The MTV Ball

I despise MTV.

I often ask myself how a channel that rarely - if ever - plays music can still have the word "music" in it's name.

Granted, there are multiple platforms that MTV has. There's the original sibling - MTV2 - as well as a channel targeted specifically at college students ( MTVU ), as well as MTV Jams, MTV Hits, et al. Then, there are all the music channels that MTV owns. It's worldwide.

It's centerpiece channel completely ignores any forward-thinking programming in favor of ratings-boosting-tweeny-nonsene.

MTV is throwing an inaugural ball for President-elect Barack Obama.

The network announced Tuesday that it will host the "Be the Change Inaugural Ball" at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington on Jan. 20. The event will be televised live across MTV's many channels and platforms, including MTV and MTV.com.

The Viacom Inc.-owned network said the event will feature leading artists, celebrities and government officials. To celebrate the large youth voter turnout in the election, hundreds of young people will be chosen to attend based on their demonstrated volunteerism.

Considering that fact that a massive majority of young voters got out and voted for Obama doesn't mean that all these people watch MTV. So, to malign that voting block with the channel that hasn't had barely anything on the air of value in over 15 years would be patently unfair.

It will be interesting to see who they have on as guests. Are we going to have to sit through lip-synched duets between Britney Spears and Taylor Swift? Is there going to be horribly choreographed dance numbers to remixed patriotic music. I can already hear the right-wing stuff-shirts gearing up for this one. I'm sure they'll be getting a lot of miles out of that thesarus they keep next to their laptops.

Who knows. This could be a really enjoyable evening that shows that MTV still has something relevant to offer and it took something like this to bring it out, or this will be just another chance for Kanye West to make as ass out of himself.

Al-Qaeda Adopts Right-Wing Talking-Point

This is too funny:

Global reactions to Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri's controversial condemnation of U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama as a "House Slave" (or, alternatively, "House Negro") have begun to pour in -- including via the top jihad web forums used by Al-Qaida to disseminate its propaganda. Though hardcore Al-Qaida supporters have predictably dismissed any criticism of Dr. al-Zawahiri and are fiercely backing his choice of words, there is a rather ironic (if not entirely unfamiliar) twist to this issue. After observing international press reporting on the incident, these same supporters are now bitterly attacking the media for its "unfair" pro-Obama bias and for deliberately "confusing" the meaning of al-Zawahiri's message.

From the Counterterrorism Blog.

So, are we to expect Rush Limbaugh to start agreeing with a terrorist organization now?

I'm Guessing No

When Alan Colmes announced that he was leaving the Hannity and Colmes program, I was more curious as to what Colmes was thinking. What prompted him to leave now?

However, the question should have been more geared toward who Colmes' replacement is going to be. I had alluded to Kirsten Powers, but that wouldn't exactly be raising the bar. The question should be, does Hannity have the sand to stand up to a powerful "liberal"?

Turns out Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune made that the topic of a recent article.

Good. I've long felt that Colmes was to Hannity what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters -- symbolic opposition.

Hannity is quicker, louder, angrier, funnier and more confrontational and self-assured than the comparatively mild, cerebral Colmes, therefore he's the dominant and more compelling half of the team.

I'd love to see Fox News Channel audition some of the liberal pundits out there who'd give Hannity a good match every night: Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes come to mind. Al Franken, if he loses in the Minnesota Senate-race recount.

I would suggest Rachel Maddow, but she's such a rising star on her own at MSNBC that even a prime-time pairing with Hannity would be a big step down for her.

The truth is, Hannity is the centerpiece of the show. That's how Roger Ailes set it up, and that's how it's been for 12 years.

Sean would never be able to last with Randi Rhodes or Franken. His utter disdain for those two alone would cause his head to explode, just like that scene in Scanners, should they be sitting across the desk from him.

Zorn almost lost me with the second paragraph. Hannity is only funny to himself, and the only thing he is quick with are his references to Ronald Reagan and whatever the hot talking-point is from his daily memo. Just being boorish doesn't make you a great host. Therein lies Hannity's weakness.

If pitted against any on the list that Zorn has referenced, Hannity would be reduced to a stuttering, fumbling, freshman. He's in his element because he is in control. The show would loose practically it's entire audience if there were a strong, liberal counterpart there.

But one is left with another question when thinking about this. If a "liberal" signs a contract with Fox"News", can they still be considered a "liberal"?

Worsts v 4.9 & 5.0

Mark Halprin

Bill O'Reilly

Joe Lieberman






Katon Dawson

Mark Williams

Dick Morris

Wednesday Hip Hop featuring Blackstarr

Astronomy

Fox Gets Left Out - Again

I don't think it's ever been a secret that Obama doesn't appreciate how many at Fox"News" have characterized him.

At President-elect Barack Obama's news conference today in Chicago, questions went to...

David Schaper, NPR (Chicago bureau)
Tom DeFrank, New York Daily News
Ed Henry, CNN

More here

Without Bush in the White House, it will be interesting to see the shift - which is already taking place - at Fox from playing defense to playing offense.

But, one has to wonder what questions they would have asked.

Informational Concern

It seems that Barack Obama's desire to not have information spoon-fed to him through various channels troubles certain people.

Michelle Malkin is one of these.

Barack Obama has expressed a desire to keep his Blackberry:

Obama said he was concerned that the isolated life of a president would limit his access to information from outside the bubble of the White House.

Throughout the campaign, Obama was often seen communicating to staff members via his BlackBerry, a convenience the president-elect may legally have to forgo, and one which he indicated he was negotiating to keep

For national security purposes, a president is limited in his electronic correspondences for fear of hacking. Additionally, presidential communications are strictly monitored and archived for historical purposes.

More here from ABC News.

Whereas many Presidents ( W. is a prime example ) live in the White-House-Bubble with such ease, it is apparent that Barck Obama is attempting to not be caught in that same trap. The ability to stay connected not only with your family and friends, but your country, is one of the ways that Obama is hoping to be more mindful of the needs of the average American.

Malkin heads toward full-tilt paranoia and drops the "who will Obama be talking to?" schtick.

This is nothing more than derivative of the "guilt by association" meme that will continue to be used against Obama. Who does he talk to? What are these people like? Is he using "anti-American" rhetoric? You get the point.

Malkin's laughable complaints about those that pointed out Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo account was being used for state business aside, it seems that she isn't willing to come to grips with the fact that the people who have lead our country in recent years have become incereasingly disconnected with their constituancy. So disconnect, in fact, that we end up with policy that benefits that few rather than the many.

From my perspective, I don't want a President that can't see past his "handlers" and loses sight of what is happening to this nation. I want my President to have all the information he needs.

Sudden Concern Over Sunday

My entire life, it has bothered me that most "Christians" equate attendance at a local church every Sunday is more important than actually "being Christian". They seem more concerned with being seen in church than going out an helping their fellow man.

Not suprisingly, members of the media whom equate themself with or identify with the Religious-Right will express "concern" over a particular issue, using their "faith" as a weapon.

Priscilla at Newshounds takes note of a piece that Brit Hume did during his "Grapevine" section on Fox"News"

Brit Hume, who is leaving Fox News to “follow his Christian faith,” (talking about your “piety” scores mucho points with the church crowd), teased the segment with this comment: “President-Elect Obama Is Not Spending His Sundays Where Many of His Predecessors Have.” (Comment: What? He’s not “on the links” like his predecessor?) The chyron for the lead off “Grapevine” was “fit or faithful?” (Comment: I guess you can’t be both). Faith, for Hume, is connected to a church building and the accompanying graphic was a photo of Obama beside a pair of sneakers superimposed against a backdrop photo of a church. Hume noted that Obama, despite having been seen dropping off his daughters at school and taking his wife out to dinner, hasn’t been seen in a church.

Considering the ease with which talking-points are distributed from the initial "memo", to the anchor, the pundit, the magazine, the website, and then on to the public, it seems to me that this is going to be somewhat of a theme - though perhaps not a primary one - over the next 4 years.

Here is where I think Hume, and those poised to use this non-story as well, is making a mistake. Throughout the primaries, Fox and conservatives around the country used Jeremiah Wright to attack Barack Obama. The outcome was not what they were hoping. So, the question stands, why do they think it will be different now?

No, Surely Not b/w It's Moments Like This

Apparently, (m)Ann Coulter has written another book that goes after - yeah, you know - Liberals. In this case, it's the media and the percieved "liberal bias" that somehow has threaded itself into virtually every organization EXCEPT Fox"News".

Originally titled "Confidential" the new title of her latest ream of shreiking nonsense is "Guilty"





It's almost a certainty that the book will debut at an elevated stance on the NYTimes "best-seller" list solely due to conservative think-tanks and NewsCorp buying bulk quantities to hand out at whatever press junket they have going. Considering the fact that Coulter - and many like her - have been skirting ever closer to the carion-black pit of irrelevancy, this is the only way that her books even sell well.

But, who is the guilty one here? Is it the media, or is it Coulter for her aid in creating such a bleak and horrible picture of the party she allegedly represent - thereby pushing votes away from the Republican column?

And, if there was ever a more classic and wonderous definition of the word "irony", this is it.

THAT although we didn't think it would be pos sible to silence Ann Coulter, the leggy reaction- ary broke her jaw and the mouth that roared has been wired shut . .

However, one must also consider that the source of this is none other than the NY Post's Page Six. Not exactly a stronghold of facts and journalistic integrity.

If this is true, it's going to put quite a dent into Coulter's post-book release media tour. Considering how (m)Ann is want to shove her foot as far into her mouth as possible each time she has a new book out, I will actually miss her verbal slip-ups and the ensuing excuses that come follow.

Monday Night Jams featuring Soul Coughing

Three words.....


Super Bon Bon





Quite possibly one of the greatest tracks of the 90s.

Wow. Just, WOW.

I am utterly amazed.



Either these people are well paid actors unafraid to lie and can do it with a straight face or they are REALLY dumb.

I'm voting on the later for most of them.

Neil................Neil.......................Neil

Fans of Ferris Beuler will understand the title.

There seems to be a theme that is threading itself through many of my posts lately. Let's see if you can figure it out.

Ben Stein is practically born into economics. His father was an economist and Ben majored in economics at Columbia.

Neil Cavuto should be - according to the seemingly unspoken philosophy of Fox"News" -completely disqualified from hosting Your World ( Fox's "premiere" business show ) and being the practical star of the Fox"Business" channel. The reason being, the Neil was a White House intern during the Carter administration and worked for PBS for 15 year and was, at one point, the NY bureau cheif.

If you know anything about Fox's viewpoints on public television and what they think of Jimmy Carter, you'll find more than just a slice of irony in what Cavuto allegedly does.

But, to put it into better perspective ( or as the guys and gals at Fox would say - CONTEXT ) take a look a this:



Now, considering Stein's distain for liberalism, and anyone with progressive ideals, it's interesting to note how easily he says that a "bailout" is necessary. The reason being, that Cavuto, and everyone like him, associates the "bailout" with liberal and progressivism.

Yeah, It's Post #666

Amanpour At Last

Well, at some point, maybe. At least, that's what "some people" are saying.

From the New York Times:

In her 25 years at CNN, Christiane Amanpour has hopscotched the world, the very model of a foreign correspondent, turning up at seemingly every war, genocide, famine and natural disaster, slipping through previously closed borders and interviewing even the most recalcitrant of foreign leaders.


That will change next year, when she starts a nightly program on CNN International, which is retooling its lineup. An edited version of Ms. Amanpour’s show is expected to be shown on the weekends on CNN’s United States channel.

An "edited version"? Hmmmm.


I've alwasy found Christiane quite intriguing, a bit of a mystery, and exceptionally talented. That opinion was solidified when her "God's Warriors" series premeired. However, several people didn't like it at all.

Here are a few examples.

Maurice Ostroff of the Jerusalem Post offered this:

Sorely missing from the entire series is any mention of the basic motivator of Islamic violence, the incitement to hatred emanating from state media as well as openly from mosques, not only in Arab countries but under the noses of European and British governments. As human beings, can we be unperturbed by the indoctrination of infants to become suicidal Warriors as shown in an interview with a three-and-a-half year old girl broadcast on Iqra?

It is unforgivable that in this documentary which could serve to create a genuine better understanding of the violence generated by religious zealotry, the authoritative voices of many experts in the field were omitted. The program would for example achieve greater credibility had Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz been interviewed as a foil to Mearshheimer.

CAMERA ( Committee For Accurate Middle-East Reporting In America ) called "Warriors" an abomination

CNN's "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a three-part series intended to examine the growing role of religious fundamentalism in today's world. Unfortunately, the first program in the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," is one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

And some even claimed it had an "Islamic Bias"



If you'd like to formulate your own opinion on God's Warriors, check out the website here

I'm Suprised He Lasted This Long

It appears that Alan Colmes isn't going to be Sean Hannity's punching bag anymore.

"I approached Bill Shine (FNC's Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network," Colmes said. "Although it's bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I'm proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

Hannity added, "Not only has Alan been a remarkable co-host, he's been a great friend which is rare in this industry -- I'll genuinely miss sparring with such a skillful debate.

It is to be expected that Hannity would say "something nice" to the press. However, I'm not buying any of it. Not even Colmes' graceful exit-stage-left routine.

Colmes has been getting stronger in his rhetoric the past few months. His replies to guests are becoming more direct, more pointed, more powerful. In other words, I'm guessing that he's tired of having to deal with all of Hannity's clap-trap and the people that are far too willing to swallow it whole. I'm impressed that he lasted 12 years.

So, who's going to be the new doormat?

Sean Hannity, the popular conservative commentator, may become the sole host of the program, according to one source close to the network who insisted on anonymity while speaking about private deliberations.

Ah, the "anonymous" source.

My guess is that it's going to be Kirsten Powers. She can be a fairly rational voice for the Democratic cause. However, she is far too easily sucked into the "I have to make Hannity look good" role and simply goes through the motions and ends up making the party she allegedly is there to represent look pathetic. Then again, she could be just another "pretty face" like O'Reilly has on his program.

Only time will tell.

Regardless, good on you Colmes. Now, go out and stir things up.

You can check out Alan Colmes' blog "Liberaland" to see what he's got rumbling around his head.

"Dealing" With Revisionists

I'm not an economist.

Neither is George Will. And Ed Morrissey at HotAir is just plain stupid.

Considering that fact that so many within the conservative realm will take any and everything that Will says as gospel, it's no suprise that they jumped for joy when he pointed to FDRs "New Deal" as one of the ( if not THE ) root cause that The Depression lasted as long as it did. However, Paul Krugman ( you know, that guy that just won the Nobel Prize for Economics ) had a quick and truthful rebuttal to Will's right-wing nonsense:




Ed Morrissey comes into the equation not so much hanging on Will's coattails - though I would imagine that he felt a bit more comfortable knowing that Will initiated the talking-point - but in reference to a Washington Post article where writer Lori Montgomery speaks about the simularities between what Obama is postulating and what FDR did with the "New Deal".

Portion cited from Montgomery's article:

The campaign did not release an estimate of the number of jobs that his latest proposal would create. But congressional aides who have been involved in developing stimulus proposals said that any plan to create 2.5 million jobs is likely to be significantly larger — probably well over $200 billion, or between 1 and 2 percent of the gross domestic product.
Such a plan would be bold by historic standards. President Bill Clinton, facing a weak economy when he took office in 1993, proposed a $16 billion stimulus package, which was blocked in the Senate. Obama’s proposal would be an order of magnitude larger, even when adjusted for the larger size of today’s economy.
Some economists have compared Obama’s proposals to the spending spree President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched during his early months in office in 1933. Roosevelt offered jobs programs, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps, and cash for public-works projects, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, in hopes of easing the pain of the Great Depression.

Ed Morrissey's predictable reaction:

Lori Mongtomery apparently took pains to use the phrase “in hopes of”. FDR certainly hoped to alleviate the pain of the Great Depression with his experiment in federal mobilization of the civilian workforce, but he failed to do so. FDR spent years pulling capital out of the private sector and creating civil-service jobs that underproduced and inefficiently utilized the capital. The end result was a prolonged depression that only ended when FDR was forced to partner with private enterprise on the war effort in the 1940s.

While Morrissey's schtick is more grounded in the "the media is in-the-tank-for-Obama" way of thinking, you can still feel the flow of what Will started.

So, what does all this mean?

How do we know that George Will and Ed Morrissey are drinking their own bathwater?

Just ask Brad Delong who offers up the chart below as proof.




He goes on to state the following:

I have never been able to make any sense at all of the right-wing claim that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by creating a "crisis of confidence" that crippled private investment as American businessmen feared and hated "that Communist Roosevelt." The crisis of confidence was created by the stock market crash, the deflation, and the bank failures of 1929-1933. Private investment recovered in a very healthy fashion as Roosevelt's New Deal policies took effect.

The interruption of the Roosevelt Recovery in 1937-1938 is, I think, wel understood: Roosevelt's decision to adopt more "orthodox" economic policies and try to move the budget toward balance and the Federal Reserve's decision to contract the money supply by raising bank reserve requirements provide ample explanation of that downturn. And once those two factors had run its course the continuation of Roosevelt's policies was no obstacle to an investment recovery driven by war-related exports monetary expansion produced by capital flight from Europe.

You can argue--and I occasionally do--that had the Supreme Court not ruled the NIRA unconstitutional it would have exerted a significant drag on medium-run economic recovery. But the Supreme Court did rule the NIRA unconstitutional, 9-0, Brandeis voting alongside MacReynolds.

Guess what Mr. Delong does - he's an economist.

Genius In Internet Advertising

I don't think I have to explain why this internet cellphone ad is fantastic

The "I'm Not Running" Excuse

I'm reminded of a scene with Glen Close and Tom Cruise in Robert Redfords fantastic ( yet widely panned ) Lions For Lambs where, when pressed by Close and prefaced by Redford's character as to Cruise's true motivations, he insists that he is "not running for President".

Enter Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

BATON ROUGE, La. -- Gov. Bobby Jindal traveled Friday to Iowa, a state that is pivotal to a presidential campaign, in a trip that has heightened speculation that Jindal is planning a presidential bid in 2012.

But Jindal said the speculation is misplaced. He said he's running for re-election and has no plans to seek the White House.

"The most important thing for me is to be the best governor for the state of Louisiana," the governor said in an interview. "If the people of Louisiana will allow me, I'm going to serve for two terms.

"I'm not running for president."

From wwltv.com

Considering that Iowa and Louisiana don't have anything to do with one another, it's a far assumption that Jindal is doing a little pre-2012 research into just what his chances may be.

I'm not entirely certain how well he will play with the other candidates that

However, his appearance as a person of deep, religious perspective could either be seen as a bonus or a hinderance, depending on whether or not you think being an exorcism enthusiast counts:

As others noted during his 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial campaigns (see update), in an essay Jindal wrote in 1994 for the New Oxford Review, a serious right-wing Catholic journal, Jindal narrated a bizarre story of a personal encounter with a demon, in which he participated in an exorcism with a group of college friends. And not only did they cast out the supernatural spirit that had possessed his friend, Jindal wrote that he believes that their ritual may well have cured her cancer.

It's interesting to see the rampant speculation from the hardline-conservatives over who is going to run in 2012. It would seem that they should be focused on not having a repeat performance of this election. Still, there are plenty of people foaming at the mouth that Palin actually stands a chance.

One has to consider the fascination that so many within the Republican Right have with Bobby Jindal. Perhaps they are operating under the notion that he is their version of Barack Obama. Perhaps.

Regardless of whom it is that will be running four years from now, one would think that conservative Republicans would be more worried about how their party is governing now.

This Is Actually Kind Of Sick

Michelle Malkin likes to blog in glittering generalities. She likes to take the juciest parts of a story and spice them up with that special type of speculative blathering that tends not to approach an issue directly, but instead lead the reader through a labyrinth of half-truths, double-speak, and pseudo-intellectual slogans that serve no greater purpose than to inflate her already obese ego.

The featured piece on her website today is no different. She continues with the story of Haleigh Poutre:

Almost three years ago, I started blogging about beautiful Haleigh Poutre. She’s the miracle child who was nearly beaten to death by her barbaric stepfather. Hooked to a ventilator in a comatose state, she was then nearly condemned to death by Massachusetts medical experts and the state’s criminally negligent child welfare bureaucracy, which hastily declared her to be in a hopeless vegetative state and wanted to pull the plug on her life. Thank God, the campaign to kill her was stopped. This blessed angel has been nursed back to health by an amazing team of caring therapists. Her plight brought end-of-life issues again to the fore — issues that so many on both the left and right would prefer to ignore. The stepfather is standing trial now for child abuse. And that trial has produced video of Haleigh’s progress that will bring you to tears.

It is with stories like this that the lunatic-fringe conservatives have created the illusion of the "culture of death" - the notion that "liberals" have devalued life.

It started out with Schaivo some years ago and continues today with Haleigh. But, as in both cases, there is much more than you and I will ever know. As outside viewers, it is difficult for us to grasp the reality that comes with dealing with situations such as these.

For Michelle Malkin, victims such as Haleigh are nothing more than the latest "weapon", a stick with which to beat people into submission.

Certainly, the very image of an abused child is one that pulls at the heart-strings. It is something that every parent wishes to never have to face. However to use girls like Haleigh is unpardonable. There is no rationale that can come from Malkin, or anyone that uses children like Haleigh in such an exploitative fashion.

The truth is, Haleigh was nothing to Michelle Malkin until she was nearly beaten to death. Children, other than her own, mean nothing to her unless they can be used to further her own personal agenda, her career, her sense of self.

As opportunists go, Malkin is certainly good at being one.

The Mouth Of Madness

Bill O'Reilly is an interesting creature.

He boasts that he operates a "no spin" zone, yet consistantly invites on hardline, conservative voices to do the "spinning" for him. He claims to represent the "folks", yet doesn't seem to realize who the "folks" really are in America.

There is a great deal that O'Reilly doesn't completely understand.



The question that you should ask yourself is this - who is Bill O'Reilly to decide who/what is/isn't "liberal"?

And, the internet has a "liberal bias"?

Let's say, for instance, that Bill O'Reilly actually knows what he is talking about. If the media has this "liberal bias" wouldn't it be people like O'Reilly that would be calling for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine? If, in fact, this is a "center-right" nation, then O'Reilly's arguement is without merit.

The "no-spin zone" tends to make people dizzy.

Speculative Ramblings

It's pieces like this that tend to get a lot of people upset. It's speculation like this that tends to bet a lot of people rambling and cursing and screaming.

Democratic and national security sources say that former National Counterrorism Center head John Brennan remains the favorite to be nominated director of the Central Intelligence Agency even as his pending appointment raises the hackles of some Obama advisers because of his ties to George Tenet and controversial programs.

More here from The Atlantic.

Nevermind that Brennan's actual involvement in illegal Bush-administration-programs is still unclear, and that the CIA doesn't implement policy, he's only being "considered". I think it's safe to say that there are probably some more individuals who, on the surface, we won't care much for.

There's no reason to get all in a lather just yet.

Fuel Economy Will Destroy Us All

What do you get when you put Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, and William Kristol in a room with fresh talking-poinst about regulation, fuel economy, and the "Big 3" auto manufacturers?



So, then, explain how foreign car manufacturers can flourish.
Yeah, that's right Sean, I brought out the "other-countries-can-do-it-so-why-can't-we" bit.

Also, considering that European auto makers follow standards much stricter than CAFE her in America and still beat the "Big 3" hand-over-fist, it isn't hard to see that Hannity, Kristol, and Mitt's logic doesn't hold up.

The technology exists. However, people like Mitt, Hannity, and Kristol have so much of their vocabulary - so much of their lives - invested into the "regulation is bad" speech that they fear becoming irrelavent within their own clique if they stray from the script. They will deny logic at every turn, so long as they have grocery money at the end of the week.

I was expecting Sean to start claiming that gays were to blame for this as well.

Source Of Crisis Revealed!!!

So, what is it?

Notwithstanding the cardboard Santas who seem to have arrived in stores this year near Halloween, the holiday season starts in seven days with Thanksgiving. And so it will come to pass once again that many people will spend four weeks biting on tongues lest they say "Merry Christmas" and perchance, give offense. Christmas, the holiday that dare not speak its name.

This year we celebrate the desacralized "holidays" amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say "Merry Christmas" is a nation capable of ruining its own economy.

You can see the video here

From The Wallstreet Journal. Yeah, they printed this.

You know, I can remember a time when the Wall Street Journal was a publication that was looked to as a source of economic credibility, a document with sound and solid reasoning within it's articles.

Those days are gone for good, I suppose.

The Invisible Hand Of Doom

There is this notion, postulated by many, that if you repeat a lie as much as possible that it becomes the truth. More-over, if a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth conservative ( take Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly for example ) has a show with which to transmit this lie, it takes on a whole new cthulu-esque shape:

*for some reason, the embed isn't working*

Click here for the video.

Yeah, these people are afraid of legislation that isn't even being considered. Obama wants nothing to do with it, the Democratic-controlled Congress didn't want it when it was brought up last year, and lawmakers are frankly in awe of the hardline-conservative Right's mouth-agape fear of it.

The next thing you know, Fox"News" will being claiming that long-slumbering shadow beasts have been unleased by Union workers at General Motors and the only thing that can stop them are home-schooled 18-year-old girls.

The Meme Of The Times

I find myself asking the question more often now since the elecetion is over:

What is exactly the purpose of Sean Hannity's attempts to convince his audience that Barack Obama is a "terrorist sympathizer"?



One would think that since Obama won, that Hannity - and many other lunatic-fringe conservatives - would have realized that there is only a tiny percentage of Americans that actually believe this nonsense.

Considering that such inflamatory and divisive rhetoric does nothing more than caused continued harm to the Republican party, it would seem that Hannity is more concerned with his ratings rather than the party that he allegedly represents.

It should be noted that:

None of the sixteen were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the sixteen had served nineteen years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House.[14] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the Cardinal of New York, and the Archbishop of Puerto Rico.

via Wikipedia.

Consdiering Hannity's diefication of Ronald Reagan, it is more than just a shade ironic that Eric Holder was nominated by Reagan for Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on which he served for five years.

Though I tend to do my best to avoid the "what if" language that is easily dispersed by people like Hannity ( ie: what if this were George W. Bush pardoning people in the FALN ) it will be interesting to see whom it is that Bush does pardon.

While that moment is yet to come, I don't see Sean Hannity, or any like him, doing anything to make his party any more relevant. The themes that he continually espouses are helping anyone.

Segmentational Talk Radio

This could have been any within the conservative talk-radio realm. And now that it's out there, you are sure to hear more of it.



More here.

In terms of a classic example of a "contextual" uber-right-wing conservative taking only a portion of a scientific study to ham-fistedly make a point, this is pretty much it.

Mark Levin is doing what he, and all like him, do best. They are arming their audience with just enough information to win a debate rather than have a complete picture of what they are discussing.

There is, after all, a vast difference between winning a debate and being correct. This is how people like Levin have operated since conservative talk-radio began. All you have to do is cite a portion of something legitimate, speak as loudly as you can, and use as many adjectives and catch-phrases as possible.

This is nothing more than arming the ignorant with ignorance.

Tina, I Think Lorne Is Calling

Sarah Palin has been such a booster for the comedy business since she was propelled onto the national stage that you know that there are people right now watching this video and seeing dollar-signs:



What makes this clip even better is the man that is slaughtering the turkeys and looking at Palin and someone off camera a thinking, "do they not realize that i'm standing over a vat of turkey blood and severed heads?"

Classic.

It is in no way an overstatement to claim that this woman is so enraptured with the cameras before her, and the audience that she knows is watching, that she has absolutely no idea what is going on in her daily life.

And, didn't this woman claim to have a degree in Journalism? She seems to have forgotten how important location is to a story.

Thursday Musical Moments featuring Puscifer

Check out the bands website.

Here's the video for their track Momma Sed

O'Reilly, I Think You Missed Something

Ever the man to point out that no one is saying "Merry Christmas" apparently doesn't realize that his own reading list has become the latest victim of the secular cabal that is hell-bent on taking over everything.

Such is the case every year around this time. O'Reilly trumps up the notion that department stores are forcing their employees to not say Christmas and that random, non-religious groups, are attacking people. But, as always, once Christmas is over he declares "victory".

No, Not The Ice Cream, The Governor

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano has been chosen as the new head of Homeland Security:

Arizona Demcratic Gov. Janet Napolitano has been chosen to serve as secretary of the vast and troubled Department of Homeland Security for President-elect Barack Obama, Democratic officials said. Napolitano is a border governor who will now be responsible for immigration policy and border security, which are part of Homeland Security’s myriad functions.

Napolitano brings law and order experience from her stint as the Grand Canyon State’s first female attorney general. One of the nation’s most prominent female elected officials, she made frequent appearances on behalf of Barack Obama during the campaign. She was reelected to a second four-year term in 2006.

More from Politico.

While Gov. Napolitano is going to get hits from the Right simply because she didn't build a border fence herself with razor wire, electronic surveilance, and lazers, it's the people in Arizona that seem more upset about what she has left them.

She was considered to be, in some circles, the person that could end John McCain's Senate career. But now, her state is going to fall under Republican rule, and that has some people less than pleased.

However, one thing that Gov. Napolitano will hopefully bring to the DHS is something that it lacked since it's inception, credibility.

Essentially, the DHS is more security "theatre" than actual security.

The main complaint coming from conservatives really doesn't hold much water, as illegal immigration seemed the last thing on the minds of existing DHS employees.

Focusing On Firings

From HeadzUp




Dobson will fight against Teh Gay even at the expense of the jobs of people that work for him:

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

More here.

While some bring up the very valid point that donors to FOTF should be concerned how their money is used, I'm wondering if this is a violation of the "ministry's" non-profit-tax-exempt status.

More at C&L

Bye-Bye George

Perhaps we don't need to read too much into this....



However, he's not even offering the hand to shake.

I mean, isn't George supposed to be from Texas? You know, the place where a hand-shake is as powerful as a man's word.

Regardless of what you can or want to read into this, he's certainly not acting as a representative of the US. He's just going through the motions.

Is This Guy Angling For Micheal Savage's Job?

Much in the same way that John Gibson claimed that "whites" need to "make more babies" in order to prevent the disappearance of the "white race"......




........it seems that Jim Quinn is taking over the notion that not only the white race is in danger, but that our very nation is at risk of being taken over:



Media Matters has more regarding not only Quinn's unsubstantiated fears surrounding groups like La Raza, but those of Michelle Malkin and G. Gordon Liddy as well:

...the National Council of La Raza, MALDEF and MEChA are U.S.-based civil rights and social justice organizations. Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances of conservative commentators, including radio host G. Gordon Liddy, columnist Michelle Malkin, and MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, claiming that immigrants subscribe to a "Reconquista" philosophy aimed at recapturing the Southwestern United States for Mexico. "Reconquista" is a term associated with El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, a document drafted in the early formation of MEChA, a group with affiliates at numerous college campuses and several high schools that "promotes higher education, cultura, and historia."

It's interesting to hear people like Quinn cry out that they are losing their cultural identity when, in point of fact, it is people like him that are demanding that Hispanics ( and apparently all that wish to come to America ) lose their cultural identity if they wish to stay here.

But i'm wondering, is the whine and cry going to be directed at ALL hispanics, not just illegals? Is the complaint being shifted? Are people like Quinn afraid that more immigrants are going to become "legal" citizens? And why is it only the Hispanics that are being singled out? The questions abound.

And does Quinn honestly think that these 70+ year olds are going to be banging women 50 years younger than them? Talk about a way to really stretch your xenophobia to new, more pathetic levels.

Huckabee's Prerequisites

Last night, I saw Mike Huckabee on some random, evangelical program on EWTN - at least I think that's the channel. He was giving some nonsensical prayer and holding hands with a televangelist who apparently thinks that bleeching his hair is a good idea.

I found myself sitting in bed a thanking whatever celestial creature that is listening that Mike Huckabee is not President.

Then, I saw this this morning:



So, Huckabee thinks that gays haven't been assaulted enough, that they have to cross some violence threshold in order to be considered the same as him? Perhaps he isn't familiar with people like Matthew Shepard or Harvey Milk. What about the thousands of men and women that are visciously attacked simply because they are "gay".

Above all, Huckabee is a "minister" and is essentially required to use the bible to compartmentalize people into groups. He has to, and will continue to, twist biblical text in order to excuse the ill treatment of those with whom he disagrees.

While some may see a vast difference between gays and blacks fighting for their civil rights - meaning that gays should be required to face their struggle on their own terms and not claim that they are experiencing what blacks did during segregation - they are, in their own way, exscusing this treatment outside of the biblical realm. It's just as wrong.

To say that you have to meet a pre-set level of violence in order to be seen as a relevant member of society is far more pathetic than I have words to describe.

An Urband Legend?

Michelle Bachman is crazy.

To call her insane is to give her entirely too much credit and pretty much be insulting to anyone that is insane. She is just bat-shit crazy. The one thing I can't wrap my mind around, the one thing I can't understand, is how a woman as crazy as her was re-elected.

John Amato @ C&L has some video up from Bachman's recent appearance on Hannity and Colmes where she lies right to Comles' face about her "investigating anti-american congress members":

Colmes: You said you were concerned during the campaign that Obama had anti American views and you said the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look at the people and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America

Bachmann: Actually that's not what I said. It's an urban legend that was created and that's not what I said.

Yeah, Michelle, you did:



Michelle has this consistant, shocked look to her that is quite unlike anything that I have seen. Perhaps this stems from the fact that she herself can believe that the people of Minnesota's 6th Congressional District were fool enough to vote for her.

Then again, maybe she subscribes to the Madagasscar penguin school of communication:

One Too Many Kicks To The Head

Ever since Chuck Norris was courted by Mike Huckabee, he seems to think that he has the answers for just about anything. And, since Prop 8 is such the hot-button issue, Norris feels comfortable chiming in:

The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.

More here.

The only problem with this line of thinking, is that strick interpretation of the bible paints you into a corner. There is context within the bible that no one seems to be willing to face.

Take the word "abomination" for example. When reference with sex between two men or two women, it is only speaking of the "norms" of that date and time. Of course, the eating of pork was seen in the same light as two men sucking each other off. So, when taking this into account, how can people that claim to interpret the bible in such literal terms speak with a straight face.

But, to assume that people such as Chuck Norris have the intellectual capacity to realize that they are wrong in how they interpret the bible is, in and of itself, an exercise in futility.

Night-Time Musical Revelations - Memory Reboot Version

Billy Idol was the man during the early 80s.

Here's some retro action for your evening enjoyment.

Eyes Without A Face




Flesh For Fantasty





Dancing With Myself

Oh, This Is Just Precious

What's a sign that you have run out of things to talk about?

You do an interview with "Joe The Plumber"

The Tufts Daily ( the student paper of Tufts University ) recently did an interview with the man least likely to be plumbing anything in the near future, Sam Wurzelbacher - ne: Joe The Plumbing Afficianado.

In it, however, we get a glimpse of Joe that we knew would be coming around sooner rather than later:

Question: There has been some confusion amongst the media with regards to your name and occupation. Could you provide some clarification?


Answer: All right. Well, my name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. I go by [my] middle name Joseph and shorten it to Joe and have gone by that since I was born and have always been called Joe. With regards to my occupation, I was a plumber in the military for the United States Air Force. I used to teach plumbing in the military. A lot of times the licenses that are obtained in the military world do not transfer over into the civilian world.

For many hardline lunatic-fringe conservatives, this just might become a bit of a stick with which to beat people with. He's not just Joe "The Plumber", he's Joe "The Fucking Military Plumbing Teacher".

Please, do continue:

Q: Why do you and so many other Americans find the words “spread the wealth around” so troubling?


A: Well, I am fairly well read and have read Karl Marx’s work, and spread the wealth around is something that he mentions quite often. If you look up the word [socialism] in [Webster’s] Dictionary, the definition may not mention “spread the wealth,” but community work and sharing of goods all plays into it. Obama’s health-care plan is a very socialist experiment. [Obama’s plans] all revolve around socialism, and that’s what scares me about it.

As I try to hold back my laughter at the thought of Joe/Sam/Plumber's Putty actually trying to conivnce the Tufts' readership that he is "well read", I would like to have Joe give a brief speech on Marxism and what he thought of struggle of the Proliteriat.

Q: How did you feel when you became such an important factor in the final presidential debate and the campaign as a whole?


A: Initially, I thought it was completely absurd. I was glad that I could be used as a focal point to possibly bandy around some ideas, and maybe people would open their eyes to Obama’s socialist ideology. However, there were so many important issues to be discussed other than the “Joe the Plumber, Joe the Plumber.” [The debate] was absolutely ridiculous. After a while, I actually got tired of it. Not so much the “Joe the Plumber” I am tired of, but there are other issues that need to be discussed.

Right.

Completely absurd until he started being asked to appear on television, make speaking engagements with McCain, a book deal. Yeah, it was absurd until he realized, "hey, I've got a publicist now"

There is so much more, but this is where the money shot comes in:

Q: The Republican Party was dealt another devastating blow [on Nov. 4]. In your opinion, what do you feel the party needs to do in order to successfully regain control of the government? Also, what should disappointed conservatives like yourself do following the election?


A: The party should remember that they are conservative Republicans — that has been forgotten. They no longer hold to their ideals. They blow with the wind on just about every public opinion poll. So they are not right-wing; they are trying to show that they’re middle or even left-of-middle sometimes. You have to remember two years ago, the Democrats loved John McCain. That is not what this is about. If you’re a party, you have to stick to your ideals. The frontrunners in the Republican Party have definitely seem to forgotten that. Governor [Bobby] Jindal of Louisiana seems to have the right idea. We have got to get back to the grassroots of the Republican Party and not apologize for being conservative.

Boby Jindal just lost the 2012 primary.

That Only Took A Couple Of Hours

Yep

A veteran of his VP search team and yes, believe it or not, another Clinton retread. One knee-deep in the Marc Rich pardon, to boot.

And as an added bonus:

Even better, he was deputy AG when federal agents extracted Elian Gonzalez at the point of a machine gun and did a cable news tour defending that decision. Elian’s father’s attorney at the time, incidentally? The One’s new White House counsel, Greg Craig.

Here we go......

Worst In The World v 4.6 / 4.7 / 4.8

Bill O'Reilly

Rick Davis

Dick Sharp







Steve Doocy

Sean Hannity and Tim Pawlenty

Rush Limbaugh




English Traffic Wardens.

Bill O'Reilly

Mark Foley

The Only Thing You'll Hear About Obama's Attorney General

You can almost hear Hannity, Limbaugh, and Dick Morris salivating and circle-jerking at the thought of this.

...( Eric )Holder took flak in 2001 for failing to object to a last-minute pardon request for fugitive Marc Rich, whose ex-wife is a prolific Democratic Party donor, when others in the Clinton administration pushed through the petition during its last hours in office.

Oh boy. Primetime on Fox tonight is going to be all Clinton and Obama bashing. Oh, I'm sorry - it always is.

The full rundown on Eric Holder can be found here.

Tuesday Jams featuring My Morning Jacket

From their appearance on Conan O'Brien

One Big Holiday

"Freedom" Concerts?

What type of "freedom" is Sean Hannity attempting to bring with the likes to Bill Ray "Achey-Breaky-My-Daughter-Is-More-Valid-Than-Me" Cyrus, Lee "I'm-Only-Here Because-Of-This-Anthem-I-Wrote-To-Try-And-Keep-My-Career-Alive" Greenwood, and Charlie "The-Devil-Went-Down-Somewhere-But-I-Forget-Becuse-I'm-Becoming-Cenile" Daniels?

Is this is "only conservatives will be taken up during The Rapture" type freedom, or is this just the freedom to buy over-priced tickets and stand out in the hot sun and pay way too much for a cheeseburger type freedom?

Some time ago, there was an excellent blog ( posted here ) that digs a bit deeper into the "Sean Hannity and Oliver North are going to bring you freedom through twangy, country, music" issue:

For example, the following is the Hannity promotion of the recent concert in San Diego

WHERE: COORS AMPHITHEATRE IN CHULA VISTA, CA.
2050 Entertainment Circle, Chula Vista, CA 91911
WHEN:Thursday - July 26, 2007 7:30 PM (Doors open at 5:30 PM)
TICKETS: Prices: $38.00 - $78.00 PURCHASE TICKETS »
The following fees are included in the above ticket prices: $4.75 facility fee, $4.25 parking fee, and a $4.00 donation to the Freedom Alliance



So if we were to assume that the average ticket price was $50 (we'll err on the conservative side) then the organizers of this event are skimming $37 a person off the top, not including other paraphenelia. Of course there may be some expenses involved but how much is each person being paid? It also means that 92% of all moneys being paid by concert goers is NOT going to the families of soldiers. Hannity claims that "100% of the profits" go to the families. Again, note the use of the word "profits." By the time Hannity and the Freedom Alliance have taken out money for "expenses" profits are few and far between.

Now I'm being very tricky because you are probably saying to yourself that the piker Hannity only gives 8% of concert receipts to the families of soldiers. And you would be wrong. The number is less than 1% as you'll see later on.

Notice that the $4.00 donation goes to the Freedom Alliance NOT the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund.

Now you probably want to know what the Freedom Alliance is? (Hint: Think traitor, liar, and convicted felon.)

Johnny Is Mad

Here is the first photo released of Johnny Depp as The Mad Hatter in Tim Burton's revisualization of Alice In Wonderland.

Alice In Wonderland started filming in Cornwall earlier this autumn, with a relative unknown taking the lead role as fantasiser Alice.
Mia Wasikowska, 18, from Canberra, Australia, will be playing Alice, alongside Anne Hathaway as the White Queen.
Burton has also cast his real-life partner Helena Bonham Carter as the moody Red Queen.
The director frequently works with Carter in his movies, having cast her in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (which also starred Depp), Big Fish and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street.
Matt Lucas and David Walliams, the stars of television show Little Britain, have been cast as Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
The Queen star Michael Sheen (Tony Blair) will play the Cheshire Cat, while Back To The Future star Crispin Glover (George McFly) will play the knaves of hearts

From MailOnline

Gingrich And O'Reilly Are Afraid Of "The Gay"

O'Reilly's war imagry in his book "Culture Warrior" was so overblown and laughable that he just can't seem to let it go.

Now, his good buddy Newt Gingrich is taking it to another level. It's not just a "gay agenda", it's "fascism".



Do Newt and O'Reilly honestly feel that random gay and lesbian people are going to "impose their will" upon them? Certainly, O'Reilly could use some help picking out his ties, but they are doing nothing but creating an aura of radicalism around gays and lesbians that simply isn't there to begin with.

Then, you've got Newt using the word "fascism".

Like so many before him, he is doing nothing but attempting to redefine what that word - and many others that already have a clear definable meaning - means.

But, this "imposition of will" statement is even more frightening. Certainly, O'Reilly and Gingrich realize that what they are doing is attempting to impose THEIR will upon an entire community. They are wanting to strip away rights from people simply because they don't agree with them.

Of course, if you ask Newt what he thinks that bible says about adultery and divorce, i'm certain that he wouldn't be too eager to answer.

And while we are on the subject of this alleged "fascist gay state", let's take a look at one of these scary protests that O'Reilly and Newt are talking about:

More Nonsense From Dick Morris and Sean Hannity

I'm not sure what's funnier, Hannity trying to explain away Bush's failed economic policy by pointing to Reagan or Dick Morris trying to prove that he is some sort of economic psychic by claiming he predicted it in this book he's still trying to sell.

Not Answering The Way They Want

The video below is getting quite a bit of play on many of the more prominent right-wing blogs. It's creator, John Zeigler, has also appeared on Hannity adn Colmes and The O'Reilly factor.

It seems that Zeigler is taking the John Stossel appraoch - trying to convince conservatives that many Democrats are too "stupid" to vote. Watch the video below and you'll probably see why some of these questions weren't answered.



It wouldn't suprise me to go out to any street, in any town, in any state and ask questions like "Who is Harry Reid?" "Who is Nancy Pelosi?", "Where did Obama start his political career?" and have people not be able to answer.

The reason behind this is simple.

The average American has more to worry about that conservative talking points, right-wing boogie-men.

Granted, the questions about who controls congress is something that people should be able to answer. But, when people are approached by a person with a camera and are asked questions like this, they often think they are getting duped. These concerns are justified.

What is more important to the average American - knowing who Barney Frank is or trying to figure out how to have healthcare?

Just asking.

You can check out more of John Zeigler's nonsense here.

Oh, You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding

Newsweek writer Lisa Miller is apparently one of those crazy people that thinks that Obama just might be the "anti-christ"

No, I'm serious:

On Nov. 5, Todd Strandberg was at his desk, fielding E-mails from around the world. As the editor and founder of RaptureReady.com, his job is to track current events and link them to biblical prophecy in hopes of maintaining his status as "the eBay of prophecy," the best source online for predictions and calculations concerning the end of the world. Already Barack Obama had drawn the attention of apocalypse watchers after an anonymous e-mail circulated among conservative Christians in October implying that he was the Antichrist. Former "Saturday Night Live" ingénue Victoria Jackson fueled the fire when, according to news reports, she wrote on her Web site that Obama "bears traits that resemble the anti-Christ."

Not entirely sure that I would be using Victoria Jackson as a point of reference, but we are dealing with a wacked-out theory to begin with. Come to think of it, what features is Jackson talking about?

Anyway, if you're curious about RaptureReady.com, Mr. Strandberg got a hot tip that the winning Illinois Lottery numbers recently were - get ready for it - 666.

*cue shocking music*

Just to keep everything into perspective, after September 11, 2001, the winning New York Lottery numbers were 911.

Considering that faith and the political community at large are linked in the minds of far too many people - yes, I believe that God has no place in politics - but that faith and politics is a subject worthy to be broached by the journalistic community, I find it exceeding irresponsible that Lisa Miller's article was even considered for publication.

Of all the plausible things that could have, and should have, been written about, Newsweek chose this?

Something Tells Me That There's A Plot Brewing

Check out this screen-grab from FoxNews.com

I think George W. Bush just handed the lunatic-fringe Right their latest talking point.

Any Port In A Storm

It's become quite fun to see the wingers still falling over themselves, trying to find ways to praise Sarah Palin.

Here's Michelle Malkin's latest attempt:

Last week, McCain won the “Least Favorite Person on the Right” poll at Right Wing News.

This week, John Hawkins at RWN conducted a follow-up poll on bloggers’ “Favorite People On The Right.”

Sarah Palin blew the competition away.

Blew them away, Michelle?

Out of 260 right-wing bloggers, Palin only got 33 votes. Limbaugh got 29, so I hardly see this as a "blow-out".

In other news, my cousin beat out 5 other teenagers to be crowned "Miss Kentucky Least Likely To Be Knocked Up by Age 17". I think that's about on par with Mrs. Palin's honors.

The Relevancy Of The GOP

It's own members are questioning it:

"Where we have really fallen down is, we have lacked the ability to be relevant to people's lives. Let's set aside the last eight years, and our falling down in living up to expectations of what we said we were going to do," Mr. Cantor told The Washington Times in his district office outside of Richmond. "It's the relevancy question."

As chief deputy whip, Mr. Cantor, 45, was the logical choice to move up when Republicans' current whip, Rep. Roy Blunt, stepped aside - something Mr. Blunt announced days after Republicans lost at least 20 seats in the House.

A week before Wednesday's leadership elections, Mr. Cantor offered a bleak assessment of his party and where it's fallen: technology, preparedness for political realities, such as the next round of redistricting, and pursuing its ideals.

Most of all, he said, Republicans have been content to offer principles, rather than concrete solutions. Voters, he said, have punished them for it.

More her from the Washington Times.

This can be viewed a number of different ways, none of them shead much of a positive light on the GOP.

While they have been primarily the "lip-service" party over the last 8 years - more specifically in the last 24 months - they have proven to been even less of a party of "action", a claim that they have been placing upon the Democrats in congress since they took power back in 2006.

Their ideology is what has made them irrelevant. The media that has attempted to burnish their image and further their ideology is just as irrelavent as they are.

Well, at least someone in the party is honest with why they were losers earlier this month.

New Star Trek Trailer ( bootleg version )

If you went to the theatre over the weekend to see Quantum of Solace, you saw this.



Lots going on here.

This is going to dominate the box office next summer. Just hoping that it's not so busy with mindless action that it takes away from the plot.

We will see.

Is He Suggesting What I Think He Is?

It's a fact that Micheal Weiner Savage is a nutcase.

Of course, that is a prerequisite to having your own right-wing talk show, followed closely by either sexual harasser, drug addict, or college drop-out. Sometimes it's all of the above.

This is, I think, a new low for even Savage. He is now claiming that there is some connection between Barack Obama's grandmother's death, his visit to Hawaii, and his birth certificate.



Media Matters has more

New Watchmen Trailer

The more I see of this, the more anxious I get. I'm so ready for it to be next year.

Monday Morning Blues featuring Muddy Waters

Manish Boy




And speaking of Muddy Waters, check out the trailer for the upcoming feature Cadillac Records.

Not sure if Beyonce can pull off the "from the gut, soul-crushing delivery" of Etta James, but we'll see.

Perhaps You Should Get Your Source Information Correct

Leave it to hardline, conservative, Republicans - you know, that party of "context" - to completely misrepresent the South Carloina Catholic Diocese.

The story begins when Father Jay Scott Newman tells his congregation that if they had voted for Barack Obama then they should seriously consider if they are able to receive Holy Communion.

You can check out my previous blog on this.

Enter Ed Morrissey at HotAir.

A South Carolina priest who sent a letter warning parishioners who voted for Barack Obama that they may have placed themselves outside of the communion of the Catholic Church has received the backing of his diocese. The Diocese of Charleston agrees with Fr. Jay Scott Newman’s letter despite the controversy it generated, which brings the debate over “formal participation” into a new context...

Yeah, there's that word "context". Morrissey still hasn't figured that one out.

The main problem with Ed's piece - titled "South Carolina diocese stands firm on priest’s warning letter" - is that the Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin ( current representative of the South Carolina Diocese, as they have no Bishop ) had this to say:

This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, ‘Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.’ The Catechism goes on to state: ‘In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.’

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

You can read an excellent blog here from a former member of the church in question.


Even when Morrissey was called out on his lack of using the correct facts, he tries to draw an equivalency between the press agent from the diocese, the Monsignor, and what the hierarchy of the church would say by doing his own interpretation of catechism.

Being an outsider to the Catholic church, I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to interpret church doctrine that is vague to beging with. However, this is a very clear window with which we can view the lunatic-fringe conservative movement through.
Ever eager to malign anyone with whom they disagree, they will just as easily mold church doctrine to make anyone out to be a "sinner".

Any chance that Morrissey - or those like him - can use religion as a weapon they will do it, even if they have to rearrange the facts to do it

Now This Is How You Connect With A Generation

Obama seems to be making sure that he uses technology as a tool of communication with America. He's going to be known for his version of the "fireside chat".

The first address will appear on Change.gov this Saturday, after it airs in audio. An Obama spokesperson says that this innovation is just the beginning of the digital, transparent presidency. The plan appears to be in the mold of what the campaign did with videos like "Four Days in Denver" and Campaign Manager David Plouffe's conversations on the state of the race. These videos allowed supporters to feel like they had a direct connection to the campaign, a connection that bypassed the media.

More here.

While some of the Right will surely see this as nothing more than a ramp up to a "Ministry Of Information", it is readily apparent that Obama is ready to let people into government rather than using government to keep people isolated.

The Judith Miller / Valerie Plame / CIA Leak Movie

While some may be more concerned with how closely the movie is going to parallel the actual events that lead up to leaking Valerie Plame's identiy, the "Scooter" Libby connection, and the "intelligence" that helped push us into Iraq, I'm going at it from this angle - They picked Kate Beckinsale to play Judith Miller!?






WHAT?!

I mean, I know that Hollywood has to try and make everything more "sexy", more appealing to the audience. But, come on.



Regardless, I'll be watching this.

Joe "The Author"?

Yeah.

Right on cue, Joe ( Samuel Wurzelbacher ) "The Plumber" is writing a book.

Well, I think it's safe to say that the "co-author" Thomas Tabback is going to be doing most of the writing. He's probably already got most of it done, as it is slated for release on December 1st.

This latest tale of small-town-guy-turned-media-darling-because-of-lie-I-told-to-Presidential-hopeful is titled: "Joe the Plumber -- Fighting for the American Dream". Well, if your American Dream is riding this show-pony as hard and fast as she'll go just to try and make some money, considering you are broke.

Joe the Plumber is short on cash and unemployed but that's not stopping him from opening a new charitable foundation and penning a book on American values.

"I got no financial offers. I am broke," Joe Wurzelbacher said Monday, explaining that he's got a few ideas on how to spread the wealth to himself and others following bogus reports of a professional management deal and potential country music career.

"I am starting a charity up, it's called 'Secure Our Dream.' It's just about people, neighbors in the community," Wurzelbacher told FOXNews.com.

The plumber-turned-media-fixture got a taste for charity work last week at an event in Philadelphia that aimed to help out family members of police officers killed in the line of duty.

He said he hasn't figured out how he's going to finance the charity, but knows how he wants the money to be spent.

"You know there's a lady on my street that is going to lose her house because of disability. You know ... that's something this charity that I am starting would help, help people directly," he said.

More here.

Hmmm. Spreading the wealth around. That's an interesting concept, Joe.

This next part is just so money:

"Everyone came at me to write a book. They had dollar signs in their eyes. '101 Things Joe the Plumber Knows' or some stupid s--- like that. Excuse me, I am sorry," he said. "You know I will get behind something solid, but I won't get behind fluff. I won't cash in, and when people do read the book they will figure out that I didn't cash in. At least I hope they figure that out."

Does Joe not realize that his fame is based off of "fluff"? And, as per his own words, he is cashing in. Yeah, he knows. Joe, you've been "cashing in" since your little story broke on Fox"News". You know, those people that have bee paying your rent. Yeah, them.

Regardless, I don't see his book debuting on the NYT Best Seller List. Well, unless the publishing houses, Sarah Palin, John and Cindy McCain, and NewsCorp buy up all the copies that are going to be printed. That's been known to happen.

Perhaps a more apt title would be "Joe The Plumber - How Opportunism And Misrepresentation Can Make You Money".

The William Ayers Interview

Click here to start the interview.

It's interesting how some aren't so willing to accept the fact that Ayers has never spoken about the "he's friends with Obama" meme.

In point of fact, I don't agree with what Ayers has done. Revolutionary action is often times required to bring about a change that an entire nation screams for. But I'm not so sure that stating what The Weather Underground was doing can be seen as a parallel to what was being done when this country was attempting to gain it's independance - which has been postulated.

Regardless of your thoughts on the man, the primary focus that has been placed on Ayers and Obama is this alleged "friendship" that the two shared. Many have been willing to jump in and claim that they know, without equivocation, that Obama and Ayers were "friends", that they have a "history".

Those that have screamed this the loudest, the most visible of conservatives, surely realize that they were - and still are - attempting to shove the square peg into the round hole. They know that there is a difference between the "working relationship" - as mild as Obama's and Ayres more than likely was - and a "social relationship".

When tackling any association, and depending on how you want your intended audience to react, you have to opperate within a specific set of abstracts. Much in the way Fox"News" uses the "Fair and Balanced" slogan, it's nothing more than that, a slogan. When discussing Obama and Ayers, all you have to do is say that they served on "boards" together and that they were friendly. You don't have to be specific. Just shout that Williams Ayres is a terrorist and that he is friends with Obama. And keep shouting it. This is what has been done.

The larger point is to just watch the interview and see what Ayers has to say. You don't have to agree with him, just listen to his side of the story.

The Eternal Campaign

You aren't seeing or hearing things that aren't there. Sarah Palin is still campaigning. Just check out this press-conference at the Republican Governors Association meeting:



It's more than just telling when a fellow governor just brushes her aside as if to say "let someone else talk".

In Palin's eyes, she is now the de facto leader of the party. This isn't because any within her party has told her, or anyone in the media - save those clown over at Fox - may have hinted at such. The media fascination with Sarah Palin is due largely in part to her own megalomaniacal glow, her belief that she can do anything and has done everything.

Naturally, some within her party seem comfortable with the "style over substance" that flows from Sarah Palin with such ease. But, the problem with this line of thinking is that it does nothing to advance the party and only serves to further prove that they have almost completely lost touch with reality.

The Motor City Loudmouth

Ted Nugent appears to be at that age, at that stage in his career, where he is willing to completely stereotype himself in order to remain even moderately valid.

He frequently appears on Hannity and Colmes and does the "I'm a hunter and I love my guns and Democrats are pussy-whipped whiners blah blah blah" bit, much to the pleasure of Hannity.

Well, he's at it again. Only this time, he doesn't seem to realize that what he is screaming for is what cause so many conservatives to lose their election bids. What Nugent is wanting is exactly what is making conservatives pointless:

Should President-elect Obama implement his wrong-headed economic policies, our economy will continue to slide into the abyss and America's debt will continue to soar to unsustainable levels. Conservatives must hold the line at all costs and call out all RINOs who support President-elect Obama's economic kamikaze plan.

Make no mistake, conservative values and ideologies are embraced by Americans. The polls all indicate Americans are fed up with the Pelosi-led, do nothing congress, and do not support more government programs and control. Sounds to me like we have a conservative revolution brewing.

Conservative leaders and thinkers such as Newt Gingrich, Jed Babbin, Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Governor Sarah Palin and others need to turn up the heat and bring this less government, more individual freedom and strong national defense revolution to a boil. It is time.

More here

So the current administration's hands are completely clean in relation to the current economic crisis? Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin are conservative leader? Has Nugent even seen what type of debt George W. Bush and his cronies have left us with?

This is all just lip-service. Ted Nugent is probably a smart guy, but he can't believe all this nonsense. He is, after all, an entertainer. These people make their living off of making you feel like they identify with you and they care about you. At the end of the day, it's all just scripted and means nothing.