Findings

Conservatives and liberals find The Colbert Report equally funny. They also agree that the humor is satirical, and that the character of Colbert is insincere. Conservatives think the real Colbert is a conservative and that they are in on the joke.

Update: The source.

Ask a stupid question

Chuck Todd gets an honorable mention for worst question. The worst thing about Todd's question, it seems to me, wasn't its incoherence, but was rather that insofar as there was a coherent thought there, Todd was trying to toss a softball, but screwed it up so badly that he utterly failed to earn any ass kissing credits whatsoever.

Nobody, though, could live down to the standard set by Jennifer Loven. Recently private corporations have done bad things in the area of finance, Mr. President. How, then, do you justify seeking more power for government in the area of finance?

What?

Meet the David Gregory

On the one hand, he's the consummate empty suit, eager to be won over by fatuous arguments so long as they are presented seriously by serious people who are serious about being political moderates. To take a recent example, see the shining shitpile of his performance during the auto bailout fiasco, when Gregory was always eager to bask resplendently in the light of worries that bailing out the auto companies would be throwing good money after bad. On the other hand, Russert's Meet the Press was the creche for high Broderism, so Gregory provides continuity with the tradition.

It's Maddow's America now, Mr. Greenspan

Wonder of wonders

I'm going to watch the CBS Evening News tonight to see the latest Palin interview clip. It has been just over six years since I last watched a network newscast of my own volition.

In other Palin news, Troopergate continues. I'm working on updating the timeline and will probably throw up a catching up with Troopergate post in the next few days. Remember, the investigator's report is due on October 10. In case you didn't know, that's my Pop's birthday. He'll be old.

...it's a joint appearance with both Palin and McCain. Apparently, when a voter asked Palin a question and she didn't know the answer, that was "gotcha journalism". Speaking as a voter, that's good to know. I wouldn't want to cross any boundaries.

There you go

I think I just witnessed Brett Favre's agent coming to terms with the Packers on live TV. Favre comes back, is acknowledged to be the best QB, and there is an "open competition" with Aaron Rodgers for the job.

But who cares about the deal. The point is that they seem to have negotiated it on live TV while staring into cameras in separate studios. That's a new phenomenon, right?

Maybe it was a put on. Maybe the deal was really made over the weekend and this was just a clever way of announcing it. But whatever. It still seems noteworthy that they'd elect to perform the farce.

Addendum: Or not. I swear I saw the conversation, but there's no news of it anywhere. Odd.

The nuclear option

Operation Ivy Nuclear Test, October 31, 1952 (NARA) by pingnews.

I'm not a big believer in vast corporate-media conspiracy theory, but how else can one explain why reporters seem to have such short memories?

A quick search of Google News reveals that absolutely no mainstream media outlets are bothering to point out the fact that--not very long ago--the same Republicans who've been using the filibuster all year were ready to change the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster. In fact, the only applicable Google News result mentioning "the nuclear option" is from Think Progress. At least they do a nice job of it, offering up the following quotes:

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: “Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the ‘[nuclear]’ option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate.”

It's incredibly frustrating!

Reader participation Wednesdsay, annoying science reporting edition

I can't quite decide which paragraph from this article is more annoying.

Sample A:

There's still a lot that is unknown about the new planet, which could be deemed inhospitable to life once more is learned about it. But as galaxies go, it's practically a neighbor. At only 120 trillion miles away, the red dwarf star that this planet circles is one of the 100 closest to Earth.

The first problem here is right on the surface. Planets and galaxies are different sorts of things that exist on different sorts of scales, so telling me that the new planet is 'practically a neighbor' for a galaxy doesn't tell me anything at all. But then things actually get worse, because now my curiosity is piqued. How far away is this new planet? Oh, 120 trillion miles. What the hell does that mean? Just that if I were to drive I'd have to fill the tank 400 billion times and if I were to fly I'd get a bunch of free round trip tickets. Twenty lightyears is the right answer. Six parsecs also would have been acceptable, but only because I'm a geek.

Sample B:

Until now, all 220 planets astronomers have found outside our solar system have had the "Goldilocks problem." They've been too hot, too cold or just plain too big and gaseous, like uninhabitable Jupiter.

And now we see why the article had to be so dumbed down. The only cultural knowledge that the reader is expected to have is knowledge of fairy tales. Let me suggest, though, that Goldilocks' real problems only began after she found porridge that was just right.