Your Brains on Palin Crack

This appeared on Twitter: "Postpolitics: Palin is in Iowa for the first time in 2011. Will she make any news regarding her 2012 plans?" ANSWER: The Washington Post, returning to full obsessive-compulsive disorder mode, will manufacture "news" regardless of Palin does. You betcha. I've long given up hoping the media would wean itself off the Palin IV bag. I'll just point out this minor tragedy from time to time as a public service. Somebody has to.

Tweeting makes you dumb

Why? Because you end up posting stuff like this: "fivethirtyeight (Nate Silver): OK, I think I'm ready to jump on the GOP-actually-wants-Palin-to-run-because-she-might-hurt-Bachmann bandwagon." Really, Nate? Dude, let it go ...

Better circle the wagons, pilgrim

Okay, okay -- it's no secret that Michele Bachmann's utterings provide a target-rich environment for pundits and late-night comics alike. It's almost impossible to resist, and few bother trying. Today, the entire left side of the politicosphere is guffawing over her latest gaffe. Apparently Bachmann told Fox News that John Wayne - the actor and movie icon - hails from her hometown: Waterloo, Iowa. "That’s the kind of spirit I have, too,” Bachmann gushed, vacant-eyed. The problem? The Duke was born in Winterset, another Iowan cow town 100 miles to the south. The "John Wayne" who did hail from Waterloo never fought the Apaches or stormed the beaches of Iwo Jima on a Hollywood movie set. Bachmann's hommie was the other guy: John Wayne Gacy, a notorious serial killer who murdered 30 men in the 1970s. He was convicted and executed in 1994. Oops. The voices in Bachmann's head tell her that she is a hardy pioneer destined to bridge the Cumberland Gap of politics. But like the settlers in a typical John Wayne movie, her campaign has been forced to "circle the wagons" to fend off the scalp-hunting media. It's much ado about nothing. We already know Bachmann isn't the brightest flower on the Iowa prairie. I say cut her some slack -- and save the ammo for the serious candidates.

What 'Fair & Balanced' really means

Finding fault with Fox News is like hunting deer with howitzers. It's way too easy and life's too short. But I couldn't resist this post by BuzzFeed documenting "Actual News Headlines" vs. "Fox News Headlines" on the same stories. The contrast is simultaneously hilarious and appalling.

Here's a sampling:

Mainstream Headline:
"USDA Gay-Sensitivity Training Sees Larger Audience"
Fox News Headline:
"Obama Bureaucrats Imposing Radical Homosexual Sensitivity Training?"

Mainstream Headline:
"Michele Bachmann's First Dude"
Fox News Headline:
"The Left Launches Attack on Bachmann's Husband"

Mainstream Headline:
"AP Poll: Economic Worries Pose New Snags for Obama"
Fox News Headline:
"AP: Obama Has a Big Problem With White Women"

Mainstream Headline:
"Obama Will Speed Pullout From Was in Afghanistan"
Fox News Headline:
"Obama Doesn't Thank Petraeus"

Wow. It'd be even funnier if it wasn't so sad.

'Why fish? Why not fish?'

Pet Hostage Negotiator (Ace Ventura): "Calm down, sir. Put the 9mm down. You're surrounded. Don't make it any worse for yourself." Crazed Pet Shop Owner (Samuel L. Jackson): "Back off, mo'f@#kers!! Come any closer - and the guppy gets it between the gills!"

This ridiculous scene is where things are apparently headed in San Francisco. The city, named for the patron saint of animals, is considering an ordinance that would ban the sale of pets. ALL pets. ANY kind of pet. Soulless pet industry lobbyists say such a step is draconian. It would cause small pet shops to close and criminalize any parent trying to sell off an unexpected puppy litter. Wild-eyed animal activists say it will save pet "lives' and end the needless suffering of, well, anything that barks, meows, chirps, flies, crawls, runs, swims or slithers, per the LA Times.

In a rant for the ages, Philip Gerrie, a coauthor of the city proposal, told the Times: "Why fish? Why not fish? From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them. If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently. ... Our culture sanctions this, treating them as commodities and expendable."

So, if we re-shape the canons of philosophy to suit Gerrie, just where does that leave us? "I breathe, therefore I am?" Look, I'm all for the humane treatment of animals (except roaches and mosquitoes - I say kill 'em all). But this debate has clearly careened beyond any semblance of common sense. Each side has hardened into positions best characterized by Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls: "Of COURSE! How sssselfish of me. Let's do all the things that YOU wanna do!"

Charles Darwin has it backwards, ya'll

In a potent public demonstration of "Devolution" -- the theory proposed by Charles Darwin's evil twin brother, Edwin "Big Bubba" Dawrin -- Miss Georgia (a Miss USA contestant) awed the audience with this priceless gem: “I think evolution should be taught but I also think that maybe the biblical stuff should be taught as well, you know. I think kids need to make their own decisions. We’re smarter than ever these days, so, I mean why not teach everything and let people make their own decisions.” Because, you know, scientific facts are just like those diamond necklaces on display at Tiffany's. Just pick the prettiest one. Check, please.

Garlands for Cuomo, Garlic for Obama

In a scene after the battle of Aqaba in Lawrence in Arabia, Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) tosses a wreath at the feet of T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole). "The miracle is accomplished. Garlands for the conqueror. Tribute for the prince; flowers for the man," Ali says with a touch of envy. "I'm none of those things, Ali."

In New York, the "miracle" is the legalization of same-sex marriage. And Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo deserves the flowered garlands now being thrown at his tony loafers. "It’s hard not to be impressed by the accomplishment," gushed Nate Silver, the normally leveled-headed Timesman. "The type of leadership that Mr. Cuomo exercised — setting a lofty goal, refusing to take no for an answer and using every tool at his disposal to achieve it — is reminiscent of the stories sometimes told about with President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had perhaps the most impressive record of legislative accomplishment of any recent president." That, of course, is a set-up to take a swing at you know who. "It’s also a brand of leadership that many Democrats I speak with feel is lacking in President Obama," Silver writes. Sigh. Dragging out the "leading from behind" meme, Silver says "articulating clear and unapologetic goals is not incompatible with persuading votes on the margins."

Except when it is.

Damning the torpedoes may make the socks of activists roll up and down, but it's not a sound governing strategy (esp. when reelection is at stake). And as important as it is, the fate of the nation does not hang on same-sex marriage. But I won't belabor the point. I'm glad the landmark law passed. Just bear in mind that New York is a Democrat-friendly, "blue" state. Obama runs the entire country. A state and a nation are not equivalent. Nor can the former be governed or led like the latter. To Silver's other point, yes, LBJ was indeed a master of legislation (absent a 24-hour news cycle). He also mired us in Vietnam and left the White House a broken man. I'd be careful about putting him on a pedestal. Cuomo has a bright future ahead of him. He deserves credit for his leadership on this aspect of gay rights. But measuring Cuomo for Mount Rushmore is premature. Deriding Obama as an also-ran on gay rights is disingenuous.

The New Battle of Waterloo

Pundits have made much hay over the fact that three-term Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann is from Waterloo, Iowa. She officially declared her White House bid there today. Surely, her many detractors surmise, the gods must be laughing. How could there not be a providential connection between the famous 1815 Battle of Waterloo and Bachmann's political fate? In that much-studied set-piece battle, the Duke of Wellington soundly defeated Napoleon Bonaparte at a site in what is now Belgium. The French armies were driven off the field in a rout. The defeat ended Napoleon's rule as French Emperor. Surely Bachmann is about to face her own Waterloo, right? Har har har. But here's a question that no one has adequately answered yet: Is Bachmann Napoleon or Wellington? When the canon fire ceases and the smoke clears, the GOP may find itself with a big, unpleasant surprise.

Dear, take out the garbage. Then run for president.

George Will thinks Texas Gov. Rick Perry would rather not to run for president. "But his wife, who has a nursing background and is alarmed by Obamacare, says that sometimes [his] desires are secondary to duties." Yes, the Sage of the Washington Post actually wrote that in his column. Still, it clears up who wears the pants in the Perry household.

Our long national nightmare is over

I guess it takes more than good hair to stay out of the slammer. Breaking (Associated Press): Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was "convicted on 17 of 20 corruption charges, including all 11 related to his attempt to sell or trade President Obama’s vacated Senate seat. He faces up to 300 years in prison." This is the guy who said at his 2003 inaugural: "We will meet our challenges head on and we will do it by rejecting the politics of mediocrity and corruption. You voted for change; I intend to deliver it. ... I will govern as a reformer." He forgot to add: "Nah. Just kidding." Now, can we PLEASE return to our regularly scheduled programming? Thinking anymore about Blago just hurts my brain.

Why are great men rarely chosen president?

When looking over the candidates during most presidential elections, we often ask ourselves, "Is this the best we can produce?" Although the Republicans are taking mediocrity to new heights this time around, Democrats have generally done no better in the recent past (2008 excepted). It's easy to conclude that "Rome is Burning" and America is in headlong decline. Cheer up. This is nothing new. In his famous 1888 book "The American Commonwealth," British historian James Bryce wrote: "Europeans often ask ... how it happens that this great office, the greatest in the world -- is not more frequently filled by great and striking men. ... The ordinary American voter does not object to mediocrity. ... He likes his candidate to be sensible, vigorous, and, above all, what he calls 'magnetic,' and does not value, because he sees no need for, originality or profundity, a fine culture or a wide knowledge. Candidates are selected to be run for nomination by knots of persons who, however expert as party tacticians, are usually commonplace men; and the choice between those selected for nomination is made by a very large body, an assembly of nearly a thousand delegates from the local party organizations over the country, who are certainly no better than ordinary citizens." At the time, Bryce was bemoaning the likes of James K. Polk and Franklin Pierce, two of our eminently forgettable presidents. But he captures our modern body politic as well (think Michael Dukakis or Michele Bachmann). In short, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Vote for Pedro

Maybe the hippies had it right: "Never trust anyone over 30."

Princeton professor John Seery believes that the age requirements for election into federal office -- 25 for the House, 30 for the Senate, and 35 for the presidency – are "antiquated” and should be lowered. Not doing so, he argues, imperils the Republic by depriving it of the talents our young people could provide as inspired politicians. Not only is the tyranny of the "doddering old codgers" not working, it’s getting worse. Seery says much of the governing class does not even know how to work a PC, let alone understand the "intertubes." Our new mandate should be: "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote, Old Enough to Run." Seery makes a compelling case. In theory, a Congress chocked full of Mark Zuckerberg-like visionaries might indeed rival the candlepower of the Founders if not their enlightened output.

But there are two problems with this political nirvana. First, wunderkinds possessing the talents of a young Mr. Lincoln are rare. And let’s face it: The gathering of eagles in 1787 was a providential fluke. Today, it would take more than a few brilliant young minds to make a dent in the ways of Congress. So, dropping the age limit would simply open the flood gates to the likes of, well, Napoleon Dynamite. Do you really want your creepy student body president, a year out of high school, in the Senate? Second, life between ages 18-34 is about scholarship and/or apprenticeship punctuated by youthful indiscretion and impulsiveness that is uninformed by experience. (It’s great fun, but it’s a miracle most of us get out of it alive.) I’m not certain what an entire class of shavetails would add to the body politic.

I’d also posit that the Framers (the devisers of the age rules) were arguably the best class of representatives America ever fielded. They were also “old codgers.” At the time of the Constitutional Convention, all but 12 were older than 34. The majority were 40 or older. The one wunderkind was Alexander Hamilton, age 30. Though I suspect Hamilton was several orders of magnitude smarter than Zuckerberg (see the Federalist Papers), he was easily matched in brilliance by his elders.

Yes, Congress is shot through with dunderheads at the moment. But lowering the age limits for federal office won’t fix it. “Pedro for President” is a nice, idealistic dream. That doesn’t mean I’d really want Napoleon Dynamite’s pal to run. Hell, he could win.

A Sunday Sermon: American Genesis

IN THE BEGINNING, the Framers created self-government without "factions." Jefferson Said, "If I could not go the Heaven but with a Party, I would not go there at all." And the Framers said, "Let there be Enlightenment without Parties," and there was Enlightenment without Parties at the Constitutional Convention. All through the summer of 1787, in closed sessions, the delegates debated, and redrafted the articles of the new Constitution. In the end, they created a model of cooperative statesmanship and the art of compromise. And the Framers saw that it was good. Then the Framers said, "Let it be Ratified," and it was Ratified. The Founders saw all that they had made, and it was very good. And then the Political Parties were born anyway. In the fullness of time, they would rear up as Democrat and Republican. Now the Earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, again. Damn.

Another inconvenient truth

"American parties have been symbolized by such animals as the elephant and donkey, but not by the leopard, which never changes its spots." (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr.)

A post about nothing

Whatever happened to yada yada yada, the too-hip-by-half replacement for blah, blah, blah? Jerry Seinfeld (or more probably, Larry David, the show's main writer) popularized the phrase at the close of the last century. For a time, a very long time, there was no escaping it. But like the duck-billed Charonosaurus, it apparently went extinct, at least among the online literati and other purveyors of the written word. Now, if we could only rid the lexicon of "not so much" and "that's how we roll." Where's the KT Boundary extinction event when you need one?

Really, we're not all crazy

LEGENDARY GANGSTER JAMES "WHITEY" BULGER CAPTURED! (Who?) JUDGE PUTS CASEY ANTHONY TRIAL ON HOLD! (Um, tell me again why I care?)

Big, sensational "true crime" stories bore me cross-eyed. (They also scare me. The original OJ Simpson trial traumatized me for life. I still have the scars.) I try to ignore them, but I'll occasionally give in and peek. And every time I do so, I end up kicking myself: That's x-number of minutes I'll never get back, and I've killed off scores of brain cells to boot. But given the high ratings these tabloid products generate, I'm clearly a minority in these United States. To paraphrase a line in Thelma & Louise about the (alleged) female psyche, "People. They love that shit."

Which brings me to one Jason Valdez of Utah. Apparently, "an armed Valdez, 36, held a woman hostage at a motel in a tense 16-hour, overnight standoff with SWAT teams," per news reports. But here's the kicker: During the entire episode, Valdez kept his family and friends (and, dumbly, the cops) updated on Facebook. Yes, Facebook. The police think he posted six times and added a dozen new "friends." Which begs the question, why would anyone converse with a crazed felon online, let alone "friend" him, in the middle of the night? I mean, who are these people? Anyway, I'm certain Valdez generated beaucoup "Likes" for his trouble.

Five or six centuries from now, I hope anthropologists will find a shard of this post in the digital stratification of what was once a Blogger.com server room. Hopefully they will gently scrape away the bytes to reveal this crucial part: No, most of us were not BATSHIT CRAZY. But, alas, a great, great many of us were.

Only on msnbc.com

The msnbc.com web editors clearly do not have a sense of irony. In a sidebar adjacent to its breathless Casey Anthony story, it lists a set of links pointing to other breathless stories. The sidebar header reads: "Only on msnbc.com" and is followed by links like, "STD campaign asks lovers to give out meds", "When your airline seatmate won't hang up", and my personal favorite: "Can you die from laughter?" Yep, news you can use at the dawn of the 21st century. And it's only on msnbc.com.

Celebrity Me

In a bid to take crazy to new heights, Lakers forward Ron Artest filed paperwork in Los Angeles Superior Court to legally change his name to "Metta World Peace." Yes, really. It's another pathetic cry for attention ("Look at me! Look at me!") by yet another self-important celebrity. To wit: aggravo ergo sum (I preen, therefore I am.) The Los Angeles Times patiently explains that "Metta" is a Buddhist term for ... sigh ... does it really matter? Well, yes, many folks think it does. Which, I guess, is the trouble.

That marvel between your ears

One of the things writers discover early on is the sheer amount of "stuff" inside their brains. Talk about a boundless database. Even as I write this, I'm being bombarded with random ideas and word suggestions from my own neural ether. It feels like magic. The mind is a vast ocean of language, facts, poetry, quotes, memories, jokes, instructions, images and even sounds. Whether you're awake or asleep, it's always on. And its faster and more complex than any computer on the planet. Though most of us cannot manipulate the mind's latent knowledge with Google-like efficiency, almost everything you've ever learned is retained in some form in some corner of your cerebral cortex. That's a whole lotta spaghetti. And you add to it daily. That's both remarkable and spooky. Not convinced? Try this exercise: Surf to Wikipedia's "Most Popular Idioms" page. It lists a whopping 188 idioms. You know, things like "When pigs fly" or "Sick as a dog." I guarantee that readers of this blog - surely an erudite bunch - will know every idiom listed. You've used them all (and hundreds more) countless times. Charlie Sheen aside ("I have a different brain. I got tiger blood, man"), it's worth remembering what Thomas Edison said: "The chief function of the body is to carry the brain around." It's precious cargo. Protect it, feed it, pamper it -- because the mind is indeed "a terrible thing to waste," like you know who.

The Mona Lisa Deception

The popularity of the Mona Lisa is an illusion. So says Nicholas Christakis in his book review of "Everything is Obvious, Once You Know the Answer" by Duncan J. Watts. “We claim to be saying that the Mona Lisa is the most famous painting in the world [but] we are trapped inside a hall of mirrors of our own devising," Watts writes. "We think the Mona Lisa is famous because of its traits, but we think those traits are significant only because they belong to the Mona Lisa, which we know to be famous." Christakis observes that "We rely on common sense to understand the world, but in fact it is an endless source of just-so stories that can be tailored to any purpose. Common sense is a kind of bespoke make-believe, and we can no more use it to scientifically explain the workings of the social world than we can use a hammer to understand mollusks." Fascinating.

The King's Army

“The United States does not have a king’s army,” said Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md) with righteous (and overblown) indignation. He was referring to "King Barack I," of course.

I confess I'm not sure why President Obama picked a fight with Congress over Libya. The 1973 War Powers Act requires the president to secure the consent of Congress. Otherwise, "hostilities" must be halted after 90 days. Obama argued that his Libyan intervention does not rise to the level of war. Now, to most folks, hitting Qaddafi with airstrikes and 119 cruise missiles (which blew up his entire air defense system) easily meets their definition of war. So it's understandable that naysayers (in both parties) view Obama's position as straining credulity. Though I'd love to know Mr. Obama's precise thinking on this matter, I'm inclined to trust him. After all, it's not like I'm worried about another George W. Bush-style cavalry charge ("Mount up, boys, let's invade another A-rab country! Them WMDs have gotta be in one of 'em. Yaaah-hoo!"). Indeed, the trust factor is probably why the public has been largely mute on Libya. The screaming is coming from academia and politicos with agendas.

Technically, Professor Obama, a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer, is probably right. Yes, America went all shock & awe on Libya during the intervention's opening days. Then, like a dissipating thunderstorm, we throttled back into a quiet support role as nanny to NATO. There are no American boots on the ground. (We'll just pretend - wink wink - that those CIA and Special Forces boot prints aren't really there.) We're not engaged in major combat operations and nobody is dying (yet). Moreover, the War Powers Act is a relic from the 1970s, one designed as a response to the Vietnam quagmire. But times, they have a-changed, and some scholars question the law's validity or relevance today. It's possible Obama is among the skeptics. Friday, the GOP House "rebuked" the Professor by voting against authorizing the mission. But they didn't de-fund it. That rendered the action moot. "15-Love," advantage Obama. So just what is the president up to? There is a method to his madness even if we don't see it.

My guess is that Obama is playing an intricate chess game in Libya. It ends when Qaddafi is ousted (or killed). Special envoys, spies, Special Forces and NATO allies are Obama's rooks, bishops, knights and pawns. Quiet, nuanced moves and patience are required to win. The noisy nimrods in Congress, blinded by politics, will only muck things up. Since Congress won't act in a bipartisan manner that puts country first, Obama prefers that they simply butt out. Hence his obstinacy on the War Powers Act (i.e., give them an inch and they'll take a mile). “[Obama's] argument, you can drive a tank through it," sputtered Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), like a peacock in full plume. Perhaps, but it's the Congress that got run over by a tank. And perhaps that is just as well. Time will tell.

Burning Rome to save it

Back in 2005, an article in Forbes, the business magazine, asked, "Can The Tabloid Format Save Newspapers?" Newspaper circulation is still in free fall and the "tabloid" question is still being asked today. But is this not the wrong question? It's not whether the tabloid format can save newspapers (it might), but whether it should. Funny how that point never gets raised. Going tabloid is like burning down your neighbor's house to save it. Call it the Nero Solution. I wonder if this is the kind of thinking that started Rome towards its decline into ruin.

Ancient sayings

"The mind is everything. What you think you become." (Buddha)

The Drumhead and American Politics

In the photo (left), Star Trek's Captain Jean-Luc Picard famously expresses exasperation through a facepalm. He made a similar gesture in "The Drumhead," an episode in which "a retired admiral boards the Enterprise in an effort to determine the actions aboard the ship surrounding an act of sabotage and possible treason." As events spiral out of control, Picard discusses the issue (pronounced "IS-su" like a good Britisher) with his security chief, Lieutenant Worf (the Klingon).

Picard: This is not unlike a ... a drumhead trial. Lieutenant Worf: I do not understand. Picard: 500 years ago, military officers would upend a drum on the battlefield. They'd sit at it and dispense summary justice. Decisions were quick, punishments severe; appeals denied. Those who came to a drumhead were doomed.

Later, under hostile questioning during the trial, Picard facepalms, then interrupts his interrogator in mid-speech: "You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered ... as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."

Captain Picard, of course, exists in a make-believe world. His words do not. They are worth keeping in mind when debating thorny issues such as same-sex marriage (New York just voted to allow it), Arizona's "Your Papers Please" law (the one targeting Latinos), the DREAM Act (still in congressional limbo), immigration reform (still unresolved) and rising Islamophobia (the Rep. King hearings). And as the presidential election season approaches, we would do well to remember another Picardism: "Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged [...] waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness." Remind you of anyone?

I give the last word to the sentient android Data who told Picard in one episode, "I aspire, sir, to be better than I am." That's good advice for us all.

What's on NatGeo tonight? You don't want to know.

Vulgarity knows no bounds on cable TV. That isn't news. What is news (to me, at least) is how much of it appears on the National Geographic Channel, the "Inglourious Basterd" child of the august National Geographic Society. Like the Discovery Channel ("MythBusters: Can You Dodge a Real Bullet?"), no show is too titillating or gross to broadcast in the race to the bottom of entertainment fare. Yes, the NG Channel offers quality programming, too. But it's clear which shows are paying the bills.

Like a scene from Masterpiece Theater, one can imagine the hushed talk in the wood-paneled Map Room at the Society's DC headquarters. The awful family "secret" is out. "I heard it escaped the 'nunnery' on its own," said a NG photojournalist, staring into his steaming Earl Grey. "I doubt it, old boy," replied the arctic adventurer-in-residence. "It must have had help from those vile marketeers." The famed photog steepled his fingers. "Those people," he said. "Quite." "It calls itself NatGeo now, you know."

Indeed, it does. NatGeo boasts that it is "your home for the best animals, nature, history, science, engineering, people, places, and exploration content" on television. As showcased on its webpage, it all looks inviting -- until you kick over the rock and expose the icky things wiggling beneath it. Tonight, for example, there are back-to-back episodes of something called "Humanly Possible." At 9pm you can watch "A man who is capable of eating glass." At 10, "A man is rolled over by a truck." And at 11, don't miss how someone "survives a million volts of electricity." Oh goody: Suicidal behavior and sadomasicism. What's not to like? I wonder what NatGeo is planning for next season? The "Joys of Waterboarding," perhaps?

To say this is appalling is being much too kind. Clearly, NatGeo is giving its audience -- presumably Very Special freaks -- what they want. And that says more about our culture than the media complex that feeds its worst impulses.