Polibock

Iran Demands Western Nations Halt Enrichment

"'That ... we shut down our nuclear fuel cycle program to let talks begin. It's no problem. But justice demands that those who want to hold talks with us shut down their nuclear fuel cycle program too. Then, we can hold dialogue under a fair atmosphere, [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said...'We say how is it that your (nuclear fuel) production facilities work 24 hours a day, but you feel threatened by our newly established complex and we need to shut it down for talks, he asked."

Ooooh Ahmadinejad...I totally give you props for being such a snarky bastard.

This whole thing would be endlessly amusing and insanely funny, if it weren't for the fact that it involves the potential for serious nuclear catastrophe that is being "negotiated" by two equally arrogant, equally petulant, equally myopic "leaders." Oh, and the fate of the already tenuous stability of the Mid East region hangs in the balance.

Are we moving to Mars yet?

Teaser: The problem here is selectivity. To Exasperated selectively holds single mothers accountable for their possibly ill-conceived conceptions. OBVIOUSLY, these women have no room to complain, because, unlike To Exasperated et al, they made mistakes! And mistakes should be punished! Thumbscrews for everyone!

What about corporations? What about airlines getting BILLION DOLLAR bailouts from the government because the companies made bad business decisions? What about banks? Remember the savings and loan scandals/debacles of the 80's and 90's? Anyone? Bueller? What about this godforsaken atrocity that is Iraq? (Oh yes, I went there.) Bush & Co. made HORRENDOUS mistakes with that one, and yet, oh, it's okay, have a cup of tea and some non-binding resolutions and all will be better in the morning - the taxpayers will get your bill.


( Collapse )


As a sort of related note, and something that's just been irritating me lately - the next person I hear bleating about MY TAXES MY TAXES OH MY GOD MY TAXES, you know what they're getting?

THUMBSCREWS.

Admin note: My sincerest apologies for sort of falling off the earth there for a while. Between grad school applications, the holidays, post-holiday crap, a kidney infection, and work, I didn't have much time to read the news, let alone be snarky about it. I'm still pretty terrifically busy, so I'm going to intensify my search for a co-blogger, to kind of help me out and take some of the pressure off me. Interested? Leave a comment! I'm also playing around with some formatting changes, so stay tuned for those!


Teaser:The nurse told me Abbott has a program in place for the transition of Humira to market, wherein patients whose insurance will not cover Humira, or will charge a significant amount to do so, can continue getting the drug from Abbott for free. Additionally, there is an income component, where the cost of Humira is considered vis-a-vis a person's income, and this too can qualify the patient for free medication. Obviously, this was great news. But my happiness was followed by a single question: Why me?

( Collapse )

It's violating my inner economist.

The method-behind-the-madness of the Friday Free-For-All is simple: I provide a quotation, statement, statistic, or piece of news, without any commentary of my own. The readers are free to merrily discuss, debate, deride, or mock in whatever way they see fit -- hopefully it will at least tangentially pertain to the posted item, but hey, it's a free-for-all -- who knows!

Today's delicious Free-For-All is a little bit longer than usual, and comes courtesy of midtermmockery, who gave me the idea.

First, the quote:

"I haven't seen him move to start criticizing the Democrats in congress. We'll have to watch that closely, because I don't think 'The Daily Show' has been fair and balanced. And if they're going to maintain their credibility as a reliable source of comedy, they better start being fair and balanced."

-Bob Kohn, author of the book Journalistic Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted, said as a guest on MSNBC's Scarborough Country.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEW…

Okay, now, before I get into the meat of this Free-For-All, while I was searching for documentation of the quote, I found several other bits of information about this. Firstly, it appears that The Daily Show is a favorite whipping boy of Joe Scarborough. Apparently, any time he wants to theoretically make a point about liberal media bias, he shows a clip of Jon Stewart. Because we all know that Comedy Central is a vanguard of top news reporting and any news show WITH A COUCH is obviously the mouthpiece of America's left.

His - and other conservatives' - defense is that whenever O'Reilly or Fox Network responds to The Daily Show, Stewart's response is, "C'mon guys, we're not even real news!" Which is meant to deflect any criticisms directed toward the show by making Fox and O'Reilly look like stiffs - in sort, attacking the attacker rather than the argument.

But Stewart's kind of got a point. Why the fixation on a show with a sole purpose of mocking the news? Isn't there oh, I dunno, a WAR or something to talk about?

Commonwealth Common Sense blog made similar points about the wah-wah'ing of Scarborough et al, and linked to several articles and reports that found:

-Viewers of The Daily Show were more informed and more politically active than viewers of network evening news or other late-night talk shows, like Jay Leno or David Letterman
-Contary to Scarborough's complaint that The Daily Show makes young people cynical and less likely to vote, the youth vote turned out in higher numbers in 2004 than in 2000.

An Indiana University report found that Jon Stewart and The Daily Show are as trusted and as substantive as network "real" news. At first, this might seem to bolster Scarborough's point that Stewart can't hide behind the couch, so to speak, when faced with criticism - BUT, good ol' Joe is missing a big point.

Jon Stewart doesn't hide behind the couch. He fires right back. Witness the frequent clashes between Jon and Bill O'Reilly (search YouTube for videos - there are too many to link.) And the fact that IU found people believe The Daily Show to be as substantive as network news should be an indicator of how utterly low and worthless the "real" news has become - like Stewart said on Crossfire, he's a comedian, why are "real" journalists leaving it up to him to do THEIR jobs?

As for trusted...well, for me, I trust The Daily Show because I think they are probably one of the only media outlets that don't have some ulterior political motive for their reporting. He tells it like it is. Which brings us back to Kohn's quote.

"A reliable source of comedy?" WTF? Comedy needs to have a reliable source? And A LATE-NIGHT COMEDIC NEWS PROGRAM WITH A COUCH needs to be fair and balanced? At least Comedy Central doesn't pretend to be objective, like some other "real" news networks.


Okay, I'll stop editorializing now - I realize this has kind of morphed into a post-combined-with-Free-For-All. So what do you think? Is The Daily Show harming democracy? Does Kohn have a point? Does The Daily Show count as "news" or does it hide behind the mantle of "fake news" in order to deflect criticism? Does Fox News have a legitimate complaint, or are they just going after the only show that actually isn't afraid to tread a different path than the almighty Rupert Murdoch? Will conservative pundits ever grow the #$#@^%$#$#! up? Who do you trust - Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? Is The Daily Show and The Onion all that's left of actual, investigative journalism instead of "infotainment"?

Go!

The method-behind-the-madness of the Friday Free-For-All is simple: I provide a quotation, statement, statistic, or piece of news, without any commentary of my own. The readers are free to merrily discuss, debate, deride, or mock in whatever way they see fit -- hopefully it will at least tangentially pertain to the posted item, but hey, it's a free-for-all -- who knows!



"Bwuh?" you might be thinking, because it is not Friday, and Free-For-Alls are on Fridays! Ah yes, but as this is a special week of massive overeating in the name of some fictionalized notion of history tradition, things are a bit wonky. Firstly, I'll be out of town visiting the (future) in-laws. Secondly, Friday I will be shopping, and thus, too tired/frustrated/annoyed/murderous to post our dear Free-For-All. So enjoy it a few days early!


Here it is:

What are, in your opinion, the top three most pressing issues/problems facing the world today? Facing the nation?

My vote is for bears.


Go!

Our gracious Polibock moderator type person allowed me to be the substitute teacher for the usual Free-For-All. The ground rules were to post three questions -- one from each side of the issue and then a...I'll say 'grab bag' question. But, since I was stuck on the fence between two different issues I've been thinking about this past week, I had to tweak the rules a little. It's a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others situation. Let's play!

"When [a profound change in the social consciousness] is not compelled by a constitutional imperative, it must come about through civil dialogue and reasoned discourse, and the considered judgment of the people in whom we place ultimate trust in our republican form of government. Whether an issue with such far-reaching social implications as how to define marriage falls within the judicial or the democratic realm, to many, is debatable. Some may think that this Court should settle the matter, insulating it from public discussion and the political process. Nevertheless, a court must discern not only the limits of its own authority, but also when to exercise forbearance, recognizing that the legitimacy of its decisions rests on reason, not power. We will not short-circuit the democratic process from running its course."

~ The NJ Supreme Court's recent decision [Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al. (A-68-05), pg. 62] requiring the state to provide same-sex couples the same rights and benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. The court left the decision on what to name same-sex unions up to the legislature, allowing there to be a difference in names so long as the rights, benefits, burdens and obligations were the same.

So the questions are as follows:

1) Is it appropriate for a court to effectively make a sweeping change in social policy, or should it be left to the legislature? And why?

2) Is there a difference between "gay rights" and "equal rights?" If so, elaborate.

3) On a completely unrelated note, is anyone else amused, in light of his Strom Thurmond controversy a few years back, by Trent Lott being elected the Senate Minority Whip? Or am I the only one who immediately had a vision of the federal government’s new immigration plan: Senator Lott chasing illegal immigrants down K Street with a strap.

** I kid Senator Lott. He’s good people. Loves freedom. Et cetera and so on.

On Wednesday’s edition of his nightly news program, Keith Olbermann referred to Fox News as "a Rosetta Stone of jaundiced journalism" (in front of a mock Fox graphic that reads "Faux News Channel") among reports that the network sent directives to their staff to "be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress." ( Collapse )

I know, I know, I'm a mean, nasty, neglectful moderator. I'm going away to Chicago this evening, and won't be back until Monday night.

HOWEVER, fear not, my gentle readers. I have not left you in isolation. The gracious midtermmockery will again be filling in for me, with a post tomorrow and a Free-For-All on Friday.

See, that makes you feel a little better, doesn't it?

The method-behind-the-madness of the Friday Free-For-All is simple: I provide a quotation, statement, statistic, or piece of news, without any commentary of my own. The readers are free to merrily discuss, debate, deride, or mock in whatever way they see fit -- hopefully it will at least tangentially pertain to the posted item, but hey, it's a free-for-all -- who knows!

Before the Free-For-All, a few announcements.

1. A great big gooey thank you to midtermmockery, who really stepped up and filled in for me for the awesomely hilarious live commentary. Way to bring the funny - especially on such short notice! You win a cookie.

2. Happy Veterans' Day! And if any of you poor souls are at work in the District as I am, shout loudly - my office is so desolate I feel like I'm on a deserted island. I'd insert a 'Lost' joke here, but...I don't watch the show.

3. A belated Election Day Analysis and Commentary will be up HOPEFULLY this afternoon. If it's not, though, just consider it the first broken campaign promise of the season.

And now, to the Free-For-All!



Very simple:

Did you vote in the 2006 midterms and are you happy with the results?


Go!

And we're back. And by we, I mean me.

( Collapse )

Alright, so it's midnight and that's the end of the line for me. Here's what we know as of now:

1) Democrats will probably take the House
2) The Senate is stil up for grabs
3) Anyone with at least a passing interest in national politics could have told you all of these things about three weeks ago
4) Expect recounts and lawsuits in Virginia
5) There are still 53 minutes to place your bets on James Carville biting J.C. Watts in the face
6) I will surely be fired from Polibock by morning, seeing as I stopped being funny about an hour ago

Goodnight!