I spoke too soon

Last week I wrote, "We've seen neither hide nor hair nor heard a peep about Charlie Sheen in what seems like ages." Life was good again. Naturally, I jinxed it. Today's headline: "Can Charlie Sheen Really Force His Ex-Girlfriend To Give Back the Mercedes He Bought Her?" Enquiring minds (i.e., news site editors trolling for page visits) want to know.

Summer Camp for Insufferable Elites

Salon's Alex Pareene says we must nuke Aspen. That's where the "nation's most insufferable elites gather for a week of mingling and panel discussions." Then Pareene tells us what he really thinks: "The Atlantic discovered not long ago that putting on little parties for America's ruling elite -- carefully disguised as important intellectual gatherings to ensure the attendance of the most self-important members of the political and media classes -- is a much better way to make money than 'producing a magazine full of good journalism.' From that knowledge, the 'Aspen Ideas Festival' was born." Ouch. Hmm ... I bet I know what this angst is really about. Pareene didn't get an invite. But he's not bitter. Of course, Alex, everyone would feel much better if you'd just return those nuclear launch codes ...

Victory's high cost

Al-Qaeda is being decimated. And Osama bin Laden is sleeping with the fishes thanks to President Obama and SEAL Team Six. We're definitely getting the last laugh. But as Andrew Sullivan notes, "[Bin Laden] got the US to spend $4.4 trillion in a decade on counter-terrorism, using just a handful of men with boxcutters - and a whole lot of fear. For good measure, he goaded incompetents like Dick Cheney into violating core US standards of morality."

Can't handle the truth? Change it.

The other day, Michele Bachmann mistakenly said John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, was a Founding Father. In fact, young master Adams was a 9-year-old boy when the Framers signed the Declaration of Independence. So he was really only a Founding Kid. Anyway, moments after Bachmann dug this latest hole for herself, history-challenged groupies rushed to edit JQA's Wikipedia page, adding "founding father" after his name. Because everything on Wikipedia is the Word of God, right? Needless to say, the gambit didn't work. Palin worshipers tried a similar edit job when the half-term governor rewrote Paul Revere's Ride. Who are these pathetic people? With apologies to Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, their motto seems to be, "We can't handle the truth! So we're gonna change it, dammit!" Has it really come to this?

Yes, Rep. Bachmann, the Framers compromised

Andrew Sullivan has some smart readers. Here's one commenting on Michele Bachmann and the misguided notion of Originalism: "This is more about the Founders and the notion of them as some hive-minded group of supermen. The real problem that Originalists have is that even in 1789, the Constitution was a series of compromises. ... Originalists have to overlook the fact that Jefferson vehemently opposed the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. They have to overlook that Madison's views changed. They have to overlook that in order to get the Constitution out of the Convention, the abolitionists (and there were some, Franklin and Hamilton among them) had to agree that the issue of the trans-Atlantic slave trade couldn't be touched for twenty some years." This reminds me of a line in the movie Elmer Gantry: "Tell me," a newspaperman asks Gantry (Burt Lancaster), "how is it some people can only find hate in the Bible?" Folks like Bachmann treat history in a like manner. They see only what they wish to see.

In praise of restraint

Andrew Sullivan on Obama and same-sex marriage: "The president has no actual political authority over this issue. He does have moral authority. But what close observers know about Obama is that he does not think of the presidency the way he thinks of a campaign. He knows he is president of all the people, including those who voted against him and those who conscientiously oppose marriage equality. He does not seek to divide as his predecessor did. By staying ever so slightly above on this issue, Obama is doing the right presidential thing - while presiding over what may well be the most seismic period for gay equality in history. I do not despise his restraint in his office. I wish more presidents exhibited it. ... One more thing. A civil rights movement does not get its legitimacy from any president. I repeat: he does not legitimize us; we legitimize him. As gays and lesbians, we should stop looking for saviors at the top and start looking for them within." I hope the folks in Sullivan's community listen to his wise words.

Cable television's dirty little secret

On any given night, the subjects discussed on the cable talking-head shows are nearly identical. They vary only by the idiosyncratic seasonings provided by the host. ("Would you like tonight's rant with or without Tabasco sauce?") Ever wonder why this is so? Well, if you're a progressive, try this exercise sometime. First, watch MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Then scan the major political stories in the New York Times and Washington Post. Next, during the day, read the major posts (esp. those mocking the right) on Talking Points Memo, Andrew Sullivan, Politico, Daily Beast and Salon. Wrap things up by viewing the latest Jon Stewart video clip. Now watch the talk shows, back to back. You'll quickly discover you pretty much have the evening scripts for MSNBC's Hardball, The Last Word, Rachel Maddow and the Ed Show. What, you prefer CNN? No problemo. The identical scripts will be followed by Wolf Blizter's "Situation Room," John King, Elliot Spitzer and Anderson Cooper. That's how the game work. How do they get away with it? That's easy. These shows exists not for folks who want original reporting or - heaven forbid - erudite discussions that might force them to think. They exist for political choir members who want to be preached to. And the networks have discovered there's ratings gold in dem thar pews. Groucho Marx famously said, "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book." That's still good advice.

The gift that keeps on giving

A Daily Beast reader: "So if Bachmann really wants to go back to the vision of 1789, by all means let her. She unfortunately would not be able to vote for herself in the election due to the fact that the 19th amendment didn't pass until 1920." Heh.

It's all in the memes

Dictionaries define "meme" as elemental behavior that's passed from one person to another usually through imitation. The Guardian's Karl Hodge, writing during the Internet's Cretaceous period in 2000, defined the meme as "self-replicating packets of information" that plants "beliefs and values that gain more authority with each new host." In a real world example of how it works, Dana Milbank bemoaned President Obama's "evolving" personal position on gay marriage today, saying that "this is less about the issue than about leadership. ... if Obama really believes, as he says, that a class of Americans is suffering unconstitutional discrimination, you’d think he would take a stand [i.e., openly support gay marriage] as a matter of principle. Instead ... the president is once again 'leading from behind.'” The meme, of course, is the "leading from behind" bit. Though the argument is bankrupt, the tattered baton continues to get passed. Why do pundits, especially smart ones like Milbank, fall prey to the meme so easily? Intellectual laziness (encouraged by lowest common denominator journalism) is part of it. But truth be told, the phenomenon is more complicated than that. Suffice it to say that the Web is the perfect conduit for the meme. Eleven years ago, Hodge asked, "Is the internet spreading a virus through our heads?" Clearly, the answer is yes. And since there are no antidotes yet, the body politic remains feverish and bedridden.

'From the best political team on television'

CNN's "team" has a new member. Media power couple John King and Dana Bash are the proud parents of a baby boy named Jonah Frank King. Dad is a chief national correspondent for CNN, and mom is a senior congressional correspondent. Let's hope little Jonah - who CNN's Political Ticket blog called “a next generation political reporter” - takes more after Dana in the nose department. That's quite a schnozzle you have there, Mr. King. Kidding aside, mazel tov.

Another hack job

POLITICO published quite a whopper this morning: "Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama." And the evidence? Drum roll, please: Two Democratic Jewish couples got into "a screaming match" over Obama's handling of Israel, plus the results of "several dozen interviews." Ergo, a similar conversation must be "taking place in Jewish communities across the country," says POLITICO. Look, poll after poll has shown that this is Grade A hooey. Yes, the president has detractors in the Jewish community. That isn't news. But Obama's support among Jewish voters is not in crisis and never has been. Political insiders know it. Anyone who follows Democratic politics knows it. Hell, even POLITICO knows it. But it puts out this drivel anyway in a cynical attempt to "drive the news cycle," as its top editors are so fond of saying. (It didn't work today because Obama's presser sucked all of the oxygen out the media bubble. Oh well.) Ain't Inside the Beltway journalism grand?

In the annals of stating the obvious

"Poll Finds G.O.P. Voters Lack Interest for Candidates." (New York Times headline, CBS/New York Times Poll)

Those cold, black eyes

"NEW RULE: Nancy Grace has to prove she was somewhere else on the day of the murder. Any murder. I'm not saying she did it; I'm just saying, who's always around and clearly capable of cold-blooded murder without remorse? I think most Americans are relieved to see Nancy Grace on TV because it means she's not hiding in the back seat of our car with piano wire and those cold, black eyes." (Bill Maher, HBO Real Time)

Meet my pet stone, Gufflin

CBS MoneyWatch posted the "20 Craziest Job Interview Questions" they've received from companies like Procter & Gamble, Google and Citigroup. Writer Giles Turnbull, tongue firmly planted in cheek, answered all of them. Here's the funniest:

Kiewit Corp: What did you play with as a child?

Prospective Employee: "We had no toys. Grandpa sometimes brought us interesting-looking stones that he’d found by the creek, so we gave them names and invested them with complex personalities and back-stories. They lived in a stony alter-universe where everybody was a stone. The stones had little stone parties sometimes. We offered them bugs to eat, but the stones weren’t hungry. I have my favorite stone in my pocket. He’s called Gufflin. Would you like to meet him?"

(Hit tip: Andrew Sullivan)

The tyranny of the social network

I was perusing Time when I saw it again, for what, the 10th time today? It sits near the top of most articles, seemingly spinning, like a tiny black hole. On the page I happened upon, I learned "629 people like this." Is that important, I wondered? Then I began to feel its gravitational pull. The omnipresent "Like" icon beckoned me to click it. C'mon, "Like Me," it seemed to whisper ... [FLASHBACK: 1968. Saigon. I'm soaked from the dank, humid air. Can hardly breathe. The last mournful notes of Jim Morrison's "The End" waft from the Blue Lagoon Club. And Suzie Q is still behind me: "Me so horny Joe. I 'Like' you long time. Only five dolla. 'Like' me Joe!" Damn. Every minute I stay here, I get weaker. But every minute Charlie squats in the bush, and gets stronger ... ] Oops. Sorry. Fever dream. What was I saying? Oh yeah, the tyranny of "Liking." Have we gone nuts? I can almost forgive Time and its brethren for pimping themselves out. After all, they're in it for the money. But I worry about a society potentially filled with individuals who may never read something because nobody "Liked" it. Talk about Apocalypse Now. Oh no. I'm slipping again ... [FLASHBACK: "Saigon ... shit; I'm still only in Saigon. I'm here a week now ... waiting for a mission ... getting softer ..."] Sorry. I'm back. Fortunately, most folks probably ignore the "Liking" business. They're too busy Facebooking and rarely leave for the greater Web. Which gives them something in common with the former habits of a former foe. "Charlie don't surf."

The Vietnam War in a nutshell

Capt. Willard (Martin Sheen) in Apocalypse Now: "Oh man ... the bullshit piled up so fast in Vietnam, you needed wings to stay above it. No wonder Kurtz put a weed up Command's ass. The war was being run by a bunch of four star clowns who were gonna end up giving the whole circus away." And they did, of course, at the price of 50,000 American lives. "The horror" indeed.

America's Virgin Birth

On Michele Bachmann's "Good Morning America" interview, a reader writes: "[S]he defended her “pants on fire” statement that the “Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery” (they didn’t) by insisting that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father (he wasn’t)." To which Andrew Sullivan responded: "For her, America was born in freedom for all and Fundamentalist Christianity. It was born instead in the Enlightenment, slavery, the subjugation of women, and rebellion against the Crown. That is far too complicated a thought for Bachmann to absorb. It would require her to ask questions, even to doubt the immaculate conception of America. And doubt is something these contemporary reactionaries do not do. Sticking to untruths is far preferable."

Inside Bachmann's Mind

I don't plan to spend to much time wondering the drafty, empty corridors of Michele Bachmann's mind. Life's too short. But the Washington Monthly flagged this excerpt from Bachmann's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. It's revealing:

Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that's absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father's secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery.

Stephanopoulos: He wasn't one of the Founding Fathers - he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you're right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?

Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.

This should tell you all you need to know about the quality of the congresswoman's mind. By the way, John Quincy Adams was a 9-year-old schoolboy when the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence.

Today deep thought (sort of)

"Do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life?" (Dennis Hopper, relating a deep question from Col. Kurtz in Apocalypse Now)

Ancient Persian wisdom

"One who knows and knows that he knows. This is a man of knowledge; get to know him! One who knows, but doesn't know that he knows. This is a man who's unaware, so bring it to his attention. One who doesn't know, but knows that he doesn't know. This is an illiterate man; teach him! One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know. This is a dumb man; and would be dumb forever!"

Out come the long knives?

GOP establishment elites have two problems with Michele Bachmann. First, she appears to be surging in popularity among Republicans (one poll has her trailing just behind frontrunner Romney). Her "Palin-With-Brains" shtick seems to be working (for now). Second, the press won't shut up about it. So, the long knives are coming out. Out of the blue, Bachmann's former chief of staff, Ron Carey, declared that she does "decidedly" not possess "the judgment, the demeanor, and the readiness to serve as president."

After that salvo, he reloaded, then let loose with this:

"The Bachmann campaign and congressional offices I inherited were wildly out of control. ... If she is unable, or unwilling, to handle the basic duties of a campaign or congressional office, how could she possibly manage the magnitude of the presidency? ... I know Michele Bachmann very well. ... [she is] without any leadership experience or real results from her years in office. She is not prepared to assume the White House in 2013."

That's a rather amazing drive-by shooting, and probably the first of many to come. The reason is simple. Bachmann winning the GOP nomination would guarantee four more years of Obama. Ergo, it's not gonna happen, not if the GOP adults can help it.

'The State’s evidence is not compelling', mo'f@#ker

Sorry, but video games depicting gratuitous violence CAN be sold to minors. In the mood to bitch-slap somebody or blow away a row of cops in Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto? No problemo. Make little Johnny's day. So sayeth the U.S. Supreme Court. In Monday's 7-2 decision, the court overturned a California law that would restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. This was the Golden State's seventh try. "The State’s evidence is not compelling," wrote Anthony Scalia for the majority. Violent video games are free speech. Cue Law & Order's "chung CHUNG!" Case closed.

The trouble is, I agree with Scalia, the high court's equivalent to Darth Vader. The savage violence wrecked by video game icon Duke Nukem is no more graphic than that produced by the Brothers Grimm. "Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia writes in the opinion. "Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers 'till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.' ... Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven.”

Do you love the classics that we encourage high school students to read? Scalia reminds us that "Homer’s Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops by grinding out his eye with a heated stake. ... [and] In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they beskewered by devils above the surface." (Kinda how we observe Congress today.) Come to think of it, even our nursery rhymes are infused with apocalyptic imagery. How about Mother Goose's paean to England's Great Plague, the one we all sang as kids: "Ring around the rosie / Pockets full of posies / Ashes! Ashes! / We all fall down!" Sweet, huh? Top that Killzone 3!

Yes, society should be mightily concerned about the violence kids are exposed to. But it's not the job of the state to regulate what entertainment fare they ingest. It's yours as parents and responsible adults.

Passing the laugh test

Sure, I admit it. When reading anything about Michele Bachmann, I am reflexively conditioned to expect a punchline. In that sense, I am as well-trained as one of Pavlov's Dogs. So when Washington Post writer Jonathan Capeheart wrote "Michele Bachmann continues to pass the laugh test" this morning, naturally I thought he was making a funny. He wasn't. "After watching her interviews with him and with Matt Lauer of NBC’s 'Today' show, there’s no doubt that the newest official candidate for the Republican nomination is ready for prime time," he opined. Um, say what? Capeheart essentially concludes that a candidate must be taken seriously if she can speak in coherent sentences and not pathologically dodge questions or shift blame when interrogated by the media." Therefore, Capeheart argues, "Bachmann continues to pass one of the first tests of nomination and presidential politics." Never mind that Bachmann indulges in falsehoods as a matter of course, comprehends little of this world, and gives new meaning to an ancient Persian adage: "One who doesn't know and doesn't know that he doesn't know (i.e., an ignorant person who will stay ignorant forever)." Other than that, Bachmann is ready for the White House, right? Happily, Capeheart saves himself (and tosses me a Pavlovian bone) in the last line of his piece: "So, settle in for the fun. The GOP nominating process is beginning to get good." Now, where's my Milk-Bone®? Arf! Arf!

'I know that I know nothing'

"This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I - equally ignorant - do not believe [that I know anything]." (Plato, in Apology)

Rumsfeld, a poor man's Plato

"[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." (Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of Defense )