Dispassionate Liberal: June 2007

6/29/07

You now know, as I have been informed, informed for reasons I simply do not understand, that Paris Hilton was strip-searched. Not only was this one of the important data points we learned when she was on Larry King for the full hour, but that fact was snipped and broadcast around most other media outlets.

You also know, for even less cogent reasons, that Ann Coulter's latest polemic is out in paperback because she was booked on countless "news" programs to promote it and then got in a hissy fit when confronted by one of her victims, Elizabeth Edwards, on MSNBC's Hardball. That altercation was in turn an irresistible "news" item spread far and wide. If you missed it, you've been purposely avoiding the media in any form. Thank goodness Ann was able to spare a whole hour out of her busy schedule to sit on a low rated news show and bless us with her grace and intellect -- so she could sell more books.

You probably did NOT know there was a Presidential Forum/Debate last night shown live on PBS. It's even less likely that you watched it -- statistically that is. Don't expect there to be much mention of this on the TV or Radio. The debate was professional, cordial and informative even if the 90 minute event still seemed rushed with so many candidates with so much to say. But since Dennis Kucinich didn't fling poo at Bill Richardson, it will go largely unreported, especially in the broadcast sphere. (Okay, CBS did mention it, taking their copy from the Political Animal blog, and CNN had some post debate interviews.)

Indeed, you have to look real hard on the nations front pages to find even a one inch blurb about the event, and event designed to help us pick the next leader of the free world -- a person with more power than any seven Caesars combined.

The Seattle Times managed to fit in such a blurb pointing to a story on page A-6. The Washington Post devoted half the side panel to the debate with three full paragraphs and an above-the-fold headline, plus a roundup on their blog -- but when you think about it, for them it was a local story. That's pretty much it for front page coverage and only scant mention can be found between the covers of the nation's newpapers.

The New York Times deemed the debate unworthy of mention on their front page, but did put it prominently on their blog -- knowing us real junkies want the Gray Lady's take on the event. Interestingly enough, the story by the NYTimes' Adam Nagourney is featured more prominently in the San Fransisco Chronicle than the paper that pays him -- but both papers buried the article. Probably for the best since, as Bob Somerby reminds yesterday while critiquing another recent Ad Nags missive: "The degree of incompetence Nagourney displayed almost defies comprehension."

So I'm curious, as the internet savvy, political junkie that your are (you must be if you're reading this blog since it's only three pages from the last page of the internet itself), did you know about the debate before it occurred?

Did you watch it? Did you know about it before you read this post?

Did you know that Paris Hilton got new hair extensions?

6/27/07

[+/-]

The Coultergeist-Edwards Catfight

First of all, who the hell decided it was a good thing to have Mitt Romney's BFF, Ann Coultergeist on "Teh TeeVee" for a full hour on Hardball yesterday? Why is this woman all over the place?

No, seriously. First she's on FOX (of course) to accuse Barack Obama of being a terrorist, a "cute" quip she repeated on Hardball. Then ABC's Good Morning America for a stint yesterday morning which of course generated this recommended Daily KOS diary and a bunch of blogtopian uproar for saying she "just wish[ed] that he had been killed in a terrorist attack." Finally, there was the already legendary exchange between her and a caller on Hardball -- a caller named Elizabeth Edwards.

Ouch.

Blogmainia ensued. 334 blog posts in the last 24 hours come up in a search for "edwards, coulter, hardball." This Daily Kos Diary is still on the recommended list this morning and has the video. MSNBC was still playing it this morning on Joe Scarboro's gig as Imus fill-in.

So if you didn't see Elizabeth's smack-down of Annie, you aren't looking real hard. Instant classic.

But Duncan Black's implied question remains. Jerome asks it too, more directly, and so do I.

Has the state of American journalism sold out so low as to require our constant exposure to the mental masturbation of any skinny blond bimbo's every move? Do we need to know that within a few hours of her release from the clink, Paris Hilton had a visit from a stylist to install new hair extensions? Why on earth do I need to know that, yet this "news" was unavoidable. I understand there are those that read the gossip columns and style sections of the newspaper first, people who subscribe to People and Vogue.

I even learned to accept that runaway brides and missing co-eds are unavoidable and even noteworthy news items -- but not Coultergeist pushing her paperback hate tome. She simply is not worthy of an hour program devoted to pushing her propaganda. No.

No, no ... NO!

This is not news. This is not newsworthy. Had Elizabeth Edwards failed to get on the air, Coulter's Hardball appearance would have been quickly forgotten if not subconsciously exorcised from most peoples brains. In fact, had I not heard that Elizabeth called into the show I would have simply turned the channel when it was repeated later in the evening -- like I did when I saw she was on earlier. Dinner hour was approaching and I didn't want to ruin my appetite.

Just when did responsible journalism die?

Is it possible for the news media brain-trust to take a chance on something that might just possible find an audience sadly ignored nowadays, like airing something actually in the public interest? Just a thought, but I've got an idea.

Instead of banking on increased viewership by putting Paris Hilton on Larry King for the full hour -- or at least in addition to that kind of news-porn or booking either Coulter or even Michael Moore to hawk their newest project in a infotainment hour-long commercial and calling it "news," why not have each presidential candidate on the show for a nice sit-down.

You know, something besides the so-called debates they put on that give us merely thought-bytes and are more like joint appearances than an actual exchange of ideas. This would certainly make news. Goodness, look how much press Fox got when it had Bill Clinton on for 15 minutes.

It might just generate a ratings point or two. Funnier things have happened when TV executives took a chance on something. I remember how everyone laughed when the fledgling ESPN decided to air the America's Cup from Australia at 2am, live. They were stunned that they found an audience for slow boats cruising in circles.

Who'd a thunk it? A sport's network finding a sports event and actually showing it live might sell some air-time even in the dead of night. Maybe, just maybe a so-called news network or two might dedicate some of it's broadcast time to some newsworthy events it can host in the public interest and also sell a commercial for Slim-Fast or Head-On.

Worth a shot, yes?

6/26/07

[+/-]

Sprachen Verboten!

6/23/07

[+/-]

Nancy's Purse

6/21/07

[+/-]

Changing The Immigration Debate

In simple terms, and in no way intended to be insensitive or condescending to my compadres south of the border, the so-called immigration "problem" boils down to jobs. I believe you can do something about the problem, today. It's called socially responsible investing. Walls won't solve the problem, but Wall Street can.

The phenomenon of what the cable news guys hysterically equate with an invasion is really just about economic development and fair opportunities. Build a fence, build a frickin wall if you want. People craving a better life still managed to get through the Berlin wall, and their stories were nothing short of heroic. We aren't about to start shooting people on sight trying to cross over, and even that won't deter everybody trying to get here.

The Great Wall of China didn't save the Ming Dynasty from corrupt border guards being bribed to throw the empire's gates open -- and when they annexed Mongolia into the new Qing Dynasty, the whole wall thing was more or less just a quaint idea. And contrary to History Professor Gingrich's revision, the 9/11 hyjackers were here legally.

So go ahead, build the stupid wall. After all, that's what Washington is good for, throwing vast sums of money at boondogle after boondogle. See anything I've written about missile defense or count up the money we've spent on Iraq to "liberate" the people whose oil was going to pay for our adventure, and you'll see we're experts and flushing tax dollars down the toilet.

As usual, we sit around and wait for the government to do something for us. But when it comes to Mexicans leaving their homes to come here in the hopes their children will have a better life (the story of every family who can trace their ancestry to some intrepid soul who took a chance and made the trip to this land of opportunity) , no wall is going to do anything except make us feel better -- that at least we're doing something. But if you, yourself want to really DO SOMETHING, you can -- or at least you know someone with a 401-k or some other investment/retirement vehicle they can channel to do some real good.

Invest in Mexico.

Setting up a new bureaucratic structure, complete with paying fines and returning home to stand at the end of some line to come back is typical beltway dumbassery. Oh yeah, that'll take care of things -- like an engineered bit of social Darwinism, we'll be able to identify the immigrants who should not be entitled to a license to breath because they're too stupid to stay here. They'll be the idiots signing up for this retarded program.

As for coming down on employers who hire the undocumented, the current prohibition on hiring "illegal" workers hasn't been properly enforced. Why on earth do you think a new law saying, "hey, we mean it this time" will make any difference?

No, you change the focus -- ride the wave and try to steer it. No finger in a dyke will stop the tsunami of globalization. Would anyone really backpack through the southwestern savanna to trek here when they're opening up a new manufacturing plant back home? As horrible NAFTA has been to the rust belt, I don't believe it's going away. No artificial panecea will stop our global economic dynamic. As long as Americans insist on getting paid more than anyone else, we can and should accept the idea that we will be making things assembly workers who are satisfied with making a fraction of what our work force demands cannot. We should be making things you just can't find elsewhere.

If you've got any stocks, bonds or mutual funds, you can invest in the Mexican Stock Exchange directly, or even buy shares of the Mexico Fund (MXF) on the New York Stock Exchange. It's providing a decent return on your investment and you can say you're bit of free marketeering is doing good, not the usually evil corporatist exploitation you usually find associated with the "capitalist pigs" on Wall Street. (Full disclaimer, I inherited several shares of MXF).

You can also seek out those innovators and entrepreneurs whose products and services rely on a skilled, educated and technologically advanced workforce. And yeah, they better damn well be unionized. But they're out there, and unlike the trite bumpersticker that immigrants are doing the jobs Americans won't, these 21st century captains of industry will be providing the jobs that only Americans can do. We are leaders in aviation and computer technology, communications, robotics, agricultural engineering and entertainment.

The list goes on, and investment opportunities are out there in abundance -- lots of places you can put your money where your mouth is, in a socially respectable way to build up your nest egg other than the energy consortiums and industrial/military complex.

6/19/07

[+/-]

MarKOS Has Jumped The Shark

So much for in-depth analysis from the center of the progressive blogosphere. Frankly I'd expect better insight from Ann Coulter than this tripe. I think we should start up a donation page to buy MarKOS a clue.

'No freakin' Clue':
In some ways, I dig our field -- all our top-tier candidates can beat the best the other side throws at us. They are raising more money, getting more buzz, drawing bigger crowds, and are on the right side of most issues. Obama, Clinton, Edwards and Richardson have the possibility of being good presidents. And I'll have no problem getting behind any of them when the final results come in.
That's a reason why I have no urgency to pick a horse in this race. We'll be generally okay with any of these guys.

The first red flag simply has to be the complacency MarKOS displays in brushing aside the GOP machine when it come to what will happen a year and a half from now. (That's 3 Friedman Units for those of you keeping score.) You cannot misunderestimate the attraction of the "You're Fucking Kidding Me" candidate the Republicans will foist on this weary nation -- especially when you run a site dedicated to electing liberal Democrats to Washington DC.

But that's not enough for our KOSsack Field Marshall. He then goes on to list the low-points of each of our top tier presidential candidates, essentially saying that while he had no problem with any of them becoming the nominee, he's not especially thrilled with the choices he's been given.

Clinton -- a bamboozler on the war, Bush-like in her stubbornness to recant her AUMF vote, and will hurt down-ticket races for reasons I can't figure out and MarKOS fails to even try to explain.
Edwards -- OMG! MarKOS can't get past the F-ing haircut story. Yes, this is "serious" stuff folks. Don't brush it off because there's a sinister meaning there somewhere and it gives MarKOS an icky feeling, rising to the level of a "disaster." (Jeebus, MarKOS must have contemplated hari kari after the Dean Scream.)
Obama -- Oh my, two years into his first-term, the junior Senator from Illinois hasn't figured out how to make the upper chamber of Congress dance to his bidding. Where Edwards was painted as "stupid" for a billing mix-up on his grooming expenses, Obama is cowardly for a voting record that's safe, not stupid.
Richardson -- MarKOS didn't like Bill's appearance on Meet The Press, and informed us that you cannot be both a Red Socks fan and a Yankee fan. You're right MarKOS, That's the whole ball-game for the candidate whose experience alone would put him in the White House if the system were geared to promoting the most qualified person for the job, instead of the most popular. YEEHAARRRRRGGGGG!!!!

*Note to future historians.

Hillary Clinton did not start the war in Iraq, no democrat did.
Howard Dean did not lose the nomination because he screamed after the votes were counted in Iowa. He lost because the vote count showed he came in third to Kerry and Edwards, respectively, despite the prognostication and best efforts of blogtopians like MarKOS. Likewise, Edwards will lose Iowa only if he runs a similarly amateurish ground campaign there (he's not). After winning Iowa, Edwards can go to the next contests perceived as a winner -- not a loon, unless he shaves himself bald.
Barack Obama ain't stupid, and MarKOS is far too young to remember what real democratic leaders sounded like. Jack Kennedy didn't win the hearts and minds of a generation by transforming the Senate. No sooner did Bobby Kennedy take the New York Senate seat now occupied by Hillary Clinton, there was a buzz about him running for president. But he didn't even enter the '68 contest until after the New Hampshire primary. Bobby did not win the California primary on the eve of his assassination because of his voting record in the Senate, but because he was a champion of civil rights, the working poor, and because he had that same intangible quality Obama taps into that makes him inspirational and immensely popular.
Bill Richardson ain't stupid either, and would make MarKOS look like the pimply-face neophyte he is if they ever sat down together before a camera crew. Another thing to note about Richardson is that unlike the would-be kingmaker of blogtopia, Bill doesn't believe his own press clippings and has a much more grounded sense of who he is and the limits of his influence.

MarKOS caused a shit-storm with his vapid analysis, and maybe that was his intent. MarKOS ain't stupid either. He stirred the pot with this and brought out every partisan to do battle in the comments and diaries. Maybe this was intended to get all of the rancor out of our system so we can unite after the dust settles.

Or not. After all, the Daily KOS is as much an entertainment -- and a source of income for MarKOS based mainly on the unpaid writings of others, with all the bells and buzzers you can only get there. And that is the attraction of D-KOS. MarKOS make it so slick as to be irresistible, an interface to die for and a diverse community that puts recognized scholars and famous politicians on the same field as average folks with enough time to play at blogging instead of Nintendo.

Maybe MarKOS is just a bit too impressed with his own self-importance, and not sophisticated enough to do the heavy lifting necessary to pick a horse and ride it. It's easy to pick apart a pundit or politician, instead of trying to lead on issues yourself. Some would call keeping your options open at this point the safe bet, as long as you aren't supposed to be a "leader."

And that's probably what irks me the most. Obama is criticized for failing to lead, when MarKOS can incite thousands to a cause with a stroke of a key. Hillary can't catch a break despite being everything MarKOS is not, an accomplished and respected leader of a real political organization, not a virtual one. Richardson is dis'd on style points alone instead of getting even an acknowledgment of his diverse qualifications and record as a true problem-solver, when MarKOS (as far as I know) never even attended a school board meeting let alone wrangled with the problems associated with a real job as an elected official.

And what can I say about MarKOS's take on John Edwards. Really dude? The Haircut? That's all you got? How 'bout along with that clue we're buying for the King of the Great Orange Blog, we throw in a subscription to GQ. That kid could benefit from some proper grooming himself if he ever wants to do something besides sitting in front of a computer screen in his underwear eating cheetos.