neoprimordial

"The wind blows where it pleases; you can hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going."

Recent comments by this user

Provincial Progressives: The New Yorker Magazine and Why Obama May Lose

I have a close friend who shared a bit of insight with me about certain situations that seem untenable, and it helps with this New Yorker cover riling people up. I was very much up-in-arms, as you are now, Mr. Schaeffer. Here's what he had told me: trust the process. What am I talking about? The New Yorker editors are not "smart ass," "provincial," or "little" insofar as their influence and reputation. They are still the good guys. Think about it: we who are of even temperaments see this cover and are outraged by it. We rag on it, go on and on about it, but what's happening with the people who are biased against the very idea of the Obamas? They pick up the magazine, probably to look inside. What's inside: an unflattering but unbiased look at Obama to date--the facts, free of any revelations supporting any of the notions the caricature on the cover suggests. They've just been exposed to reality. What they do with it is anyone's guess, but it can't be any worse than their former state. Meanwhile, we rail against the cover as not satire, but "tasteless and offensive," with no basis in reality and a bald, boldfaced attempt at pushing more copies. We're doing what we ought to be doing, and our noise is heard the world over. It's all okay. Trust the process (and thank you, my friend, and you too, Mr. Schaeffer). posted 07/16/2008 at 02:23:23

The Latest Media Blind Spot: Viewing All Criticism of Obama Through a Right/Left Prism

An interesting take, but we're allowed to hold Obama's feet to the fire if he starts to veer from his own professed standards, and we don't need to have been involved in election campaigns or be a pundit to do so. His oeuvre is out there and growing with every speech he makes, every statement he makes. If he starts to act contrary to his clearly defined views, it is our right, and our obligation as citizens, to call him on it.

Using your standards, however, I think Gary Hart might fit the bill. Let's see what he thinks of the latest Obama turns. Mr. Hart, where are you? posted 07/15/2008 at 19:21:53

Hanging with Insurance Companies and Their Lobbyists

MIKE STARK FOR ELECTED OFFICE. Any one you want to run for, I'm there with you. You are the best, a serious trooper, and candid where it counts (and where it doesn't, but thanks for sharing). I'm so sorry for your physical troubles, and for the fact that it looks like only a handful of people have seen this--really, many more people should see this. Let's just look at it for now as the calm before the storm--reform is inevitable. Please do keep up the good fight, and take care. posted 07/16/2008 at 02:20:15

Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

Come on! You are seriously overlooking the kinds of comments people were making during the primaries: "I don't know if he really cares about America," "He's a Muslim and I don't want to vote for him," "I aint racist or nothin', but I can't vote for a Black man," "I don't think he really is patriotic because he didn't put his hand over his heart during the national anthem / doesn't wear his flag lapel pin sometimes / is a Muslim," etc. You do remember this, don't you? This is what's out there. We know there is a sizable contingent of misinformed, undereducated, racist, bigoted, reactionary folk out there (and that's just the Democrats), and the New Yorker tongue-in-cheek puts out this cover. It defies logic. Those folks see the cover and they say, "I done told you so!" posted 07/14/2008 at 02:05:27

Absolutely. In fact, I wish the artist had taken your suggestion. As it stands, it looks, at first glance, as if the New Yorker has the goods on "the real Obama." Too many people won't go any further. This was a royally bad move on their part. posted 07/14/2008 at 01:50:59

EXACTLY. You could argue that the majority of people, probably most of whom do not frequent Huffpost or even use a computer much, won't be perceptive enough to properly grasp it. The right wing are thanking their lucky stars for this cover. It will be everywhere by the end of business today. Imagine the reception in the rust belt. What were they thinking? I wonder if Jon Stewart & Colbert will do anything with this. posted 07/14/2008 at 01:44:56

The suggestion of complicity on the part of the Obamas might not be as much of a problem if the overwhelming majority of people knew these stereotypes to be false, but then if that many knew, there would be no point to having a cover like this. There are too many people who "aren't sure" about Obama's Christianity, patriotism, and ultimate motives in running for office. This kind of cover on a magazine with the reputation of the New Yorker simply establishes and encourages a false impression of who the Obamas are. It is "tasteless and offensive," and it needn't be--some change to it that removes that strong suggestion that they really pulled the wool over our eyes would remove the controversy. No doubt the editorial staff of the mag gave it long serious thought and still approved it. Let's see if they were ultimately right. I vote "nay." posted 07/14/2008 at 01:27:42

What's wrong with this image is the suggestion of complicity on the part of the Obamas. This is the kind of cover you'd find on The Weekly Standard, and no doubt the artist is getting offers for it from various conservative mags and rags. I think the New Yorker made a serious mistake here. You don't put this kind of image on the cover of this level of magazine. The regular New Yorker reader will most likely understand, but all kinds of other readers will see it and just get the wrong idea. All kinds of questions come to mind, from the artist's stated intent to, "Did I somehow miss that the New Yorker got bought out by Rupert Murdoch?" to "If the Obamas were White, would they have done something like this?" It's just a bad idea. I, for one, don't want this issue anywhere around me. I'll use other sources for the information if necessary. posted 07/14/2008 at 01:03:01

McCain's Problem: Not Age, but Condition

I wonder how many people here would vote for John McCain if he had the same talent for statesmanship and instinctual leadership skills as Barack Obama. I agree that trying to suggest that McCain is too old is a weak strategy, but I also don't believe it's even worthwhile to suggest that his energy level won't be up to demands of the presidency. He has people he can delegate to, and he can hire more if he feels he needs to. That's why they're there. The problem with McCain is the problem with most of the candidates who have run for the office of the president this season: they are, for the most part, mediocre leaders or non-leaders. They don't have a distinctive vision that people will want to get behind, the capacity to effectively lead people in a direction they may not necessarily want to go, or the integrity to be in it for more than just the power & money (like Dick & Dubya), or some other corrupting influence. McCain gets into office and we will have four more years of what we've gotten from the Republicans for the last quarter century. Obama, at the very least, shows a strong potential for actual leadership. No one is perfect, after all, but I'd put my money on Obama long before I'd put it on McCain as to whose presidency would be most effective. I don't think McCain is worth even discussing anymore. posted 07/16/2008 at 02:15:29

Obama for President

I think the name "Sutherland" has become synonymous with tremendous acting talent and, in the case of "Donald," none too shabby political commentary. It's becoming standard operating procedure to take any criticisms of Obama with a grain of salt and more than a casual scrutiny, so I doubt that many of us would have thought you had suddenly turned anti-Obama.

I'm sorry you can't vote here, but if Obama becomes president (I don't want to say "when" and presume upon the future), you can feel free and comfortable in becoming a U.S. citizen thereafter. It would be an honor for us to be able to call you compatriot. And while we're waiting, when are you going to come on "24"? I thought for sure that you would play the role James Cromwell played (wonderfully nonetheless) on the show. There's no doubt they can fit you in somewhere for at least an episode or two. What do you say? If Obama becomes president, come on the show. If not, don't. posted 07/11/2008 at 01:07:22

American Psycho

It depends on what meaning of the word "racism" you're using. If you're using it in the "classic" sense, where one believes that other races are by nature inferior to ones own, and that all the members of ones race should be allowed to lord it over all other races, then I would say no, Black people are not racist in this regard, nor could they be until at least a substantial majority of them gained the kind of power and control that is customary to White people. If you're using the more accepted definition of racism--hatred of another or other races besides ones own--then I would say yes, it's entirely possible for Black people, and White people, to be racist in this way.

Insofar as the people who cannot bring themselves to vote for a Black man, it seems to me that they're more classic racists. This explains the statement of one woman from West Virginia who said she "aint racist or nothin'," yet admitted she couldn't vote for Obama because he's Black. These people are certifiable. posted 07/11/2008 at 03:08:48

Ms. Smiley, your commentary is positively roaring with righteousness, in the best sense of the word. It is a rallying cry, the voice out of the wilderness calling for people to get it together. These people who won't vote for a Black man, it's as if they have some kind of neurosis. They're positively pathological, to the point of being ready to suffer and perhaps die. What can you say to them? Maybe some apropos line from the Bible, and even then they probably couldn't stomach it. Perhaps only an epiphany or some sort of revelation would open their eyes and remove the blinders. What a horrible thing, the arrogance of dogma. posted 07/11/2008 at 01:41:29

Jesse Jackson Disparages Barack Obama: Caught On Tape (VIDEO)

I guess Jackson's objection to Obama lecturing the Black community in America is that it's not Obama's place to do so. One wonders what would happen if Hillary or Bill or McCain had done the same thing. Perhaps Jackson is saying that the Black community need not be lectured to--something that is clearly not true (that's like saying those West Virginia voters don't need talking to (counseling, therapy, etc.) who bold-face admitted they wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he's Black). Whatever the reason for his objection, I think that it's not *his* place to do so to Obama. If Obama doesn't do it, who will? Shall we wait for Bill Cosby to get around to it, again? posted 07/09/2008 at 17:10:04

Senate Passes FISA Bill, Gives Telecoms Immunity

What companies in what cases will he pardon? The 40 suits were all civil suits and those will be dismissed with his signature. Any criminal cases will be pursued once he leaves. How are we being duped? posted 07/09/2008 at 20:11:59

The decider doesn't have a say in the matter after Inauguration Day in 2009, so, rest assured, any suits happen after that. posted 07/09/2008 at 20:05:48

Are you suggesting that in the less than 8 months Bush was in power they were spying on us? Come on. Bush was asleep at the switch half the time, though 9/11 woke him up real good. And shouldn't you be in bed, or are you one of those people who can actually function on 4 hours sleep? posted 07/09/2008 at 19:51:18

What myth? Who said anything about bringing a lawsuit before noon on January 20th, 2009? posted 07/09/2008 at 19:42:53

The telecomms are still subject to criminal prosecution. Have faith. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:17:55

It appears he voted "yes" on all the amendments, but they all failed. Nonetheless, the telecomms are still subject to *criminal* prosecution, thus the reason it passed, in my humble opinion. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:11:30

If his name's Alberto Gonzales, theoretically-speaking. posted 07/09/2008 at 19:05:19

So, better to not have the option to prosecute criminal acts? In that case, let's just throw out the Constitution altogether. HA HA HA! posted 07/09/2008 at 19:00:04

What are you talking about? Why can't we? posted 07/09/2008 at 18:56:25

It should, if it's *not* a civil case and it's currently being prosecuted. Otherwise, statute of limitations may apply, but your mileage may vary. posted 07/09/2008 at 18:44:24

No, Thunder speaks the truth, or at least the apparent truth. posted 07/09/2008 at 18:36:37

I don't think there's any way to know how he would have voted if this had happened during the primaries, but the bottom line is that, according to the basics of the bill, the telecomms are subject to criminal prosecution but not to civil prosecution. They can and probably will still face the music, assuming Bush is not just leaving office when it happens.

Why is the Bush administration and co. so against prosecuting the telecomms? Because, among other reasons, they know that there are going to be x number of errors where the wrong person will be targeted (as has happened in Guantanamo Bay) and they don't want to have lawsuits gumming up the works, leading to more adverse publicity and possibly the whole process being outlawed. They want to be able to act with impunity when they sidestep the Constitution. posted 07/09/2008 at 18:28:42

EWWW! That was an image I didn't need! Just terrible! posted 07/09/2008 at 18:10:28

I believe you assume correctly. posted 07/09/2008 at 18:05:16

To suggest that it's farfetched to rely on criminal liability is saying one shouldn't bother with having the option to prosecute them in the first place. Not only is it possible to convict a telecomm of illegal activity, it has already happened (the various big companies busted for insider trading and such, including a telecomm or two as I recall), AND it is a deterrent to criminality. It may take a while--years, in fact--but it's definitely doable and definitely not a reason to not have that option in this bill, however backhandedly it got in there. It's the reason the bill passed the Senate. posted 07/09/2008 at 18:04:12

Absolutely criminally. I wish more people were aware of this. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:50:34

Here's a question for everyone: can a telecom be prosecuted under the new FISA bill once it becomes law? posted 07/09/2008 at 17:44:32

Why is this solicitation here, complete with prices? Just because he made a cursory and uninformed comment about what went down today in Congress? posted 07/09/2008 at 17:35:15

The devil, or rather, the angel is in the details. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:32:00

Why isn't your so very cogent and informative comment a Huffpost pick? No matter. You've got my vote. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:23:32

Ah! There's the rub. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:17:35

Double down on him NOT doing it until McCain does. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:13:44

This story isn't over. Hold off on the vitriol for now. posted 07/09/2008 at 17:10:18

Sun Valley Photos: Media, Business Elite Converge On Annual Allen & Co Retreat

It would be cataclysmic, but ultimately all these people are tools (in the general sense of the word). For the most part they are in thrall to their access to wealth and power, and the moment they should choose not to be, or become unavailable to be such, they'll be eclipsed by others more than willing to take their place. In the face of natural and man-made disasters of all sorts, the system persists. If you could fundamentally change the system, however, you could make a difference. posted 07/10/2008 at 02:36:31

I really appreciate actually having pictures of these various folks even though we know for the most part what they look like. Having the pictures highlights the demographics of this crowd, all these current and former movers & shakers. Someone else asked where's Arianna, but I think she has further to go before she gets welcomed into this group. The real question: where's Oprah? She definitely could have held her own there, and she could have represented, on two fronts: as a Black person, and as a female who is one of the most powerful and influential people in the world. As it stands, all the power brokers are Caucasian men, and all the women are Caucasian or Asian trophy wives, or just trophies, with Charlie Rose as referee. It's suspicious, sub rosa activity with the usual suspects. What's really going on with these retreats? (Thank you, "impatient," for relating a little of the play-by-play that Allen & co. engage in.) posted 07/10/2008 at 02:22:45

Oh, Yes She Can

No doubt there are people who are blindly supportive of Barack Obama. However, there are plenty of Americans who are quite familiar with this political process and the differences between what a candidate speaks and what that candidate does, going back at least to the 1980 election. I consider what you have to say and it appears that your bitterness is beginning to skew your judgment.

I for one have never thought that Obama was a saint, and while I wholeheartedly support his candidacy, I know he's a politician. Whatever you want to say about the three possible candidates for the presidency thus far, Barack Obama strikes me as the smartest and the wisest, with the greatest capacity for statesmanship, the most integrity, and the best grasp of what can and ought to be accomplished in this 21st century world. He is the diametric opposite of George W. Bush, short of being a woman. The record clearly reflects this, right up to the fact that he is indeed the presumptive Democratic nominee for president.

You suggest that he's too unknown, untested, untrustworthy, unsteady. I think you're selling the good judgment of Americans short to support your own bias, trying to suggest that we're missing something in supporting him. This aint the 1960s. We didn't miss a thing, nor would we be allowed to with people such as yourself who are opposed to him. I applaud and support your dissent, truly, but not what you're implying. posted 07/09/2008 at 15:38:02

Why McCain Fails My Mom's Test

We don't really know who did in J.F.K. It might have been pre-neocons for all we know, but I strongly agree with you: I'd like nothing better than to see them convicted and locked up in a penitentiary somewhere remote and forbidding. Not to be morbid, but the idea of that makes me feel good deep down. posted 07/09/2008 at 15:49:52

Look carefully at the last paragraph of the essay. posted 07/09/2008 at 15:49:41

My condolences to you, Mr. Borosage, on your loss. I think your Mom is quite wise in addition to being quite learned. She claims not to be an expert, but, as Dylan put it somewhat, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Your mother exemplifies this sentiment. With all due respect, though, I would disagree with her when she says that McCain's candidacy is an insult to the intelligence of every American voter--for obvious reasons, at least in the case of those 25% of Americans who still approve of George W. Bush. posted 07/09/2008 at 15:42:55

Seymour Hersh Exposes New US Covert Operations In Iran (VIDEO)

Where's the rest of the video? It stops with Hersh in mid-sentence. posted 06/29/2008 at 18:50:19

Help Me Write a Book

I think your emphasis is on the wrong system. Democracy is what makes capitalism palatable, at the moment. The usual system of checks and balances tends to divert competing interests to the hopeful benefit of all. Capitalism left unchecked would collapse into anarchy under the weight of devouring self-interests. posted 06/29/2008 at 17:32:19

Part of what makes Pink Floyd great (the lyrics, not the money). posted 06/29/2008 at 17:22:10

Your grandfather was quite the wise man, and he said in a simple sentence what took me and a couple of other people here a paragraph. "Take care of the poor, because they are the ones who will make you rich." Well-said. posted 06/29/2008 at 17:19:45

And Bob's yer uncle. It'll never happen here, short of some cataclysmic revolutionary rethinking of the system of things in this country, a la the Sixties. Okay, I doubt very strongly it'll happen. And Denmark is one of those places where the large majority of people are happy--because of the massive government subsidizing or because the culture induced the subsidies? Either way, America has a long way to go before we get anywhere near them socially. posted 06/29/2008 at 17:08:02

Very nicely put, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying, except for the intelligence of capitalists. I'd say they're smart but not very wise. With wisdom, what you state here comes naturally, but I don't mean to split hairs. You're on the money (no pun intended). posted 06/29/2008 at 16:50:55

If the system is working "most effectively," how do you explain the current state of wealth distribution in the world, and what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the increasing disparity between the extremely wealthy vs. those who have enough to just-get-by down or less (besides the obliteration of the American middle class)? posted 06/29/2008 at 16:40:49

What is going to compel or motivate a corporation, or even a wealthy but self-aggrandizing individual, to help the much less fortunate? What makes someone who may not be as compassionate as a J. K. Rowling or the founders of Google to help the poor? Innovation provides a temporary reprieve from the predations of capitalism. Once it's figured out how to market the innovation, the usual overarching imperative of the bottom line takes control, generally speaking, whether gradually or abruptly. If you're going to have capitalists helping others, it has to be shown to help their bottom line, in perpetuity. If you can't do that, you can't, in my opinion, have a viable system of creative capitalism. They'll say "it's not in our interests, or our shareholders' interests, to go further than we have." posted 06/29/2008 at 15:20:55

All excellent points, but if, somehow, the wealthy monied entities can be made to see that it's in their best interest to encourage, as much as possible, the success of the underclass and those just above it, the usual fallacies lose their punch. The trick is convincing them. I know of one woman, a friend of a friend, who basically declared that her indulging herself with her wealth was "enlightened self-interest." There are plenty of people who establish whatever rationale, including the ones you've outlined here, to support their greed and overweening self-interest. We can only hope they wake up before long. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:57:03

My first reaction to the idea of creative capitalism (crapitalism) was also that the notion is pollyanna-ish. Philanthropy and capitalism are mutually exclusive ideas, at first glance. In thinking a little about it, in order for creative capitalism to work, mutual benefit must be derived from the company and from the people who receive the charity from that company. I think this is doable, and ultimately sustainable, but that it requires a concerted, coordinated effort to get it going. In essence, a company is "investing" in individuals, making them viable, productive members of society, and, if possible, the company itself. If this strategy becomes commonplace, the effect is one of firm and serious uplift for the entire economy, and the fortunes of the business sector in general. It's a good idea and it can be done.

The traditional "Gates method" is too altruistic to catch on with the corporate world, apparently. Their capitalistic self-interest is too great for it to be significantly sustainable. And, in my opinion, the main reason Bill Gates started up his foundation is because he simply has too much money, amazingly, more than he, or we, can fathom--not because deep, deep down, he's an altruist at heart. He was drowning in it, being entombed under the weight of it. Best to just get rid of a lot of it. Ted Turner, on the other hand, *is* an altruist at heart. posted 06/29/2008 at 13:34:17

Page Six: Olbermann Went Nuts Over First Class DC Train Ticket, Ketchup Packets At Kennedy Center; Olbermann Denies

When Olbermann said the title of O'Reilly's forthcoming book, I actually had to pause the video and back it up because I was laughing so hard. That was good.

This is a gag, right? Oh, I get it. It's a book of humor. It must be, with that title. Sounds like something the Monty Python guys would put out. Let's see how much O'Reilly can make us laugh. posted 06/25/2008 at 16:35:36

Keith Olbermann Slams Page Six, Denies Interest In "Meet The Press" Job, Admits He's Not Qualified

As much as I love Keith Olbermann, I have to agree with him that he wouldn't really be the one to fill the position on "Meet the Press"--at least not with regard to the manner in which Tim Russert filled it. I can't think of anyone who is who isn't retired or dead, that's how good Tim Russert was, and how lacking the industry is these days. My guess is that whoever NBC picks for the permanent position will be an unknown up-and-comer, kind of like Russert himself was when he took the position. posted 06/20/2008 at 13:43:27

Obama Personally Apologizes To Muslim Women

It is rather amazing to see someone at the level Barack Obama is, celebrity-wise, responding *personally* to people who have been disrespected or disparaged directly or indirectly by him or his people. He phoned that woman reporter he called "sweetie" and left a message on her answering machine apologizing for it. This just isn't done, certainly not in the political sphere. Imagine a Dick Cheney or a John McCain or a Hillary Clinton personally calling the person they unintentionally mistreated. This man is something else. "I want to believe" that he's that thoughtful of a person, but he's also quite a wily person who would want to nip in the bud any developing dissension. I guess you could say it's both. Obama's a mensch. posted 06/20/2008 at 13:39:19

What If Obama Isn't A Game Changer?

How can anyone credibly argue that Obama might not be a "game changer"? Just the fact that he's African-American is in itself changing the game. He's the first African-American *ever* to be a national party candidate for the presidency. If he becomes president, the game gets changed in revolutionary fashion, from the way that African-Americans will look at themselves, to the way that everyone else will look at African-Americans, to the ways in which business-as-usual is practiced in Washington. I can't even begin to go into all the ways the game would be changed here, but suffice it to say that all the ways in which race plays a role in American society gives you an idea as to all the ways in which the "game" will be changed, or at the very least modified, on a social level with a President Obama.

From the perspective of fund-raising, he's also already changed the rules of the game, and he has indicated that he intends to bring a truer sense of unity to America--i.e., he intends on being a true uniter. He's been talking about that from his first big speech, at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. In essence, he wants to minimize the partisanship in politics--a very tall order, but definitely a game-changer if he succeeds. If he should fail, he will still have succeeded in transforming the way the game is played hereafter in Washington. posted 06/20/2008 at 13:42:29

Michelle Obama And Matthew Broderick Talk About James Wilkie's Barack Endorsement (VIDEO)

Out of the mouths of babes... I think that as we get older, we get more exposed to life's vicissitudes and become less trusting, more cynical, and a little colder about the world around us. Children are, for the most part, still untainted by that world, so they can look at a stranger speaking and pick up on things we as older folks don't see anymore, from everything about how the person is speaking and presenting him or herself to how people in general are responding to the person. Not that this is an entirely reliable indicator: I liked Nixon when I was a kid, but then again, I also liked Hubert Humphrey, but I liked Nixon more (there is definitely no accounting for taste). I take it as a good sign that children and young people have been more in Obama's camp than in any other. posted 06/20/2008 at 13:40:48

The Coming Storm (or, why McCain as Nominee is Great for Democrats)

I had a pleasant rush reading Stark's exchange with McCain. The Straight Talk Express ran out of gas and fell silent, had to switch to another vehicle. Just a feel-good feeling from the flag lapel-pin to the turning away.

McCain and other Repulbicans [sic] want to behave as if they're champions for religious values and all that's decent and wholesome about America. The truth says otherwise. This needs to get out there. It needs to be public record that McCain & wife are behaving contrary to what their constituents hold true. It's not about getting into his personal business or trying to Swiftboat him. It's about exposing a hypocrite, first and foremost. The msm doesn't want to delve into this? No matter. The truth will out, and good riddance to McCain when it does. posted 06/15/2008 at 08:29:09

Elected Clinton Delegate Now Supporting McCain

What could possibly motivate a Democratic delegate to vote for someone who is in clear opposition to most or all of what the Democratic party stands for. A few things come to mind:

a) She was a Republican plant from the start.

b) She's incredibly bigoted and prejudiced against the idea of a Black candidate.

c) She's incredibly uninformed and ignorant, despite being a delegate.

d) She's incredibly short-sighted and willing to subvert her charge as a Democrat delegate just to satisfy her emotional needs.

e) Most or all of the above.

I think d). posted 06/15/2008 at 08:49:26

Keith Olbermann Backlash Fueled By Declaration Of Katie Couric As "Worst Person In The World"

Exactly. WPITW varies between the serious and the silly (thank you, Wiseblood, for that link). This time around was clearly on the serious side--no smiles, jokes, or goofy voiceover at the end of the segment, so I guess that kind of gave carte blanche for people to be up-in-arms over it. He'll be under the microscope now. Next we'll be reading about the correlation between what stories he covered and the color tie he wore that day. posted 06/12/2008 at 15:31:59

I have to say that I was concerned; maybe Olbermann went too far this time. Upon viewing the clip, and in light of all that he has reported on regarding all the negativity and in some cases patently outrageous and even dangerous statements coming from the Clinton campaign--acts for which Hillary Clinton was non-apologetic, unrepentant, dismissive, and occasionally regretful--and in light of Katie Couric's taking of Lee Cowan's comment out of context to imply that he was biased in favor of Obama, thus attempting to support (unsuccessfully) her assertion that sexism played a significant part in the negative coverage of Hillary Clinton (an assertion that impugns the character of far too many reporters outside Fox News and has yet to be proven), I could see a justification for including her in his "Worst Person in the World" segment. He essentially called her on her self-righteous misuse of her standing in the journalistic community. "America's sweetheart" was wrong, in his and my opinion, but the real question: Did she deserve to be "worst"? Maybe if she were merely "worse," there would have been little or no backlash. I think only Olbermann can truly say why he named her the worst. I hope he elaborates on it. posted 06/12/2008 at 15:13:33

If You Really Want Inclusion, Include Yourself

She's so unusual, it drives me wild!

She's so unusual, but she shouldn't be. It shouldn't be unusual for all of us to to consider each other equal: equal in physical worth, equal in sexual orientation, equal in gender worth, equal in the worth of our opinions, equal in the worth of our relationships with others.

And here I thought she was just a pop singer. Much love and more power to you, Cyndi Lauper. posted 06/12/2008 at 09:46:21

Cancer: Paul Newman's Friend Confirms Ill, Newman Turns Over $120 Million To Charity

Couldn't say it better than that. posted 06/12/2008 at 07:28:04

A Humble American Meets The Superrich, In-Your-Face "New Russia"

What a fairly appalling state of affairs. Get a little cash (okay, a lot of cash), become the conspicuous, pathetic, nouveau riche who end up, sooner or later, up against the wall. Why can't people who come into money just be sensible about it? Are people genetically predisposed to becoming pure assholes once they have a thousand or more times what the average person has? It sure seems that way. posted 06/12/2008 at 10:12:35

Dennis Kucinich Sums It Up

Reid, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, and many of the politicians in Washington are also pragmatists. If they thought they could do it with more good than harm being done to their standings in the Beltway and America at large, they would have done it. The fact that Kucinich is the one pushing this through makes it even more clear: nobody wants to touch the issue for fear of being tainted by it. Here's hoping that Kucinich can build support and make the difference. posted 06/12/2008 at 10:34:06

I was of the opinion that it wouldn't happen (impeachment) and even if it had, it wouldn't succeed, but the more I read and the more I hear from people like Tom D'Antoni, the more I think we should go for it, damn the torpedoes. At the very least, it will go some ways towards redeeming the lack of action against one of the greatest snow jobs in history. I also think that Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney should have it on their permanent historical records that they were impeached, and if we're fortunate, convicted of their crimes and forcibly removed from office. If this actually happened, it would go a long, LONG, way towards healing this country and its standing in the world--and the Bush presidency would, without doubt, be the absolute worst in U.S. history. It would be a fitting end to it. posted 06/12/2008 at 10:26:52

Chris Matthews Dons A Cowboy Hat (VIDEO)

Somebody bet him he wouldn't do it on air. That's my only explanation. I think he looks good in it, though. posted 06/10/2008 at 01:58:52

Russert Watch, 6-8-08: In Which the Round Table Chews on the News and Misses the Beef

I dunno. I feel like what you're saying, Mr. Gitlin, is nothing that isn't obvious. I know your credentials, and maybe I'm missing something here, but I expected more than this from you. posted 06/10/2008 at 02:12:11

FOX Ambushes Bill Moyers; Journalists Ambush FOX

Alright, I love Moyers, but I didn't need that visual. posted 06/10/2008 at 00:50:30

Yeah. Moyers had him on the ropes, just pummeling the crap out of him and he tried to duck and cover up with that obvious suck-up. Moyers went easy on him. posted 06/10/2008 at 00:49:00

You know where. PBS. posted 06/10/2008 at 00:45:42

I don't think so. It sounds like someone else saying, to Porter, "you don't know who you're messing with." I think Porter was too far away from the mic at the moment the words were spoken. posted 06/10/2008 at 00:40:20

Sounds good. posted 06/10/2008 at 00:11:35

Isn't it!? "Who shall we send to ambush, uh, interview Moyers? Let's send the Porter Barry to do it. He's carried a lot of our 'dirty laundry,' ha ha. It should be fine...." posted 06/10/2008 at 00:11:05

I like "O'REILLY LACKEY PWNED BY MOYERS, JOURNALISTS" (the "pwned" is a more emphatic version of "owned"). posted 06/10/2008 at 00:03:19

Very good point. posted 06/09/2008 at 23:56:54

I wonder what O'Reilly said to Porter once he got back to headquarters... "F*CK IT! WE'LL EDIT THE TAPE! WE'LL EDIT THE TAPE!" posted 06/09/2008 at 23:55:25

The overwhelming majority of the people who visit this site would most likely be with you, but they're not the ones who give any serious heed to O'Reilly's show. The best way to take down O'Reilly is through systematic application of the truth. Enough smackdowns like the one his show got today, from none other than Bill Moyers himself, will put him out of business. posted 06/09/2008 at 23:50:36

Yes, Moyers was incredibly gracious to his "foe." Reminds me of another guy, goes by the name of Obama. posted 06/09/2008 at 23:42:08

Looks like you might be in that room by yourself, but you're as young as you feel. I can't think of any other platitudes offhand, but they come easy. Chin up (there you go!). posted 06/09/2008 at 23:38:17

I didn't get it, for a moment. That is a good one.

Absolutely. I mean, really, I'd say it was more like a worm on the sidewalk that Bill Moyers stepped on. Who knows what they thought they would accomplish with this. I guess they've been so long removed from actual journalism that they thought they could actually ambush Bill Moyers. It's kind of funny, in hindsight. posted 06/09/2008 at 20:30:01

Murdoch knows his limitations, whether O'Reilly does or not. I think O'Reilly may be shown the door before long. posted 06/09/2008 at 20:24:11

Who knows what's in store when a boy asks for more.... posted 06/09/2008 at 20:20:04

Isn't it something, how a wrong being corrected can make your day? posted 06/09/2008 at 20:19:56

Oh, there are plenty. It's just guilt by association with Bush--and he's a poser! His roots are in New England, not Texas. posted 06/09/2008 at 20:18:39

Why do we respond to what are clearly nonsensical statements? A whole thread over somebody making what are obviously untrue and unlikely statements; come on, people! posted 06/09/2008 at 20:16:09

Moyers has already made it clear that he is a journalist, first and foremost. That's where he's most needed anyway. posted 06/09/2008 at 20:08:55

If the truth could stand up on its own, then we wouldn't have had a Bush presidency, but journalists, contrary to most of what you are arguing, can and must stand up on their own. When they don't, you get Fox News and their ilk. When they do, you get Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, and outfits like Democracy Now. And whether or not you approve of his interview with Rev. Wright, his bona fides as a journalist are beyond question, as can be attested to by the fact that Bill O'Reilly sent one of his lackeys to plead with him to come on O'Reilly's show, not to mention the many Emmys and awards he's received over the course of his career. If Bill Moyers cannot call himself a journalist, no one can. posted 06/09/2008 at 20:01:08

Oops. This was supposed to be a reply to the posters sherrzinpa & thisoldbroad. Modern technology.... posted 06/09/2008 at 19:49:27

I second the second! Yes, his interviews with Joseph Campbell are priceless. "You Don't Mess With the Moyers," now playing at a PBS theatre near you. posted 06/09/2008 at 19:46:32

I second the second! You Don't Mess With the Moyers. posted 06/09/2008 at 19:44:42

That kid's name wasn't O'Reilly by any chance, was it? posted 06/09/2008 at 17:46:58

I think you're absolutely right. You can see it already in the way that, much later on in the campaigning, the New York Post was supportive to some extent of Obama. It could have been their usual machinations, but I think it's more what you're saying here. They can tell which way the wind's blowing, and it aint in the direction they're accustomed to. Bob Dylan sang it: "the answer is blowing in the wind." posted 06/09/2008 at 17:41:04

I think you could say that it was a low-grade Joe McCarthy moment. Depends on how much mileage this story gets. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:35:18

EXACTLY why Moyers was making the point to the people surrounding him and Porter about not editing any of their confrontation, or him with O'Reilly if that should ever happen. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:32:16

Yes. It'll be a treat. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:30:25

A sore and oozing pustule ready for the surgeon's knife. Paging Dr. Moyers.... posted 06/09/2008 at 17:29:56

We had better recover. There aint that much left to recover to. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:25:40

I was wondering when someone was going to make the usual derogatory fallacious comment. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:21:51

He's not thinking. If he were, he wouldn't be working for O'Reilly. posted 06/09/2008 at 17:18:28

Fans of this user

This user doesn't have any fans yet!

Log in to become a fan of this user.

Bloggers I Like

Chez Pazienza
Larry Miller
Alec Baldwin
Marty Kaplan
Jane Smiley
Frank Schaeffer
Jon Robin Baitz
Catherine Crier
Kevin Phillips
Gary Hart
Carl Bernstein
Mary Mapes
Donald Sutherland
Barbara Ehrenreich
Samantha Power
Elizabeth Holtzman
Mike Stark
Sanford Levinson