Category Archives: Current Events

As Gene Lyons notes, Fox News isn't even pretending to be "fair and balanced" any longer. Then again, I never felt they really expected anyone outside their target audience to believe that.

Since I'm posting a lot of Python stuff, I thought I oughta link to this article in the New York Times which I missed a week or two ago. It's a piece by Charles McGrath that focuses on the inner structure of the group…and it doesn't ask them where the name "Monty Python" came from.

The Army is boasting that its recruitment drives are going well and they're exceeding expectations. But according to Fred Kaplan, that's only being accomplished by lowering expectations…and also the standards for what they'll accept.

Matt Taibbi uncovers the counterfeiting scheme that contributed to the destruction of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and much of our economy. And of course, no one's doing anything yet to punish the criminals or even prevent someone else from doing the same thing.

Bruce Bartlett was one of the creators of Supply Side Economics — the theory that cutting taxes will stimulate the economy and lead to increased revenues. He thinks it worked well enough back in the Reagan era but has outlived its effectiveness. Here's a money quote…

During the George W. Bush years, however, I think SSE became distorted into something that is, frankly, nuts — the ideas that there is no economic problem that cannot be cured with more and bigger tax cuts, that all tax cuts are equally beneficial, and that all tax cuts raise revenue.

These incorrect ideas led to the enactment of many tax cuts that had no meaningful effect on economic performance. Many were just give-aways to favored Republican constituencies, little different, substantively, from government spending. What, after all, is the difference between a direct spending program and a refundable tax credit? Nothing, really, except that Republicans oppose the first because it represents Big Government while they support the latter because it is a "tax cut."

I'm not convinced Bartlett is entirely right about this. I've always felt that Supply Side was never much more than double-talk to justify cutting taxes for the wealthy and shifting their share of the burden to the lower and middle classes. But I think he's correct that if it ever worked, that was long ago…and that the Republican party still thinks it can engage in just as much spending as the Democrats it compares to drunken sailors, and still lower taxes on the rich.

Robert Elisberg on Obama's Nobel. Sometimes, I don't think most Republican leaders hate Obama so much as they just hate not being in power…and don't see any other weapon at their disposal than to keep on fanning the rages of the Rush/Glenn Beck/birther mob.

Randy Cohen, a former writer for David Letterman, discusses an interesting aspect to this former employer's inter-office trysts. What does it do to the mood of a workplace when the boss — and in Dave's case, a boss who's not going to be replaced or overruled by a superior — is involved with one or more staff members?

One point: I doubt Letterman was putting any staff member on-camera because he was involved with them. With a couple of exceptions like Johnny Dark, I think Dave is just more comfortable with amateurs and with folks who are never going to get a laugh on their own.

Bruce Kluger argues — and in a way, I agree — that David Letterman is successfully handling his sex scandal via sheer candor, as opposed to certain politicians who made things worse by lying or stonewalling. True…but then again, what happens with a politician's sex scandal is that the faces of his opposition light up and say, "Ah, we can use this to our advantage!" And suddenly, he's given them a weapon by which to perhaps drive him from office or tar his party or causes or whatever. Letterman doesn't have Conan O'Brien looking to exploit this matter, nor could Conan likely gain any yardage because of it. If anything, talking about it drives viewers to Dave's show. The Mark Sanfords of the world didn't see their ratings go up.

The Washington Post, once so despised by Richard Nixon, has morphed into a (somewhat) right-wing newspaper. It's also becoming damn sloppy with facts. Yesterday, trying to argue that President Obama was undeserving of the Nobel Peace Prize, they offered an alternative. It should have gone, they insisted, to the late Neda Agha-Soltan, who died a publicized, defiant death during the Iranian uprising. You could certainly make the case for her to have gotten the award instead…except for the fact that, as James Fallows notes, the Nobel Prize rules prohibit posthumous honors. Why is an editorial about the Nobel Prize being written by someone who didn't do the five minutes of research necessary to find that out?

Frank Rich reminds us — and boy, do we need to keep this in mind — that in matters relating to Afghanistan and Iraq and where we should deploy our military — John McCain has been wrong an amazing 100% of the time. So have a lot of Republicans, neo-con or otherwise, but McCain is in permanent residence on the Sunday talk shows where he does a good job of sounding reasonable and moderate and prudent as he tells us how best to get our troops killed and to make things worse overseas.

Joe Conason is probably my favorite political-type commentator and reporter. During the Clinton scandals, he was one of the few voices out there pointing out how things like Whitewater and Filegate were ginned-up scandals based on nothing, just to smear Bill and Hillary and to make some of the scandal-mongers very wealthy. Ken Starr did everything in his power to sculpt those allegations (and Travelgate and the death of Vince Foster) into something indictable and couldn't. They finally found something to "get" Clinton with but it was something pretty petty, contrived and none of anyone's business.

The notion that Bill 'n' Hillary had committed crimes in Whitewater had about as much solid evidence behind it as the charge that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. That it went a lot farther — special prosecutor, talk of impeachment and/or imprisonment for that — had a lot to do with the so-called Liberal Media leaping on the allegations and giving them credibility. In the above-linked piece, Conason reminds us of how that happened…and suggests that those who were so wrong about the Clintons need to answer for their bad reporting. And since some of them are still in a position to do the same thing with Obama — and since his enemies are determined to treat every breath he takes as an impeachable offense — we need to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Mark Yost sings the praises of the great broadcaster, Vin Scully.

Tad Friend profiles show biz reporter Nikki Finke. I find Ms. Finke to be very, very good at breaking stories about studio heads and super agents and megastars; not as facile at evaluating the content of what they make. I also like that she rarely seems to commit the big sin of those who cover her beat, which is to report on any two-sided argument by taking the side of whoever is leaking to her.

Joe Conason reminds us that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that spread so many outright lies about Bill Clinton is still alive and well and aiming the same tactics at Barack Obama. And you know something? These people will always be around as long as there's tons o' money to be made doing that.

Fred Kaplan on whether or not a nuclear treaty with Iran is possible. Or desirable.