A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
Seems that the modern American right doesn't like gray areas, as they see the world in black and white terms - literally and figuratively.
This is no less true for studies regarding healthy eating. After all, the Right has to rail against healthy eating too since only Commie, Hippie, Marxist, Liberal, Gays opt to eat a salad over a deep fried slab of bacon covered in gravy.
The study in question is from TIME with the following title:
Study: Calorie Counts in Restaurants May Not Curb Eating Habits
But if you venture over to Fox"Nation" - who links to the study - the title reads a little differently:
Study: Calorie Counts at Restaurants Don’t Change Eating Habits
The modern American Right could certainly use a lesson in the use of English language, as there is a world of difference between a definative word like "Don't" and one that is suggests nuance like "May".
But then context and Right Wing ideology never really meshed all that well to start with.
According to the almight Oprah, her interview with Sarah Palin really touched all the bases and should be a fantastic program - airing next Monday.
And while there will likely be dish on things like Trig, David Letterman, Levi, and what it was like to be a Rougey-Mavericky on the campaign trail last year, I wouldn't expect there to be any great discussion on policy - it's not really Palin's strong suit.
But this is standard fare for Oprah's interviewing techniques. She's ridiculously famous and snags all the "top names", but isn't exactly known to have truly hard-hitting interviews. In that regard, Palin is likely to get the treatment she believes she so richly deserves - a softball format only rivaled by the ego sucking droogies at Fox"News". But Oprah had a chance to do this right, as the interview was pretaped this week. I wonder if Palin required that she be able to sign-off on audience members?
The Fox"News" meme of 'they're just afraid' is beyond tired, worn-out, and pointless. As if you needed another example, here is Bill O'Reilly.
I'll push O'Reilly's initial statement that "there hasn't been much news" the past few weeks aside and focus on his 'talking point' thesis.
But who is honestly buying this 'The Obama White House attacked Fox"News" completely unprovoked' line of reasoning? Aside from the average Fox fan that still believes that they are fair AND balanced, that Glenn Beck is a voice of reason, and that O'Reilly actually knows anything about world history, the list is pretty short.
And, as per the norm, Bill O'Reilly claims that he offered Klein a spot on his show, but how can any of us verify that fact? How can any of us know that what O'Reilly says he has done he actually has? We can't and we don't. The viewer is painted into a corner and must rely upon his word. And while there are some that are willing to accept any and everything that this man says - regardless of topic - the remainder of us that are able to assemble coherent thought are rightfully skeptical.
But more to this "they are afraid" clap-trap.
Fox"News" is quite proficient in using deflection when it comes to approaching stories that they are generally powerless against. A prime example is the way in which they continuously defend the conservative, Republican, point of view on a daily basis. Rather than address the message, they attack the messenger. And one of the most common ways that they do this is by stating that whomever speaks against them is somehow "afraid" of the network, "afraid" to come onto a particular program.
While most people outside the realm of the reactionary Right can't be bothered with having to answer to each and every challenge posed by people like Bill O'Reilly, it does provide both he and Fox"News" with a modest amount of covering fire when the intended target doesn't respond immediately. But what do people like Joe Klein, Barack Obama, or any number of Democrats have to gain by kowtowing to the drooling demands of the conservaive movement?
And speaking of "fear", one has to wonder why Bill O'Reilly, the self-ascribed champion of the average American, refuses to have his program air live rather than be taped at 4pm EST. Is he afraid of coming out from the shadow of the editing process and do a real interview with someone? If you've ever seen Bill attempt to do a show live, you'll know straight away that he is nothing more than a rank amateur when standing against someone that he opposes.
Samuel Wurzelbacher, better known as Joe the Plumber, tells TIME he's so outraged by GOP overspending, he's quitting the party — and he's the bull's-eye of its target audience.
Something tells me that he's not gone for good.
Even though Joe "The Gimmick" claims to be outraged with excessive GOP spending, there's this little nugget of joy:
...he also said he wouldn't support any cuts in defense, Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid — which, along with debt payments, would put more than two-thirds of the budget off limits.
As we all now by now, Mr. Wurzelbacher was once one of those "welfare queens" that he and his fringe-conservative types love to rail against.
Since he's "leaving" the GOP, where will he end up next? I rather doubt that he and Sarah Palin will be all buddy-buddy now. The only place he's got left is the fringe element that embraced him for the theatrical set-piece that he was. Look for him to have an interview spot on Hannity's America and various wingnutia-style talk-radio prattle-fests like Limbaugh's program. Joe hasn't tred into Micheal Weiner ( Savage ) territory yet, but if the electric bill gets too big, I wouldn't put it past him.
In a recent interview with a Spanish news outlet, John McCain made some rather odd remarks in response to a question about diplomacy that should have been easy to someone in his position.
Late Wednesday night, news made its way from the other side of the Atlantic that John McCain, in an interview with a Spanish outlet, had made a series of bizarre responses to a question regarding that country's prime minister.
"Would you be willing to meet with the head of our government, Mr. Zapatero?" the questioner asked, in an exchange now being reported by several Spanish outlets.
McCain proceeded to launch into what appeared to be a boilerplate declaration about Mexico and Latin America -- but not Spain -- pressing the need to stand up to world leaders who want to harm America.
"I will meet with those leaders who are our friends and who want to work with us cooperatively," according to one translation. The reporter repeated the question two more times, apparently trying to clarify, but McCain referred again to Latin America.
When the reporter realized that McCain was either intentionally not answering the question or simply didn't feel comfortable with how the question was phased, the reporter asked it again:
Finally, the questioner said, "Okay, but I'm talking about Europe - the president of Spain, would you meet with him?" The Senator offered only a slight variance to his initial comment. "I will reunite with any leader that has the same principles and philosophy that we do: human rights, democracy, and liberty. And I will confront those that don't [have them]."
Was McCain so confused about what leader goes with what country that he had an automatic reaction to Zapatero's name and linked him with Latin America? Does McCain know who Zapatero is?
One would at least assume, and rightly so, that McCain or his team of handlers would have done some research considering they were speaking with a member of the foreign press.
You gotta feel for José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Here the Spanish prime minister is only four months from an end to his government's strained relations with that of President George W. Bush and blam! — along comes John McCain to suggest the next four years might not be any better. During an interview in Miami earlier this week with Spanish-language station Union Radio, a reporter asked McCain whether, if elected, he would receive Zapatero in the White House. McCain answered, "Honestly, I have to analyze our relationships, situations, and priorities, but I can assure you that I will establish closer relationships with our friends, and I will stand up to those who want to harm the United States."
Ouch. The question about Zapatero, clearly framed by the reporter as a question about Spain, came after inquiries on Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba. As a result, much of the Spanish press has decided that the Republican candidate, who hails himself as the experienced foreign policy choice in this election, confused Spain — a NATO member and key ally in the fight against terrorism — with one of those troublesome Latin American states. That was certainly the interviewer's impression, for she followed up with a gentle reminder that Spain was a country in Europe. As Spanish newspaper El País put it, "In the best-case scenario, [his answer] demonstrates his ignorance with respect to Zapatero."
One can see where conservative bloggers will go with this one.
Since there were questions regarding Venezuela and Cuba prior to the one about Cuba, the interviewer must have been wanting to intentionally confuse McCain.
Still, the question was clear and McCain's response was just as stumbling - if not more so - as Palin's response to Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" question.
