Your daily updates on disgraced Spokane Mayor Jim West, care of Big Brass Blogger JJ, are here (Crybaby Feels Persecuted! Waah!) and here (FBI to Launch Investigation). It just keeps getting better! Enjoy.
Propaganda Schmopaganda
Huh. Looks like the Agriculture Department, following in the footsteps of the Education Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, wanted to get in on the pay for play action that seems to be the only way to ensure favorable promotion of Bush’s miserable policies:
Documents released by the Agriculture Department show it paid a freelance writer $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) programs."Kind of an interesting tactic, asserting a sense of decency that prevents him from double-dipping, to keep his own ass out of the fire. Nevermind that his journalistic ethics were sold down the river for $9,375. Pfft.
Three articles by the writer, Dave Smith, appeared late last year in two magazines aimed at hunting and fishing enthusiasts: Outdoor Oklahoma, published by that state's Department of Wildlife Conservation, and Washington-Oregon Game & Fish, published by Primedia.
Neither identified Smith as having been paid by the government. The stories focused on how money from a 2002 agricultural subsidy bill had been used to help preserve wetlands that hunting and fishing enthusiasts enjoy in Oklahoma and the Northwest.
Smith, a biologist by profession who now works for the NRCS in Montana, said Tuesday that the magazines knew he'd been paid by the Agriculture Department. "I clearly spelled out to them," in writing, "that I'd been hired to do this," he said. He said the magazines did not pay him for the articles. "I knew I couldn't be paid by them" since he'd already been compensated, Smith said.
More on the Mule-Lovin' Horsley
The Green Knight, in addition to a lovely singing voice, has a great insight into the Dominionist mind that hinges on an excerpt from the now-infamous Alan Colmes-Neal Horsley interview that wasn’t part of the original partial transcript that circulated around the blogosphere:
A person who's depraved and has no absolutes -- nothing but their own sexual desires to guide them -- they'll do anything and you know it.The Green Knight’s analysis is excellent:
With that one sentence, the rest of Horsley's statements about his ribald past snap right into focus. The implication is that this depravity is in contrast to his position now, as a fundamentalist Christian and anti-abortion activist. Now, he's got absolutes. Then, he didn't have absolutes and was depraved…I highly encourage you to read the whole thing.
The modern right believes that if something is allowed, then everything is allowed, and that if everything is allowed to happen, then everything will happen. Change one thing, and society will fall apart like a house of cards. This is what the Spanish cardinal meant, for example, when he said that supporting gay marriage leads to the gas chambers.
The fact that societies have always changed over time -- that change is normal, and can be a healthy part of growing up -- does not register. The idea that most people, on the whole, might have something on the inside that regulates their behavior -- an actual internal conscience, or set of standards, or just inherent decency -- is not part of the right's worldview. They believe that human beings are inherently depraved, vile, and evil, and that only a strong set of unchanging, external rules will prevent everything from going to hell.
Two little thoughts of my own about that quote:
1) It does definitively prove that Horsley was, indeed, not joking about being a former bestialist, which is highly disturbing in its own rite.
2) It suggests, as the Green Knight indicates, that Horsley (and people like him) genuinely believe that everyone is a potential bestialist, or, I suspect, a drug abuser, philanderer, even murderer—that only with the carrot on a stick that is the promise of eternal salvation, and a fixed set of stringent rules to guide you toward that reward, can anyone manage to get through life without succumbing to the basest of human instincts. The notions of self-discipline, self-control, altruism, goodness and kindness as their own reward are nonexistent in the minds and hearts of the Dominionists. And, I fear, it is not simply the notions that are lacking, but the very concepts. They witness about their saved souls, but in the end, it seems to me they’re quite a soulless lot.
Good Riddance to Bad Reverend
The North Carolina preacher who allegedly excommunicated nine members of his church because they refused to vote for Bush has resigned.
Congregants of the 100-member church have said that Mr. Chandler endorsed Mr. Bush from the pulpit during last year's presidential campaign and said that anyone who planned to vote for the Democratic nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, needed to "repent or resign."At one time, most churches may have been deserving of tax exempt status, since they generally weren’t for-profit institutions and often bore the primary responsibility for serving the needy in the community, but times have changed. Now, we have churches that serve as political outposts and meeting centers for “Justice Sunday” broadcasts, and mega-churches that cost millions to build and operate, complete with gift shops.
The church members said that he continued to preach about politics after Mr. Bush won re-election, culminating in a church gathering last week in which the nine members said they were ousted.
[…]
Mr. Chandler's resignation, at a meeting open only to members of the congregation, came a day after a national group that lobbies for church-state separation urged the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the tax-exempt status of the church.
I’m just not sure a joint like that needs to be exempt from paying taxes.
31
Good morning, Shakers! Today is my birthday. I'm 31, and I'm going to be celebrating pretty much the same way I did at 16--I'm going to a show. Tonight, it's The Killers at the Riviera in Chicago. So nice of them to come just for my birthday!
Attending this soiree will be Mr. Shakes, Miller, Mickey Mouse, Paul the Spud, Mr. Curious, and the person who has celebrated every birthday with me since my 16th, Mr. Furious. Can't wait to see you guys!
Give me an amaretto on the rocks and a few most excellent pals, and I'm the happiest girl on earth.
(On a side note, we're in the middle of a horrendous thunderstorm, which usually means no internet, so if you don't hear from me much today, that's probably why.)
Phobocrats
In 1948, the Democratic Party found itself divided over the issue of racial integration. Democrats, primarily of a southern persuasion, who supported Jim Crow laws formed a short-lived splinter group known as the States’ Rights Democratic Party, the charming slogan of which was Segregation Forever! Its members were known as the Dixiecrats.
Today, the Democratic Party stands to become just as divided over the issue of gay rights, and perhaps more specifically, gay marriage. As our most recent presidential contender, John Kerry, runs away from the gay marriage issue like Bush from a drug test, more and more Lefties are openly questioning the wisdom of championing gay rights as part of the party platform, largely leaving the liberal debate over the issue with two equally unappealing options: continue the (already diffident) support of equal marriage rights in a similarly timid and almost embarrassed manner, or drop the Dems’ support from the platform altogether, leaving the entire national discourse on the matter between those fighting for their rights and the virulent antagonism of their most vocal opponents. The option that’s missing, that’s always missing, is the uncompromising support of the LGBT community in their struggle for full equality. That this seems to be outwith the fortitude of the Democratic Party is indicative of the increasingly fair charge that they are positioning themselves right into irrelevance.
Democrats who refuse to support equal rights for gays, including gay marriage rights, are the modern equivalent of the Dixiecrats, although a more appropriate portmanteau for these socially conservative Dems is Phobocrats, since their bigotry isn’t contained by region. (Unfortunately, homophobia is to be found everywhere.) The constant arguments over “gay marriage” versus “civil unions” betrays their comfort with the all-too-familiar notion of separate but equal. Many of these same people would readily concede that the realm of the sacred is not the province of government, yet they conveniently ignore the intrinsic conflict of a government-sponsored protection of the “sanctity” of marriage. Religious marriage ceremonies are sacred. Civil ceremonies are not (necessarily), yet they are still marriages in the eyes of the law. Such semantic tunnel vision also ignores the growing number of religious institutions who will perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples; I attended a mass same-sex wedding at a church in Chicago ten years ago. It’s nothing new; what is new is the debate about legally recognizing the union of the participants. Determinedly fixating on keeping the discussion focused on a debate about the sacred, rather then about equal rights, is becoming gradually more obvious as the thin excuse for supporting full equality that it is.
Only the Phobocrats continue to insist on the need to acknowledge and respect the sanctity of marriage, with little concern for the simple reality that changing the definition of marriage in no way undermines its sanctity. Only the Phobocrats continue to insist that the militant gays and their supporters clamor exclusively for marriage, when the reality is that the Dems’ refusal to enact legislation providing for civil unions long ago has forced the LGBT community into challenging the constitutionality of state marriage laws. What can be expected of people who have no champion for their rights in Washington, or in state government? The idea for civil unions has been there for the taking by any party who had the guts and the belief in full equality for decades. That the people who would benefit were continually and wholly ignored (and still would be, sans challenges to state marriage laws) is not the responsibility of a radical gay agenda, but the fault of every straight politician and voter who happily and contentedly took advantage of the rights and benefits afforded them by marriage while never giving a second thought to what was being denied their fellow gay Americans. It was the complacency of the Phobocrats that compelled the very challenges for marriage equality they now lament. And from whence did that complacency spring? I suppose one doesn’t fight for something in which one doesn’t believe.
To wit, a recent diary at dKos outlined the author’s opinions of “the impact of gay marriage” on three issues: voter turnout, the Dem coalition, and Democratic values. Although the entire thing was infuriating, and ignores that the framing (or lack thereof) of the Dems’ support was in large part to blame on the first two issues (no doubt because the party is riddled with Phobocrats who believe this is somehow a “special rights” as opposed to a civil rights issue), the third point really ticked me off big time.
Committed dems are looking for the values of the Democratic party. I see, over and over again, that "If we don't stand for something, we stand for nothing." I agree 100 %. However, the search for values is NOT a suicide pact. A value like "equality" can be achieved by many approaches. In particular, [civil unions are] equality, with a name change. Choosing and promoting a clear issue is important. However, we must also use sensible choices to decide WHERE to stand. [Civil unions are] just as principled as [gay marriage], and a clear statement that this is good would clarify matters nicely.Well, no. Full quality cannot be achieved by many approaches. There is only one approach to guarantee full equality and that is the guarantee of equal rights. Now, if, as has been done with some success in several European countries, we want to change the law so that all unions must first be civil (that is, a government issued recognition of the intent of the couple, much like civil marriages now), and religious ceremonies cannot replace this process, but instead would be performed in addition to the civil union, with each church marrying whom they please according to their own bylaws (as they do now), that would be fine (and preferable, as far as I’m concerned). But to give heterosexuals the opportunity to have their union legally recognized in a church ceremony, but not extend the same rights to homosexuals, is decidedly not equal. And not only that, it’s religious oppression, which I’m surprised doesn’t bother more liberals. We complain about the lack of liberal Christians, but when there’s a group who wants to celebrate diversity by offering gay marriage, the Phobocrats have little concern about the suppression of their religious freedom.
The many gay members of the Democratic party are to be commended for their great passion for this issue, which is naturally very important to them.Two more telltale traits of the Phobocrat—the assumption that only gays support gay marriage equality and the ridiculous belief that gays (and/or their supporters) care singularly for this issue, at the expense of every other progressive issue. (Note that the author also made absolutely no reference to abortion rights, access to birth control, or any other women’s issue, which is another Phobocrat characteristic—a disdain for gender politics of any kind as secondary.) I wonder if this author has ever bothered to read a gay-authored blog. I can think of not a single one that solely advocates gay marriage (or civil unions) as the single most important issue facing the country. Nor can I think of a single one that would not be willing to compromise on civil unions as a starting point, but instead, as the author states, demands gay marriage or nothing. As I said earlier, were civil unions being nationally championed by the Democratic Party, gays and lesbians wouldn’t be forced into marriage challenges on the state level.
As a democrat, I am NOT willing to give up public schools, Social Security, progressive taxation, environmental progress, science and all other democratic values for this one issue. I put it that way SPECIFICALLY because this is the request: We go the way of [gay marriage]. This is not just a request, this is a demand by many of the strong supporters. If we do that, we lose election after election.
The biggest mistake the Dems made during the last election cycle was allowing gay rights to be framed by the Right, who turned it into the antithesis of a moral value. There’s nothing more moral nor more resolutely American than the struggle for and a belief in equal rights. That liberals are manifestly unable to inextricably link the oppression of gays with an immoral and anti-American attitude is, I’m afraid, less the result of a biased media, a reluctant electorate, or the Dominionists’ moral rectitude than liberals’ own collective failing to be effective supporters of their gay friends. And I fear the reason is because there are many among our ranks who simply aren’t willing to address their own latent (or not so latent) homophobia. They fear the rest of America will never change their minds, that we will always lose, because of what they find within themselves.
These are the Phobocrats, and they have not learned the lessons of the past. They see equal rights for gays as part of the future, but refuse to acknowledge their own complicity in keeping us from ever reaching that day.
Scary, Infuriating, Obnoxious: The Usual
Jack at CommonSenseDesk posts on one scary little problem on our eastern seaboard:
After reading this one, I think we should definitely continue to use Homeland Security's formula for the distribution of anti-terror resources.No kidding. And as much as I hate when stuff like that’s in the paper, if that’s the only way to get it some much-needed attention, then it’s got to be done.
It is the deadliest target in a swath of industrial northern New Jersey that terrorism experts call the most dangerous two miles in America: a chemical plant that processes chlorine gas, so close to Manhattan that the Empire State Building seems to rise up behind its storage tanks.
According to federal Environmental Protection Agency records, the plant poses a potentially lethal threat to 12 million people who live within a 14-mile radius.
Yet on a recent Friday afternoon, it remained loosely guarded and accessible. Dozens of trucks and cars drove by within 100 feet of the tanks. A reporter and photographer drove back and forth for five minutes, snapping photos with a camera the size of a large sidearm, then left without being approached.
That chemical plant is just one of dozens of vulnerable sites between Newark Liberty International Airport and Port Elizabeth, which extends two miles to the east. A Congressional study in 2000 by a former Coast Guard commander deemed it the nation's most enticing environment for terrorists, providing a convenient way to cripple the economy by disrupting major portions of the country's rail lines, oil storage tanks and refineries, pipelines, air traffic, communications networks and highway system.
Unbelievable, you can't make this stuff up!
What’s unbearably annoying is that on the same day I’m reading about such a huge security gap, questions about which directed to the administration would no doubt be met with excuses about funding, I’m also reading, via Crooks and Liars, about the $1 million which has been given by Congress over the past two years to Alaska Christian College, which doesn’t grant degrees but certificates in biblical studies. C&L wants to know, “How much extra armor could we have bought for our troops with that extra million bucks?” Fair question. I want to know how much additional security that extra cool mil might have bought to close the aforementioned vulnerability in New Jersey that potentially threatens 12 million people.
That’s 11,999,963 more than the 37 students who attend Alaska Christian College, by the way.
Slap down the Real ID
Deep Thought, aka 42, has a post and link that will help you contact your Sentator and tell him or her to vote against the Real ID. Pick up on it.
(el Cross-posto)
Kiss It, Kerry
All right. I’ve just about fucking had it with John Kerry:
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry roamed the stage in Baton Rouge, Louisiana's state capitol, raging about the failures of Washington…(Hat tip Avedon, posting at Eschaton.)
In his attacks upon Washington, Mr. Kerry is adopting a puzzling strategy that could work for a governor but not for someone who is an entrenched member of the Washington elite. In Louisiana, the senator also repeated his disagreeable habit of pandering, telling his red state audience that Massachusetts Democrats should not install a plank endorsing gay marriage in the party's platform because it would be divisive. State Democrats should ignore that advice, and Mr. Kerry would have been wiser to point out that gay marriage has proved to be anything but divisive in Massachusetts.
One of the things that always struck me about John Kerry was that he is extremely, almost scarily, competitive, which, considering the rough and critically important race he was facing in ’04, I regarded as a good thing. The downside of such a borderline unhealthy competitiveness, however, is a thorough inability to lose gracefully and the tendency to blame. It was suggested to Kerry during the campaign by the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who still enjoys enviable approval ratings to this day, that supporting equal rights for gays—even civil unions—was a bad idea, that it might even cost him the election. To his credit, and much to my (and many others’) pleasant surprise, he rejected the notion, because he knew that equal rights are an integral and uncompromisable part of this country’s foundation.
But in the long view, I think Kerry needs someone to blame, and the seed that Clinton planted, combined with the ridiculous crowing about mandates given the president by the Dominionists, who voted on “moral values,” has grown into something quite ugly within our former candidate, its wretched blooms on display for all his former supporters to gaze upon with horror, each time he lashes out against a community we once admired him for supporting.
Those who suggest his position has not changed are mistaken; it has changed quite significantly. During the campaign, he supported civil unions at minimum and argued it should be left up to each state. Now he turns his back on Massachusetts’ support of gay marriage, ignoring the opportunity to use the success there to foster a greater understanding among those who turn up to hear him speak in other states.
If Kerry needs someone to blame other than himself, he should have taken the money he raised on behalf of the possibility of recounts to meticulously investigate the hundreds of accusations of voter fraud and intimidation associated with the ’04 election, instead of holding onto it with the notion of an ’08 run—a notion, I might add, that becomes ever more a preposterous pipe dream with each utterance about the divisiveness of gay marriage.
Fly Me To The Moon
The Butt-A-Thon is going on over at The Smart Patrol. Whoo! Head on over and give me your feedback on which picture I should use for the pamphlet discussed here.
Thanks to the scrumdillyumptious Shakespeare's Sister for taking it upon herself to make the images. And she's not obsessed with butts. No, not at all.
UPDATE: Links fixed. Whoops.
Harry Reid: The Man with a Plan
The Gadflyer’s Joshua Holland has mixed feelings about Harry Reid, to which I can relate. And Josh and I are usually on the same page—we’re loving him or cringing at him at the same times. So it’s no surprise that he sums up my feelings quite aptly on Reid’s latest maneuver:
I've mentioned before that Harry Reid sometimes pisses me off and at other times I think he's a genius.I agree. Choosing the loathsome Griffin as the centerpiece of an up or down vote and demanding the platform to debate his, ahem, interesting credentials is a stroke of sheer brilliance. Well done, Harry.
Just now, Reid offered to "step back from the precipice." He magnanimously offered unanimous consent to move forward to an up or down vote on one of Bush's controversial nominees.
He just wants ten hours of debate, that's all.
The nominee: Thomas Griffin. You know, the one who's been practicing law without a license for the past four years. Let's debate his suitability for ten hours while the nation's attention is on the issue.
And if the Repubs see the play and don't take it, then who's being the obstructionist?
Genius.
Quickies
Slack LaLane brings us this little tidbit from the world of sports:
Bloggers everywhere rejoiced when Michael Vick spread the world's greatest gift to a pissed off woman he met on vacation. After all, Vick not only gave this poor girl herpes, but he did it after lying to her that his name was Ron Mexico.Ron Mexico? That’s the lamest alias ever. And what makes me suspect that Vick decided he wanted to pattern his pick-up-chicks-and-get-tested-for-STDs name after the totally cool name Tony Montana? First name, place name. I imagine the inner monologue going something like this:
Gary…Indiana. Jackson…Mississippi. Orlando…Florida. Uhh…Ron Mexico!
I can tell you with an unassailable certainty that if a guy sauntered up to me and introduced himself as Ron Mexico, I would laugh in his face.
John Howard brings us some more disturbing imagery of the Right at Upon Further Review…
I was listening to Sean Hannity on the way home from work [Friday] (I do that sometimes just to amuse myself) and he had Ann Coulter on to explain her "ordeal" in Texas last week. How he pried his lips off the cock of the runaway bride "story" I'll never know. But anyway, Coulter was on her cell phone so Hannity suggested she come back on Monday to tell her story. Coulter said she wasn't sure if she could make it, but that they would talk about it on IM that night. I'm not sure why this bothered me so much, but there really isn't much that could disturb me more than a latenight chat session with Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.That really is unsettling. The thought of Sean Hannity furiously typing with one hand while Ann Coulter caresses her Adam’s apple with a vibrator is too much for me to bear, honestly.
BlondeSense’s Pissed Off Patricia offers a rapture what if…?
Wouldn’t it be funny if the Rapture came and no one was taken? Or better yet, what if the rapture came and only us sweet sinners got to take the magic carpet ride? Can you imagine? All these fake ministers standing there with their mouths agape as they watch ones, such as you and me, floating off to that big toga party in the sky. All the sanctimonious assholes who have beat their kids, tried to block abortions, fought against gay marriages and all the other insanity they have spouted, just standing there and realizing they fucked up. Imagine the look on their faces when they might have to accept the fact that Jesus isn’t crazy about bad people, especially the ones who use his name to justify everything they do. They might find out that the Jesus who comes to earth is the Jesus the New Testament says he is, not the Jesus they wish he was. The headlines that day might read, “You get raptured by the Jesus you have, not the Jesus you wish you had”.Heh. The scary thing is contemplating the truth behind the sentiment “the Jesus they wish he was.” Who wants their savior to be a hateful jerk? Oh yeah—other hateful jerks. Right.
JJ reports at Big Brass Blog that professional closet case and mayor of Spokane, Jim West, has announced a leave of absence. Yeah, Jimbo—I don’t think being relegated to the political equivalent of Siberia by your party is technically a “leave of absence.” Something tells me we won’t be seeing ya around, bub.
And Me4President muses:
I also heard O'Reilly on satellite radio say that he has been in combat and talk about how he handles prisoners and life and death. Who is more fucked up, him or his listeners?That’s a tough one. Thoughts?
Firefox Users Take Note
A critical flaw has been found in Firefox:
Firefox has unpatched "extremely critical" security holes and exploit code is already circulating on the Net, security researchers have warned.There’s more. Check out the article linked above.
The two unpatched flaws in the Mozilla browser could allow an attacker to take control of your system.
A patch is expected shortly, but in the meantime users can protect themselves by switching off JavaScript. In addition, the Mozilla Foundation has now made the flaws effectively impossible to exploit by changes to the server-side download mechanism on the update.mozilla.org and addons.mozilla.org sites, according to security experts.
More Evidence that the Rightwing is Full of Deviants
(...like we needed any.)
From the You’ve Got to be Shitting Me Files, cross-referenced with the Oh Lawd, I Just Turned My Office into a Vomitorium Files:
Last night, anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however, Colmes asked Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex.All I can really say about this is that it has to be one of the most creative and reality-dissociated invocations of the “everyone does it” rationale that I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. But then again, if a massive coke habit can be summarily dismissed by the whole mainstream media and the entirety of the American voting populace with a throwaway line like when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible, then who am I to question the defense of bestiality with a doozy like you experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. Frankly, when I was a kid, I never did coke or fucked an animal, but if everyone else does it, well…it certainly explains why so many people like the speed-addled cowboy we just voted in for a second term.
At first, Horsley laughed and said, "Just because it's printed in the media, people jump to believe it."
"Is it true?" Colmes asked.
"Hey, Alan, if you want to accuse me of having sex when I was a fool, I did everything that crossed my mind that looked like I..."
AC: "You had sex with animals?"
NH: "Absolutely. I was a fool. When you grow up on a farm in Georgia, your first girlfriend is a mule."
AC: "I'm not so sure that that is so."
NH: "You didn't grow up on a farm in Georgia, did you?"
AC: "Are you suggesting that everybody who grows up on a farm in Georgia has a mule as a girlfriend?"
NH: It has historically been the case. You people are so far removed from the reality... Welcome to domestic life on the farm..."
Colmes said he thought there were a lot of people in the audience who grew up on farms, are living on farms now, raising kids on farms and "and I don't think they are dating Elsie right now. You know what I'm saying?"
Horsley said, "You experiment with anything that moves when you are growing up sexually. You're naive. You know better than that... If it's warm and it's damp and it vibrates you might in fact have sex with it."
And poor Alan Colmes—he also recently had to deal with Randall Terry’s intimations that they had created the two-backed beast together:
In addition to Horsley, Colmes has recently interviewed Randall Terry another radical anti-abortionist and anti-gay activist. In the middle of an otherwise serious interview, Terry began joking - apropos of nothing - that he and Colmes were ex-lovers.Eugh. And not only that, but poor old Alan also found himself in the position of asking rotting cryptkeeper Fred Phelps whether he’d ever engaged in anal:
Another extremist interviewed by Colmes not too long ago was Rev. Fred Phelps who stated on the show that he thought the death penalty should be given for those who engage in "sodomy." When Colmes asked Phelps if he had ever engaged in gay sex, Phelps blustered but never said no.Guh-ross. Just the thought of Phelps’ a-hole is enough to make me gouge out my eyes with a blunt butterknife. What is it with these sex-obsessed conservatives and their disgusting little closeted secrets? Alan must need a hot shower after every damn interview.
Actually, upon consideration, I think I’ll just consider all this revolting nonsense a just punishment for the meek and impotent Colmes, who lets Sean Hannity get away with everything short of murder on their ridiculous show every night.
(Hat tip to erinberry for this one.)
Yeesh
If you were the New York Times and you felt a pressing need to improve your readers’ confidence in your reporting, would you:
A. Demand more rigorous fact-checking?
B. Do a thorough investigation into whether your paper was unquestioningly and uncritically reporting administration claims, often without context or dissenting rebuttal?
C. Increase coverage of middle America and religion?
I don’t suppose I really need to tell you which one the Times actually chose, but let’s all have a look just for shits and giggles, shall we?
An internal committee at The New York Times has recommended several steps to help increase readers' confidence in the newspaper, including making reporters and editors more accessible through e-mail, reducing errors, and increasing coverage of middle America and religion.Wow. Way to go, Times. The race for the bottom continues.
[…]
[Executive editor Bill Keller] endorsed the recommendations in Monday's editions, calling the report "a sound blueprint for the next stage of our campaign to secure our accuracy, fairness and accountability."
(As a side note, who in the hell is getting paid to make a formal report including such a brave and thought-provoking recommendation as reduce errors? I want that job. Pfft.)
The Art of Connecting
Q: What do John Kerry and Jerry Seinfeld have in common?
A: Nothing, and maybe that's why Bush won.
So awhile ago, John Rogers of Kung Fu Monkey and I had a brief conversation about framing, and John posed an idea about how candidates need to be more like stand-up comedians. (Trust me on this one; it’s smarter than it sounds.) Well, John ran with it, and the result is his recent post, Learn to say ain’t…
[T]he art of politics is convincing people to connect with you. … [L]et's say the candidate's job is to walk into a room of complete strangers and get them to like him. Connect with him. Wow, the few rare politicians who can do that, they're worth their weight in gold.John’s piece is really great—I really encourage you to read the whole thing. And when you’re done, he’s got some follow-up to some popular responses he got to it here.
I did that for twelve years. So did hundreds of other people you've never heard of. We're stand-ups, and that's the ENTRY-LEVEL for the job.
A good stand-up can walk into a room, a bar with no stage and a shit mic, in the deep goddam South or Montana or Portland or Austin or Boston, and not only tell jokes with differing political opinions than the crowd, can get them to laugh. With all due respect to our brother performers in theater, etc., we can walk into a room of any size from 20 to 2000 complete strangers with no shared background and not just evoke emotion ... we can evoke a specific strong emotion every 15 seconds. For an HOUR. A good stand-up can make fun of your relationship with your wife, make fun of your job, make fun of your politics, all in front of a thousand strangers, and afterward that same person will go up and invite the stand-up to a barbecue.
In short — every club audience is a swing state.
I’d really like to know what the wise and cool and interesting people who frequent these shores think of his idea. I dig it. What do you think?
Monday Blogwhorin'
Your chance to promote your blog, other blogs, and various things of interest. What's going on?
