Stop Me Before I Vote Again

Maybe she can focus on some character assassination of Cindy Sheehan, which would please both Clinton and Obama. The USAID stunt in Bolivia a couple years back, when they were forking over millions in U.S. currency to the white aristocracy, which at the time was engaged in beating Bolivian Indians with clubs and chains in the streets, is a good illustration of what the agency does on a routine basis around the world.

so the dems have just lost Ted Kennedy's seat, the 60th vote in the senate.. quite an accomplishment.

are you old fogeys all in bed already or what?

Old fogeys tend to be rather insomniac, bob, as you would know if you knew any old fogeys. We're on it, a little shallowly perhaps, but heartfelt.

It would seem then that Limbaugh is vindicated?

I'm with Jay. We need to silence Cindy Sheehan and anyone else who has criticized Code Pink's stance on Afghanistan. What's the point of having our movement if traitors like Sheehan keep pointing out that The Noble Democrats behave like The Evil Rethuglicans? Clearly Sheehan is lying and must be silenced -- by any means necessary. Maybe an angry post from Digby could achieve that goal. Digby's persuasive!

"You don't have a heart!" Yeah, virtuoso stuff.

And Mr. Flugg, I agree, but you sound like you just had an epiphany about Rachel. That would be ... surprising to me.

"You don't have a heart!" Yeah, virtuoso stuff. Why not "Yeah, well, you're a big fat idiot!!!"?

And Mr. Flugg, I agree, but you sound like you just had an epiphany about Rachel. That would be ... surprising to me.

Maddow has always been horrible. If you listened to her terrible radio show before she made TV, you heard her affected, over-enunciating pseudo-intellectual self-regard. She's a cute, happy lesbian with straight As and scholarship offers who went to Stanford and won a major award for writing something about the super-controversial and fresh achievement not liking AIDS.

The ads on her radio show, over which she most certainly had a say, described her as "smart" about every 3.7 seconds.

In reality, she's somewhat less smart, in the human/non-merit sense of that word, than the infamously addled Patricia Harris Lacewell.

They both know about as much relevant history and institutional fact as the typical Ivy League "Government"/"PoliSci" student...

I agree with Mr Dawson. I'd add that no "public intellectual" who gets as much face/voice time as Rachel Maddow is anywhere close to half as clever as he or she is sold. Being better informed than Joe and Ethyl Sixpack, that's no real feat, but it's what Ms Maddow can claim as her own. The saddest thing of all is that people like Jon Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken... they are entertainers, not true intellectuals. Comprehensive, open thinkers would see the internal inconsistencies of the positions offered by The Noble Democrats, but "progressive" sales-people gloss over those inconsistencies because the aim isn't to challenge or inform, and instead is to inculcate.

"You don't have a heart!" Yeah, virtuoso stuff.

Here, here for the sarcasm.

Pretty rich, Jon Stewart spanking Maddow for going all partisan on Haiti. He's been rolling turds for Obama since November '08. The show is mostly unwatchable as a result.

His premise is stupid too -- there is nothing wrong with having political ideas about handling the crisis in Haiti. What's wrong is that Limbaugh is a racist, Robertson is racist and crazy and the odious Maddow is, like the President she's pimping for, a preening, self-regarding conformist tool.

they are entertainers, not true intellectuals. Comprehensive, open thinkers would see the internal inconsistencies of the positions offered by The Noble Democrats, but "progressive" sales-people gloss over those inconsistencies because the aim isn't to challenge or inform, and instead is to inculcate.

My parents weren't intellectuals and they've always thought our political system was a fraud, like a lot of people who aren't intellectuals. Lenny Bruce was an entertainer. So was George Carlin -- before the rancid misanthropy of his twilight years. Ain't nothing wrong with entertainment. And ain't nothing so great about intellectuals.

Maddow, Stewart et al work for Big Media. They conform reflexively, just like the the intellectuals they occasionally host.

@Will Black: Actually, I finally finished sussing out Rachel Maddow many months ago. I just haven't bothered actually mentioning my dislike until now. I was bothered by her Air America background in the beginning, but decided to check her out for a big before making a judgement. Well, I've checked her out, and my judgement is eeeuuurrrrggghhh.

The DW loves Rachel Maddow, though. As with Obama, the DW can't quit gushing about how smart Maddow is.

I have to admit I really dig Olbermann, though. I like that his original reporting background is in sports -- pretty much the only kind of journalism you can't distort, fudge or spin -- and that he's been an equal-opportunity butt-kicker. You should've heard his "special commentary" on the health care bill a couple of weeks ago. Wheee-hah, Keith.

@MM: Damn, it's nice to know I'm not the only one who's noticed that Stewart's been totally letting Obama skate by, no matter what. That's just the first of so many reasons why I just don't bother with the Daily Show lately.

I'll be the first to admit that, when the shit started shaking out in Haiti and heard about the Army and the USAID and Hillary going down there, and Bubba and Dubya being appointed Special Poobahs, my first thought was hot damn, here we go, swooping in like vultures, just snatching the place up now that the people are totally vulnerable and without political figureheads and Aristide totally canned up in South Africa -- just like Clinton wanted to do about fifteen, sixteen years ago. Still, I somehow thought it was really tasteless to be kvetching about that sort of thing when we weren't even thirty-six hours into the first quake -- that's right, the first quake. (There's apparently been another one this morning, about a 6.1ish.)

That said... yeah, I totally had a political opinion forming quickly, and a couple of SWAGs about what lay ahead, and an idea for a cartoon percolating.

@MF@@@@ -
You like Keith Olberman for his sports background, because its "pretty much the only kind of journalism you can't distort, fudge or spin"? Sports journalism has oceans of fudge, spin, and distortion about steroids, steroids, corporate sports control, corruption, violence, corruption - Jesus, any man getting money to be a sports broadcaster is a whore, and a cheap one at that - not that there's anything wrong with that, but not someone who has much, let's say, AUTHORITAY.
Jon Stewart guffaws with fascists on his unwatchable show, and had to make up for his writers' slams on FoxNews by equal-opportunity-seeming chastisement of Ms. Northampton.
That's just a little talkin' bout tha media, but I respect your output, MF - keep it runing.

I meant that in terms of reporting on the actual playing of the sport, itself -- that is, reporting on an actual game -- as opposed to all the other jazz which does bleed over into actual news which you can spin 'til it pukes.

Remember how "embedded" journalists in Iraq reported on stuff as if we were handing them their asses when often "they" were kicking us clear into next week? That was kind of the point I was making, there. Remember the whole Judith Miller fiasco? Imagine Judith Miller being sent to cover a Yankees game, and the Yankees totally suck that evening, but Judith Miller files a story for the next morning's NYT headlined "Yanks Rule In No-Hit Shutout", even though there were twenty thousand or so people in the park -- and a few million more watching on TV -- who were eyewitnesses to the Yankees sucking, not to mention everybody with an NYT in their hand in the morning checking out the stats and box scores and seeing how badly the Yanks sucked last night. She'd be fucking fired -- except that she was doing that while reporting on Iraq, so the NYT pretty much let her skate.

mm:

My parents weren't intellectuals and they've always thought our political system was a fraud, like a lot of people who aren't intellectuals. Lenny Bruce was an entertainer. So was George Carlin -- before the rancid misanthropy of his twilight years. Ain't nothing wrong with entertainment. And ain't nothing so great about intellectuals.

I agree with all that. My point is one of my rare serious points here, and it wasn't clearly stated. To me an intellectual isn't someone who has a PhD or JD or MD from Harvard. To me an intellectual is someone who questions what he/she is told, and wonders about what *is*. It requires no advanced or basic post-highschool degree. So it is not a derogatory thing, to me, to be an intellectual.

But to be an "intellectual," now that's a different thing, and that's what Rachel Maddow is, or what David Brooks is, or what Barack Obama is.

I tend to call those people meritocrats. Not intellectuals. I'd need quotation marks for the latter term.

As far as entertainers go, my view on Stewart is that he's been huffing Obama's monkey for so long that he's not the kind of entertainment I find valuable. Bill Hicks, George Carlin... yes. Stewart? No. He's just doing what Al Franken did for SNL during the 80s... and look at Franken now.

"I'm with Jay. We need to silence Cindy Sheehan and anyone else who has criticized Code Pink's stance on Afghanistan. What's the point of having our movement if traitors like Sheehan keep pointing out that The Noble Democrats behave like The Evil Rethuglicans? Clearly Sheehan is lying and must be silenced -- by any means necessary. Maybe an angry post from Digby could achieve that goal. Digby's persuasive!"

That's it. Forget Haiti. I'm spending my last ten bucks on a dozen roses for Mr. Oxtrot. I don't care how much the neighbors gossip.