Yes, that is Optimus Prime as PSY.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Alan Simpson hopes Grover Norquist drowns in bathtub | The Hill's Video
As funny as this might sound to most liberals, I hope this leads to actual progress rather than scapegoating.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Hilarious Susan Lucci appearance on The Colbert Report
This was one of the funniest Colbert clips ever, especially this zinger:
"This sex scandal all anyone in Washington can talk about. I wonder why the country is in financial ruin?"ENJOY!
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| General's Hospital | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, November 15, 2012
For the first time in my life, I actually agree with Newt Gingrich!
Great opinion piece by Newt Gingrich in POLITICO. I actually agree with it, which means the end of the world is near. When does that Mayan calendar end again?
Loopholes and revenues: Five questions | POLITICO.com
Great explanation on POLITICO about how raising revenue through closing loopholes would work. Key point: unless you eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction, you're not generating much revenue (and no one wants to eliminate the mortgage interest tax deduction.)
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Stephen Colbert shuts down The Colbert Super PAC (or does he?!?)
On last night's show, Stephen Colbert annouced that he was shutting down the Colbert Super PAC. However, as the following clips show, he has a very creative legal idea on what to do with the money. Also, his advisor, Karl Rove lookalike 'Ham Rove' doesn't survive the "cuts":
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Colbert Super PAC SHH! - Karl Rove and Jon Stewart | ||||
| ||||
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Colbert Super PAC SHH! - Secret Second 501c4 - Trevor Potter | ||||
| ||||
Monday, November 12, 2012
The GOP's media cocoon - Jonathan Martin | POLITICO.com
POLITICO's Jonathan Martin writes an excellent analysis piece on the Right's media bubble (something I will admit I've taken great pleasure in reading about the last few days.) While others have written about this particular phenomenon:
"Facebook and Twitter feeds along with email in-boxes have taken the place of the old newspaper front page, except that the consumer is now entirely in charge of what he or she sees each day and can largely shut out dissenting voices. It’s the great irony of the Internet era: People have more access than ever to an array of viewpoints, but also the technological ability to screen out anything that doesn’t reinforce their views."... Martin also talks about the emerging split between conservatives over 50 and those 49 and under:
"Some younger conservatives worry that the effects of cocoonism are just as evident after the race as before — and not only in the disbelief that Obama won. The knee-jerk reaction by some on the right to Romney’s poor performance with Hispanics has been to simply say that all will be well with the party if they pass an immigration bill and elevate Cuban-American Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).All-in-all this is a great read worth checking out regardless of whether you're on the left or the right.
But to many next-generation Republicans, this smacks of tokenism and is more than a tad patronizing.
“They just want to put a sombrero on the Republican elephant,” said one Latino GOP operative, who didn’t want to be identified discussing such a sensitive topic.
Similarly, [45-year-old GOP strategist Bruce] Haynes fretted that “the mistake Republicans are going to make is thinking this is a demographic and political problem and not a social and cultural problem. You can’t fix this with Orca (the Romney campaign’s ill-fated GOTV software) or iPad apps or to some extent even running Hispanic candidates.”
To young Republican strategists and writers, a fundamental shift of how the party communicates is required. That doesn’t mean delegitimizing hugely popular and powerful outlets on the right, but rather transcending them.
“Communicating to the country’s changing demographics and outside of the Fox News echo chamber is a strategic imperative,” said GOP operative Phil Musser, 40.
“The rise of conservative media has been one of the best things to ever happen to the conservative movement. It has helped us reach new voters, has helped with voter persuasion and even motivation,” said GOP strategist Todd Harris, 41. “But with all the positives, there is this fact: If all you did was watch and read the conservative media, you were probably pretty shocked at what happened Tuesday. There’s a huge and ever-growing segment of the vote that Republicans just aren’t talking to and in some cases didn’t even know existed.”"
The plot thickens...
What will Obama and Boehner do? Politico has five ideas on the fiscal cliff. Idea #1 might be the least appealing but could be the most practical.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
"Math You Do As A Republican To Make Yourself Feel Better"
I only caught glimpses of Wednesday Night's Daily Show episode but I did catch some of Fox's coverage on Tuesday night. Sadly Fox News will only see this as partisan media bias because, as any psychiatrist can tell you, people tend to see their own flaws in others. ENJOY!
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Post Democalypse 2012 - America Takes a Shower - Karl Rove's Math | ||||
| ||||
| The Daily Show with Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Post Democalypse 2012 - America Takes a Shower - Fox News Meltdown | ||||
| ||||
Friday, November 9, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Atlantic points out what I've always noticed about conservative media (but doesn't really explain it.)
Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic has a great piece on why so many conservative "news outlets" got the election wrong:
- MSNBC? A former Republican Congressman hosts a three-hour morning news show (which, in case you're wondering, is three hours more than any liberal hosts a show on Fox News).
- New York Times? David Brooks and Ross Douthat have regular columns in the Op-Ed pages.
- Washington Post? Same with Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will...
I ask again, where are the liberals in conservative media? Alan Colmes? Sure, he makes a token appearance from time-to-time on Fox News but it's not like he hosts his own TV show anymore (and even then, it was Hannity & Colmes). Thomas Frank? Nope, not with the Wall Street Journal anymore, and even when he was, his column printed less frequently than Brooks or Douthat do with the New York Times.
I'm not saying conservative media should swing to the ideological middle. There is a need for both, objective and partisan media. However, if you only offer your viewers partisanship without an intellectually honest counterpoint, you're likely to end up in the exact same place the Republican Party is sitting in today. And in the long term that's not good for the party or for the country.
"It is easy to close oneself off inside a conservative echo chamber. And right-leaning outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show are far more intellectually closed than CNN or public radio. If you're a rank-and-file conservative, you're probably ready to acknowledge that ideologically friendly media didn't accurately inform you about Election 2012. Some pundits engaged in wishful thinking; others feigned confidence in hopes that it would be a self-fulfilling prophecy; still others decided it was smart to keep telling right-leaning audiences what they wanted to hear."This brings me to something I noticed a few years ago and never could find an answer for it. Where are the liberals in conservative media? Conservative Media always blames the mainstream media as having a liberal bias. Think of the "liberal media" for a second:
- MSNBC? A former Republican Congressman hosts a three-hour morning news show (which, in case you're wondering, is three hours more than any liberal hosts a show on Fox News).
- New York Times? David Brooks and Ross Douthat have regular columns in the Op-Ed pages.
- Washington Post? Same with Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, George Will...
I ask again, where are the liberals in conservative media? Alan Colmes? Sure, he makes a token appearance from time-to-time on Fox News but it's not like he hosts his own TV show anymore (and even then, it was Hannity & Colmes). Thomas Frank? Nope, not with the Wall Street Journal anymore, and even when he was, his column printed less frequently than Brooks or Douthat do with the New York Times.
I'm not saying conservative media should swing to the ideological middle. There is a need for both, objective and partisan media. However, if you only offer your viewers partisanship without an intellectually honest counterpoint, you're likely to end up in the exact same place the Republican Party is sitting in today. And in the long term that's not good for the party or for the country.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Stephen Colbert's "Meet the Gregory" Interview
Here is the clip from David Gregory's Meet the Press interview with Stephen Colbert from last month. It's worth watching just for the sheer hilarity of this man, both in and out of character.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Monday, November 5, 2012
Why This Election Doesn’t Matter | FunnyIndian.com
Comedian Rajiv Satyal (he of FunnyIndian.com fame) pens an awesome piece on why this election doesn't matter. Among his many points are that we have been marching towards an oligarchy no matter who’s in-charge and that Obama = Apple. Read the whole piece; it is worth taking the time to read it.
Rajiv also includes with a clip from the HBO Series "The Newsroom". This was the first scene in the pilot episode and it's worth watching just for the things that the main character Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) says (FYI, NSFW). Enjoy!
Be sure to take the time to read Rajiv's post at FunnyIndian.com. It will be worth your while to do so.
Rajiv also includes with a clip from the HBO Series "The Newsroom". This was the first scene in the pilot episode and it's worth watching just for the things that the main character Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) says (FYI, NSFW). Enjoy!
Be sure to take the time to read Rajiv's post at FunnyIndian.com. It will be worth your while to do so.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
We Are Dads Who Take Care of Our Kids | The Atlantic
Great post in The Atlantic about fatherhood. The guy called "Matt" makes a point I have often thought about myself:
"It's now time for that cri de coeur to evolve, and for men to proclaim, gently and kindly, that we may be, in some cases, "better moms"—caregivers, that is—than moms. We are—if you believe the classical stereotypes—less emotional and more practical, approaching child-care problems with a perhaps scientific detachment not to be found in women who, having spent those long months pregnant, may take those problems personally. Whether it's swaddling an infant, precision placement of a princess Band-Aid, or soothing hurt feelings ("Paige said she's not my friend anymore!"), a little emotional distance, data analysis, and hardheaded strategizing can go a long way. And men are, supposedly, better at that stuff.
As provocative as I'm trying to make this argument, I'd like to think this is, in fact, a feminist stance. That is, if women can be as good or better—and better, as Hanna Rosin argues—as men at certain jobs, then why can't we say the same for men, too? Equality of the sexes doesn't mean we're all actually equal. It means we all have equal potential to excel, independent of the shape of our genitalia. If that means that dads start outmothering moms, we have to look at that as progress. So when it comes time to bake cupcakes for pre-K (oh crap, that's next week!), the other moms better watch out, because I make a mean buttercream frosting. Just don't ask me to breastfeed."
"It's now time for that cri de coeur to evolve, and for men to proclaim, gently and kindly, that we may be, in some cases, "better moms"—caregivers, that is—than moms. We are—if you believe the classical stereotypes—less emotional and more practical, approaching child-care problems with a perhaps scientific detachment not to be found in women who, having spent those long months pregnant, may take those problems personally. Whether it's swaddling an infant, precision placement of a princess Band-Aid, or soothing hurt feelings ("Paige said she's not my friend anymore!"), a little emotional distance, data analysis, and hardheaded strategizing can go a long way. And men are, supposedly, better at that stuff.
As provocative as I'm trying to make this argument, I'd like to think this is, in fact, a feminist stance. That is, if women can be as good or better—and better, as Hanna Rosin argues—as men at certain jobs, then why can't we say the same for men, too? Equality of the sexes doesn't mean we're all actually equal. It means we all have equal potential to excel, independent of the shape of our genitalia. If that means that dads start outmothering moms, we have to look at that as progress. So when it comes time to bake cupcakes for pre-K (oh crap, that's next week!), the other moms better watch out, because I make a mean buttercream frosting. Just don't ask me to breastfeed."
The Economist's Presidential Election Endorsement
The Economist published their endorsement for this year's presidential election today. The Economist, known to be a conservative news outlet, had this to say about President Obama:
"Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal."
While one particularly scathing comment about Mitt Romney was:
"...the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it."
The Economist also lists its history of Presidential Endorsements. For those keeping score, they are:
1980: Ronald Reagan
1984: No Endorsement
1988: No Endorsement
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bob Dole
2000: George W. Bush
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama
2012: Barack Obama
Its 1984 non-endorsement had this very prescient point that haunts us today:
"Although Mr Reagan's ultra-Keynesian America is barrelling along towards full employment, all its trading and budget accounts are frighteningly out of balance. A sound international economic order cannot be built on the assumption that the rumbustiously richest country will go on borrowing unprecedented amounts at enormous interest rates from everybody else for ever."
All-in-all, it hasn't been a good few days for Mitt Romney. First, his keynote speaker from the Republican National Convention, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, effusively praised President Obama for his handling of the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy. Then, he attempted to do the right thing by having a can drive at what was originally scheduled to be a campaign rally. Just one problem though:
"The campaign asked for nonperishable donations despite the fact that the Red Cross does not typically accept or solicit individual donations or collections of items because of the extra labor involved with sorting, cleaning, repackaging and transporting such items."
After that, New York City's Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a surprise endorsement of President Obama based on his views on climate change, in spite of the fact that it hasn't come up much in this year's election cycle.
What does all this mean? Nothing, except that this will all be over in four more days, when Barack Obama has an 81% chance of winning 303 electoral votes. Then, like the Hurricane Sandy recovery, we can all get on with the rest of our lives.
"Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal."
While one particularly scathing comment about Mitt Romney was:
"...the extremism of his party is Mr Romney’s greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers’ unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where “small government” meant keeping the state out of people’s bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it."
The Economist also lists its history of Presidential Endorsements. For those keeping score, they are:
1980: Ronald Reagan
1984: No Endorsement
1988: No Endorsement
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bob Dole
2000: George W. Bush
2004: John Kerry
2008: Barack Obama
2012: Barack Obama
Its 1984 non-endorsement had this very prescient point that haunts us today:
"Although Mr Reagan's ultra-Keynesian America is barrelling along towards full employment, all its trading and budget accounts are frighteningly out of balance. A sound international economic order cannot be built on the assumption that the rumbustiously richest country will go on borrowing unprecedented amounts at enormous interest rates from everybody else for ever."
All-in-all, it hasn't been a good few days for Mitt Romney. First, his keynote speaker from the Republican National Convention, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, effusively praised President Obama for his handling of the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy. Then, he attempted to do the right thing by having a can drive at what was originally scheduled to be a campaign rally. Just one problem though:
"The campaign asked for nonperishable donations despite the fact that the Red Cross does not typically accept or solicit individual donations or collections of items because of the extra labor involved with sorting, cleaning, repackaging and transporting such items."
After that, New York City's Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg made a surprise endorsement of President Obama based on his views on climate change, in spite of the fact that it hasn't come up much in this year's election cycle.
What does all this mean? Nothing, except that this will all be over in four more days, when Barack Obama has an 81% chance of winning 303 electoral votes. Then, like the Hurricane Sandy recovery, we can all get on with the rest of our lives.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Mitt Romney Style - Gangnam Style Parody (NSFW)
I've seen tons of topical and political parodies but this has to be one of the most well-made parodies I've ever seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)