The A’s and Texas both have days off today, but play a doubleheader tomorrow. So it’s up to us, here, now, to maintain peak readiness.
1. And they say his ghost walks the halls, haunting those who make crude sex jokes about his name.
Or so I choose to recast this story, in which a number of MLB’ers who’ve stayed in Milwaukee’s Pfister Hotel claim the place is haunted. Including, among others, Trevor Hoffman, Mike Cameron, and “two pairs of Florida Marlins players (who) reportedly demand to share a room when they’re in Milwaukee because they’re afraid of ghosts.”
Please now add “Pfister’s Ghost” to the euphemism directory.
2. Now this is my kind of board game:
3. Lastly, from a recent deadspin account of the infield at the Indy 500:
“The gymnasium-sized restroom does not have urinals, but one giant trough whose drainage system can’t empty fast enough, leaving the gallons of pee to marinate in in the cement holding cell.”
Make it happen, Lew.
(re-formatted because it was making my eyes bleed – gso)
"Kraut will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no kraut."
Hey, everyone — and NM, correct me if I’m wrong — but it’s almost always a bad idea to compose stuff in Word and then C&P into a web composition window. I know, I know, old habits die hard. But it’s pretty simple to either compose in-platform (and save regularly) or just use a simple text editor instead of Clippy’s Bug Platform.
You’re right.
I think WP even auto saves, but I spew my posts out so fast I wouldn’t really know.
I think it’s stupid to compose in-platform, myself…you’ll never hear me saying that the website ate my post…but I’ll endeavor to use a simpler text editor rather than MS Word in the future.
Yeah, the security issue worries me as well — but more than that (and I think you and I have both expressed this sentiment before), composing anything longer and more complex than a couple grafs in-platform is a major PITA.
3. Yeah, that sounds like the mother of all trough urinals. Lew could even install an outflow turbine and a heat exchange jacket to tap the kinetic energy and turn yellow into green.
And pipe the end-product back to the Budweiser taps for perfect closed-cycle recycling.
Having attended the Indy 500 from about 1977 to about 1987, I can support that account of the infield pee trough, and several assumptions about bikers you may already have.
Did no one tell you the race only lasted a couple hours on Memorial Day each year?
I just stayed there. For about a decade.
Apropos of nothing at all … I have a longstanding hobby/compulsion of monkeyfying movie titles (12 Angry Monkeys, The Color of Monkey, Ape and a Half), and a friend sends along perhaps the best example of the genre: Gorilla Mockingbird
A
(
– san)’s 
Winnar! Your prize is a copy of the eponymous Bobby Vinton hit song.
Second place wins that plus the immortal Moja droga jacie kocham.
I almost went with this:
Extremely vague article on someone’s idea to revive the Parkway.
I used to live a short walk away from the Uptown in DC. Man, I love that place. I’m visiting the District in a few weeks, and more than anything I’m looking forward to settling into a plush balcony seat in front of that giant screen, with a greasy, leaky bucket of artery-clogging buttered popcorn in my lap.
Don’t forget the crabcakes. Trust me.
Also, take the metro. The walk up to the stadium from the metro is really cool.
I lived in DC/NoVA for many years. Haven’t been back in awhile, though. I’m going to Nats games on 7/3 and 7/4; not exactly looking forward to battling the downtown crowd on the 4th, but c’est la vie.
I’m also a DC expat…high school in Burke, VA, then a few years in DC itself, near Dupont Circle, then across the river in Anacostia. Haven’t been back for quite a while. I will return, some day, but you can be damn sure it won’t be in July or August. Yuck.
Yeah, it’ll be thrilling to once again be soaked through with sweat by ten in the morning every day.
I set off on the typical rite of passage / read Look Homeward, Angel / write embarrassingly earnest observations about the nature of the universe in a tattered journal / hostels / trains / buses trip to points unknown when I was 18, ran out of money in DC, and stayed (off and on) for twelve years.
In other words, I make important life decisions with approximately the same level of forethought and critical thinking that Geren gives to writing out the lineup card.
I’m not a DC native at all, but I was there all last summer and went to several games at the new stadium.
I even got to see Haren absolutely ruin them.
I’ve been told the park is sort of bland – nice in the way that newness is nice, but not distinctive. Sort of like the new Busch Stadium.
It’s looks cool on TV, though.
The walk from the metro is very very cool (because you look into the stadium).
The huge HDTV is also cool, in ways I took for granted until I went and saw a game at another stadium and was frustrated not to get replays.
But it certainly isn’t the phone booth or fenway/wrigley or anything.
If, like me, you have long desired to intertwine your economics and comic book learning, this is the blog for you:
Did someone say comic book?
Let me ask you something in complete seriousness. Are there people in this world, whose thoughts, feelings and opinions we care about, who take anything on Fox News seriously?
Care about in a Schadenfreude way? Yes…
Yeah, I get it already. You think conservatives are nitwits.
I respect Conservatives.
I think Faux News is nitwits who are inciting the know-nothings and knee-jerks on the far fringes of that side of the room.
Except for GB, who has simply got to be a performance-art prankster.
The same could probably be said of most networks.
And there’s plenty of ignorance and vitriol on both sides of the political spectrum.
That said, I fail to see why people get so worked up over a few loud mouths on the right when there are copious left-wing loudmouths to which they could tune in to on the other networks.
EDIT: What I should have said was that there are other viewing choices. I apologize for posting hastily. I wanted to get a word in before I left work to take my kid to the doctor.
That is a ludicrous comparison. The ratio of right-to-leftist loudmouths given time on (for instance) the 20 most common TV media outlets is at least 5:1, and probably much more. To equate the two is absurd, akin to saying that evolutionists and creationists deserve equal stature simply because they represent opposing viewpoints.
The “just tune in something else” idea is sensible enough, provided you feel that critiquing the media is valueless.
Can you explain exactly how left-right is like evolutionists-creationists?
Political Partisans Addicted To Irrational Defense Of Their Tribes
Also, what is the source of whatever study found that rightist TV commentators outnumber leftists “at least 5:1”?
The right has Fox News with O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck and company, MSNBC has Olberman and Maddow, and is adding another similar show soon according to sources… maybe in terms of viewers it’s 2:1, but that’s the reason MSNBC is going down the Fox News route in the first place, people want partisan shows.
I would also add that the 5:1 ratio is more applicable to the number of leftist media outlets to conservative outlets. CNN, ABC, NBC, (in general most mainstream news outlets) all employ somewhat of a liberal stance on most issues. The major news magazines Newsweek and Time also have more of a liberal slant, though Time seems to be more of a “whichever way the wind blows” magazine. Heck, it can be argued that all the mainstream news sources tend to lean in whichever way the country is leaning.
Blah, as for me, just give me NPR and The Economist and I’m good.
If Time and ABC land on the liberal side of your construct (not judging, just saying) then any discussion of the representational ratios is pointless. Which it probably was anyway.
On what basis would you say TIME is conservative? US News, with Mort Zuckerman as editor in chief, I could understand…
Did TIME covers ever photoshop Bush’s face on famous images of popular Republican presidents like TR, Lincoln, or Reagan?
When naming Bush person of the year, did TIME ever copy famous propaganda images from his presidential campaign?
To my, of course subjective, eyes, Time has had a liberal bent ever since the Iraq War turned out to be a mistake (and public opinion swayed against it) and the rise of Obamamania. Much the same could be said about ABC.
But I agree, this discussion is rather circular and baseless and supported more by individual perspective and biases than any factual evidence that could be confirmed or refuted.
Agree 100%. The goal posts, hash marks, bleachers, and chain teams have all been moved 50 yards east.
for example
where is the secret service? someone could trip Breyer, and the whole lot would go tumbling.
Cass Sunstein is in my top 5 scholars.
I think these facts prove my point:
< links to articles from the National Review, Weekly Standard, etc. etc. >
Uh, I’d venture to guess that most folks at NRO would agree with Sunstein’s basic point there — they’d think it was a good thing, not a bad one, but they wouldn’t disagree.
Also, you’re once again engaging in false equivalence with CAP and NRO/TWS. Heritage or (better) Hoover I might have bought.
There have been more Republican presidents (counting terms/years) from Nixon->Bush than there were from FDR->Johnson.
But there were far more Supreme Court justices throughout the second half of the 20th century who were nominated by Republican presidents (often with a Democratic Senate) and were more liberal than expected than there were justices who were nominated by Democrat presidents who were more conservative than expected.
I hate to post this reply, since I’m sure there is some bias, but maybe that is because more conservative positions are unconstitutional than liberal positions (see, e.g., segregation, torture, watergate, etc.).
Also, why would anyone want to side with Thomas?
So if some justices nominated by Republicans, such as Wililam Brennan (Eisenhower) and Harry Blackmun (Nixon) decide, say, the death penalty (which was legal in the US between 1776-1972 and then again from 1976-present) is unconstitutional… what exactly does that tell us?
I didn’t mean for it to be an exact comparison, that would be something like The Nation.
just give me
NPR andThe Economist and I’m good.Meh, NPR is not perfect but better than CNN, ABC, etc.
Don’t read too much into that, I just don’t listen to radio at all, and everyone on NPR sounds like they have been drugged.
I just wish they could hire correspondents with normal names.
Kevan and Mechelle bother me simply because they aren’t Kevin and Michelle.
I find most political coverage on NPR to be utter nonsense.
Really, how so?
Personally, I find them far more informative than any of the drivel found on the mainstream news networks. Again, they’re far from perfect, just better than the usual suck.
In what sense? I guess they switched to being liberal right after we invaded Iraq.
Whatever the personal political proclivities of reporters, anchorpeople, et al, their professional touchstones are narrative and access, not partisanship.
Most of the time, shitty journalism isn’t shitty because it’s biased, it’s shitty because it’s incestuous rather than adversarial, and values he said/she said issue framing over facts and context.
Most of the wavy haired J-school grads who populate the mainstream media (especially the political media) aren’t even sufficiently conversant with policy to express bias in any sort of persuasive way. Instead, they dutifully transcribe one quote from Brookings and one quote from Heritage, and sift every issue through the filter of personal drama and left/right talking points – sort of like if health care reform was an episode of The Hills, and Ed Rollins was unhappy with his prom dress.
I agree with this assessment.
I hate he said she said. It’s just praying to be spun.
Yep imo, that’s exactly what happened. As soon as it became clear that public opinion was against the war, the mainstream news also turned against it (and has been slanted against conservative policies since). This is what I meant by “all the mainstream news sources tend to lean in whichever way the country is leaning.”
Your appraisal on the state of journalism is pretty accurate. Although while I agree that lowly individual journalists do not (or are incapable of) injecting personal biases into their reports per se, the way news is presented by media sources (not in the control of the journalists but the higher ups, like the Roger Ailes and Jonathan Kleins of the world) is what leads to slants.
Agree with mk and everyone who’s elaborated on his point.
Here it is in a nutshell: reporters are a mixed bag, opinion writers are mostly useless idiots, but editors are where the true rot is located.
Yep
You’ve been sig-ed.
The (labored) evolutionist/creationist analogy was meant like this: just because there are two opposing stories doesn’t mean they’re “equal.” I could have used flat earth versus round…one answer is objectively correct by the vast preponderance of human knowledge, and the other is absurd voodoo claptrap. I proposed that Jedi’s comparison put on equal footing two “sides” which are substantially unequal.
Most discussions of whose side the media’s on have forest/trees problems. For instance: your example posits Fox personalities and MSNBC ones as opposites. I think that misses the point…Fox is a global megacorp which invests huge sums of cash and intellect into brilliantly showing the world through a very specific lens, which manifests itself in some talking heads, yes, but in story selection, and the bank of experts it draws from, and the talking point word choices, and the fucking slowly waving flag in the corner of every visual. NBC is not an opposite to that; it’s a differently branded, slightly differently curved lens.
It’s not a question of a few loudmouths, its a question of disposition, and (MSNBC aside) there is simply nothing remotely comparable competing for media eyeballs. Certainly in this country.
How does MSNBC not show the world through a very specific lens? Do Olbermann, Maddow, and Chris Matthews cover stories from all ends of the political spectrum? Those MSNBC shows don’t have their own talking point word choices?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC#Allegations_of_political_bias
How is MSNBC not having a “fucking slowly waving flag in the corner of every visual” even an argument in favor of your position?
Obviously MSNBC doesn’t have a flag in the corner, because that’s not what their audience wants to see.* And actually Fox News doesn’t have that all the time, either, I just flipped from the NBA game to FNC to see the flag, and they have the “Fox News” cube with the time below it in the bottom left and the “O’Reilly Factor” logo in the bottom right, but no flag. So obviously it’s not “in every visual” because it’s not there right now. Go check for yourself.*Edit: Actually I just flipped to Maddow and there is an American flag behind the MSNBC logo in the bottom right (Maddow’s logo is on the bottom left), so you’re actually wrong on both counts!
MSNBC’s 2009 presidential election coverage was anchored by Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, David Gregory, and Keith Olbermann. Who is the opposing viewpoint in that fivesome?
MSNBC aside? What about Fox News aside? Didn’t you just pretty much say there’s MSNBC on one side and there’s Fox News on the other?
You’re totally missing my point, which is that there is no “left” counterpart to the “right” Fox….there’s just a bunch of outlets clustered together in a pretty small chunk of the political spectrum. Time, US News, ABC, CBS…all citing the same narrow group of “experts,” presenting policy as the same false duality, regardless of the issue, as mk explains above. The arguments over bias, by Dem-types and Repub-types alike, nearly always obsesses over the trees of Reilly/Olbermann/whoever, and misses the forest, just like you are.
And on the slowly waving flag? That’s just an example. Man, try watching nothing but Fox for a day. Not Fox News, all the Fox-owned TV properties. Whether baseball or news or sitcoms or American goddamn Idol, there’s a consistency of message-through-presentation which is pure evil genius. The red/white/blue text boxes, the talking points wording, the fade ins and outs. The whole production template is overlaid over every tiny part of the Foxglomerate, to perfect message-advancing effect. There is quite literally nothing comparable in American media.
I still don’t understand why MSNBC isn’t the “left” counterpart… clearly Fox News, advancing the conservative and Republican agenda is “right”… are liberals and Democrats not “left”? Who gets to decide that, isn’t that pretty much saying those outlets “are not left enough for me”? And then who is to say Fox News is “right”? You and I may consider it to be on the right, but I’m sure there are people who are very far to the right that think it’s not right enough because they don’t rummage through abortion clinic dumpsters or something…
Watching only Fox TV: No thanks, I’d rather not watch American Idol. What specifically makes it a right wing show? But shows like Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc. are all left of center, as was AD (RIP), I’m not sure what “Fox-owned TV properties” means but all those shows air (or aired) on Fox and do nothing to advance the Foxglomerate message. Everything on MSNBC is red/white/blue also, that’s just the color scheme. CNN is red and white but not blue. I’m sure TV channels in many other countries use the colors of their national flag also, it’s a pretty obvious choice.
NBC:”left”::Obama:Marxist
yep
Well if six left of center people all agree with this, it must be true.
Because NBC is right of all of you, it’s not “left”…
Oh, and
Not even remotely.
Okay, well then conservatives and Republicans are not “right” according to me because I’m so far to the right that they’re “left” of ME. Glad we can all agree on that…
Y’know this might come as something of a surprise, but there are other and better calibrators here than “mainstream US politics” and “me”.
1. David Gregory, exemplary liberal.
2. I’m not a fan of Maddow, particularly, but it is beyond silly to suggest that she is cut from the same cloth as Hannity/O’Reilly/Beck. They’re all “partisan”, but aside from that extremely generalized and not very useful construction, they (and their shows) are not comparable. At all.
3. We are all going to get like 50 CGV’s for this. I am flagging every comment in this thread, even the ones about Heineken and crabcakes.
1. You do realize that’s just the correspondents’ dinner, right, and that it wasn’t Rove’s idea (or Gregory’s), they were both just going along with it?
Gregory had plenty of contentious interactions with Bush press secretaries, such as in this clip with Scott McClellan, who Don Imus (on MSNBC) then calls “a sniveling whore” three times (this is back when it was acceptable to hate McClellan, before he wrote the book)… which of course is nothing like the terrible biased stuff Fox News says about Robert Gibbs, I’m sure (waits for Youtube links).
2. Isn’t the fact that they’re all partisan exactly what we’re talking about?
No! Are you serious?
You are missing my point, which is that David Gregory’s “ideology” is access, and he doesn’t give two shits whether he gets it from Karl Rove or Rahm Emmanuel. He is not the same sort of beast as Sean Hannity. As such, it is pointless to compare them. The Correspondent’s dinner exemplifies much of what is wrong with David Gregory-style journalism, actually (the incestuousness I mentioned above).
And yeah, I know he used to browbeat Scott McClellan; so did every single other White House reporter, though not nearly as theatrically (they weren’t all auditioning for that plum Meet the Press gig).
Sure, but a false equivalency is a false equivalency. I am certain I could drum up a dozen genuinely insane/absurd assertions by Beck, Hannity, and O’Reilly with a bit of rudimentary Googling. I challenge you to do the same thing with Maddow. Yes, Maddow is a liberal. And yes, Glenn Beck is a conservative (though many conservatives would dispute that characterization). But the fidelity to intellectual seriousness on those two shows is not in any way comparable. This is what FSU is getting at, I think, with his evolution/creationism analogy. I’m not quite sure why you keep skipping over that.
That last paragraph is a point I was thinking, but I’m not entirely sure it isn’t just my perspective.
Is this just the opinion of you and FSU, or is there some sort of study from an unbiased source that shows this to be the case?
ALL OF YOU are left-of-center… where are the large numbers of right-of-center people who agree with your characterization? Or are they all too stupid to see it?
Honestly, xbhaskarx, I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about anymore.
Are you actually suggesting that Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow share similar commitments to intellectual seriousness?
How about Barack Obama and Sean Hannity? Jeneane Garafalo and Andrew Bacevich? It’s all the same, right? One is left, one is right, who’s to judge?
Ah, well. This is all just serves to obfuscate the central issue here, which is that Wes Anderson sucks, and Lost does too.
I’m tired of dancing around this, frankly. I will not avert my eyes from the elephant in the room for one second longer. I know it takes a lot of courage to embrace hard truths, and I know you’re committed to certain aesthetic predispositions, but sometimes you gotta tear the bandage off, scare away the hiccups, dive straight into the icy water. And if I’ve got to be the bad guy, so be it. I’m prepared to accept that responsibility.
What makes Keith Olbermann more committed to intellectual seriousness than Bill O’Reilly? Is Janine Garafolo only not committed to it when compared to some anti-Bush conservative? Are there any analyist/expert-types (not hosts) on Fox News who defend Bush administration policies that are more committed to it than Garafolo?
Back to Fox News vs MSNBC, if it’s so obvious, are there any studies out there with data on “commitment to intellectual seriousness” to back this up? You admittedly left-of-center folks here all believe this, do a significant number of right-of-center folks also share this view? If your argument doesn’t go beyond “OMG are you too obtuse to see it, it’s so obvious!” I’m just going to re-post this link.
And where are my Fox News – Robert Gibbs youtube links?
Also: it’s worth noting that Tony Snow didn’t suffer nearly the same bullying from reporters. Was it because he was less conservative, and therefore didn’t run afoul of their secret liberal bias? No … it was because he was better at his job, and a former member of the media fraternity. McClellan was a) hung out to dry a lot, and b) a terrible, easily cowed Press Secretary. He was perfect fodder, and that had zero to do with the fact that he was a Republican.
Politico: Vicious Right-Wing Journalists Laugh at Obama Administration Press Secretary
I’m waiting to see what the MRIs (or, better yet, engrams) of the journalists were before I accept that conclusion. I also want a control group and a null hypothesis.
Non-responsive. Evasive. Irrelevant.
Plenty of gregariousness in the Tony Snow briefing room as well.
Again: Reporters value insideriness, access, cachet. Gibbs, Snow: Good at cultivating the sycophancy that accompanies those values. McClellan: Good at reading off cards. Sent up to the podium to say shit he thought was true but obviously wasn’t (Plame, etc.), which is a surefire way to get normally acquiescent reporters to puff their chests and be “hard nosed”.
“Gibbs, Snow: Good at cultivating the sycophancy that accompanies those values.”
Ah, so they are both good, but Gibbs is 3x better!
“hung out to dry a lot” and “terrible, easily cowed”
So, a sniveling whore?
Responding here because I can’t reply to your comment above …
OK, so much for my attempt to lighten the mood with a Wes Anderson joke.
What makes Keith Olbermann more committed to intellectual seriousness than Bill O’Reilly?
Point me to the place where I said something about Keith Olbermann. I have very consciously not mentioned his name.
Is Janine Garafolo only not committed to it when compared to some anti-Bush conservative?
No.
Are there any analyist/expert-types (not hosts) on Fox News who defend Bush administration policies that are more committed to it than Garafolo?
I don’t know. Good question. Give me some names, and I’ll tell you. But again, I think if you go back and read my comments, you’ll find that I’ve restricted my remarks to O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck.
As for the rest:
I have made two narrow points that you have responded to in a manner that leads me to believe you haven’t actually read anything I’ve written.
These two points concern a) the difference in motives/impact/media roles between guys like David Gregory and guys like Sean Hannity, and why this means it’s stupid to compare them, and b) the difference in “seriousness” (for lack of a better term) between Rachel Maddow and O’Reilly/Hannity/Beck, which, yes, I believe to be self-evident. If you think Maddow and Beck are two peas in a pod, both equally ridiculous (or insightful) then just say so. I won’t hold it against you. But the rapid fire side-stepping rhetorical questions don’t really do anything for me.
I just saw this but I don’t have time to respond right now. I’ll get to it later.
2. There’s a difference (a BIG difference) between partisanship and extremism — you yourself (or perhaps mikeA?) have previously characterized Krugman (to bring in a non-tv pundit) as being ridiculously partisan (which I don’t entirely disagree with) while not being remarkably “leftist”
I think one thing that we’re failing to recognize is the “radical centrist” faction essentially created by/in opposition to the Bush Admin.
Krugman: article from The Economist a few years ago, with the conclusion being that he was now more a partisan anti-Bush attack dog than a serious and balanced Economist, and therefore unlikely to ever win the Nobel Prize. LOL
What “very specific lens” includes Olbermann, Maddow, and … Joe Scarborough and Andrea Mitchell? And if Chris Mathews is a “leftist,” I’m a front-page writer and mod at **. And then, of course, there’s “The Ed Show.”
It’s the same very specific lens that includes Pat Buchanan. Maybe they all eat arugula or something.
Freemasons. They’re all Freemasons.
No, Skull and Bones.
Right, Pat Buchanan the token Republican dude who most recently ran against the Republican presidential candidate with a third party. How come they don’t give the Green Party a similar platform?
You are a front-page writer and mod at **. The dude pushed McCain and Bradley in 00, but then Dean in 04, and Obama in 08, and his kids were heavily involved with the Dean and Obama campaigns.
Has Bill O’Reilly worked in Republican Administrations? Has he run for office as a Republican?
If Bill O’Reilly is a “rightist,” I’m a front-page writer and mod at **.
1. You’re still confusing “partisan” with position on the political spectrum
2. Mathews isn’t even “partisan” — especially since he’s part of the cult of High Broderist bipartisanship — he’s simply establishmentarian
3. Where did I say O’Reilly was a “rightist”? Now that you mention it, though, he and Buchanan are both reactionary, quasi-populist, anti-intellectual anti-establishmentarians, which would land them solidly on the right side of the spectrum.
Are you actually serious, or just trying to make a rhetorical point?
Matthews is the classic beltway insider, who seems obsessed with politics (campaigning and “talking points”) but shows little interest in policy. He identifies as a Democrat, but will support a Republican (McCain) or attack Democrats (both Clintons).
O’Reilly is a hard-line culture warrior. To equate the two (or suggest that O’Reilly is closer to the center) seems deliberately obtuse.
So Matthews will support a Republican (McCain) who occasionally sides with Democrats against his own party, in a Republican primary against a far more right-wing and party-loyal Republican candidate (Bush), which is somehow the same as supporting Obama and attacking a more conservative Democrat candidate like Hillary Clinton? Isn’t he just supporting the relatively-leftist candidate in both cases?
Okay, as long as some other TV personality who held numerous jobs as a Republican staffer, who stated that he wanted to do everything to make the Bush presidency work, and who stated that he made a commitment to cover politics in a conservative way, supported Bush over McCain in the Republican primaries, and then Joe-mentum Lieberman in 2004 over Dean, isn’t a rightist because he’s a beltway insider who is obsessed with politics.
I’ll give you W. as more GOP-loyal, but most certainly not “far [or at all] more right-wing.” Especially the W. as he presented himself of the 2000 primaries. And McCain’s strategic disloyalties have been extensively documented to have no ideological weight (except to the cause of furthering the McCain “Maverick” brand).
Furthermore, why do you think Hillary is right of Obama?
It’s pretty difficult to quantify “how X presented himself”… how about according to ratings from various political groups?
Documented by…?
What candidates he supports is sort of a vague proxy. If he were to list his views, they would be left of center but not very left, and while the content of his show involves some amount of cheerleading for democrats (especially since msnbc decided to make that its model), it doesn’t really have a left viewpoint. To the extent that he discusses policy, which is rare, I’m sure he gets less nodding along from the viewers than his colleagues.
You didn’t answer the question.
And Matthew’s dislike for the Clintons had nothing (AFAICT) to do with how liberal any of them were; it was all about personality and Washington insider bs. The point (again) is that he is neither a serious party loyalist, nor someone who shows much interest in real policy issues.
He’s not a party loyalist based on what? He doesn’t show interest in real policy issues, unlike who, O’Reilly?
Would you agree with this?
So, you’re saying that xbx isn’t right?
Isn’t what?
I find most statistical assessments of political coverage as a binary, zero-sum game to be utter nonsense.
But polls, on the other hand, are only partial nonsense
So you’re a Morgonian.
I find most neurobehavioralism to be utter nonsense.
Do you think it’s not true, though? A lot of my political identification is based on something like “I’m sure as hell not with those cretins” which brand of thinking leads to the presumption that one’s side is correct.
“Hitler was a vegetarian” = valid argument.
Clearly, the fact that he ate butter was what made him the monster he was.
I didn’t mean to imply that there is an equal amount of loudmouths on both sides, or that Fox News employs the same ratio of loudmouths-to-normalorquietmouths as do other networks.
Really, I’m just baffled that people get so worked up about one network when there are other viewing choices that clearly lean to the left. What are people suggesting? That we shouldn’t allow people with viewpoints different from our own to broadcast them? Because their viewpoints might be grounded in their deeply held religious beliefs?
I’m not saying that the news media or Fox News is above criticism–quite far from it. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that only one side plays to the ignorance of its viewership.
I appreciate tdf saying that he respects conservatives. But Leopold Bloom’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion that nobody should care about the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of people who would agree with anything said on that network is made of the same arrogance and pompousness that often makes real political discussion impossible.
1. When I said “in complete seriousness,” I meant that. It was not tongue-in-cheek.
2. What I said was: “Are there people in this world, whose thoughts, feelings and opinions we care about, who take anything on Fox News seriously?”
How you interpreted that: “nobody should care about the thoughts, feelings, or opinions of people who would agree with anything said on that network.”
There are vast differences between those two statements.
I think a useful example is the “Obama is a socialist fascist” argument. Not only are both labels clearly inapplicable, they are opposites.
The first part of that latter sentence may be my opinion, the second part is simply fact.
Actually, that’s not true at all.
Stupid SINOs, always ruining my arguments.
(of course, Nazis weren’t actually socialist at all)
Sinophobe.
Eh; common ownership of the “means of production”, opposition to “international finance”, achievement of full employment… I don’t think it makes any sense to call socialism and fascism opposites, although they’re not really consistent and obviously quite opposed. But “left statism” vs. “right statism” makes as much sense as anything else.
statism-head
+1
socialist-facist: the dictionary definition of “
facistfacebookist” may be along the lines of “a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views” but it is sometimes used by people to mean just authoritarian and not necessarily far-right-wing.So a term like “socialist-fascist” could be used to differentiate between say Venezuela and Sweden.
I certainly wouldn’t quibble with a description of Hugo Chavez (e.g.) as “fascist.”
But I also wouldn’t quibble with a description of him as “slightly saner than Michele Bachmann or James Inhofe.”
never mind
Sorry — I just can’t buy that. It’s too easy to make that claim, and it’s as if symmetry somehow would make it all right. First, even if true, symmetry wouldn’t make it all right. There’s very little real discussion of issues in our public discourse. Even if it was “balanced,” that would be bad for the Republic.
And much more importantly, I believe there’s no symmetry, at all. The Right has allowed itself to be represented by the utterly dishonest mouthpieces of talk radio and Faux News, who appeal to the fears of those who are baffled by a complex world, and seek the comfort of simplistic, familiar solutions. The GOP then panders for votes to those credulous folks, who are easily led. Then they disparage as “the Eleets” those who bother to inform themselves on issues and rely on verifiable things, like, say, science. The Republican Party used to BE the elites, by education and wealth — now it has devolved into the party of the proud and angry know-nothings.
It’s sad and it’s scary. I am not a sufficient student of history to draw proper parallels, but I know enough to think it’s worrisome when a culture tries to make war on its best thinkers.
AND Furthermore, if FreeSeat and I actually agree on something, then it’s just gotta be unassailably true. Even if neither of us used the term “nuanced.”
I signed up for a socialist newspaper as an undergrad, and 90% of the paper was dedicated to trashing different types of socialists, Marxists, Syndicalists, Trotskyites… Yet they pretty much agreed on most issues.
Yup.
So…everything they agree on is true?
Uh, no, but I’m guessing there’d be a fair degree of Venn diagram overlap on many things.
Deadspin steals my joke
OK, I’m now pretty much convinced that Glenn Beck is Andy Kaufman.
Um.
Oh god.
Next lets have Nomar catch (when he’s temporarily unbroken again)
What is Google Wave?
I’d suggest you google it, but that just seems far too obvious.
Is it just me, or do Peter Buck and Jamie Moyer look more alike every day?
Tommy Hunter will start the first game Friday. Low K low BB guy.
Driven forth from Boston like an Unclean Leper
It makes me happy that the Chronicle-branded unclean leper was still elected mayor. After recovering from having been shot by the Chron editor.
and then…his son shot and killed the Chron editor! That was awesome!
…why the hell am I in this suck-ass state again? Does anyone know any lepers that’ll drive me out of here toward home again?
In other news, the estate of one Roscoe Arbuckle issues a letter of appreciation to Mayor Newsom.
Wes Anderson fans and H8Rs should watch this trailer.
Every single aspect of it is ripped off from Rushmore or the Royal Tenenbaums, except for the high school level writing and acting.
Also:
The Ubiquitous Anderson
The Brothers Bloom and the problem of Wes Anderson’s pervasive influence.
I think the best example of this is Hummer – The Big Race.
Ugh. Jesus. Even with the sound off, I could only make it through about 15 seconds.
On a larger scale, I think Peter Jackson has been a far more baleful influence on contemporary films. (And this is from someone who enjoyed the LOTR films — up to a point — and numbers Heavenly Creatures among his top 20 faves of all time.)
Few things.
1. The family in front of me in line at security at the Logan airport looked so happy. Then I found out that they were from North Carolina, and had come to Boston because their 15-year-old wanted nothing more for his birthday than to see the Red Sox play in Fenway. A perfect storm of bandwagon-jumping, Fenway-deflowering, douchebaggery, and some really shitty parenting. Airports already stress me out enough.
2. I was this close to skipping on the important meeting I had flown out for when I learned the A’s were playing a day game. I took 880 on my way up after the meeting, I seriously considered blowing off seeing my dear sister so that I could catch the last two innings of a game the A’s were losing.
3. I took my first non-direct red-eye flight, and I’m functioning waaaay better than the direct red-eye flights I took in the past. The secret: don’t take JetBlue. No temptation to stay up all night watching VH1 classic on your seatback TV. Also, beer makes me sleepy.
4. Dude sitting next to me walked on board with a Heineken. Nobody said anything to him. I’m fairly certain that’s not allowed. Bet he slept well, too.
I think as long as the Heineken isn’t in a shampoo bottle, you’re good to go:
That’s the diet coke of this stuff. I read an article a few months ago about how easy it is to fly (using your real ID) even if you are on the no-fly list.
Step 1: book flight with fake name
Step 2: check in online, print boarding pass
Step 3: make fake copy of boarding pass using your real name
Step 4: use fake copy and real ID at security line
Step 5: throw away fake copy and fly using real one
I’m still not tired of this stuff:
Can’t that boy do ANYthing right?
Palin, Goldfarb, Beck, Bachmann … you and monkeyball must have the same ignoramus alert set up in your RSS readers.
It may not be functioning optimally, though: Tancredo said some exceedingly stupid shit today, yet no link from either of you.
He’s too irrelevant
Hooters Busted!
Once again, the family restaurant chain is at the forefront of employment law issues (earlier converting numerous ‘Hooters Boys’ discrimination charges into an ad campaign that appealed to its endocrinal demographic). This time, Management is accused of taking liberties with their employees’ tiPs, surrep-titiously copping whole handfuls of their favors. Plaintiff’s counsel Burton Boltuch (honest) said practice runs afoul of well-developed state regulations. He declined to discuss the particulars of his fee arrangement, but he did mumble something about seeking class action.
Unusual game notes:
MINNESOTA MANAGER RON GARDENHIRE AND CATCHER MIKE REDMOND WERE EJECTED BY HOME PLATE UMPIRE TODD TICHENOR IN THE TOP OF THE SEVENTH INNING FOR ARGUING A SAFE CALL AT HOME PLATE.
BOSTON MANAGER TERRY FRANCONA AND CATCHER JASON VARITEK WERE EJECTED BY HOME PLATE UMPIRE TODD TICHENOR IN THE BOTTOM OF THE SEVENTH INNING FOR ARGUING BALLS AND STRIKES.
LEOPOLD BLOOM AND JEDILEROY WERE EJECTED IN THE DLD BY HOME PLATE UMPIRE TODD TICHENOR, for arguing lefts and rights.
(can I be Gardenhire?)
Boston.com has photos taken at the China-North Korea border.
What are Eric Chavez and No-More doing there?
Tanking.
More: India’s massive general election
huh?
McCain is pretty old; maybe he was the governor or whatever they called it for the British in the ’30s.
Viceroy (from the latin, king of vice).
And talking of Viceroys, how about a show of hands on the back-story to this blast from the past:
Q: How do you know Lord Mountbatten had dandruff?
A: He left his head and shoulders on the beach.
I used to smoke Viceroys. For a period of my life the day revolved, Bukowski-like, around obtaining $10.36. For $10.36, I could get a 12-pack of Milwaukee’s Best, a half-pint of 100 proof Schnapps and two packs of Viceroys. Everything else was bonus, including food.
< adds "smoking the Viceroy" to the euphemism directory >
If this is going to be a fkeme, at least follow through and edit the fktionary. It’s… sparse.
I’m telling you … interns!
Only if there is a mandatory laundry policy.
… of blue dresses from the Gap.
fall in to the gaaaaaaaap
Doogie Howler, MD
I just want to say I’m thrilled I came late to this conversation and was still able to follow it.
This is a happy day for your webFKer
Specifically, this one.
I’ll certainly grant that Brennan had a liberal career. That said, I think part of the reason conservatives generally view courts as liberal is that conservatives take more illegal positions than liberals. Bush’s presidency is full of examples, but my favorite is the 10 commandments kerfluffle.
It is a plain violation of the First Amendment to put religious rules in courthouses, yet some conservatives take a “screw that, lets do it anyway” approach. When that approach loses in court, suddenly judges are “liberal” or “activist.”
< snerk >
Rusty trombone anyone?
I would have gone in this direction myself.
And yes, good catch mb.
I was thinking of going in this direction.
Did “liberals take more illegal positions than conservatives” as of a few months after the end of the FDR-Truaman presidencies?
Do judges evolve over time?
And yes, segregation, although that didn’t become mainline Republican policy (distinct from Southern Democrat) until a bit later.
I’m not sure if you’re being “deliberately obtuse” but I wasn’t talking about segregation…
I was. I was talking about policies favored by conservatives that are unconstitutional, and the resulting anti-judge sentiment caused by the destruction of said policies.
Did “liberals take more illegal positions than conservatives” as of a few months after the end of the FDR-Truaman presidencies?
I’m not positive, but I think I had a big hand in starting all of this. And I’m kind of happy about that.
And you know what they say about big hands … a finely crafted manipulation is one of the joys of life.
Can I just say how gratifying it has been to me that, even without its prohibition, no-one chose to behave like an engorged clown phallus here.