Thursday, February 10, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Getting laughs from a four-month-old
Over the last few weeks, very slowly, Little Peanut has started giggling at random things. So now our new game is to try and figure out what will coax a laugh out of her. In my new Mom/Baby class, we learned one trick that seems to work. It's the second verse to "Ring around the rosy." You lie the baby down on the floor, sit in front of her, and sing, "Cows in the meadow/eating buttercups" while using your fingers to make horns behind your head. Then you go "Thunder!" while thumping on the ground on either side of her; "Lightning!" while gesturing with your fingers; and then the big finish: "We all jump UP!" while either flinging your arms over your head or picking up the baby and swinging her in the air.
Patriots extravaganza
So all of New England is atwitter over the latest Patriots Super Bowl victory. The next day the Globe headline was "DYNASTY," in a type size more appropriate for "Aliens land on Boston Common." Oh, the thrills, the excitement...oh wait, I forgot: I actually don't give a rat's ass.
Could there be anything more boring than watching a bunch of fat overpaid nitwits wearing spandex, running into one another? Aside from baseball, I mean?
Could there be anything more boring than watching a bunch of fat overpaid nitwits wearing spandex, running into one another? Aside from baseball, I mean?
Thursday, February 03, 2005
More Boston Globe buffoonery
Today's right-wing idiocy in the Globe comes to us courtesy of the always-entertaining Jeff Jacoby. I'd call him a Republican whore, but that would be like calling Michael Jackson mildly eccentric. Jacoby is at it once again, pulling stuff out of his ass, with nary a complaint from his editors. (Do they even have editors over there? Note to the Globe: just because somebody writes an opinion column, that doesn't mean you don't have to edit it. If a blatant falsehood is someone's opinion, it's still a blatant falsehood...)
Old Jeff has got his panties in a twist over the possible ascension of Howard Dean to the post of Democratic National Committee chairman. Dean is just too...angry to head the DNC, according to Jacoby. He is outraged that Dean once said he "hates" the Republicans. How is it possible that someone could use such crude language in American politics? This is simply beyond the pale! It's giving Jeff the vapors:
"...the willingness of so many Democrats to openly call themselves 'haters,' to make contempt for the other party their stock-in-trade -- that is something we haven't seen before."
Jeff was apparently in a coma during the Clinton presidency. Remember when this was a regular event?
Old Jeff has got his panties in a twist over the possible ascension of Howard Dean to the post of Democratic National Committee chairman. Dean is just too...angry to head the DNC, according to Jacoby. He is outraged that Dean once said he "hates" the Republicans. How is it possible that someone could use such crude language in American politics? This is simply beyond the pale! It's giving Jeff the vapors:
"...the willingness of so many Democrats to openly call themselves 'haters,' to make contempt for the other party their stock-in-trade -- that is something we haven't seen before."
Jeff was apparently in a coma during the Clinton presidency. Remember when this was a regular event?
This is one example; of course if you do a Google search you can find hundreds more, from Clinton's time in office and beyond. But like most Republican whore journalists, Jeff has both a selective memory and a selective sense of ethics. It's OK for the Republicans to commit all nature of sins, but for the Democrats to express anger about any of it...well, we can't have that.Republican Whip Renews Attack On Clinton
By John King/CNN
WASHINGTON (April 24, 1998) -- House Republican Whip Tom DeLay renewed
his attacks on President Bill Clinton's integrity on Friday, playing off Democratic outrage that a GOP House committee chairman called the president a "scumbag."
In a sarcastic "open letter" to the House Democratic leadership, DeLay suggested a House debate to determine just what language can be used to describe "an administration that relies on spin, the whole spin and nothing but the spin?"
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
State of the Union drinking game
Instructions are here. Warning: it could be lethal. I'm sure there will be dozens of references to "freedom," a "mandate," etc., so drink with care...
Thank God for the Daily Show
...it's keeping me going, in spite of the Republicans running the world. And oh my, do I love Stephen Colbert. Just the sight of him sitting there cracks me up, before he even opens his mouth. I particularly enjoy his "This Week in God" segments.
And the Republican Media Whore Lifetime Achievement Award goes to...
...Newsweek.
Here is what I want to know: who is responsible for publishing this putrid rag, anyway, the goddamn Republican National Committee? Are they kidding with this crap, from the Jan. 24 issue? "(Bush) is hands-on, detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men." Yeah, that sounds about right. At least half the time, he looks so zoned out that you have to wonder if he's on drugs, he himself has admitted that he doesn't read anything, and he demoted or fired pretty much everyone in his first administration who disagreed with him about Iraq, but whatever. His buddies say he's "detail-oriented," so it must be true! We've got ourselves a scoop here, kids!
There are so many places to go with criticizing this garbage that it's hard to know where to begin. Like high school sophomores writing for their school paper, the intrepid "reporters" at Newsweek have gone straight for the really tough interviews, quoting "senior aides," Andrew Card, and Karl Rove. Just the sources you'd expect to provide an unbiased view of their boss Bush. Did they bother to interview anybody who isn't a slavish GOP partisan? Um, no. Absolutely every source quoted in this article is either explicitly described as a Republican or labeled a Bush "friend" or "confidante." At least at one time (during the misty past of the 1990s, when I was a reporter) there was a term for this kind of story: it was called a "blow job." If you did this kind of thing at the highly unremarkable local daily newspaper where I used to work, you had a tendency to get fired. Today this caliber of reporting gets you a job at the most elite media outlets in the country.
"Bush's aides and friends describe...a restless man who masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes and the failings of those around him..."
I mean, truly: what in God's name do the people at Newsweek think they're doing? What do they think their job actually is? It's not like they could be getting paid off by the Republican party, or anything, because, you know, that would be nuts.
Oh, wait...
Speaking of the payola scandal, those wacky pranksters at Newsweek were at it again in the Feb. 7 issue, assuring us that the Bush administration will no longer be paying "pundits" to shill for its various causes. Well, that's nice to know. It's also nice to have the assurance of Newsweek's fine, upstanding, and totally impartial reporters that it doesn't matter anyway, because the entire definition of journalism has changed. You know, because of all those, whatdoyoucallem, "bloggers":
"Today, it's not even clear what a 'journalist' is, or what 'covering' something means."
Hey, Newsweek, how about I spell it out for you: A "journalist" is someone who recognizes that it's unethical to write nothing but puff pieces about the powerful people and institutions he or she covers -- particularly in the face of mountains of evidence of the corruption of said people and institutions. Also, to "cover" the White House does not mean accepting its PR team's invitations to go to all kinds of swanky Washington parties, and then conveniently omitting any remotely critical views from your coverage of said White House. To "cover" a person, government institution, event, or anything else, really, means just what you'd think it means: you try, to the very best of your ability, and without being swayed by any attempts to bribe you into positive coverage, to find out what the truth is, to determine what is newsworthy, and to publish it, without embellishment or omission. That's pretty much it.
If we could do it at my college paper and at every small paper where I ever worked, the national media should be able to do it.
Here is what I want to know: who is responsible for publishing this putrid rag, anyway, the goddamn Republican National Committee? Are they kidding with this crap, from the Jan. 24 issue? "(Bush) is hands-on, detail-oriented and hates 'yes' men." Yeah, that sounds about right. At least half the time, he looks so zoned out that you have to wonder if he's on drugs, he himself has admitted that he doesn't read anything, and he demoted or fired pretty much everyone in his first administration who disagreed with him about Iraq, but whatever. His buddies say he's "detail-oriented," so it must be true! We've got ourselves a scoop here, kids!
There are so many places to go with criticizing this garbage that it's hard to know where to begin. Like high school sophomores writing for their school paper, the intrepid "reporters" at Newsweek have gone straight for the really tough interviews, quoting "senior aides," Andrew Card, and Karl Rove. Just the sources you'd expect to provide an unbiased view of their boss Bush. Did they bother to interview anybody who isn't a slavish GOP partisan? Um, no. Absolutely every source quoted in this article is either explicitly described as a Republican or labeled a Bush "friend" or "confidante." At least at one time (during the misty past of the 1990s, when I was a reporter) there was a term for this kind of story: it was called a "blow job." If you did this kind of thing at the highly unremarkable local daily newspaper where I used to work, you had a tendency to get fired. Today this caliber of reporting gets you a job at the most elite media outlets in the country.
"Bush's aides and friends describe...a restless man who masters details and reads avidly, who chews over his mistakes and the failings of those around him..."
I mean, truly: what in God's name do the people at Newsweek think they're doing? What do they think their job actually is? It's not like they could be getting paid off by the Republican party, or anything, because, you know, that would be nuts.
Oh, wait...
Speaking of the payola scandal, those wacky pranksters at Newsweek were at it again in the Feb. 7 issue, assuring us that the Bush administration will no longer be paying "pundits" to shill for its various causes. Well, that's nice to know. It's also nice to have the assurance of Newsweek's fine, upstanding, and totally impartial reporters that it doesn't matter anyway, because the entire definition of journalism has changed. You know, because of all those, whatdoyoucallem, "bloggers":
"Today, it's not even clear what a 'journalist' is, or what 'covering' something means."
Hey, Newsweek, how about I spell it out for you: A "journalist" is someone who recognizes that it's unethical to write nothing but puff pieces about the powerful people and institutions he or she covers -- particularly in the face of mountains of evidence of the corruption of said people and institutions. Also, to "cover" the White House does not mean accepting its PR team's invitations to go to all kinds of swanky Washington parties, and then conveniently omitting any remotely critical views from your coverage of said White House. To "cover" a person, government institution, event, or anything else, really, means just what you'd think it means: you try, to the very best of your ability, and without being swayed by any attempts to bribe you into positive coverage, to find out what the truth is, to determine what is newsworthy, and to publish it, without embellishment or omission. That's pretty much it.
If we could do it at my college paper and at every small paper where I ever worked, the national media should be able to do it.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)