Category Archives: Current Events

Among the most-read columns on this site are the ones I did about what I call Unfinanced Entrepreneurs — people who ask writers or artists to create work for them on the promise of money if and when the project becomes a success. Wise and talented people — like my pal Kurt Busiek — have enough sense not to fall for these pitches. And Kurt sent me this link to the tale of someone else who was smart enough to decline such a golden opportunity.

Matthew Yglesias on a new idea that oughta gain more traction than it probably will. We put things like the War in Afghanistan on a pay-as-you-go basis. I always thought it was unfair that so many folks who think we can't afford things like Health Care Reform and rebuilding U.S. infrastructure believe we have unlimited resources when it comes to any kind of military action anywhere.

Wow. Lou Dobbs is considering a Senate run and he's just announced that he's in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens. The guy's been a politician for three days and already, he's pandering for possible votes by reversing his most strongly-held conviction.

I'm impressed. That usually takes most candidates an entire week.

There may be good arguments against the current Democratic Health Care Reform Bill. I still think they pale against the G.O.P. alternative, which seems to be start over, take our time and come up with something after we have full employment, no national debt and flying cars. But I'm open to the idea that some aspects of it could be improved.

One argument that I don't think has any validity — that's just a case of grasping for anything negative they can say about the bill — is how long it is. Sure, it's a big, complex bill. It's a big, complex problem. If the bill works, it doesn't matter how long it is. And if it doesn't work, it doesn't matter how short it is.

Underscoring this is that there were no complaints about length when the Republicans authored a transportation bill that was only 68 words shorter. Here's a little primer that proves that size doesn't matter.

Fred Kaplan on what Barack Obama ought do in Afghanistan. Me, I think we oughta go over and open about fifty Five Guys burger joints there. Then at least if our soldiers do get bogged down there for years, they'll have great french fries.

Matt Taibbi on the way the media treats Sarah Palin…and also the way Sarah Palin treats the media. I don't disagree with anything he writes but I think he's not giving enough weight to this: Most people who aren't smitten with her approach her every media appearance with an attitude of "Well, let's see what stupid thing she's going to say this time." That's not a Democratic/Republican thing. An awful lot of folks do that with Joe Biden, too. It's just that in the past, the gaffes have been the story. And the part that wasn't about her clumsiness with facts was all about her tabloidesque family problems. She hasn't given the media much of anything else to write about.

Ronald Brownstein takes us through the cost-control elements in the current version of the Senate's Health Care Reform bill. And yes, I know very few people debating this bill from either side seem particularly interested in what's actually in it. But in case you do, there you are.

I like most of what Matt Taibbi has to say about Sarah Palin and her book.

This whole little outrage over Barack Obama bowing to Japan's Emperor Akihito is another one of those "whatever he does is a scandal" phony controversies. Even viewers of Fox News and self-identified Republicans don't think it's inappropriate for our president to do that. Right-wing bloggers called it "treasonous," which to me is one of those frequent (these days) cases of defining an important word down to the point of rendering it meaningless. If you call a respectful greeting to a foreign leader "treason," what word would you use if someone handed that foreign leader our nuclear codes and, say, the actual Liberty Bell?

Our buddy Bob Elisberg remembers Rocky and Bullwinkle on this, the 50th anniversary of their TV debut. And hey, wouldn't it be a good idea for me to embed a video so you can watch a little of this fine show? Okay…

Daniel Larison writes one of the best pieces I've read about Sarah Palin…and it's from a Conservative's point of view.

I've never seen the slightest logic behind the claim that legalizing Gay Marriage will destroy traditional, heterosexual marriage.

However, banning Gay Marriage can and has destroyed hetero marriage in the state of Texas.

A couple of folks have written me to say, approximately, "I think Sarah Palin is awful but let's be honest. There is an accepted definition of 'going rogue' that doesn't quite fit the definitions you posted." They're right.

Just for fun, I tried to find an online definition of the phrase, "going rogue." The ones I found were all about not wearing underpants or engaging in anal sex. That's so much better.

Actually, even defining "going rogue" the way Ms. Palin and her handlers presumably define it, it's not a very flattering term. Going rogue from what? The first time I heard the term in connection with her, it was to say that she might not toe the lines the McCain campaign wanted her to follow during the campaign. The context was that when she signed on to be his running mate, she agreed implicitly or explicitly to join a team and follow their battle plan. And when it was said she might "go rogue," what they meant was that since the McCain-Palin ticket was down in the polls, she might put her own agenda and self-promotion ahead of that plan and begin undermining it.

Or maybe she thinks she's been "going rogue" from the way people expect a female politician or a governor to act. That might not be a bad thing if it meant being uncommonly honest or candid. I don't think too many people think that of her. For one thing, we generally expect elected officials to serve out their terms.

I didn't see the Oprah interview or the entirety of any others she's done. Has anyone asked her what she thinks she's "going rogue" from?

I probably won't get around to reading Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, for…oh, I don't know. Maybe the rest of my life. I don't think much of the lady and from what I can see, not many people do. All but two of my Conservative friends think she's doing their cause a lot more harm than good…and the two who profess to like her are doing an unconvincing (to me) job of it. The same two folks don't convince me they really wish George W. Bush was still president, either. There are exceptions to this but it seems to me that Liberals are a lot better than Conservatives at admitting when their "leaders" disappoint them. We may, in fact, be too good at it.

Anyway, a reader of this site who asked not to be credited sent me a message that suggested I look up "rogue" in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. I did…and I've copied that listing for your edification. Makes you wonder if Ms. Palin even knows what the word means, doesn't it?

The latest Gallup Poll says approval of Congress is creeping up slightly…from the previous 21% approval to a whopping 26% approval. If you had a restaurant where only 26% of your customers approved of the food, you'd burn the place down for the insurance money.

But the thing is: I don't know what the 68% disapproval rating means because the pollsters don't ask that question. How many of the disapprovers are mad about the direction Congress seems to be heading in and how many are mad about that they aren't there yet? My friend Roger is pissed at Congress because he thinks it's going to pass Health Care Reform. I'm ticked because I think they're going to pass a watered-down, ineffective bill that will help the big insurance and pharmaceutical companies a lot more than it'll help people who are suffering. I'm also annoyed they haven't done even that so far.

We both disapprove and if asked by a pollster, that's what we'd say. Why don't more pollsters try to separate out those kinds of disapproval?