What's Wrong With Calling The President A Dick?

Don't get me wrong, I like President Obama, and I don't think he's a dick. I like his press conferences, especially when he has a little spunk (as he did the other day). Do I agree with all of his policies? No. Most of them? Ehh, I don't know. But I think he does a solid job in the current climate. Frankly, I'm surprised he ever gets anything done, because congress certainly tries their damndest to stop anything resembling progress.

This, of course, warrants the obvious but necessary Philosoraptor reference.

But I really don't understand what the issue here is.

Mark Halperin called the president a dick. He is a journalist. Journalist speak and write, presumably, quite freely. I really don't like that MSNBC has suspended him indefinitely and backed off from his remarks.

Obviously they want to appear fair and balanced, but seriously, he's an analyst. I wouldn't expect Michael Moore to appear as a centrist. Or Matt Taibbi. Sure, Mark Halperin is Time magazine's Editor-At-Large and being in that position and saying what he said is controversial.

But who cares. Everyone has made a big deal out of this. The White House disapproves. MSNBC disapproves. Time disapproves. I bet Fox News disapproves, even though they're saying basically the same thing.

Congress seems to basically agree with Mark Halperin, since they've said the same thing, if not worse, suggesting the president take a Valium and calling his press conference "disgraceful" and disrespecting the office of the presidency. I wonder how Senator Cornyn has disrespected the office of the Senate? I imagine the founding fathers would be pretty pissed off and use words far worse than "dick" (though sounding far more refined) to describe our current political climate.

I understand that calling the president--any president a dick is "inappropriate" but not once did I read or hear anyone say anything in his defense.  But don't worry Mark, I've got your back. I know you don't think the president's a dick. I know your reaction to his conference was reactionary, and that you probably meant that the president was perhaps more combative than you'd like. But you shouldn't have to apologize. Journalists should really never have to apologize for their opinions--so long as they're not purporting them as facts.

How many people have called Dubya stupid? Do I think he's stupid? No, of course not, and I think he'd be pretty amazing to spend a few hours with. He seems like a really charming guy. But as a president I think he did a terrible job. For my interests. But to the people who he "represented," he did an amazing job.

You know the press conference the other day? Yeah, you probably missed it. I don't blame you at all for not watching it. No one watches C-SPAN either. (I do sometimes. For reals.)

Well, President Obama was kind of a dick during it.

But that's okay, because I loved it. The president doesn't have to be a stuffy pushover, or a quiet diplomat. Sometimes, people need a firecracker shoved up their asses and the fuse lit.

Happy Fouth of July, 112^th Congress; you've earned it.

On Terrible Ironies

There is currently a movement in New York for a living wage. I wrote about Minimum Wage and how as a system it's full of fail twice back in December, and it's refreshing to see people fighting against it, even if the war isn't being won, small battles won are nice.

The problem with minimum wage goes far deeper than it's name suggests. Seriously, how has no one given this a nice sounding euphemism by now? Nothing about "Minimum Wage" connotates good feelings. Where is the pro-business lobby on this one? Oh right, they were trying to eliminate the minimum wage entirely, almost forgot.

What they are fighting for in New York is livable wages, though, not just the bare minimum. And this is why the battle, and the war, are ultimately foolhardy. You see, they are fighting and protesting over, not a livable wage, but ten dollars an hour. Could you live in NYC for ten bucks an hour? Remember, that's just over twenty grand a year, before taxes or any kind of expenses--like healthcare for example. The answer is obviously no. No one can.

Minimum wage should be abolished, and replaced with a system that scales based on location and average expenses.

Unfortunately, this won't happen because Big Business has lots and lots of money to lobby with, and Republicans (and conservative democrats) really like that money, which is why so little progress has been made for regular folks in the wage department over the years.

You know what the worst part about this nonsense is though? It's not that it won't happen; I think we've resigned ourselves to that (as sad as that fact may be). No, it's that the people who fight against minimum and livable wages are the same people who fought for the Bush tax cuts being extended for uber rich people and for keeping executive pay high (and keeping "golden parachutes") "because we need to entice them to stay as CEOs, even if they are running the company into the ground" or something.

The message they're sending?

You only deserve the money if you earned it by running a business poorly, but those people who are now out of work, because that douchebag doesn't understand how to run a profitable company, sorry you're going to need to take a pay cut or lose your job. Don't worry though, with luck, you'll be able to find a job with another company-- and that same douchebag might just be running that one into the ground, too.

Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

Goodbye Keith, We'll Miss You

In the world of news, there are very few people who can make it exciting. While Keith Olbermann may have at times been a little over the top, I think he brought something that the news needed: unrelenting honesty. And I think that with that comes a certain amount of anger, which at times can be hard to control for someone in a  position like that. I can understand many of his frustrations, and I think his show was something of a triumph, if a bit biased.

There are few wordsmiths quite like Keith, though, especially in the news, and that is what really made his show enjoyable; I love words, and clearly Keith Olbermann does too.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So we bid you adieu, for now. I'm sure you'll be back sometime, somewhere, and we'll be waiting. Besides, we don't watch tv anymore anyway, so hopefully you end up somewhere where we can catch up.

Good night and Good Luck. Though, I'm not convinced you'll need it.

On Censorship, Specifically Why It's Unnecessary

Recently, the northeast got pounded with snow. From what I understand, most of the country now has gotten at least some snow.

Which leads me to this:



I don't understand. I really, truly don't.

Seriously, I try to understand why some of the most innocuous things offend people the way they do, but I just don't get it. So a couple of kids made a penis snowman.

At the beginning, there is a kid who seems absolutely terrified of having saw it. I feel bad for him, honestly, I do. But I think his parents put him up to it. What does he do every time he needs to pee or take a bath? Does he wallow in his tears, feeling offended that he has to look at a penis? I mean, it's just a penis.

Parents were offended, the town was offended, but it's a penis. Every boy has one. Every mother has seen some. You know what, I'm willing to bet every single person in that town has willingly seen a penis.

Then there is the mother who says her two-year-old doesn't even know what it is. Only, she says it like it's a travesty that her child may now know what it is. I bet her kid doesn't know what mayonnaise is either. Or Wolves. Or Velociraptors. Velociraptors would cause much more harm than a penis.

If you think about it, this town should be celebrating the penises, not crucifying and, more importantly, censoring them.

Why is a penis "obscene" but a foot isn't? There is absolutely nothing in our culture that maintains any sense of purity with that body part. Nor a woman's. I understand there are cultures in other parts of the world where showing a foot is basically a full-on seduction. But here? No. In America, nothing is sacred. And that is kind of the beauty of the USA.

Only, we're not really all that free. America is built on freedom, and any time we fight someone we are told it's for our freedom. But it's bullshit. Because you can't say bullshit on television. You can't create art and put it in your yard if someone else deems it offensive.

Well, actually you can. That, too, is the beauty of America. We actually are free to do whatever we want, with one minor caveat, however: we pay the consequence. Make a penis sculpture? Go to jail. Say "fuck" on television (Cable, I might add), pay an exorbitant fine.

But wait, how exactly is this freedom? This is no different that castrating all the statues in the Vatican city-state. This is no different from any other country in the world. No one can stop you from doing anything, and if you do it, you face the consequences. Spit gum on the streets in Singapore? pay a fine. Steal in Iran? Lose your hands. and so on.

Yes, we have more freedoms than some countries, notably the press, although that point can be seriously argued, especially as of late. But in regards to censorship, we are seriously lacking. And we are seriously lacking because art is disappearing. We pour trillions of dollars into financial firms, billions into sports, and practically nothing (relatively) into art and education. Want an example? Republicans trying to take away funding for the CPB which funds NPR and PBS.

I never took art in school. Well, I did the normal elementary school garbage like cutting and pasting. But once I was in middle school, art was relegated to two two-week sessions. Hardly what I'd consider supportive of the arts. Physical education, too, was equally punished (but that's a whole different blog).

In high school, we were free to make our own choices (except freshman year) which was refreshing, and something I definitely approve of. I don't wish I was forced to take X number of classes in art, though, I do wish I'd taken art. I wish before high school I'd been subjected to art-- to a lot of different subjects to be better prepared for high school and college.

My three biggest interests, photography, art, and baking/cooking were completely inaccessible in school. To say I was initiated to art in school would be laughable. two weeks cannot even be considered an introduction or a survey of a course. Especially in middle school. Cooking is obviously never done in school, at least not any I've been to. And photography was most definitely never offered as a course either. I wish they had been.

So why must we censor everything? Does hiding curse words from children really do them any good? Does the word fuck instantly transform a good kid into a deviant? Does seeing genitals on television, or in art create sexual deviants? No. I'm guessing it's the opposite.

Maybe I am wrong, but what is the difference? Imagine you are a blank slate, like a child. Imagine you don't know what lettuce is. Or what a hand is. Or a breast, yes, a breast is a good example. Now imagine flashcards. On one flashcard is a photo of lettuce and on another is a breast. Is one naughty? Is one bad? Is one of those photos going to do something terrible to your psyche? No, because you don't know the difference.

Imagine, now, flashcards of breasts. One card has male breasts, and one has female breasts. Is one naughtier than the other? Is one more vulgar? Why? What if you are a blank slate? Is it because they are covered up? I don't go shirtless outside, does that make my breasts more vulgar than a guy who live in South Beach? Is a roly poly, hairy man shirtless more vulgar than my shirtless breasts? What about a woman who's had a double mastectomy and doesn't have breasts anymore? Is that no longer obscene? I mean, no longer will she have milk-giving breasts, or anything resembling what a woman's breasts are typically. No, they're much more akin to a man's. But no, that's probably not right either. That's probably more obscene in reality. What parent would show their child a woman's breasts post operation? No only would the child be subjected to breasts, but these are no ordinary breasts. They're different. They'd have scars.

Genitals are utilitarian, just like hands and feet. No more, no less. Hands are used to open doors, cabinets, build things, et cetera. Our feet take us from point A to point B. Genitals expel waste and create life. They are surrounded by our pelvic bones, which support our entire upper body. Butts expel waste, too, and there's nothing obscene about them; they're pretty tame and usually get a laugh.

So maybe instead of condemning penile sculpture, we should be embracing them. They do, after all, create life. What has a snowman ever done for you? Besides, find me a kid who's never drawn a penis and giggled. It's fun because we're told its taboo, for no other reason than it's taboo. That's like saying your morals come from morals, with no other rationale. "Why is murder bad?" "Because it's immoral!"

I'd like to ask those people (and the FCC) why they find these so offensive, and so obscene. I wonder if the woman in the video was disgusted when she was having the sex that gave her her two year old child. Maybe that is the real triumph, and she wants to protect her child from making the same mistake she did: seeing a penis. Pray that baby isn't a boy, though.

And why is it okay to show a naked baby but not an adult?

Man Cat: A True Republican

A couple weeks ago, our republican friends in the senate continued their vow to get nothing done. You see, there was a bill up for vote called the Paycheck Fairness Act. Sounds understandable, right? Nah, it's actually a jobkiller because, if you're a republican, everything except tax cuts is a jobkiller. Let's dive into this bill, shall we?

First of all, this isn't a new bill; it passed the House of Representatives almost two years ago in January of 2009. That's how congress works, the House passes things and the Senate occasionally might vote on some of them. This isn't an exaggeration; through filibustering and other nonsensical senate rules the House has passed an astonishing 420 bills that the senate has just let sit around. It's kind of stupid when you consider that the house has several hundred more members to have to wrangle to get things accomplished than the Senate. But the Senate has the filibuster, their Golden Gun, so to speak. Not only does the Senate have the option to ignore bills the House passes as they please, but should one of these bills come up for a vote a mere 41 senators can stop a bill from being voted on. Yeah, senators are such children that they need to vote on whether or not to vote. And unless you have a supermajority of sixty votes, forty one senators can block anything from getting a vote to pass.

One such senator is Susan Collins from Maine (yes, a woman) who argues that the bill would place an undue burden on small businesses and "impose increased costs and restrictions on small businesses in an already difficult economic climate." That's right paying women the same amount as men simply costs too much. Not to mention, asking business owners to pony up that extra cash at a time like this? Hell no, ain't gonna happen. Who wants to be restricted on what they can pay a man when they have to constantly worry if the women they employ are also worth that much. Or maybe this will hurt men in the long run, because they won't get the raises they deserve for fear of needing to also give women that same raise, as Forbes suggests.

It kind of pisses me off when people try to blame problems on unrelated things or skirt issues by changing the subject. The major complaints people have is that women have more rights in wage parity and more resources to fight for equal pay. How is that controversial? The law doesn't say that you can't pay Jim $35,000 and Susan $32,000. No, what it says is if you're going to pay Jim more it has to be because he is better at his job than Susan is.

I think we've all been at a job sometime working our ass off getting paid practically peanuts while someone less skilled was, shall we say, more handsomely rewarded. Doesn't it suck? I know I've literally been in the room with a boss of mine while he thanked someone else and told them what a good job they did on something that I actually did. And when that person pointed out that I actually did the work, not him? Nothing. I can only imagine the strife and annoyance women go through on a daily basis in the workforce.

I'm not feeling particularly wordy anymore, and I'm tired and annoyed by this kind of crap. Over and over again and this childish behavior really out to end. Be a fucking human being already.

Some People Say...

The trouble with "some people say" is that there are a great many people in this world, and a great many of them say and believe some pretty stupid things.

"Some people say" is a tactic, merely adding a veil of validity to back up a bogus claim you made up. For example: Some people say Tom Cruise is gay. Is he? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? How about Obama is a socialist, fascist, Muslim, et cetera et cetera.

Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with the saying, pending certain caveats. You see, "some people say" is appropriate when expressing an opinion. For example, "Some people say Led Zeppelin is the greatest band to ever produce music." This is a valid sentence, and is correct; I am certain some people believe this. Or, "Some people say Stairway To Heaven is the best song ever recorded." Again, very valid. Do I agree? Probably not; I'm not all that familiar with Led Zeppelin but I'm pretty sure whoever I suggest to be the greatest fill in the blank will find some resistance somewhere. For example, George W. Bush was the greatest president in U.S. history. Is it true? That all depends upon what metrics you use to value success and greatness. So, is President Obama the worst thing to ever happen to the United States as some people might have you believe? Probably not.

Credit card reform is not a very bad thing. Sure it may inconvenience some 18-to-21 year olds but for the vast majority it's a good thing. Student loan reform? Saves bundles of money, makes the government money, and while it may be imperfect the reform is certainly an improvement over how student loans were processed before. The Affordable Care Act sounds nice, right? Truth is, it's a pretty disgusting piece of legislation more commonly known as Obamacare. Why should preventative care be free? That only drives up costs in the long run. Children and infants born, regrettably, with medical conditions shouldnt be eligible for health care like regular, non-sick people. This just makes it cost more for the rest of us, and that's not fair. Why should the bulk of people have to foot the bill for a select few people who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.

In case you can't tell, that last paragraph was a wee bit sarcastic, and I'm sure I will develop upon those thoughts at a later date. I'll maybe talk about things like socialism and things of that ilk, but I digress. As I was saying, there are legitimate uses for "some people say" and none of those legitimate uses belong on the news.

Some people say president Obama was born in Kenya; he wasn't he's an American and was born in Hawaii. Some people say he's muslim; he's not. In fact, a lot of people are unsure of the president's birthplace and religion, but why. This may seem a bit antagonistic, but the blame is probably on Fox News. You see, they pretty much invented the whole concept of "some people say" in the context of news, and they utilize the phrase all the time. So why do Americans think Obama is Muslim? Because for awhile several Fox News hosts would ask people who came on their shows. Now this might sound kind of weird, considering that "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" isn't exactly news, it sounds a bit more like opinion, which it is. But what Fox did was actually quite clever because they can (and will) deny any culpability. They never said he's Muslim, nor suggested it, they merely asked others what they thought. The genius in this plan is that when people hear this question regularly, they will doubt the truth. You hear a question over and over again and even if you are (or were) certain you'll begin to doubt yourself, especially if some of the people who are asked are unsure.

Some people say that more people watch Fox News than any other news show, but I call bullshit. Just because any and all Nielsen ratings put CNN viewers at one-tenth of Fox's viewers doesn't make it factually correct, that's just one groups opinion. I say that CNN is more popular. In fact, I say that 10 million people watch Anderson Cooper keep them honest on a nightly basis. And you know what? They all watch him again at ten o'clock. And some people say I'm right.

FYI: Some people say Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million dollars a day. All of those people were Fox News hosts, correspondents, and a very select few republicans in congress. Oh, and one anonymous person in India. Truth is that's more per day than the entire war costs per day, and was readily debunked by every real journalist and the White House. But Fox News carried on the charade. True Story.

The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear

This will be pretty picture-heavy; be forewarned.

In The Beginning...

This past weekend was Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. I suppose you could consider it a parody of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, except with less tea bagging and more unadulterated awesome. Let me begin by saying it was a very long, exhausting day of essentially standing still. We got up around three in the morning to leave at four. The bed was pretty stiff which, combined with the fact that we were a bit sick, basically meant that neither of us slept very well; I think I slept for, at most, a few hours. Four a.m. hits, and it's time to hit the road; two and a half hours later and we arrived at the metro station just outside of D.C Thankfully, there are 3,400 parking spaces and we were able to park and wait for the trains to show up at 7:00. I was excited seeing the people around who were headed to the rally; 'twas refreshing seeing older people going and not just young people looking for a free show.


After settling in, we were greeted by various games and videos on the Jumbotron, which made it less painful to wait for the show to start. All in all. waiting went by fairly quicker than I'd have thought. There were all kinds of people with all sorts of signs all similarly excited for whatever it was that we were all about to witness/ It was exhilarating/

Our Surroundings...

Settled in for a long day, we found a place to stand (and stand, and stand...). We were actually surprisingly close. If I had to guess, I'd say we were maybe one hundred feet away or so. Alas, neither Krissy nor myself are very tall, so without the perfect conditions, seeing stages can be tough. The media pit was in front of us and to the left; one of the comedy central cameras was in front of us; and a tent, which I think was another media tent (for viewing and such) was in front of us and to the right.

Some fellow rally goers in our surrounding area


Unfortunately, to say Krissy's view was obstructed would be an understatement


There was an older lady sitting behind us (this was before the rally, some people had brought chairs so they weren't standing for 8+ hours). Personally, I really liked her sign.


This Sikh gentleman was next to me. He was on camera a lot (probably the turban and beard). He was nice. He was pretty patient with a girl who insisted on everyone surrounding him putting towels on their heads in an effort to get on tv.


This guy was to our right.


This one, too.


This girl was to our left


This was our view. You can see the edge of the media pit to the left (note the stairs), the tent to the right, and the cameraman (and his damned ladder!) basically right in front of us.


Even Jeffrey came along for the trip! Here he is in our free noisemaker/megaphone type thing.

The Media Comes Calling...

Here is one of the anchors giving a report during the rally. I'm not sure who he is but hes older and looked distinguished, ergo I liked him.


Then there's these two (from CNN). The woman was taking notes, asking people questions, etc. She seemed so bored and uninterested, though. Then there's the hotshot in the aviators and leather jacket. He seemed pretty happy with himself hopping about; he seems like a douchebag to me.


A cameraman from NBC News


Before the rally began, one of the cameramen (I think) was carrying his son around on his shoulders. I feel weird taking pictures of kids in public sometimes. Not that I don't want to. I always want to. But I know adults, and I don't need some errant parent going apeshit on me because they take offense, so this is the picture I got.


I liked this photographer. In a sea of telephoto lenses and ultramodern digital cameras here he was taking a photo with a panoramic camera. It looks like his other camera might be a Leica, too, but I can't tell (and, truth be told, have never seen one in person)

Let The Games Begin...

Jon Stewart singing was an interesting experience. The song was exceptionally funny.


Sheryl Crow performing with Kid Rock backed by The Roots (who are actually kind of awesome)


Mick Foley (who is awesome) accepting his award


The O'Jay's performing Love Train


Papier Mache puppet Steven Colbert: The fear monster


John Oliver (dressed as Peter Pan) coming out to help Jon Stewart slay the fear monster


Tony Bennett performing America, The Beautiful, which was awesome/ The picture is a bit low quality though.


The end performance. Mavis Staples, Tony Bennett, Ozzy, Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), Jeff Tweedy, Sheryl Crow, The Roots, The Mythbusters, and many more!


I like John Oliver's expression in this picture


A better picture showing more of the people on stage than the previous pictures


Headed home (tired, achy feet)! At this point we still had a two hour drive back to Delaware. I liked these advertisements set out by Media Matters though. Very nice tie-in to the rally. I'm not sure if they were only in the metro or not, since we didn't explore too much of D.C. but there were banners inside the metro stations, too. Very cool. I approve.

These Are Not End Times

The rally was amazing, and awe-inspiring. It's hard to fathom 250,000 people, but one can't help but feel flooded by all sorts of emotions. I can't express how happy I am that we attended the rally; it was amazing feeling a part of something. The experience was absolutely amazing and I hope that people will learn from it, and that the rhetoric in this country can change.

Thumbs up from Tricky Dick

Take It Down A Notch (Or Three)

A bit of a departure today...

People are needlessly crazy. Perhaps it's a poor choice of words, since name calling tends to just feed the fires of crazy, but crazy is the best way to describe what surrounds us every day.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 

I feel that Yeats' Second Coming perfectly describes today. Nowadays we are complacent; we just don't care enough. Or is it simply that we've given up? Unfortunately, in today's media the more controversial, or extreme a person's view, the more attention they get. Really, when's the last time you read an AP or Reuters report and thought, "Wow! That was interesting!" Yeah, it's probably never happened. Take in your surroundings, and think; look at things objectively and think to yourself, "What is this doing for humanity?" What is more important: The real Housewives of [fill in the blank] or the actual housewives everywhere trying to make a go at this thing called life?

I feel like the media has a certain job to do and for the most part, they do a good job. No one wants to pay for their news anymore; once one gets something for free it's hard to justify paying for that same information (sometimes). There are a lot of people who argue that the media is unabashedly liberal, as if it is some giant conspiracy. To these people, Fox News is a breath of fresh air—the lone David struggling against the Goliath that is, well, everything else. But Fox News is also the most popular, and as a result, the most influential news organization as such I feel they have a certain responsibility to the American people. Lately, Fox News' latest crusade is against NPR, that is, National Public Radio, and therein lies the problem. Fox News is conservative; no one denies that (except for the latter half of their Fair and Balanced slogan). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal and basically everything else in the media, but that's neither here nor there. Republicans don't like NPR; and lately that anger has boiled over and is crackling and steaming on the burner. Every few years, Republicans try and pass some sort of bill killing public financing of NPR, PBS, and the like. It doesn't work though, because people like NPR and PBS; I mean, who wants to kill Big Bird, Elmo, and Oscar the Grouch? (I won't even mention Cookie Monster.) NPR is incredibly important as a news (and entertainment) organization, as is PBS. The problem, for some, is that NPR recently fired Juan Williams for his rather unnecessary remarks about his fear of muslims. which leads me to this quote from Karl Rove:

45 percent of NPR listeners were Saddam Hussein.

I don't even know what that means. It doesn't make sense, neither logically or grammatically. Let's begin by attacking this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's assume Saddam Hussein did listen to NPR  (I know, I know) For the former dictator to make up nearly one-half of NPR's listeners would suggest no one even listens to NPR. Anyway, to suggest that half of the people who listen to NPR are dictators (dictators in training mayhaps?) is completely asinine. To even make a comparison bewilders me. But then again, Fox seems to like comparing everything to dictators.

To be fair, crazy isn't limited to conservatives and Fox News. Who cares that Linda McMahon kicked a guy in the nuts on the WWE, or that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. Isn't there a maxim about people not throwing stones and glass houses? Yeah, that. Why not instead focus on their platforms (or in their cases the complete lack thereof). Christine O'Donnell wants to bring God and Jesus to public schools, convinced the Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state. Or, there's Linda McMahon who has slammed all of Connecticut in ads belittling and attacking Richard Blumenthal. But what are her plans? I've seen an awful lot of her commercials pleading to mothers to vote for her, but why? I've not seen a single ad of hers suggesting why I should give her my vote. So far, I've seen that she can afford nicely produced ads, she can get her friends to say what a wonderful person she is, and that Richard Blumenthal has slipped up a couple times. Oh, and that she has no experience, but Blumenthal has been in government for too long.


[As it happens, I wrote this post before Election Day. I'm glad Richard Blumenthal won Connecticut; truth be told, it's nice to be rid of her ads as well]


I feel like this video from Crossfire sums up the premise of this blog: