take military action–not to hurt anyone in Syria–but to remove that threat. So no, I am not upset that Israel has bombed Syria, and indeed I find it a curiosity that the US government waited for Israel to act and did not act itself.

And I was also appalled when Michele showed up at the Oscars, because show organizers in the past have always taken great pains to make the broadcast as apolitical as possible (even if the awards themselves are often highly political). However, the threats against the life of George W. Bush are even more appalling. I have not seen on my Twitter feed or anywhere in the conservative blogosphere threats or fantasies against the life of Barack Obama, yet such threats and fantasies against the life of George W. Bush are rather commonplace, so it is rather galling when some lib wants to crucify conservatives for “Obama derangement syndrome”.

So, to my “friends” on Facebook or elsewhere, if you are going to make the pretense of being evenhanded, then don’t show your bias with selective outrage. And do us a favor and get your own house in order before you start to preach against “haters” and those who are intolerant of the opinions of others. It is rather unbecoming of you to preach this way when you are so hateful and intolerant yourselves.

UPDATE:Israel has now taken credit for the attack, and said that it was targeting a shipment of advanced missiles. This does not at all change the basic point above. Why didn’t NATO or the US target them first?

Mandarin: One “Chinese” Word That Isn’t Used In China

One oddity of the English language is the word “mandarin”. Many people think that the word is somehow Chinese, or that it can properly be used to refer to Chinese things.

Neither of these are true.

The word “mandarin” has its origin in pidgin English, and is derived from either a Malay or a Hindi word (no one is really sure which).

A little background is in order here before we proceed. In colonial times, British civil servants and businessmen in Asia needed to communicate with the local people, even though they could not be bothered to learn the local languages, so they developed pidgin English–a highly simplified version of English mashed together with words from different languages and dialects. Pidgin English was used throughout Asia, but reached the apex of its development in colonial China. Prior to World War 2, a must-have for any foreigner traveling to Hong Kong or Shanghai was a pidgin English phrasebook–otherwise, they would not be able to do much business or get around. (The word “pidgin” is actually a Chinese corruption of the English word “business”, so literally “pidgin English” meant “business English”. Prior to the War, the first question a Chinese person was likely to ask a foreigner upon meeting was, “What’s you pidgin?” meaning, “What’s your business?” or “What are you doing in China?”) Since China opened up to foreigners long after India and Malay had already been colonized by the Brits, and the Brits who colonized those places were also the first Brits to have extended contact with the Chinese, the pidgin English used in China contained quite a few Hindi and Malay terms, though in corrupted form. “Mandarin” (meaning “ruler”) was one of those words.

Here, the plot thickens.

The first extended point of contact westerners had with the Chinese was through the Portuguese colony of Macao, and even then westerners were seldom allowed to travel beyond the borders of the colony. As a consequence, the Chinese people they most often came into contact with spoke Cantonese, which is the local dialect of the Pearl River delta area. However, on rare occasions, these westerners would meet with an official of the Qing Dynasty, visiting from Beijing. To the Brits meeting these officials, the officials were “mandarins” (that is “rulers”).

A couple of things should be noted here. First, the Qing Dynasty was not Han Chinese–it was ethnically Manchu. Thus, the officials the Brits met were all either Han Chinese wearing Manchu dress and working for the Manchus, or their Manchu overlords themselves. Second, the Manchus had adopted the most commonly used dialect of Chinese for government business, so the language these officials spoke was not “mandarin” Chinese–it was the common tongue of China, used by more than 80% of the people. Or, as the Chinese call it, “putonghua” (普通话).

No doubt, the Brits meeting these Qing Dynasty officials knew that these officials represented a different ethnic group than the people around them. This led them to make a logical mistake: They thought that the language these officials spoke was not common Chinese, but was the language of the rulers, the language of the “mandarins”.

From there we begin a downhill slide.

The clothes the Qing Dynasty officials wore were called “mandarin dress”–it was merely the ethnic Manchu style of dress, used by rulers and common people alike, but no matter.

Then we have mandarin cuisine, which is what, exactly? People living in the West are sure that they understand this term, but people who have been to China will find it perplexing.

Usually, westerners use “mandarin” to refer to the food of Beijing. However, to Chinese people the food of Beijing is made up of Peking duck and what most of them would call Dongbei (东北) cooking (Dongbei refers to northeast China; more properly, Dongbei cooking is considered Shandong cuisine). Here we are talking Chinese dumplings, noodle soup, steamed bread, and various kinds of braised pork dishes. Salty, sweet, fatty, and bland. This is the common food for vast swaths of people in northern China. However, it is only one of eight of the most commonly recognized Han Chinese schools of cooking. Why should “mandarin” be used to refer to this cooking school, and not the others? It makes no logical sense.

“Mandarin cuisine” would more logically refer to Manchu cooking, but there are very few ethnic Manchus left in the world, and most of them have nearly completely assimilated to the Han culture, so today Manchu cuisine might be a bit of a mystery even to many of them.

Perhaps by “mandarin cuisine” one could be referring to the food served in the Forbidden City? As it turns out, this is also a bit of a mystery. The emperor, the empress, and the various concubines used Han Chinese chefs. However, these chefs were commanded upon the pain of death to produce up to one hundred or more unique and tasty dishes a day for the delight of their patrons, using the finest ingredients and the most extraordinary techniques. This was not the food common people ate, and until quite recently it was not the food one would find on any restaurant menu anywhere in the world. Fortunately, a handful of Forbidden City chefs passed on their secrets to future generations, so now there are one or two restaurants which are trying to recreate something of the atmosphere of a Qing Dynasty royal banquet, although without the executioner standing by to exact judgement on an errant chef.

Altogether, “mandarin cuisine” appears not to refer to any food at all, or at least any food that is commonly eaten.

Next we have mandarin ducks and mandarin fish, both of which were dubbed “mandarin” by westerners because they are from China, but which have always been known in China by completely different names. And then we have the mandarin dogfish, a saltwater creature which appears to have little to do with China at all.

Perhaps the oddest use of the word “mandarin” is to refer to mandarin oranges. Mandarin oranges are eaten in China, but are not really that common there, and certainly do not go by that name. The one country which is really wild about mandarin oranges is Japan. Mandarin oranges are so popular in Japan that the palms of many school children’s hands actually change color when the fruit is in season because they have eaten so many of them. There is a theory, repeated on Wikipedia, that the appellation “mandarin orange” was first used during World War 2 by growers to hide the fact that mandarin oranges are essentially a Japanese fruit. This is not true, however, as the term “mandarin orange” was first used in the 18th century to refer to an example of the fruit seen by westerners in China.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us with a word that does not properly refer to anything Chinese, which in fact is almost never used in China, and which has no counterpart in the Chinese language.

“What about the Mandarin Hotel?” you might ask. Foreign travelers might know this Hong Kong hotel chain as the “Mandarin”. However, the Chinese name “wenhua dongfang jiudian” (文華東方酒店), roughly translated, means the “Chinese Culture Oriental Hotel”. In Chinese, it neither sound like the word “mandarin”, nor does it evoke any of the connotations of the word “mandarin” in English.

So there were have it. “Mandarin” is one of those strange words in English which everyone “knows” the meaning of and uses all the time, but which has little real meaning and no proper use. In every usage of the word, there is a more appropriate and more accurate term.

Related articles

• Pidgin English
• Han Chinese Clothing
• Home

You Think Your Life Is Bad?

At least you’re not a shaved llama.

(H/t Luke Romyn)

Failure, The Most Popular Option Of All

We are, we reluctantly confess, suckers for reality TV–especially contests. We’ve tried to watch dramas, but we simply cannot get through the first five minutes of, for example, CSI: Anaheim (or whatever the latest iteration). It is just too phony and melodramatic to be taken seriously. Comedies? Are you kidding? The latest TV comedies make Beavis and Butt-head look like high art. And as for the news, our own personal life is depressing enough. So that leaves reality TV. We enjoy learning new ways to make crème brûlée and tuna tartar, watching effeminate men getting into cat fights over sewing machines, seeing Tyra Banks squinting and calling it her “smokey eye look”, and hearing Randy Jackson making nonsensical, random comments as though he were actually listening to the singing (he’s not).

Of course, reality TV has its drawbacks. One is the ubiquitous cliches. One would think that someone getting their 15-minutes would find something original to say, but many people can’t seem to be bothered.

Here, then, is our list of the worst, most-overused reality TV cliches, and why they should be retired:

1. “failure is not an option”
   In truth, failure is the most popular option of all. In any real contest there can only be one winner, which means that everyone else will fail. Even in real life–especially in real life–failure is the most popular option chosen. Few people really choose success; being successful requires more hard work, sacrifice, and dedication than most people are willing to give. It’s simply easier to have a drink and (ahem) watch TV.
2. “it’s do or die”
   How many people take this seriously? This is a binary choice–either they do or they die. If they aren’t prepared to do either–and usually they aren’t–then they should not use this phrase.
3. “I like to think 0utside of the box”
   We’ve discussed the manifold deficiencies of this cliche here, but let’s just add that, in the context of reality TV, this is most often used as an excuse for not following directions and serving inedible, unpleasant-looking slop instead of food.
4. “I’m not here to be friends”
   Reality TV–indeed, life in general–properly understood, is one long job interview. Who wants to hire a nasty, hostile, backstabbing, duplicitous fool? Sure, it makes for good drama on TV, but being a friend–or at least being friendly–is the single best way to get a leg-up on the competition in both reality TV and in life, and to prolong one’s TV career beyond just 15 minutes.
5. “We’re the Dream Team”
   The surest sign of impending doom on reality TV is when a team or an individual starts talking about how wonderful they are. The winners on these shows are nearly always the people who bring the goods and don’t mouth off about their own greatness.

Of course, there are many other cliches that need to be retired. This is just a start.