news media
mikethemadbiologist | May 30, 2007I've said before that when you watch ignoramuses and authoritarians trash your country, anger is the appropriate response. driftglass explains why:
The Real Problem is that, in the name of Holy Balance, journalists treat the patently and dangerously delusional adherents of Cult of Dubya as if their opinions were worthy of discussion.
Except what Mr. Ites still dogmatically believes in this Year of Our Lord 2007 -- that we are in Iraq because "What they did on 9/11 is a travesty" -- is not a matter of opinion, any more than a fanatical insistence on the flatness of the Earth, the falseness of…
mikethemadbiologist | May 21, 2007Actually, I'm not just mad at the pundit, but also at Senator Obama: he knows his position is intellectually dishonest.
By way of Ezra Klein, I came across a discussion at Hotline about this interview with Senator Obama:
For the first time as a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, posed a question about entitlement reform, said that "everything was on the table," except for private accounts, and in doing so, because the first top-tier Democratic presidential candidate to acknowledge that Social Security deficits could not, and would not, be solved without pain.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've…
mikethemadbiologist | May 14, 2007Well, that isn't what Ezra Klein titled his post about blogospheric venom, but he should have. Klein writes (italics mine):
...part of the problem with blogospheric civility is that bloggers aren't addressing their posts to folks like Hiatt. They're writing for an imagined audience composed mainly of liberals who are shut-out of Washington Post editorial meetings but appalled by what emerges from them. The tone such an audience demands is not terrifically genteel. That said, these posts get back to -- or are sought out by -- their ostensible targets, who confuse a critique written for them…
mikethemadbiologist | May 13, 2007
Pundits discuss Democratic candidates
The mainstream media has a double standard for Democratic candidates. INCONCEIVABLE!
Jameson Foser writes (italics mine):
Cavuto suggests it's hypocritical for Edwards, a wealthy man, to want to eradicate poverty. That is essentially what Beck and Cafferty and Tucker said, too. And it's what The Washington Post's Bill Hamilton suggested when he justified front-page treatment for the article about Edwards' house sale by pointing out that it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist…
mikethemadbiologist | May 8, 2007Or socialist. Or maybe just Swedish. By way of Ezra Klein, I came across these polling data collected by Ruy Teixeira:
If you hold both of these views (and arguably, even just one), you are an economic liberal. Not a moderate, but a liberal. I realize many people don't want to be called liberals, but these positions have historically been identified as liberal. And guess what? Liberals hold liberal positions. If you want to call yourself Martian, that's fine, but you're a liberal Martian.
There seems to be more of us too (liberals, not Martians): the majority--not a plurality, a…
mikethemadbiologist | May 7, 2007When rightwing CNN host Glenn Beck went Full Metal Godwin on Al Gore, I figured this was just garden-variety rightwing agitprop. But this post at Slacktivist about the "Left Behind" apocalyptic book series, by way of ScienceBlogling Josh, convinces me that Beck is just a flat out nutjob. From an interview between Beck and 'apocalyptic' writer Joel Rosenberg:
It's clear throughout the interview that CNN host Glenn Beck is more than a casual observer of LaHaye's books. He's a true believer. Consider this odd rant about EZ-Pass -- it's not the work of a tourist or outsider, but of a PMD […
mikethemadbiologist | April 23, 2007...stoopid media tricks to ensue. Just thought I would direct your attention to this post.
mikethemadbiologist | April 20, 2007Hopefully, talking about Social Security will be marginally less inflamatory than evolution or global warming, and it illustrates many of the points made in various discussions. First, though, I want to clear the deck about some misconceptions about Social Security (I have a lot of the links here and here, so I won't repeat them below):
1) Social Security will most likely be solvent in perpetuity without any need for tax increases or benefit cuts. No, really. For even marginal tax or benefit alterations, the economy has to grow at a rate about 20% lower than the average U.S. historical…
mikethemadbiologist | March 28, 2007Hunter has a superb piece on the declining (or perhaps negligible) authority of the punditocracy. Hunter writes:
I have never (and I do mean, never) gotten the impression that anyone among the upper echelons of the press understands just how badly their long-term credibility has been damaged by their uncritical kowtowing to administration propaganda when it comes to the Iraq War. I've never gotten the impression that they comprehend just how much their brand credibility was torn to ribbons, and how to this day there are large segments of the population -- the segments of the population that…
mikethemadbiologist | March 26, 2007I usually stay away from the various pissing matches that occur between big name commentators. Watching Hollywood actors and actresses is far more entertaining, and unlike the famous and beautiful people, pundits are definitely NOT TEH HOT! But in the midst of a clash between Eric Alterman and Joe Klein, Alterman makes an interesting observation (italics mine):
What you see with Klein, I think, is the panic of the pundit seeing his prestige destroyed by a blogosphere that can do for pundits what academics have always done for one another (and demonstrating why few pundits' work could…
mikethemadbiologist | March 24, 2007It's about time someone told the warmongers on the Washington Post editorial board to go fuck themselves. In the words of Democratic congressman David Obey:
Speaker, yesterday a number of members on the Republican side of the aisle sought to belittle the legislation before us because in addition to funding the needs of the troops in Iraq it contains money to address a number of domestic priorities. To ridicule that legislation, they suggested -- they tried to belittle items such as funding for levees in New Orleans and agriculture disaster payments . And in that they have been joined by…
mikethemadbiologist | March 21, 2007The good news is that the Senate overwhelmingly rescinded Bush's ability to appoint U.S. attorneys without Congressional approval--one of those 'terror-fighting' 'improvements' that somehow found its way into the Patriot Act. But the coverage of the investigation is awful.
MSNBC is headlining the investigation into the U.S. Attorney scandal as "Bush vs. Congress?" They have turned this into a pissing contest, when the actual story is about the potential abuse of the justice system for partisan purposes.
But seeing whose dick is bigger is far more entertaining, I suppose.
While we're on…
mikethemadbiologist | March 3, 2007Seeing the Forest wonders how the ridiculous post-Oscar smear of Al Gore was pulled off by a no-name organization with assets of $100,000:
...no one should have been surprised when Al Gore was attacked for the positive press he and his movie received last weekend. An Inconvenient Truth was sure to win an Oscar. Gore would then speak to a billion people about the problem of global warming. The well-funded global warming denial industry would respond, and $mearing people is their standard method of attack. They destroy our leaders.
And yet, there was surprise and a lack of preparation to fight…
mikethemadbiologist | February 24, 2007At a recent National Press Club roundtable about the effect of the internet on the job of the White House correspondents, journalist Richard Wolffe had this to say about bloggers:
They want us to play a role that isn't really our role. Our role is to ask questions and get information. ... It's not a chance for the opposition to take on the government and grill them to a point where they throw their hands up and surrender. ... It's not a political exercise, it's a journalistic exercise. And I think often the blogs are looking for us to be political advocates more than journalistic ones.
In…
mikethemadbiologist | February 21, 2007
Can someone explain to me why the Nevada Democrats want to host a primary presidential debate on Fox News?
I guess the Nevada Dems are rewarding Fox News for its fair and unbiased portrayal of Democratic...aw, fuck it. This is so stupid, you can't even mock it with sarcasm. I had thought that after the 2006, the establishment Democrats had removed the giant "Kick Me" sign welded to their collective posterior.
Oh, and here's a description of the hatchet job Fox News did to the Democrats the last time Fox News hosted a Democratic debate:
For an example of how disrespectful and…
mikethemadbiologist | February 14, 2007Having been trained as an evolutionary biologist, I've always thought that the medical literature avoids using the word evolution: instead, words like emergence, development, spread, and acquisition are used. In PLos Biology, there's an article that quantifies what I've always suspected:
The increase in resistance of human pathogens to antimicrobial agents is one of the best-documented examples of evolution in action at the present time, and because it has direct life-and-death consequences, it provides the strongest rationale for teaching evolutionary biology as a rigorous science in high…
mikethemadbiologist | February 6, 2007Over at Hullabaloo, Tristero describes this conversation with a respected journalist about the manufactured smear of CBS reporter Lara Logan's coverage of the Haifa Street battle:
Well, recently, I was at dinner with a friend who is a major journalist at a major media outlet in New York City. (I will not identify the person further, including whether my friend is male or female, or what kind of media s/he works for - video, print, or online). In the course of the conversation, I brought up the Lara Logan video and s/he said, with certain authority, "I know about that. Y'know, there's a lot of…
mikethemadbiologist | February 2, 2007I'm thrilled that two of my favorite bloggers, Amanda of Pandagon and Shakes, are going to be part of the blog campaign for John Edwards. It's about time that they're recognized for their great work. While they, and others, have addressed the issue of what working for the Edwards campaign will mean for their blogs, there's another issue that hasn't been addressed:
What does being linked to (and with) a political campaign do to one's 'regular' blogging?
I ask this because Amanda and Shakes are both fearless writers: they tackle really difficult subjects, and they often use scathing language…
mikethemadbiologist | December 10, 2006Because said officials are even more ignorant than the Pundits of the Potomac. A few months ago, Jeff Stein published an op-ed about the many officials who are charged with anti-terrorism and who also know nothing about the Middle East--to the point where they don't know if Hezbollah is Sunni or Shiite. Stein has followed up with an interview with incoming House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes.
As far as I can tell, Reyes is marginally more informed than his Republican predecessors, which is damning with faint praise. Shakes and Ezra Klein both pile on Reyes, so I won't do that here…
mikethemadbiologist | December 4, 2006The NY Times had a pearl-clutching article by Daniel Glover about supposed conflicts of interest that progressive bloggers have (even though they typically identify those conflicts...), which has been rebutted all over the place, so I won't waste time doing that. I do have a simple question for Glover:
How come someone like David Sirota who, whenever he discusses anything to do with Sherrod Brown or Paul Hackett, readily admits that he has a 'conflict of interest', whereas someone like Henry Kissinger, who has received millions of dollars in fees from foreign governments, is usually not…