Triple Take

From a UO Journalism professor. From the comfy confines of lifetime employment, a nice office, and (one imagines) a decent home with heat and everything. (Oh, but he's liberal! Who protested in the '60s!)

But in just a few weeks, what a disappointment the Occupy movement has become — especially in Oakland.

Endless camping for fragmented goals seems at best uncomfortably vague. And, especially in recession-wracked Oakland, attempting to close the port, disrupting struggling businesses and tangling with exhausted police (not to excuse overreaction by some police) do nothing to help the 99 percent that the supposedly leaderless Occupy movement claims to speak for.

Which brings me back to Minsk. I was working in Belarus 17 years ago when a rigged election brought President Alexandr Lukashenko to power.

Local journalists told me it was dangerous for them to speak about politics, and that they expected life in Belarus to deteriorate.

It did. Today, the country continues to be a relic of its Soviet past, with Lukashenko acting as a dictator while the economy collapses.

Occupy-like protests are unheard of there. Participating in an unauthorized demonstration against government policies is a crime; police break up those few that occur, arresting participants and hauling them off to what can be long prison terms.

Hey, Dr. Laufer, fuck you.

It's a little known fact that newspapermen have been competing for centuries to see who can publish an editorial of such vacuity that the reader is left with the exact same amount of knowledge about a subject that he had when he began reading. (I will use the male pronoun throughout this article, as is the tradition in the newspaper business; women being a source of revenue, but suspect).

Of course, there are rules and traditions, controversies and feuds. All great endeavors are thus. As a college student, Thomas Jefferson once killed a man before he could publish an essay on the rhythmic nature of tides in the Williamsburg Gazette. This act established Jefferson as a "go-getter" and set him up for a life in politics.

The trick in the endeavor is not leave the reader dumber than when he began - a Goldberg as it is known today - nor to give him even one interesting tidbit to which he could say to himself "I did not know that." It is harder than it may seem, as the average reader is a font of a lack of knowledge. As easy as it may be to impress a college teacher thusly, your man on the street is much harder to not educate.

As long as the competition has gone on, day after day, editorial after editorial it is semi-surprising that the achievement has been obtained by Jack Wilson of the Register Guard, a paper printed in the bucolic burg of Eugene. While he didn't write the editorial, he had the foresight to have it published, which wins him the prize, much like a producer taking home an academy award for Best Picture. The actual author is Douglas Vaughan of the Lutheran board for higher education and ministries.

The article in question is, of course, too boring to read in it entirety. As you would expect, it makes outlandish claims and does not even begin to back them up. It posits nostrums without explanations. It hints at allegations. It ends with a sentence that does not make sense. It has nothing, which means it has it all.

The topic is accountability in the schools, or, to be precise, the lack there of.

Accountability is truly the No. 1 crisis facing public education today.

How do we know this? Well, it seems that the United States' children so not do well on test scores compared with their international cohort. It is clear that what is needed is accountability. You need further examples?

The Civic Stadium debacle is a prime example of the continuing mismanagement of public resources. Another is this year’s University of Oregon’s salary increases, in defiance of common sense.

It is a clear fact that the mismanagement of pubic resources in the form of unused stadia and raises to university educators have depressed the nation's school children preventing them from excelling in standardized testing. The inability of so-called responsible adults to sell property in a timely manner and deny educators raises is our number one problem.

Still another stumbling block for accountability is the political shell game so skillfully managed under so-called grass-root organizations such as Stand for Children and Strong for Schools. Such organizations serve merely as window dressing for collective bargaining.

Not is not possible to actually derive a point from that sentence, but it seems ominous. The reader is left to infer his own inference, which is a nifty trick, as it provides the reader with the experience of feeling like he is thinking, without actually informing him of anything. At best a reader could say to himself, "I bet I know what I think he means by that."

Of course any editorial must, by definition, offer some sort of solution to the problem it has raised, in this case accountability.

Oregon must embrace major changes, too numerous to detail here. However, some future changes need to include full support for many more charter schools, creative incentives for home-schooling and additional opportunities for parochial schooling.

The greatest change must come in our public system from top to bottom. We need term limits for school board members and state representatives, regardless of party. New laws are needed to end the cozy monopoly enjoyed by members of the school board, collective bargaining teams and politicians at the direct expense of public education.

Nothing can remain off the table — including the unsustainable mounting cost of PERS, as well as the over-the-top cost of Cadillac health insurance benefits and compensation. All these will have to be changed.

Charter schools, home-schooling, parochial schools, new laws, cutting retirement and health benefits for teachers. There are your ideas for ending the crisis of accountability.

Lastly,

Accountability begins with everyone when the realities of public education are seen for what they truly are — an abysmal failure of oversight.

There, aren't you exactly the same as you were before you read that? Congratulations Jack Wilson, of the Register Guard, you go-getter you.

There are not two Americas

Just so we're clear here...

If you're a US auto worker, it is pretty much your fault that your employer has decided to build large, crappy cars no one wants to buy. It is also your fault that your employer decided in the 1950s to oppose government-run health care in favor of employment-based health care, driving up their costs. It is also your fault that your employer engaged in decades of profit taking and dividend paying instead of reinvestment in the company. These things are your fault because you are in a union that has managed to negotiate you a wage that supports a middle-class lifestyle. This wage will be hype-inflated by including all projected future retirement benefits so that this country's right-wing media can say you earn $70 an hour. In order for your industry to get a government bailout, you have to agree to a pay cut and a reduction in future benefits. You are a greedy, grabbing, no-future-seeing asshole who could easily be replaced by any other Joe Lunchpail in America.

On the other hand, if you are an executive at the American Insurance Group, then you are a hard working slob who just happened to walk into a very fucked up situation. You are doing your best to bailout an company that was totally messed up when you got there, and now some government bureaucrat is talking smack about you receiving a bonus for not quitting, even though you are going to be allowed to actually keep all of it. While others only have to fear for their jobs, you have to fear for your life. For fuck's sake, some crazy union people plan on driving on public roads past your house! Union people!! Despite the fact that you earn well more than a middle-class wage, no one in this nation's media will actually mention what that wage is, let alone translate it into an hourly wage. You are a brave, brave person who can't begin to understand why this is happening to you. You are providing this nation a valuable service doing your best to oversee the spending of $85 billion dollars, a job that, if anyone else on this planet could do it, no one would want to. Not without some sort of million dollar bonus, anyway.

The man has three houses to pay for

I was writing a post last night wherein I discussed wingnut attempts to pin the AIG debacle on Obama, even though their boy Bush was the one who gave AIG the $85 billion. Some very, very fine weed and a shiny box with moving pictures distracted me. One thing I commented on was the undercurrent of argument that the people who were getting the bonuses were just poor, hard-working slobs who had nothing to do with the crisis, and Obama was terrorizing them and making them fear for their jobs. It was the bit I didn't think anyone would buy, as I have often been accused of "reading too much into things." In my own, completely unnecessary, defense, I give you the Washington Post.

I understand Obama's railing against the bonuses -- but I think he may be making a mistake, both short-term and long-term.
...
Well, because in the short run, hammering the AIG employees to give back their bonuses risks costing the government more than honoring the contracts would. The worst malefactors at AIG are gone. The new top management isn't taking bonuses. Those in the bonus pool are making sums that for most of us would be astronomical but that are significantly less than what they used to make. Driving away the very people who understand how to fix this complicated mess may make everyone else feel better, but it isn't particularly cost-effective.

Yes, it really would be a tragedy if these hard-working Joes, the backbone of American industry, were driven away while their industry was collapsing and thousands of qualified people, who have not been part of destroying a financial giant, were looking for work.

Jesus Christ driving a turnip truck.

It gets worse, though. While Joe Sweat-Argyle needs his promised bonus, Joe Lunchbox at UAW can go take a leap. Yes, he has been forced to renegotiate a contract, but that's a future contract you see, so it's cool. He's already been paid for what he has done, if he doesn't like the new contract, he doesn't have to show up to work. It's just that simple.

There you have it, the nation's liberal media at work.

h/t: LGM

Bob Schieffer is crap

I was reminded why I don't watch the Sunday shows when I caught the lest few minutes of Face the Nation wherein Bob Schieffer called for both Democrats and Republicans to put aside partisan political games. I am tempted to imply that Schieffer is suffering from some age-related mental deficiency, but that would be wrong. His mental deficiencies probably have nothing to do with his age. He suffers from the affliction so many of our mediacrats suffer from, the stupid, stupid, stupid belief that being "neutral" equals being "fair" and this means that we call on both parties to put aside the petty games, even is only one party is currently participating in petty childishness.

In the entire stimulus debate, has any Republican said anything that even remotely sounds like they have the slightest interest in what might be good for the economy or the country? I mean if any of these fuckers actually believes that the solution to this crisis is reduced spending and more tax cuts, then Bob Schieffer et al in our so-called free press need to have the cajones to call these people out on it. They've had their time, it proved an abject failure.

The original stimulus bill was probably too small to do what is necessary. It was larded up with a bunch of tax breaks for the Chamber. For fuck sake, in a time when the vast majority of economists and financial people are saying that we need massive government spending in order to avoid another great depression, we are going to make sure that the government does not collect $350 billion dollars that it would collect after eight years of a tax-cutting orgy. We are cutting motherfucking taxes. I struggle to comprehend it.

Then we get the Republicans demanding more tax cuts or they won't vote for the bill. They get their motherfucking tax cuts. They refuse to vote for the bill. They lie about programs. They exaggerate. They make breath-taking leaps of logic (like ACORN is getting $10 billion in aid because there is $10 billion for community programs and ACORN is a community program) that should get them banned from ever being quoted again in anything other than a monologue. They get Dems to slash very necessary spending and dd more very harmful tax cuts and then still don't vote for the bill. These people are playing political games and do not care about the county. This is apparent to anyone paying the least bit of attention.

Unfortunately, those we pay to pay attention for us are more concerned about being "neutral" than they are about telling the nation what is happening. This is why I don't watch this shit.

The Red Guard

We in Eugene like to argue about whether or not the Register Guard, our locally-owned newspaper leans liberal -- The Red Guard, or conservative -- The Register Greed. It's one of those things that keeps this town lively and provincial.

To tell the God's honest, the Guard is pretty liberal in the opinion section. Only their complete and total anti-union stance keeps the argument alive. Every now and again, however, the newspage throws something out there that is so biased for Republicans, I am forced to go with the Greed crowd (greed is good, no?).

Today's front page had a blurb about Palin being cleared in the ethics probe in Alaska. Now, you and I know that the Personnel Board investigation was a sham put on by Sarah's own people to clear her of wrong doing, but the blurb gives no hint of that. The article itself is amazing. Check out the original article from the AP, then read the RG's "edited" version.

Palin cleared in ethics probe

ANCHORAGE, Alaska –

Gov. Sarah Palin violated no ethics laws when she fired her public saftey commissioner, the state personnel board concluded in a report.

"There is no probable cause to believe that the governor, or any other state official, violated the Alaska Executive Ethics Act in connection with these matters," the personnel board's report said.

"Gov. Palin is pleased that the independent investigator for the personnel board has concluded that she acted properly in the reassignment of Public Saftey Commissioner Walt Monegan," her attorney, Thomas Van Flein, said in a statement.

An earlier, separate investigation by the Legislature found that Palin had abused her office.

Monegan said he felt pressure from Palin, her husband and her staff to fire a state trooper who had gone through a contentious divorce from Palin's sister. Palin denied the claim and said Monegan was fired in July because she wanted the department to head in a new direction.

Monegan said he was "perplexed and disappointed" by the latest report. It was prepared by Timothy Petumenos, an independent investigator for the Alaska Personnel Board.

"It conflicts with the first investigation and then casts doubts on both of them. So, it doesn't really resolve anything," he said.

Red Guard, indeed.

PrisonShip Self-Cleaning Survey Module: Name Yr Subs!

Let's talk periodicals!

Name 5 such publications that yr household subscribes too.

I'll start:
1) The American Prospect
2) The New Left Review
3) Baseball Digest (!)
4) Anthropology of Work Review (snore!)
5) Artforum

(I wish I could mention Backstreets, the official fan publication of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band; however, I let that sub elapse when Bruce put out that fucking Pete Seeger alb. I mean, who the fuck cares, am I right? And didn't Pete Seeger name names in the Party when the heat came down? That's how Tom Scharpling tells it.)

William the Bloody Stupid

Others are rightly mocking Bill Kristol for advising the McCain camp to "fire the campaign" in his column today. Many people in the comments of the article are pointing out to Bill that just last week he was encouraging the campaign to go on the attack, whereas he now decries the bitterness of the campaign.

Two other things caught my attention. One, he advises the campaign to stop running ads and use the money to buy half-hour "televised town halls and half-hour addresses in prime time." The second thing that bugged me was his suggestion that McCain invite Obama and Biden to join him and Palin for a few of these town halls "on the ground that more joint appearances might restore civility and substance to the contest."

This kind of drivel must drive serious (and I use this word purposefully) campaign managers crazy. For some unknown reason, Kristol has big influence among an important set of Republicans, so there's a danger that influential people will take him seriously. For reasons even more unknown, Kristol writes for the NYT, which is still considered an important paper. In other words, people might read the ideas that Kristol is spitting up and think that they have merit. They do not.

McCain is using public financing because he believes in the power of the government. He gets $84 million for the campaign. How much does Kristol think it might cost to buy a half-hour of prime time on a major television network? I estimate that your average network show earns around $2 million per half-hour. Does he think they'd show it for free? Does he think a network would jump at the chance to run a serious of free television commercials for John McCain? Does he think people want to watch a half-hour "town hall" with John and Sarah? Not after the first one, where people realized that all were going to get is softball questions from partisans.

Then, there's the idea that Obama and Biden would entertain the notion of elevating the campaign by appearing with John and Sarah. Apparently, Bill lives in a universe where candidates who are going to walk home to victories by large margins suddenly decide that their opponents need some help and it is their duty, for civility purposes, to help them out. Especially when it is their opponents who have lowered the civility quotient by comparing them to terrorists and smiling when people scream "kill him."

In the end, another fine column by the Right's leading thinker.

Oh Jonah, How Can You Be So Wrong Being So Right?

I agree whole-heartedly with Jonah Goldberg.

The real hints for how to choose a candidate, at least in a general election (as opposed to a primary), reside in the realm of judgment, philosophy, track record and temperament. And, using those criteria, the choice shouldn’t be hard at all.

Only one candidate had the judgment to know that invading Iraq would be a terrible mistake. The other candidate predicted it would be over quickly and we'd be greeted as liberators with candy and flowers.

Only one candidate believes that government can be a force for good, protecting people from the worst excess of our capitalist system. The other candidate believes that government is always bad and the free market can solve all problems (the "how" is left unstated).

Only one candidate has a track record he is willing to stand by when he runs for office. The other candidate has come back into the fold when power is on the line.

Only one candidate is cool, calm, and collected. The other candidate is a cranky old man who looks in need of a good nap much of the time.

See, the choice shouldn't be too hard at all.

I'll Nationalize Your Banks, Mister

On my way home from work, I was listening to the NPR. I know, I know, it's Friday and I should have been rocking out to Loverboy, but I had been working all day and hadn't caught up on the news. Thought maybe I might hear some news on that Palin and the Troopergate.

Instead, I got a story on Paulson from the G8 Conference. Apparently, the US government will be handing large sums of money to banks so they can give it to other people. In exchange, we get an undefined "equity stake" in those banks. Fortunately, all signs are that the government will remain pretty hands off when it comes to control of that money. Whew! Almost had some European-style socialism there.

Fortunately, host Robert Siegel wasn't going to let this situation go with out some harding hitting questions to the reporter bring us the right-wing talking points story. Like, "why give money directly to the banks, instead of to people to pay off their mortgages to these banks?" Question is legit, the complete lack of follow up is not. The reporter let us know that giving to the banks was a much more efficient way to get liquidity in the market. You see, banks can lend out $10 for every dollar they get from the government.

Now, if you're me, it might strike you that banks giving out ten times the loans than they had capital to cover is what got us in this mess in the first place. I know it's way more complicated than that, but boiled way down (until it tastes like mud), the problem we are having is that banks and other financial institutions lent money to people who couldn't pay it back. Enough of those people don't pay back, say 11%, and you can't cover your obligations.

Siegel does not follow up along these lines. Instead, he asks "How close is this to nationalization?" And I'm like "How close is this to nationalization?" It's the fucking opposite of nationalization. This is not the state seizing control of private corporations in the interests of the people. This is the state giving itself to private corporations in the interest of the corporations.

Then Siegel suggests that we haven't seen anything like this since Jackson. Oh yes. This is exactly like the US Bank. The government being responsible for the direction of capital growth in this country through control of the vast portion of capital in the country, and the government tuning over large chunks of the people's capital to privately held banks. Practically the same thing.

Sweet jeebus. This is about as far way from Sweden as you can get. All those earning more than $250,000 can calm the fuck down. We're not seizing your wealth. We're giving you ours.

It's at moments like this that I regret being in the liberal elite.

Let's Make Money, But Not Too Much Money, Ted

David Brooks' latest column contains some interesting points. "Interesting," of course, being academese for "batshit." The Bellman cover Bobo's call for a strong "public" hand to guide the markets while decrying "heavy-handed government regulation."

I'd like to focus on Brooks' complete misunderstanding of free market capitalism. He seems to be under the impression that the goal of capitalists is not to make the most money possible in the least amount of time. Instead, the default position of your average capitalist is set at restraint and self-discipline. Unfortunately, this crazy 21st-century, flat economy has got everyone all fired up to make money.

We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.

I'd also like to note that there is, apparently, and "excess of capital" in the world. Men that cocktail with Brooks know that when there is just the right amount of capital in the world, then a man is able to maintain his habits and justice reigns. Too much capital, however, and things go haywire. Unfortunately, Brooks does not offer any clues as to the appropriate amount of capital that should be sloshing around the world or how we might go about eliminating the excess. One suspects, however, that when Western European men were in control of all the capital, things were pretty good. Now that you have all these Asians, Middle Easerners, Russians, Indians, and (sweet jesus) Venezualens with money, things are truly going to hell.

Then there is the issue of the "just" capitalist vis a vis the "unjust" capitalist. The just capitalist, you see, protests the dissolution of sober business practices. The just man understands that there are limits dammit! You can drive an SUV, but make it a Navigator or a Lexus GX. Not an Escalade or (heaven forefend) a Hummer. The just business man wants just enough regulation to keep the money flowing, not no regulation at all. The just business man understands that it is okay to exploit the hell out of the poor, but when you do things that damage other men of a certain stature, well that just goes too far.

It's the housework, stupid

I hope I’m not the only person who raised an eyebrow to this article on the gender wage gap. This first part isn’t necessarily a surprise:

Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women's place in the world, according to a study being reported today.

It is the first time social scientists have produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The study raises the provocative possibility that a substantial part of the widely discussed gap in income between men and women who do the same work is really a gap between men with a traditional outlook and everyone else.

The differences found in the study were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned $11,930 more a year than men with egalitarian views and $14,404 more than women with traditional attitudes. The comparisons were based on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

Ah, we wander into the little bubble of reality where I can claim some competence as a thinker. From everything that I understand about the gendered economy, I could’ve predicted this response. But I didn’t, and so these guys got the “big find I got cited in the Post” honors. Good on them, and I’ll cede the floor so they can interpret their findings.

"Some would say, 'Of course traditional men earn more than traditional women -- they are both fulfilling their desires to play different roles in the home and workplace,' " said Judge, emphasizing that the researchers compared working men with working women, not working men with women who stay home. "Our results do not support that view. If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that."

[…]

Livingston and Judge said there are two possible explanations: Traditional-minded men might negotiate much harder for better salaries, especially when compared with traditional-minded women. Alternatively, it could also be that employers discriminate against women and men who do not subscribe to traditional gender roles.

"It could be that traditional men are hypercompetitive salary negotiators -- the Donald Trump prototype, perhaps," Judge said. "It could be on the employer side that, subconsciously, the men who are egalitarian are seen as effete."

Livingston, a doctoral candidate in management, added: "People make others uncomfortable when they disconfirm stereotypes -- we don't know how to interpret them."

Um… no.

The authors are right to note that women who adhere to traditional gender roles, especially career women, would think it wrong to be denied equal pay for equal work, but Livingston and Judge pay too much attention to attitudes as being a determinant.

It would seem that there’s a fairly strong correlation not between attitudes, but in contributions to the economy of the household. The person adhering to the gender role that contributes the least amount of work to social reproduction is the one who has the advantage in the realm of the formal economy. I look at those numbers and I see the economic costs of cooking, cleaning, and taking the kids to the doctor for both women and men.

The explanations put forward remain firmly focused on individual variations and miss the bigger picture. Traditional-minded men bargain harder and better? I don’t buy that for a second. You’d have to develop a metric for bargaining ability that didn’t rely on monetary success as an indicator. At any rate, I don’t think some mythical “bargaining ability” is differentially distributed between men and women or between those who adhere to different gender roles. The second hypothesis, that managers subconsciously perceive more feminist men as “girly men,” similarly seems to assume a little too monolithic mindset amongst that population.

Essentially, what we’re seeing is a subsidy that enables men to single-mindedly devote themselves to their careers, for various reasons putting them at a distinct advantage to those who attempt to strike a more equitable balance between work and family. For the method geeks, I didn’t notice any mention that they controlled for marital status and/or number of children, and I’d be interested to know if there were some interesting multiplier effects among some of the variables (adherence to traditional gender roles X gender; adherence to traditional gender roles X marital status, among others). That the authors went with seemingly implausible explanations suggests not seeing the forest for the trees. But whatever – I’m glad they’re interested in the problem, even if I think they’re barking up the wrong tree. But wait.

Parents looking at the study might be tempted to inculcate their sons with traditional gender views with an eye to greater financial success, but the researchers warned that this would come at their daughters' cost -- traditional-minded women suffer the greatest income disadvantage for doing the same work.

"Traditional values," Judge said, "do not have to be traditional gender-role values."

That the Post would jump to the cheap locker room guffaw of “maybe we should train our boys to keep women barefoot and pregnant” and that the authors would respond with a liberal piety worthy of its own bumper real estate just seems offensively hokey.

I Weep as I Type

Dear Sirs,

I would like to apply to be a columnist for your fine publication. I believe I would fit in with the fine stable of men and women who currently write for your paper. As I have no experience, other than a blog I would prefer you don't find out about, I have taken the liberty of writing out the topic sentences for a year's worth of columns for the 2012 presidential election. I hope you will see that I would certainly fit right in fit right in, I certainly would.

November 2011:
Struggling economy, unpopular war with Iran leave McCain vulnerable.

Field of Democratic challengers strong, fight it out to see who will assuredly replace McCain.

December 2011:
Wal-Martification of American economy has left America prey to powerhouses China and India.

Democratic front-runner has glaring personality flaw that could spell defeat in November.

Democratic front-runner stumbles in debate, challengers bear down.

January 2012:
Crucial month for Democrats, nation.

Surprisingly strong third-place showing in Iowa reshuffles Democratic pack.

Democrats in-fighting, should be focusing on McCain.

February 2012:
New Hampshire narrows Democratic field to three, reform on agenda for all.

Super Tuesday surprise hands nomination to upstart Democratic challenger.

McCain camp "ready for fight," but internal squabbling blunts message.

March 2012:
Democratic nominee calls for focus on "issues," not "personalities," blasts McCain's handling of economy, war.

Economy, health care crisis continue to be burden to Americans, McCain struggles to find answers.

April 2012:
McCain cheers on Diamondbacks, Democratic challenger has ties to several teams.

Campaign trail gaffe: Democratic challenger questions need for rural Oregonians to use dogs to hunt cougars; appeal to far-left PETA crowd could hurt support in rural America.

May 2012:
Far-left attacks on McCain could backfire, Democratic challenger calls for "clean campaign."

Continued GOP use of 9/11 as justification for war a falsehood, Democrats need to go on the attack.

Questions raised about patriotism of Democratic challenger.

June 2012:
Democratic challenger grew up in same hometown as notorious child molester.

McCain says economy will rebound, accuses Democratic challenger of hoping it continues to fail.

Civil war in Kerplekistan: McCain blames Muslim extremists, Democratic challenger says "wait and see" approach best.

July 2012:
Democratic challenger's spouse went to Harvard, Yale, never eaten bacon-cheddar potato skins at TGI Fridays.

Cindy McCain embraces role as first lady, loves babies.

August 2012:
Republican insiders surprisingly say Palin has learned from last four years, ready to lead.

McCain would need spectacular convention to revive hopes of retaining the presidency.

Questions about McCain's health show prejudice among Democrats, do not belong in campaign about "issues."

September 2012:
Historic convention bounce has McCain barely trailing in polls; McCain resilient, America still loves Palin.

Where is Democratic challenger? Should Dems have picked other guy?

Allies in Middle East say weak America could destabilize tense situation.

Perhaps only McCain could get bipartisan support necessary to accomplish "Democratic" reforms.

October 2012:
Campaign turns nasty, as Democratic challenger accuses McCain of performing poorly on economy, war.

Vice Presidential debate shows that pitbull Palin, GOP not ready to back down.

Both McCain and Democratic challenge declare debate success, ready for stretch run.

On eve of historic election, America divided, ready for change.

November 2012:
Historic re-election shows that maverick McCain has mandate for change.


I can haz journamalism job now?

Let it go Learn to read wobs

The media has gotten so hooked on the cheap high of the Obama/Hillary tiff that they'll try to spike a vein with any low-grade junk that comes their way:

Joe Biden told supporters at a town hall Wednesday afternoon that Barack Obama might have been better off choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

“Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight,” Biden said testily when a voter told Biden he was glad the Delaware senator had been chosen and not Clinton.

I'm sorry, the only way to read Biden's statement is as a self-effacing pol speaking in defense of a colleague. You've got to be incredibly desperate for a fix in order to twist that into an admission that the Democratic campaign would be "better off choosing Hillary Clinton."

I know that detox is a bitch, but people really need to let this one die.

[updated]: per ez in the comments, I'm an idiot. How's that for self-effacing!

I Can't Stand It

When David Brooks refers to the Republican party as "we" and the Democrats as "they," I am sure he is not wearing his pundit hat at that moment, but will put it on later, before he gives us his fair and non-partisan analysis of the Republican convention.

Pravda

This article is a week old, but the Register Guard just published it, so I will comment now.

It is awesomely batshit.

Seeing the headline Information overload can short-circuit democracy I expected an anti-blog rant, but I thought it'd be along the lines of "reckless bloggers can publish anything, even if it's not true!" and I was mentally prepared with my Judy Miller retorts. Instead, author Dusty Horwitt advances that Americans are better served by having just a few news sources, so that we can all work off the same page and share a common identity. He very kindly suggests the Washington Post editorial page as my goto news source.

Dusty cites three examples from the nation's past to point out how having a single source of news has gotten positive results. He points to Senator Feingold's campaign in 1992, where Feingold was able to show just one television commercial in each market and reach enough WIsconsinites to win the Dem primary. He quotes a Feingold adviser as saying that he doesn't think it "could ever happen again."

If I may, I'd like to offer Ned Lamont as a counter example.

Dusty then goes on the mention that in the 1930s "radio priest" Father Charles Coughlin "promoted ideas for economic reform to an audience of 40 million, which helped pressure President Roosevelt to enact Social Security and other reforms." Father Coughlin? Father Charles Coughlin? Virulently anti-Semitic Father Coughlin? Pro-Nazi Father Coughlin? The man most responsible for the United States' inhumane treatment of Jewish refugees during the 30s and 40s? Being cited as a positive example of the power of the media in a major US paper?

Wait...this is a joke, right? Like the one about SUVs being necessary to remind us we're American men? Right? [quick search of the internet...nope, seems like Dusty is genuinely touting Father Coughlin as a model for American media today.]

That his next example is the Civil Rights movement does not help my "he's joking" theory. A legitimate argument could be had about what the Civil Rights movement might look like in today's media world. Lately, we haven't done terribly well with immigrant rights or Jena.

He goes on to suggest a solution to the "problem" of information overload so straight out of the Crazy Book that I am again forced to contemplate that this entire piece might be humor. He suggests that the US institute an energy tax high enough to prevent people like you and me wasting it be writing and publishing our "opinions." But then Dusty goes on and on about this idea and I believe that he genuinely means it. That he's an environmental lawyer lends credence to notion that his proposal is genuine.

Most of the comments on the WaPost site assume that Dusty is a lefty and this an attempt by a lefty say that only the liberal media should have a voice. My first instinct was to reject that idea, mostly because I believe that the media is actually rather conservative and love the left blogosphere, coupled with Dusty's praise of Coughlin, but, looking around the net, I see that Dusty is a dumbass who thinks he's helping his lefty causes.

Whether Dusty is right or left, I am staggered by his ignorance and stupidity.

Kill Bobo

It's four minutes into DNC coverage on PBS and I'm already hoping that a stagelight drops on David Brooks' head.

What Would Bela Say About It?

The Chinese forging passports so that underage gymnasts can compete? Completely believable, a huge deal, and international disgrace!

The Bush administration forged a document linking Iraq and Al Queada and made it part of the rational for the war? Not credible, not a big deal even if true, and who cares?

Vacationing in Hawaii Is Fascist

Cokie should have taken Bob Roberts' advice and stayed off of the crack.

These are the things you think up while high. Going on vacation to visit your grandmother is not something real Americans do. Just because Hawaii is a state, doesn't mean it's not foreign. Myrtle Beach, SC is real America where real Americans go on vacation.

Please, someone, tell me more about the liberal media.

I'm Not a Smart Man, Jenny

Here's what I don't understand, McCain wants to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He wants to incentivize give automobile companies tax credits to build electric cars, which will "create jobs." Obama says the same shit really. Why doesn't our news media point out that, since both men support globalized free trade, that oil produced in America will not necessarily be consumed in America, and that there is absolutely no reason American car manufactures will build electirc cars in Ohio instead of Mexico.

It's all complete shit. I watched the two men give economic speeches today (part of jury duty seems to entail heavy doses of CNN) and it was like a contest to see who could say "America" more often.

That said, McCain said some truly crazy shit. Apparently, agreeing to drill off shore will reduce the price of oil in "months, not years, months." WTF? Of course, we come back to the anchor and he just repeats the talking points, like they were true or something. Like he needs to reinforce the take away message, because that's his job, making sure we all got the highlights.

I know you all know this. But it makes me said. Just like Jenny not loving Forrest, except she really did, she just wasn't ready for his love because it was so pure.