Nail on the head…

…why I haven’t really posted for a month. (Well, that and grad school is, well, hard.)

11 year-old interviews Obama

This is pretty cute. They’re homeboys:

Cherry picking

Greg Mankiw thinks “the honeymoon is over“:

From Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory….The President is now seen as politically liberal by 76%. That’s up six points from a month ago, 11 points since he was elected, and the highest total to date. Forty-eight percent (48%) now see him as Very Liberal, up 20 points since he was elected.

Maybe it is time to invite the Blue Dogs over to the White House for a beer.

Mankiw’s trouble started with the words: “From Rasmussen”. A more balanced look at how things are going for Obama (which includes Rasmussen’s 7/24-26 Approval Poll):

Good for Obama? No… the trendlines are converging. Damning, with a -11% spread? Certainly not.

Just goes to show…

…how shitty cable news has become. A Time poll:

(Danke: Chris Bodenner)

UPDATE: This is why he’s more trusted. How far has the news industry fallen if pure snark and satire is the most reliable way to get useful information/commentary?

Our moment in history

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown: we can use today’s interconnectedness to develop our shared global ethic — and work together to confront the challenges of poverty, security, climate change and the economy.

$50 in cold hard cash

From DougJ to anyone with the balls (err… ovaries?) to say it like it is on national TV.

His first donation recipient: Marcy Wheeler Investigative Blogging Fund for this statement:

“Your idea is that after investigating Bill Clinton for a blow job for like five years, we shouldn’t investigate the huge, grossly illegal things that were done under the past administration, only because Alberto Gonzales was too much in the back pocket of Dick Cheney to do it while he was still in office.”

Do I see the promise of a green note with Ulysses S. Grant’s mug on it drastically changing the integrity of cable news? Not at all… but it’s nice to see someone giving props where props are due.

A new low… even for them

So let me get this straight… the only way to save America, the only way for America to protect itself well enough “again”, is for Osama bin Laden to successfully execute an attack on American soil.

They are hoping we get attacked!?! W. T. Fuck?!?

I’m absolutely stunned. This makes me sick to my stomach:

(Danke: Sullivan)

Oh snap!

Glenn Greenwald pwnage:

Today, this super-tough guy has a column at Pajamas Media explaining — in the context of a new film he saw that joyously depicts men as men and ladies as ladies — what distinguishes real men like him from fake males who have had their manhood taken by women:

[...] I’m the old-fashioned King of the Castle type: my wife knew it when she married me, she knows it now, and she knows where the door is if she gets sick of it. And you can curse me or consign me to Feminist Hell or whatever you want to do. But when you’re done, answer me this: why would a man get married under any other circumstances? I’m serious. What’s in it for him? I mean, marriage is a large sacrifice for a man. He gives up his right to sleep with a variety of partners, which is as basic an urge in men as having children is in women. He takes on responsibilities which will probably curtail both his work and his social life. If he doesn’t also acquire authority, gravitas, respect and, yes, mastery over his own home, what does he get? Companionship? Hey, stay single, dude, you’ll have a lot more money, and then you can buy companionship. [...]

I wonder what he thinks of the women who go and fight the wars for which he’s a vocal (shrieking) tough-guy cheerleader but won’t fight himself?  Ultimately, the only cure for this level of insecurity over one’s masculinity is to become a cheerleader for wars, torture, “getting tough” with our current Enemy (today: Iran), and politicians who prance around in fighter pilot costumes on the decks of aircraft carriers.  The vicarious sensations of pulsating strength must be so soothing to someone like this, so desperate to prove their manhood.

On the current state of affairs: Left vs. Right

John Cole ponders:

Why is it that anyone who says “killing all the wildlife in this lake might be a bad idea” becomes a de facto granola eating DFH? Why is it not considered conservative to say “this could cost us a lot in the long run, not just monetarily, but in terms of other measures.” Surely there have to be people in agribusiness and property rights advocates who oppose this sort of thing, and they can’t be considered “teh left.” I also understand that there are folks on the fringes of the environmental left who would shut down all business, if they could. Clearly there is a need for balance.

I understand why it is now- ideological lines are rigid, and anything members of “teh left” oppose members of “teh right” support, and vice versa. If Obama and the Democrats came out in favor of puppy kisses and free ice cream, the NRO would have a hundred op-ed pieces declaring puppy kisses to be the vanguard of the incipient liberal fascism. But how did it get this way? Why is not wanting 4.5 tons of toxic shit dumped into your lake considered “liberal?” Does anyone have a book that might explain things? Is there a religious component or something that I do not understand?

A petition

To “Green” Google:

(Danke: Sullivan)

The power of empowering

Sullivan points to a thoughtful piece by Aziz Poonawalla:

The point here is that saber-rattling and stern lectures about freedom and democracy are one approach, which give the appearance of “support” for reformists’ cause but in fact make things much worse. What does work is direct engagement of the people, giving them resources they can use as they take their own destiny in hand. This is a simple lesson that the ODS-afflicted Republiican warriors would do well to understand, if they truly value the welfare of the people of Iran, not to mention of the United States, over their short-term political fortunes.

This is not about us. It’s about them.

The whole thing’s worth a read (it’s a quick read, too… so no excuses).

Social media revolution

I thought this was particularly relevant given what is happening in Iran:

On solidarity

UPDATE: Solidarity turns out to be powerful indeed.

I think I’m with Sullivan on this one. I understand why John Cole thinks it’s bogus/narcissitic, and yes this revolution in Iran is ultimately about them. But he’s wrong to think it’s not also about us.

How this translates into official policy, I’m not sure yet, although I think George Packer makes a good case for Obama to come out against the fraud.

But fights for freedom grow stronger with awareness and support–regardless of national borders. I don’t think solidarity from Americans and the blogosphere is trivial.

Courage can be fostered and maintained just by knowing someone is out there pulling for you. And considering how much tech (Twitter, et al.) is driving this revolution, having supporters from those spheres pulling for Iranian freedom and democracy can keep momentum and hope alive as they fight for freedom.

More BBC awesomeness

More reporting here. Sullivan has been all over the Iran story, and I highly recommend following him for up-to-the-moment information that is coming in, raw, from many sources.

I’m starting late, and I’m in more of a “Re-Tweet” sort of situation at this blog, but I’ll try to pull down the highlights as the day progresses.

The things that are clear to me from playing catch-up so far: this was definitely a stolen election, and so far, Iranians are refusing to take it. They are laying down their lives for the hope of freedom.

Conspicuously absent from the press

Nimrod highlights a story that hasn’t seen much daylight:

A direct quote from Rev. Jeremiah Wright regarding Obama’s abandonment of him for political reasons:

“Them Jews aren’t going to let him talk to me. I told my baby daughter, that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”

He’s got a point: I haven’t seen this anywhere but the blogosphere… As for the story itself, I’m not sure what to make of it. Wright seems to be more radical every time I read something new about him. This would be a good thing to keep an eye on.