Fox News Headlines

The headline on the Fox News Web site for this inflammatory tripe read "WH trying to rewrite history?"

About the Obama Administration's decision to send an ambassador to the memorial of the Hiroshima bombing, they quote the son of the guy who dropped it saying:

"It's making the Japanese look like they're the poor people, like they didn't do
anything," he said. "They hit Pearl Harbor. They struck us. We didn't
slaughter
the Japanese -- we stopped the war."

I don't see how sending somebody to show we remember the horrible destruction
wrought by the atom bomb says "We're sorry." Although maybe it does, in the way
"We're sorry it had to come to this. We're sorry so many people had to lose
their lives. We're not apoligizing, but we're sorry that you had to endure it."

Is that so bad, years after the wounds of that war have done all the
healing they will? Isn't that human?

Yeah, they have some voices of
sanity pointing out that it's not a big deal. But those voices are lower in the
story, to give the one guy criticizing Obama the maximum voice -- even if he's
really the only one.

A study in biased writing. They should teach this
to journalism students as a "what not to do."

Bobby Jindal: Loose Cannon

This is pretty much right.

Jindal has gotten props at times during the spill for "looking like a leader." Unfortunately, that's all he's done -- looked like one. The closest thing he's come to actually doing anything is these jetties, which, as Bob here points out, few scientists outside his office approve of.

The Politics of Star Wars

I am having a hard time describing how awesome this is.

Apparently some commentators have been discussing the politics of the Old Republic and the Jedi.

I may not have said it here, but I am a recovering Star-Wars-aholic from my childhood. Now that it has collided head-on with my current fan-dom of politics, it threatens a dangerous relapse.

Damn you, Atlantic Wire, damn you...

Ignorance Inc.

It really is sad that people who have this kind of voice can get away with saying stuff like this. And this . And this. (wherin Glenn Beck makes his own chief researcher out to be an idiot. Although, granted, whoever gather's Beck's facts, probably is.)

If the importance/influence of the tea party (and the leeches like Beck that have latched onto it) weren't so grossly inflated by national media, this would make the FIHB plummet. Still, it's going to drop a little bit.

Dumb-ass of the Week

Seriously? Like, this isn't a joke?

Somebody's out of their league.

Another Home Run

Twice in one day, two seperate Atlantic writers have nailed what I've been trying to say to the tee.

This is nothing short of glorious.

Sully is right...again.

I really don't have anything to say about this, other than that I agree whole-heartedly.

Welcome to the Media Circus of the Damned.

As the whole Shirly Sherrod thing continues to embarass cable news on an unprecedented scale, the networks are alternatively flaying themselves and pointing fingers.

Guess which one Fox News is doing? That's right, the whole debacle was was President Obama's fault.

Nevermind the fact that it was Fox News who took the story from incindeary partisan hooliganry to mainstream, million-viewer importance. Never mind that, at no point, did Fox (or any cable TV news outlet) take the time to call Sherrod, ask for the whole tape, or talk to the farmer, any one of which would have put the brakes screeching on a story that should never have been -- and any one of which an intern at a more stable medium would have tried reflexively before running with unverified, out-of-context video. Nevermind the fact that Fox News would have been screaming reverse racism if Sherrod hadn't gotten fired.

Never mind that any politician, no, any human, would probably act hastily when the entirety of cable news is telling the world one of their workers is a racist.

This story is, perhaps better than any other, a perfect example of the flaws of the 24-hour instant information media culture. In fact, it's hard to envision a scenario that could illustrate those flaws better.

This is a story made up entirely by cable news, blown out of proportion entirely by cable news, and fantastically, hilariously exploded entirely by cable news. It wasn't a story. Nothing happened. But a network with biases jumped on a similarly-aligned blog -- a damn blog -- and turned nothing into a very big something without taking the time to verify it.

In this long-ass, totally useless, kinda-sorta Mea Culpa, Roland Martin totally misses the point. He says this thing is a result of a nation still struggling with race issues.

Yeah, we're still struggling with race issues. But that's not the point. This isn't a story, isn't the great big mistake it is because we have race issues. It's the great big mistake it is because TV news media trample on those issues just like every other issue in their haste to break a big story.
Are other media outlets perfect? Of course not. Do we have weaknesses the others don't? Of course.

But newspapers didn't make this non-story happen. In fact, newspapers are barely mentioning it -- the one I work for certainly isn't. That's because we aren't so worried about the scoop or about being the first to make news that we sacrifice the steps necessary to make sure the facts are straight.

Which is exactly what happened here.

The Tea Party Caucus

So the Tea Party Caucus is apparently a thing now.

The Republican Party is still at war with itself. And the wrong side is winning.

Even if it gains a bunch of members, the caucus has to gain power. This means one of three scenarios.

My odds:
A.) The Tea Party Caucus gains power, pushes via grass roots methods an already partisan, far-right Republican Caucus to become more partisan and more extreme. It does. A solely partisan, far-right party gets beaten soundly in elections. (5%)
B.) The Tea Party Caucus gains power, pushes via grass rootsan already fairly far-right Republican Caucus to become more partisan and more extreme. It doesn't. A disorganized, self-foot-shooting party gets beaten soundly in elections. (25%)
C.) The Tea Party Caucus is just another publicity stunt, doesn't really affect the balance of power. Nothing changes. (70%)

The Nail on The Head

I have a feeling this is going to be prescient.

The money shots:

"For all it's energy, the tea party has not had the chance to demonstrate the same sustained capacity for winning methodology and follow-through."

"The Tea Party may have an admirable drive, but it is an indisputable reality that the same purity of view that has allowed the movement to dominate many primaries leaves the GOP vulnerable in November."

The Party of Stupid

This is just pitiful, really.

Issues? Nah, screw it. Let's make fun of him for playing golf. That's a mature, legitimate criticism, isn't it? Not like what a, oh, say, 3rd grader would do?

The DNC should post Obama's schedules for the past three weeks. I betcha golf doesn't make up 1% of his waking hours.

Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous

This couldn't really happen, could it?

The headline "Snoop Dogg Tried to Rent Lichenstein" is simultaneously hilarious and sad.

First of all, who in the hell is this property agent who claims he could rent the whole country? And is he serious?

I mean, I know it's only ~60 square miles, but still. Aren't there, uh, sovereignty issues here?

The Shiniest New Piece of Junk Everybody's Gotta Have

You know that fancy new iPhone 4 everybody couldn't wait to get their hands on?

Yeah, it's broken.

Consumer reports "cannot recommend buying it."

Not even "Well, you oughtta buy a Droid, but this'll do." Nope, it's just straight up failed the test.

Now ain't that a shame?

Obama Doesn't Need a Dick Cheney

Agree with the fundamental principles here.

I agree that Obama has been incredibly productive thus far. And I believe he's getting tarred and feathered with misinformation by Republicans willing to go on the attack 24/7 on everything. And I agree that he doesn't have Dick Cheney.

What I fail to see is how that's a bad thing.

Obama is actually sticking to the promises he made about non-partisanship for the most part. He is not constantly hammering at his opponents -- when he does, it makes front-page headlines simply because it is rare -- and he isn't sic'ing any war dogs on Republicans.

That's how it's supposed to work. You're supposed to argue why your policies make sense -- not why your opponents are idiots.

The foregone conclusion that Somaiya assumes here is that Obama can't win by playing the way he is. He thinks the Republican assaults on his programs will doom the president. But I don't know if that's true.

Remember, anyone who isn't a Republican or stupid sees that the Republican message is purely, simply, anti-Obama. It's so blindingly obvious that Republicans have no message of their own, and only construe messages in predictable gut-reactions to what Obama says.

I think, deep down, Americans know this. And they hate it.

Fox News Headlines

So guess who the damn communist Muslims are after now?

Wonder Woman.

That's right. By taking the American flag off of her costume, DC Comics is killing America.

Sigh.

This is seriously a thing, isn't it? Fox News is actually arguing this, aren't they?

Comparative Headlines

Fox News: High Court Extends Gun Rights to All States
MSNBC: TOP COURT PUTS LIMITS ON LOCAL GUN BANS (CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.)
CNN: Chicago gun ban ruled unconstitutional (NOT top story)
New York Times: Justices say gun rights apply locally
Washington Post: Supreme Court Extends Gun Rights Nationwide (Hmmm...sound familar?)

Fox thinks the Court is finally giving people the inalieable right to shoot people in their own home. MSNBC thinks the Court is wildly restricting local governments' ability to keep people safe.

CNN just says what the hell happened.

NYT gives the real technical definition of the ruling.

Washington Post: see, Fox News.

Fox News Headlines

Fox News has a section on it's site devoted to legalizing marijuana. It's called "Going to Pot."

The Rundown:

A.) Seriously? Has anyone said seriously said the phrase "going to pot" since the 90s? Fox must be TRYING to alienate young people.

B.) Among the related topics: Starbucks. YOU DAMN KIDS WITH YOUR POT AND YOUR HIPPIE COFFEE.

C.) See, the graphic head looks like a dog tag. Because it's war. On drugs. Get it?

The Party of No

In this mediocre column, we see why John Boehner and the Republicans are failing America:

"For Boehner, being called the "Party of No" isn't a regrettable invective. It is a strategy aimed at highlighting the contrast between those running things and those who want to run things."

Yo! Minority leader! Democrats don't "run things." Congress runs things. It isn't about what the Democrats are doing or what you're doing -- it's about what everybody's doing.
This kind of thinking is exactly why Congress is broken, not because people don't kiss ass as much as Boehner would like.

Second:

"Boehner is reluctant to speculate about November when 100 seats will be in play. If thign should go bump on election night -- and should Boehner replace Pelosi as speaker -- expect to see lots of blood on the floor. First to get the hatchet would be health-care reform, which Republicans would seek to replace with "common sense" measures to reduce insurance costs and secure jobs. Other priorities would include line-by-line budget cuts, entitlemetn reform, and restoration of the integrity of the House."

The last one pains me, it really does.
Also, who in the hell does Boehner think he is? Some kind of legislative Superman? The Democrats barely managed to get HCR reform passed with a supermajority and the President. Is he arrogant -- and delusional -- enough to think his party can get it repealed with a regular ole' majority and over an inevitable veto?
Besides? Is he really going to bring that painful issue up again before presidential elections happen?

Also, I physically cringe at the return of the ignoble "common sense measures," as used in the HCR debate. The audacity of saying there is a "common sense" solution to something as vast and complicated as health care is sickening.

I have no love for the Democrats, but I'm really starting to hope they keep the majority. Because this pre-emptive bragging the Republicans have been doing for months already is really, really getting old.

BP Spills Coffee

This is spreading around the Internet like crazy. It isn't really fair -- but it is hilarious.

Our American Newsmakers

Somebody at Fox News is really very bored.

The Huffington Post Sucks.

I hate to break it to you, enlightened college students, but the Huffington Post is crap.

Take, for example, this.

Who gives a damn what Alec Baldwin thinks about oil policy? Seriously! He has literally no expertise about oil spills. He is an actor. They even have the gall to slap it on there under his title, without even a lame attempt to bilk him up as an expert (like what people are doing to James Cameron). It's right there under his name!

An actor.

I don't care if he were Marlon damn Brando. He's an actor.

I get it. The site is supposed to be Arriana Huffington and all her very interesting friends blogging off the cuff. That would be fine, but people have started treating it like a legitimate venue for legitimate opinion journalism, for well-reasoned rational analysis -- and any site that unflinchingly has Alec Baldwin talking about energy policy is NOT THAT.

What really kills me about the Huffington Post is that the liberals that frequent it are often the loudest critics of the bias propigated Fox News and its imitators.

I got news for you -- the Huffington Post is just the left-leaning equivalent, complete with a fawning love for celebrities and an almost cartoonish pretension.

Badly Timed Boom

Oh for crying out loud.

I would not want to be an oil industry lobbyist right now.

PR via Google

Want to try something fun? Google "oil spill" and see who bought the link.

A Sense of Scale

Oh, S---.

I know some South Louisianans are clamoring especially loudly about this. "Well, we'll see how fast the response is once it gets up there."

I dunno. Having seen how mind-bogglingly big this spill (and, by necessity, the cleanup) is, and powerful and unmanageable the forces involved are, I really don't know that that's fair.

But if oil starts washing up the Potomac, you just know Rep. Melancon's going to have a field day.

It just boggles the mind how big -- and bad -- this is.

It's Not Going to Be as Easy as They Think, Cont.

More evidence.

Again, Democrats aren't going to keep all their seats -- but it's also not going to be the massacre Republicans seem to think it is.

This Week in Lulz.

I've always wondered about that.

An Unfortunate Farewell

It's sad it had to end this way.

I dunno how I feel about this. Yeah, Helen Thomas' comments were stupid -- really stupid. But the woman's been a member of the WHPC since JFK. And, while certainly not politically safe, the views she voiced aren't utterly outrageous.

It's also important to note that she's of relatively recent Palestinian descent. I don't know if that influenced her decision, but if it did -- well, I dunno if that makes it more or less tolerable.

Anyway, it's really a shame that someone who's been at the top of the game for so long (frickin' JFK) has to go out like this. She deserves a graceful exit, and her unfortunate comments probably mean she will be denied that.

Bizarro World

This is bizarre.

The Rundown:

A.) Does this mean Rush Limbaugh doesn't really care about gays, but instead goes on his borderline-homophobic diatribes out of a carefully-calculated move to court his constituency?

B.) Isn't Elton John rich enough that he could y'know, not take a gig with the original Angry Conservative Pundit (TM)?

C.) Fourth wife. She's more than 20 years younger. She's more than a little attractive. Shouldn't that make Ye Olde Family Values people a little uh, uncomfortable?

The Cool Stuff Department

Don't sneeze.

This is pretty crazy. Could you imagine a bunch of Americans doing this? Especially the whole "work on something for six days before immediately dismantling it?"

Yeah, those are some freeeed minds there, maaaan.

Ps: I'd name mine Nelson.

Fixing the Oil Spill with Magic

Don't worry guys, they got this.

Read the last two paragraphs:

Meanwhile, "Avatar" and "Titantic" director James Cameron joined a group of scientists and other experts who met Tuesday with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for a brainstorming session on stopping the massive oil leak.

The Canadian-born director is considered an expert on underwater filming and remote vehicle technologies.

He'll fix it.

History via CNN

This is cool.

A little self-serving, but cool.

This Week In Owned.

Every once in a while, I stumble upon a piece of writing that makes me giggle malevolently. You know those moments in action movies when there's that moment of grim satisfaction after the hero absolutely destroys the villian, and all the pent-up urges you've had to see that villian get annhilated are released?

Yeah, sometimes that happens in writing. And, for a word nerd like me, it's just as glorious.

For example, a Salon.com article by Wajahat Ali decrying the shallowness and inanity of Sex and the City 2.

Kaboom.

The Money Shot: (although there are many.)

"Our four female cultural avatars, like imperialistic Barbies, milk Abu Dhabi for leisure and hedonism without making any discernable, concrete efforts to learn about her people and their daily lives."

Imperialistic Barbies...well-played, sir.

When it's Hard to Be Impartial

A lot of what they teach us in journalism school is not the nitty-gritty of reporting -- you only really learn that through practical experience. I can attest to that -- in one week interning at the Times-Picayune, I've learned far more in one week here about practical skills than a whole semester of mass comm classes.

But a lot of discussion in journalism classes you simply can't get in a newsroom is about the ideals and standards journalists are supposed to espouse. Among those, Impartiality (a.k.a. unbiased reporting, a.k.a objective reporting, although those are often up for debate) is pretty big.

A reporter is supposed to provide facts, not editorialize (that's what the opinion section is for.) A reporter is trying to get the truth, inasmuch as such a noble concept really exists, and that truth should be free of opinions and prejudices.

Sometimes that's a lot more difficult than it sounds.

Case in point -- today I was assigned to cover a panel discussion featuring a group of coastal Alaskans and Louisianans. These were community activists who had heart-wrenching stories about how erosion, oil spills, and climate change had devestated their livelihoods and shredded their way of life. They were railing against oil companies and government (obviously) and as I furiously scribbled notes my training kicked in.

These people have a vested interest. They are inherently biased against government. Proceed with caution.

I'm conflicted about just how appropriate this is.

In the end, the article I gave my editor was exactly what she had asked for. But it's easy for a reporter to shift perspective on an argument or subtly and indirectly argue for a side based on the quotes they pick. By picking out some of the angrier, more emotionally powerful quotes, my article could easily be interpreted as leaning against oil companies and those who don't believe in global warming (it wasn't, at least not intentionally.)

Is that not impartial? More importantly, is that bad?

Hard question. No easy answer. Happens every day in a newsroom.

3-D, Schmee-D

Roger Ebert doesn't like 3-D. And he's right.

For now, 3-D movies are awkward and distracting -- and not nearly worth the extra money and effort.

Also -- Rogert Ebert likes really simple sentences.

The Nuclear Club

This is pretty much the best summation of the nuclear issue I've personally seen.

Bravo, senior. Americans need to realize why it's difficult to censure Iran, and why it's difficult for The Greatest Country In The World (TM) to eliminate the nuclear threat.

Fighting Obesity, one Happy Meal at a Time.

I wonder how effective this will be.

This obviously raises all kinds of questions about the government's right to interfere in private business for social good.

If this becomes a big thing, expect a lawsuit. If it happens, that'll be an interesting one to watch.

Fox News Headlines Ctd.

Just so everyone is aware, Fox News' Web site currently depicts a Mexican jumping over a fence.

It might not actually be a real Mexican jumping over the fence, but the connotation is unavoidable.

I really, really don't know what to think about this.

This Week in LOL

This man is a standard-bearer of the Republican Party. Also, he's the longest-serving governor of Texas.

Interestingly, it's got a line on the front page of MSNBC -- but, as of time of writing, nothing on Fox or CNN.

It's not Obama we're tired with.

Ahem.

The Money Quote:

Dissatisfaction is widespread, crossing party lines, ideologies and virtually all groups of voters. Less than a quarter of independents and just three in 10 Republicans say they're leaning toward backing an incumbent this fall. Even among Democrats, who control the House, the Senate and the White House, opinion is evenly divided on the question.

Also, notice the continuing trend against Republicans.

Americans aren't tired of Obama and the "socialists." They're tired of the whole broken, bitter, partisan system. They're tired of stalling progress for the sake of short-term political gain. They're tired of old rich white guys in suits claiming they know what American's want when they really only fight for their own fundamentalist ideological interests.

The revolution's coming.

This is Going to Be Awesome

I don't know if it's bad for me to say this, but this is going to be awesome if it works.

The Lunatic Fringe, Ctd.

I'm just going to leave this right here.

But they represent Americans, right?

She's not running for President, cont.

Andrew Sullivan still thinks she's running.

It's a potent argument. But it gives the right-wing echo chamber more credit than it deserves.

Yes the Beck/Limbaugh/Ailes/Murdoch machine is potent in further isolating hardcore conservatives. But that demographic is small and shrinking. It is not the electoral juggernaut it once was.

She might run, or put up the pretense of running. But the GOP isn't stupid enough (yet) to put her out as a legitimate challenger.

Green Tea Party?

Thomas Friedman is right on.

The basic point is fantastic. The Tea Party claims to be non-partisan, but they are essentially Republican. More importantly, they are vehemently anti-Obama -- and by that I mean they base their policy decisions almost on entirely on opposing him.

If the Tea-party movement were really apolitical, they would be open-minded enough to support ideas that appeal to real patriotic conservatives. Energy reform is quintessentially patriotic -- we currently are dependent on other nations for oil, nations that in some cases are actively trying to destroy us. There are few issues as patriotic as new energy, because new energy means a country that is self-reliant and not addicted to the products of other countries.

What's more conservative than that?

Unfortunately, Obama and his administration are in support of alternative energy. So that means the Republicans -- and the Tea Party people -- are against it.

Friedman is right -- the Tea Party needs to live up to its claims that it is independent of party. Right now they're just the angriest Republicans.

She's not running for President, cont.

More evidence here and here.

People forget that, while Sarah Palin earns a lot of personal dough, she isn't nearly the fundraising juggernaut that is President Obama. It's possible the grind involved with a term in office has gotten rid of some of the zeal among his voters, but he annihilated the fundraising records in his 2008 election. Annhilated, I say.

And yeah, a lotta people watch Palin on TV. But when it comes down to voting they won't. There's far too much dirt -- like these campaign receipts -- for even a mediocre political squad to miss. There's too much evidence that she isn't the persona everybody sees, and there's far too much fodder for half a dozen mudslinging ads.

And I think she knows it, too.

The Daily Show nails it.

I couldn't agree more.

John McCain used to be my hero. He was a maverick and proud of it, someone who didn't just occasionally say no to the party establishment, but someone who did it almost out of habit. He voted his conscience. He compromised when it was necessary. He was beholden to no one but his constituents, not beholden to party politics or the extremes. The things he says in those Daily Show clips are inspiring and sublime, and now he's just another bitterly partisan politician-as usual.

He was a radical moderate. Now he's just another Republican.

Maybe our system has deteriorated so badly that centrists like he once was cannot survive. Maybe mavericks really do now mean what Sarah Palin thinks they mean -- people so radical that even party leadership tries to rein them in.

Maybe America no longer wants the real John McCain.

I get the feeling that the old McCain is the real McCain. I'd like to believe that he's dying inside every time he calls Obama a socialist against American values. I'd like to believe that, upon getting re-elected, he will once again be the great man he once was and that he needs to be again.

He is fighting a grueling re-election battle. From my couch I can't conceive the realities and difficulties of such a fight, so maybe this is all a great but unavoidable evil.

If so, it's sad and scary, because that means this new, lock-step angry soldier McCain is what the American people want.

I hope it isn't. I hope he or his advisers have grossly misjudged what his voters are looking for.

For the sake of our process, I hope we haven't turned off the old, great McCain.

This Story Needs to Die

I think I'm going to have a new running term: TSND. This Story Needs to Die.

This story, specifically.

Tiger Woods is a golfer. A golfer.

A gooooooolfer.

At best, he is a sports hero. But we shouldn't give a damn if he cheated on his wife. Even if we did care, we certainly shouldn't be caring about it this damn much.

A sovereign government was overthrown in the Middle East yesterday. People are dead in the streets. And this isn't just any country we're talking about here -- it's the country that gets to determine whether or not we can fly stuff into Afghanistan.

But an athlete cheated on his wife. The story broke months ago. It is patent old news. But the gaping maw that is 24-hour TV news needs feeding, and the army of talking heads needs something to discuss.

It needs to stop. Seriously.

Time's Influential People -- Yikes.

The population of the Internet is a vast, dizzying mystery to me.

Time's Most Influential People online poll results are up. They're -- not encouraging.

Lady Gaga is #1. Yeah. The most influential person in the world is a pop singer. "But she's revolutionized fashion." No she hasn't. Nobody wears her stuff -- it's all stunt stuff. "But she's stood up for women's sexuality." No more so than any other female pop star.

Eh, maybe I'm just an old coot in a young person's body.

Other trends:

-Barack Obama -- the damn President of the United States of America -- is 26th. He is, according to these voters, less influential than:

-Snooki from Jersey Shore

-Neal Patrick Harris

-Jeff Bridges

-Lady Gaga

-Beyonce

-Kim yu-Na

-Sandra Bullock

-Han Han

-David Chang (A chef)

-Dan Coudreaut (McDonald's chef)

-Conan O'Brien

-I know it's just the Internet, but still -- a Jersey Shore character is more influential than the President? Faith in Humanity Meter just dipped.

-Muammar freakin' Gaddafi is number 7. Maybe I grossly underestimate the general knowledge of the American people, but I didn't know this many people knew who Gaddafi is let alone think he's important. By the way, I am convinced that it is physically impossible to take a picture of that guy where he doesn't look like evil incarnate.

-The Penny Arcade guys are #43. Hah.

-Nicholas Sarkozy is #4? Are the French spamming the vote?

-James Cameron is #6. We get it. Avatar had some spectacular visual effects. It was overall very impressive. But Cameron 'ain't that influential.

-Sandra Bullock is #8. Didn't she win a Razzie this year?

-What's sad is I can't argue with Sarah Palin being #9.

-Nicole "Snooki" Pollizi is #16. I literally cannot find words to describe this.

Again, this is an open Internet poll, so the results mean little. It's more a glimpse into the collective Internet consciousness, not humanity in general.

Oh wait -- the Internet demographic skews heavily towards my generation.

Excuse me. I need to go bang my head on the wall for an hour or so.

-

Is Palin for Real?

Andrew Sullivan doesn't think so.

The kicker:

"Her flimsy record of public service has been festooned with so many lies and delusions and fantasies on her part it beggars belief. Her book is self-evidently the product of a dangerously delusional fanatic. She poses as a "real American" from the heartland, yet she has done everything in her power to escape that heartland and find refuge in celebrity."

I dunno. There's a part of me that agrees with him -- or, I guess, would like to agree with him. But I don't think that the "lies and delusions and fantasies" are concocted. I don't know whether she quit her governorship because there was better fame and money elsewhere, although her shady explanations for doing so might point in that direction -- it's possible she honestly thought she could do more good elsewhere. I don't know whether starting the DEATH PANELS debacle was an intentionally (evil) genius move on her part -- I dunno if she or her communication staff are that savvy.

And I don't know if her anti-Washington, anti-intellectual, anti-experience messages are calculated to sway her voting base -- the sentiment that the average man makes the best president, while personally incomprehensible to me, is widely held by others. And it's entirely possible she's exactly that -- an inexperienced average American whose "unconventional" tactics simply show she doesn't know or want to play the game as usual.

But, Sully's grim predictions aside, I'm still convinced she's not running for President.

It's Going to Be Harder Than They Think

Ouch.

See, Republicans like to think anti-establishment anger runs exclusively in their favor. But people are angry at everyone, including the GOP. In fact, I daresay there are as many or more people angry at them than their opponents.

Does this mean the Democrats aren't going to lose a lot of seats in mid-terms? Of course not. The current imbalance is untenable in the long-term, and mid-terms are always bad for the party in power.

But I don't think there's going to be a huge shift towards the right. There probably won't be a huge majority for either side. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats keep a slim majority.

Suit up, people.

If I were a Democrat, I'd be saying something like this.

Seriously, people. It's about to be March Madness for us political junkies.

Can I get an Amen?

This is what they pay E.J. Dionne for.

He pretty much nails it. The church isn't fundamentally broken, but it has some real issues that need real solutions. It'll be hard, but it'll be worth it.

Bullied to Death

Hmm...

A tragic thing, obviously. But what's interesting to me is the front-page feature tab that links to this from Fox's home page.

"Nine Charged in Bullying Girl to Death."

Bullying to Death. Hmm.

It's an interesting term to use, especially given this is Fox we're talking about. The age-old "driving someone to suicide" idea seems a bit counter to Fox's usual hawkishness about personal responsibility.

They're probably right.

The Crazy-Right GOP

Amen, brother.

I couldn't agree more. The very definition of extreme is that few people agree with you. The Republican formula of rallying the base is not working, and it will not work in 2012. It might conceivably work in 2010, but I doubt it's going to get the huge results that Republicans think it will.
Besides, anger-voting in mid-terms is the status quo. And the current lopsided majority is unnatural and untenable in the long term. So Republicans will certainly even the odds this year, but they can't make the mistake of thinking divisive, extremist politics will win net them big wins when it counts.

Catholic Crisis

Whatever the ramifications of this most recent sex abuse scandal end up being, there might be some hope in it all.
I disagree with Catholics on a lot of theological issues. Maureen Dowd mentions several of them here. And this new Pope has seemed sketchy fromt the start.
That said, these theological quibbles are nowhere near enough to merit condemnation of the whole church. Critics of Catholocism, in their haste to get to the juicy bits, tend to forget the staggering amount of good the Church has done in modern times. And they often make the regrettable mistake of pressing the sins of church hierarchs onto everybody practicing the religion.
I have a great deal of respect for Catholics, even if I disagree theologically with some of their tenets. These crises are more a problem with their leaders then with the faithful at large.
That said, Catholics do need to stand up and be intentional and loud about reform. The Pope's position is far too sacrosanct in current doctrine -- this most recent scandal is damning evidence.
Andrew Sullivan is a good example. He's a Catholic, but he's also willing to criticize the Church when it does something he thinks is wrong.

She Isn't Running #347

Sara Palin isn't running for president.

There is one school of thought that her forays into the media world (which, by the way, should make most hard-working professionals in that arena pretty angry) are an unconventional way to keep herself in the spotlight should the time come for here to get serious about campaigning.

Protip: she isn't.

She will probably keep dropping hints, probably keep flirting with the idea, keep people guessing. But when it comes down to the wire she will simply be someone the Republican nominee needs to cozy up to.

Is she a political force? Certainly. She's got a considerable following, and that following is rabid enough to immediately, unquestioningly flock to whomever she endorses.

But she knows better than anyone that she can't win the nomination and she sure as hell can't win the main event, so all of this is just a way to milk her fame as much as possible.

And, perhaps, keep the issues she thinks are important out in the public forum. Although narrating a documentary hardly seems like such a thing to me.

Is This How it's Always Been?

Is this the way it used to be?

I dunno. I'm sure there has been legislation that's incited this kind of ire before.
That doesn't make it any more sad or infuriating now.

He's on a Roll

President Obama is on fire this week.
CNN and Fox haven't covered it yet. Fox doesn't surprise me, but I don't think it's settled in how big a deal this is.
While reducing nuclear arms isn't the kind of sexy thing that starts conversations — or press coverage — it's the kind of important, world-changing stuff that earns presidents historical significance.
The timing could absolutely not be more spectacular. Slashing nuclear arms the day after you sign the most sweeping domestic policy legislation in decades is a colossal achievement. Spectacular.
For an administration that's been muddled in bloody policy battles with no foreseeable conclusion or positive headway, this is proof that these efforts haven't been wasted.
Obama's approval rating should skyrocket. If they don't, the Faith in Humanity Bar is going to plummet.

Preventative Health Care?

I wonder how effective this will be.
For the burger regulations, I guess it really depends on how clear the FDA makes restaurants make the labels. Your average joe (myself included) hardly knows what constitutes a good or bad calorie count. I mean, if a Big Mac's 540, I guess that's bad, but I only know that because I already know Big Macs are not healthy.
Most people for whom calorie counts matter are people who probably aren't going to be eating these things anyway.
That is, of course, unless the regulations force you to put the % daily value stuff up there.

As for tanning, there's a big issue everybody's overlooking — yes, this will conceivably discourage people from tanning bed use. But that doesn't mean white people won't want to look tan — the bill does nothing to discourage spray tan use.
So we'll have less cancer, but we'll have more people running around in that distinctive Jersey Shore, TV reporter orange glow.
And I dunno about you, but that seems like a huge risk factor for the general mental welfare.

Today in the Lulz.

Really?

This seems like a staggeringly bad idea to me. The potential for awkwardness is barely fathomable.

Jury-Rigged Reform

For those of you who haven't figured it out, the Democratic Party's leadership sucks at this game.
I understand the temptation to sneak the college funding reform bill into the health care reconcilliation bill. The Republicans are good at keeping legislation locked down, and the opportunity to milk as big a policy gain out of this.
But when you're trying to corral moderate Democrats, and Democrats that are only in their position because the last election was so skewed, the last thing you want to do is tack on more legislation that plays right into the "Big Guv'mint" frame.
Besides -- even if they can pass the bill with this legislation included, it's only more ammunition for Republicans to use in 2010. The Republicans will use the argument -- indeed have already used the argument -- that the Dems crammed this down the nation's throat via reconcilliation. And, the more they pass by those means, the more potent that argument will be.

Really helping the stereotype

This is pretty disgusting.
Whatever your opinions on the morality of homosexuality, it's pretty hard to support this.
Also -- of course it's in Mississippi.

Tea Parties — not that big a deal.

Lee Harris tries to analyze the Tea Parties' impending historical significance.

"Today many intelligent observers grope to discover what the Tea Party is all about and where it belongs on the Richter Scale of historical events. Does it signal the approach of a catastrophic upheaval, like the 9.0 earthquake of 2004 which sent devastating tsunamis across the Indian Ocean? Or will the Tea Party movement register only as a light quake in the 4.0 to 4.9 range, entailing “noticeable shaking of indoor items, rattling noises,” with “significant damage unlikely”?"

I tend to think the latter. The Tea Party movement does not have any new ideas, and it has few — or no — practical policy suggestions. It is merely a rag-tag conglomeration of the most rabid of conservatives pitching a fit because the Democrats are in power.

Tea Partiers say they dislike the Republican Party as much as they dislike the Democratic Party. This is a load of hogwash. Sure, they don't agree with the GOP on everything, but it seems likely this movement will collapse once the Republicans seize power (whenever that is).

This is just an unconventional grass-roots campaign against the Democratic Party. If the movement makes it into the history books at all, it will be as an interesting example of how to protest.

This isn't a Chilean earthquake, although if it were the consequences would be no less tragic. It's more a tremor that makes people stop, look, shake their head, and move right on with business as usual.

This is News?

Why the hell is this news?
Who gives a damn if Republicans think Harry Reid is Scooby Doo? Why is he responding the accusations? Why is that news?
It isn't. Unless, of course, you're Fox News. How a "journalistic" organization that puts crap like this on their front page is so well-known is scary.

On the sexuality of politicians

This is either hilarious or pathetic. Or some combination of both.

The short version: a California state senator notorious for his activism against gay marriage has recently come out of the closet.

How does this happen? What kind of mind supresses its own sexuality in the quest for political power?

Well, I've got a theory. This theory explains why men in the highest echelons of power get caught so often in some kind of sexually damning scenario.

Some politicans aren't heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual. They're mysexual.

Meaning they love themselves above all else.

While I'm not old enough, experienced enough, or cynical enough to apply this theory to every politician, only the most idealistic (or idiotic) would deny that the overwhelming majority of politicians have horrendously inflated egos. Their life goal is power and attention, and in that pursuit they will sacrifice whatever it takes.

There are, of course, degrees. Not every politician is mysexual, because not every politician has let their ego seep that pervasively into their psyche.

But, for the worst of these fellows, sex is merely a physical impulse that has to be taken care of quickly so they can get back to big, important, attention-getting things.

Which explains why so many of them are caught and exposed, and explains why the circumstances in which their dalliances occured are so head-scratchingly hastily thrown together.

Sure, some of them are gay, some of them are straight. Sexuality is as much a physical trait as intelligence or strength. But their psyche is so overwhelmed by their ego that that it gets buried.

Headline of the Day

Republican Denies Back waxing.

Apparently Crist accused Rubio of getting his back waxed. In addition to being hilarious and bizzare, it's damaging. I think. Still haven't figured that one out yet.

If I were a Florida voter, I probably wouldn't have much of a forehead left from beating it on a wall after seeing this whole kerfluffle unfold in 3-D, full color, 24-hours-a-damn-day-o-vision. If they're talking this thing to death in the national media -- well, maybe not to death, but certainly somewhere in the emergency room -- I can only imagine what hell Floridans are in.

Marco Rubio for President? Meh.

A Real New Orleans show?

Apparently, HBO is going to be running another show set in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Initial reviews are good. I hear from friends who are big into the TV scene that it's going to be fantastic, and the write-ups say that it's spell-binding.

Much of the praise seems to be a result of the co-creators. The pair are responsible for a little-known show called The Wire.

I haven't seen it, and I know few who have. But those chosen few give reviews that border on the fanatic. They say The Wire is not just good television, it's high art and something that proves film can rise to the sublime.

I hope they're right. Because Treme has the potential to do justice to New Orleans and the whole sad Katrina saga.

It seems to me that a post-Katrina NOLA is the best setting a writer could hope for. The high drama and unique culture provide as compelling a basis as a writer could ask for.

But I have not yet seen (and granted, my expertise is slim) any form of art that does it justice.

The most laughable attempt I can think of is the ill-fated show K-ville. It had all the right ingredients; a cop in that setting seems like instant drama. But the show devolved into a generic cop drama, and the attempts at summing up New Orleans' fantastic culture degenerated into routine pots of gumbo and boiled crawfish.

Upon reflection, it seems that the spirit of New Orleans would be difficult to encapsulate. New Orleans' culture, like a Mardi Gras, is a spirited, intricate dance. To an outsider it appears like a gaudy, colorful party, but the complex emotional machinery that drive it are made up of infintessimally small, but vital cogs of experience. Thus any outsider that tries to capitalize on New Orleans uniqueness ends up only catalogueing stereotypes and cliches.

I certainly hope these folks get it right. By all indications, these aren't just a few guys who want to capitalize on a compelling story; instead, it appears they are two genuine lovers of New Orleans and the culture, and they intend to do that culture justice.

I hope they do. The real New Orleans, and the real tragedy the city experienced after that dreadful storm is a story and a setting too good to go unrecognized.

The League of Ordinary Nations

So I'm watching the West Wing.

(This is probably a good time to point out that A.) The West Wing is perhaps the best thing to ever appear on television ever and B.) It's one of the best sources for discussion outside of a classroom. Wait, who am I kidding; it's one of the best sources for discussion including the classroom.)

The episode I'm watching brings up an interesting moral/socio-political question. The U.S. intelligence community discovers that the Defense Minister of the (fictional) country of Kumar is responsible for the planning of a foiled terrorist attack on the Golden Gate Bridge. The minister, unaware that the U.S. knows of his activities, plans to come to visit the White House. President Bartlett decides that this is the oppourtunity to arrest him and bring him to justice.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the information tying the minister to the plot was elicited under torture. (The Russians did it in the episode, but it illustrates just one of the many ways that torture never ends well.) President Bartlett faces pressure from his advisers to order his assassination.

Keep in mind, assassination of such a figure is illegal based on international law. It's also of questionable morality.

But the man is responsible for a grevious action.


You're the President. What do you do?

I don't know what'd I do off the top of my head. There are many people who would say "This man is evil. He wants to kill us. We should kill him. Period."

But it's far more complicated. International laws exist for a reason. No state should be allowed to assassinate leaders of other sovereign states without trial - doing so compromises the sovereignty of the state and allows stronger nations to execute officials without legal justification.

And no, "We are the U.S., and we are right," doesn't cut it. American exeptionalism as a form of blanket moral high ground regardless of circumstance is a dangerous and meglomaniacal way to view the world.

This isn't to say that there's nothing exceptional about America. Far from it. In fact, if we are to believe that America and her allies are somehow above other nations that pursue tyranny and strong-arm tactics, it is precisely because we obey the rule of law and allow justice to be served rationally, fairly, and publicly.

As President Bartlett puts it in the episode, simply assassinating a dangerous target because we can't find legitimate evidence to convict him would put America in the "league of ordinary nations."

If America (or any other nation) is to be exceptional, it must abide by the rule of law.

Always. Even when it's hard, which means when it's infuriating and dangerous.

But perhaps there is a line when it becomes too difficult, or too dangerous. This is the argument the fictional President's military advisors and chief of staff make, and it's the argument made repeatedly by former real-life Vice President Cheney and other Bush Administration officials in response to tortue accusations.

I've often fought this assertion vehemently. Perhaps I'm just a starry-eyed college student who hasn't been exposed to the harsh realities of life, but it seems to me that compromising the very ideals we fight for makes the fight meaningless.

But then again, I'm not the one responsible for soldiers in harm's way. I'm not the husband of a wife killed by terrorists, and I'm not a general who's seen the brutal reality of a world that really wants to see us dead.

It's a tough question to answer. And I really wish more people who addressed it acknowledged the issue like it was.

Oh Snap it's Cold

It's cold outside. The ways I have reached this conclusion (besides the fact that I absent-mindedly stumbled out the door in shorts this morning) are many.

1.) When it gets this cold, if you spend more than a minute outside with even just one other person, someone will inevitably remark "Hey. It's cold outside." Depending upon the number and type of compatriots in your company, there will be variations. Yesterday I heard the following: "Hoo boy it's cold," "It's colder than a witches' tit," and the ever classic "FUCK IT'S COLD." If it's really cold out, you say it even if you're by yourself. Which, if you ever stop to think, is pretty freakin' wierd.

2.) Stuff freezes. Like, freezes solid. In Lousiana. Good hint right there.

3.) You see headlines on prestigious news organization Web sites like: "Freezing temperatures persist in the Deep South" and "How cold is it? Check out Key West"

Apparently it's getting cold everywhere. NPR tells me the entire Northern Hemisphere is experiencing uncharacteristically cold weather. It's getting so cold that it's affecting the worldwide economic markets. Also, orange juice will be more expensive.

As a person who loves cold weather (and who doesn't drink orange juice), I'm loving it. But given the extraordinary level of whining IRL, on Facebook, and, well, pretty much everywhere, I guess I'm in a pretty small minority.

Sports Fans are Nerds.

As I sit here watching the BCS National Football Championship*, I'm also watching social networks.

*Note: Nick Saban has proven he's the Prince of Darkness -- or at least commander of an Army of Darkness. He used his dark magics to strike down Colt McCoy, his opponent's star quarterback early in the first quarter. The game itself is pretty boring, and it looks pretty good for the SEC. But there are plenty of sports blogs, and I know very little about the subject. Still, go SEC.

As I keep my eye on Facebook and Twitter, it's becoming more and more obvious to me that hardcore sports fans are just nerds.

As I see it, there are two general archetypes of sports fans. There are those who played sports and there are those who didn't.

The first category is made up of former high-school/junior high/little league players who enjoyed playing the game. They got to enjoy playing the game because they were competing against average human beings. Average human beings, of course, are slow, weak and uncoordinated. Professional athlets are freakishly muscled behemoths that somehow manage to move with inhuman precision in a way and at a speed that several hundred pounds of flesh have no right to do.

So, once a young athlete realizes that they are not that rare combination of brute force and finesse that makes a great athlete, he finds something in "The Real World" to do for a living.

The draw of competitive sports, however (which, as a decidedly athletically challenged individual, I never picked up and sometimes have trouble fully comprehending) sticks with them. This becomes obvious as they move on to later life.

It's especially obvious in college, where many of these former athletes are fresh out of that life. The stereotypes are pretty consistent: former basketball players who spend the vast majority of their life in athletic shorts and some form of t-shirt; football players who maintain a strict workout regimen aimed at preserving their tacklin' muscles (thoughts on weightlifting later); soccer players who, upon seeing a field, cannot resist the urge to run around barefoot and bounce things around with their feet.

This is in no way a condemnation. I'm a band nerd 3 years out of the much-beloved bandstand, and if marching bands were as popular as football teams, I'd be in exactly the same situation. In fact, I pretty much do exactly what my sports fan friends do during the game during a halftime show.

But that's exactly my point.

The only thing that seperates a sports fan from any other breed of nerd is their sphere of expertise. Especially when you look at those who have reached middle age, the average sports fan is hardly a paragon of physical fitness. They know players like music or art afficianados know great artists. They learn plays and formations like video gamers learn attack combos or RTS* strategies. And they memorize as many or more stats as a tabletop roleplayer.

*RTS: Real Time Strategy. A type of video game involving resource collection and unit command. Noob.

Am I saying this is bad? OF COURSE NOT. I'm only trying to say that it's ironic when sports fans look down on those who follow other activities with similar zeal.