Nothing makes for a pleasant Wednesday evening like Mickey worrying about his Halloween costume.

Quoting ~GW~: Hey Bob,

Vanilla Sky was made after Almost Famous!

Oh, right--I stated my theory backwards. It's Almost
Famous that critics raved about and hailed as a likely blockbuster but that then did not-so-great at the box office, and my theory is that critics didn't want to go out on a limb for Cameron Crowe a second time, which is why Vanilla Sky got not-so-great reviews. So if you play this clip backwards, it's true!

Wow, here's a huge precedent shattered!

If Mickey wants a high-concept costume, he should go as a "death panel."

Or how about going as the Public Option?

Bob very artfully mentioned that "some" people might just hide feeds from their "friends" on the facebook as they are not really their friends but rather mere fans. I have a strong feeling that Bob is actively practicing this himself on the Facebook and for some reason not willing to admit it. I do not have any problem with this practice per se but why the charade? Dang it! I feel like Mickey, the conspiracy theorist. PS. Didn't Mickey look and sound little down today than his usual "kick ass" self?

Bob Wright's default foreign policy advice to US presidents: whatever the situation, assume the fetal position! (And while I can't be bothered to research this, I'm guessing that back in the day Bob cited Gen. Shinseki against Bush, but now Gen. McChrystal's opinion counts for nothing. Sigh.)

Quoting AemJeff: Wow, here's a huge precedent shattered!

totally

Suggested reading for Bob, the last sentient American to recognize that the NY Times is easily as ideological as Fox News: 1) from noted wingnut Mark Halperin: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html; 2) ACORN story spiked to benefit Obama: http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...547489394.txt; 3) the McCain affair innuendo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mc...on_questioned; and 4) http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...s_McCain_Op-Ed.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Suggested reading for Bob, the last sentient American to recognize that the NY Times is easily as ideological as Fox News: 1) from noted wingnut Mark Halperin: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15885.html; 2) ACORN story spiked to benefit Obama: http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...547489394.txt; 3) the McCain affair innuendo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mc...on_questioned; and 4) http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...s_McCain_Op-Ed.

Wow, that's a devastating argument. I'm convinced! Edit: FWIW the Politico is broken.

Quoting AemJeff: Wow, that's a devastating argument. I'm convinced!

Read the stuff.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Read the stuff.

I did. This is partisan stuff, not analysis.

Quoting AemJeff: I did. This is partisan stuff, not analysis.

Mark Halperin, rabid partisan. Good grief.

Mickey, if you can find an M16 rifle, you can go as the surge.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Mark Halperin, rabid partisan. Good grief.

Heh. Politico. The Philadelphia Bulletin. (I've been around here long enough to remember when it was respectable paper.) Drudge via LGF. Who are you kidding?

To argue one point Bob makes, the proximity of American forces would make it easy, both physically and politically, to destroy anything resembling a training camp. To do this from outside the country would be harder,and would cause an international brouhaha.

To argue another point Bob makes, one should worry that there are sources of income in Afghanistan (the opium trade) that could enrich the Taliban to the point where they could actually bring down the government of Pakistan in a couple of years. The recent bombings are an omen. Despite my hawkish comments, I'm not sold on plan "A". This is a problem without a good answer. Maybe there's no rational answer at all. Standing back and letting things go to hell is as bad as staying in and causing things go to hell. --- Added: Kristof makes a strong argument this morning about how to stay in Afghanistan.

Quoting jeffpeterson: Mark Halperin, rabid partisan. Good grief.

You mean "Mark 'This is Excellent News For John McCain' Halperin." Only a wingnut thinks Halperin isn't a thorough establishmentarian.

Quoting bjkeefe: You mean "Mark 'This is Excellent News For John McCain' Halperin."

Only a wingnut thinks Halperin isn't a thorough establishmentarian.

Yeah, Halperin and the Establishment were solidly behind McCain.

One reason politics seems to be more and more divided and partisan is because 'democracy' is a trump card in the morality game. People in society show self-constraint: no one would dare to tell their neighbors how they should live their lives. But, if they can get politicians to tell their neighbors how they should live their lives, then that's ok, because politicians are "democratically" elected. You play enough of these trump cards and people start to get upset. Politicians in effect constantly operate outside of the rule-of-law. In a sense they do have 'magical' powers. They can afford to behave in ways that ordinary citizens cannot. As the number of state-employees (or de facto state employees, through govt contracts or bailouts) grows, society gets divided in citizens of class A and citizens of class B. Recently in CA it was found out that more than a million of state employees had special license-plates that were shielded from red-light cameras and various other tech for traffic violations.
The way Obama's czars are running very large firm right now, giving our hard earned money to some of the richest men on earth, well, only a

"Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.” - Campaign mode Obama "This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." - Obama in Aug 2009 "You know, I don't - I don't make these decisions based on polls or popularity. I make the decisions based on what I think is best" Obama on military decisions - Feb 2009 Bob seems to go off the rails with his tirade against more troops, morale and McCrystal's frustration with a dithering CIC. Was Bob as vocal in his admission that the surge worked or in his condemnation of the Iraq Generals who were leaking info?

Quoting jeffpeterson: Suggested reading for Bob.......

Nice links. Obama has run so far from ACORN that it's understandable why he wants to control the media and why Fox News is a bigger enemy than the Taliban, South American dictators and terrorists. The Times

Quoting Simon Willard: there are sources of income in Afghanistan (the opium trade) that could enrich the Taliban to the point where they could actually bring down the government of Pakistan in a couple of years.

What? The opium trade can't buy an outhouse. Afghans have been overproducing for years, and they're on the worst end of the heroin trade. Just because this crop brings in more than wheat doesn't mean it's a cash cow. Plus, the Taliban are ideologically divided over opium: they eliminated poppies when they controlled Afghanistan and tolerate them now only because their backs are against the wall. Besides, it's not at all clear that the Taliban care about Pakistan enough to want to topple its government.

Earth to Bob regarding MSNBC: It's not just Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Contessa Brewer, Dan Abrams, Lawrence O'Donnell are all Conservative haters and Obama shills. Bob's nuance that the NYTimes isn't liberal because Bush was such an idiot is staggeringly simple-minded and partisanship-over-reason. And an opinion page of Maureen Dowd, Gail Collins, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Tom Friedman and token faux-conservatives such as David Brooks and Ross Douhat is not balanced. The reason the WSJ is gaining readers while other papers flounder is because enough readers realize they are still getting mostly unbiased reporting.

I thought Mickey did a good job. He called out for Wright for having no plan but the status quo in Afghanistan.

Quoting Ray: What? The opium trade can't buy an outhouse. Afghans have been overproducing for years, and they're on the worst end of the heroin trade. Just because this crop brings in more than wheat doesn't mean it's a cash cow.

Plus, the Taliban are ideologically divided over opium: they eliminated poppies when they controlled Afghanistan and tolerate them now only because their backs are against the wall.

Besides, it's not at all clear that the Taliban care about Pakistan enough to want to topple its government.

But how much cash does it take to fight this kind of asymmetrical war? You can make great changes with car bombs and fanatics with rifles. The assumption here is that American withdrawal leads to lawlessness, or at least widespread corruption, and a porous Afg/Pak border. If Afghanistan should become an orderly Taliban society, with a high fence and border patrols, then my comment does not stand.

So according Robert Wright...news organizations could bad (sometimes untrue) stories about Bush because he hated him. However, Fox News can't say anything bad about Obama. Wow, Bob, you are consistent.

Quoting freedomforall: So according Robert Wright...news organizations could bad (sometimes untrue) stories about Bush because he hated him. However, Fox News can't say anything bad about Obama.

Wow, Bob, you are consistent.

I don't think you've quite caught the spirit of the idea. Fox can say anything it wants, within constitutional bounds. The Administration is similarly free to engage with whom it pleases.

Yeah..but Wright's juvenile response to Kaus when he brought up the point that the media went after Bush with hostility his response was "Well Bush was bad." Alright. Well then Wright shouldn't be surprised when the media go after Obama. The hostile media set the precedent during the Bush years.

Quoting freedomforall: I thought Mickey did a good job. He called out for Wright for having no plan but the status quo in Afghanistan.

And I think you didn't watch the DV. Wright made a policy prescription: have McCrystal engage in COIN on a small-scale basis to prove that it works. Only after that should we consider sending 40,000 young Americans there. Kaus, by contrast, had very little to add to the discussion. Generally: good diavlog! Good to have the Wright Stuff back - definitely preferable to the Wrong Wright.

Quoting freedomforall: Yeah..but Wright's juvenile response to Kaus when he brought up the point that the media went after Bush with hostility his response was "Well Bush was bad." Alright. Well then Wright shouldn't be surprised when the media go after Obama. The hostile media set the precedent during the Bush years.

I think that phenomenon may have a bit more history than that. And not quite as polarized as conservatives seem to believe. Reagan got great press for much of time on office. Nixon, of course had Agnew. Clinton was generally not treated well. GWB had a period of amazing press coverage followed by completely dismal relationship with the press. The pattern just isn't partisan, and O's presidency is too young to draw conclusions.

You are right this type of rancor in political discourse has been around for a long while. I just find it amusing that Wright would dare to argue (paraphrasing) "Well Bush deserved it and Obama doesn't."

Quoting Robert Wright: Oh, right--I stated my theory backwards. It's Almost
Famous that critics raved about and hailed as a likely blockbuster but that then did not-so-great at the box office, and my theory is that critics didn't want to go out on a limb for Cameron Crowe a second time, which is why Vanilla Sky got not-so-great reviews. So if you play this clip backwards, it's true!

Vanilla Sky, a great movie? I bow to no one in my affection for Tom Cruise - I think he's one of the most underrated actors of his generation - but your review of VS is pushing even my limits. It's been a while since I've seen it, but, if I recall correctly, it featured one of the most idiotic endings of all time. For a similar-era Cruise film that may actually qualify as great, may I recommend Minority Report?

Quoting harkin: Bob's nuance that the NYTimes isn't liberal because Bush was such an idiot is staggeringly simple-minded and partisanship-over-reason.

No. First, it's not nuance. Second, it's just reason. The NYTimes (as do most news media) covers over the utter insanity of the right-wing by pretending it has some kind of reasonable position. The Times fails in its duty to report news accurately by simply presenting right-wing claims as if they have something to do with reality. In Bush's case, the man was simply so delusional that any presentation of his views or actions, no matter how whitewashed, came off looking like a hatchet job. About the worst thing you could do to Bush is open a window on him. I'm not sure why Bob thinks the Times went after Bush at all. The Times sold the Iraq war. It's a center-right paper. That's why the Times supports Obama: he is himself center-right.

Shocking that Bob never mentions the safety of the American soldiers in Afg in the presentation of his policy ideas. While Obama thinks and thinks and thinks some more about what to do in Afg, American soldiers continue to be killed over there. Increase the number of snipers watching for roadside bomb planting activity. Install and monitor a network of electronic sensors in the areas where soldiers are patroling. Dismissing the request for more troops by saying "generals always want more" is simplistic democrat talk.

No mea culpa /retraction from Bob on ACORN?
"They tried it in Philadelphia and this woman turned out to be the picture of integrity and called the cops on them"
Turns out ACORN lied again.
Caught on Tape! Media Matters Totally PWNED - Truth Deficit for ACORN's Katherine Conway Russell!
Or will Bob use the Media Matters defense?
Media Matters: Never Mind About All Those Facts... We Have a Police Report!

THANK YOU! Actually what I was trying to say but you it said much more eloquently

I don't know if Robert Wrights reads these forums since they are overwhelming populated by neo-cons.... but hey Bob! You are completely right on Afghanistan! And Mickey, you are wrong!

Define neo-con please.

Quoting Blackadder: If Mickey wants a high-concept costume, he should go as a "death panel."

The concept art is already made
Some tweaks could be to add the prefix senior citizen to random names on the scythe, with the occasional grandma/grandpa And he needs twin puppets attached to him, a similarly dressed/scythed Pelosi to one side, and Hillary on the other.
Now that I think about it, this may not be high concept enough, it is sort of "gettable" and based on the past Mickey costumes he mentioned I am not sure it fits.

well on these forums, I would define all the rah-rah for continued war-making in the middle east (and as I suspect, anywhere else) as neo-con.

Quoting Robert Wright: Oh, right--I stated my theory backwards. It's Almost
Famous that critics raved about and hailed as a likely blockbuster but that then did not-so-great at the box office, and my theory is that critics didn't want to go out on a limb for Cameron Crowe a second time, which is why Vanilla Sky got not-so-great reviews. So if you play this clip backwards, it's true!

I'm with you on Vanilla Sky, Bob. It was a terrific movie. For some reason, I always find Tom Cruise entertaining when he's in quirky/artsy films like Vanilla Sky, Magnolia, and Eyes Wide Shut, where he's been a consistent critical and box-office failure... but I flat-out can't bring myself to see him as a credible action hero, and for some reason his awful action flicks make money hand over fist. Go figure.

Quoting freedomforall: Define neo-con please.

From Andrew Cockburn's book on Rumsfeld: ...Bush 43 still sometimes drew on his father's wide knowledge of the world. Though he refused to read newspapers, he was aware of criticism that his administration had been excessively beholden to a particular clique, and wanted to know more about them. One day during that holiday, according to friends of the family, 43 asked his father, "What's a neocon?" "Do you want names, or a description?" answered 41. "Description." "Well," said the former president of the United States, "I'll give it to you in one word: Israel."

Quoting Tara Davis: For some reason, I always find Tom Cruise entertaining when he's in quirky/artsy films like Vanilla Sky, Magnolia, and Eyes Wide Shut, where he's been a consistent critical and box-office failure... but I flat-out can't bring myself to see him as a credible action hero, and for some reason his awful action flicks make money hand over fist. Go figure.

I thought TC was perfectly cast in "Rain Man." I mildly enjoyed the first "Mission:Impossible" movie, although I do agree with you that he wasn't credible in that role. I think he was carried by the rest of the cast -- Jean Reno and Ving Rhames are two of my favorite actors -- and the action of the movie itself. As to the money made, yeah. What can we say except, following Mencken, that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people?

The war in terror has been a disaster for the people of Iraq, Afghanistan and now the people of Pakistan. The allied military and the streets of Europe have also suffered. On September the 12th the Taliban diplomat to Pakistan condemend the 9/11 attacks. There was even a diplomatic effort made to get the Taliban to turn over OBL to the Pakistanis for trial. How different the world may look today if this avenue had been succesful. Besides the divisons between between the Taliban and Al-Queda there were opposition elements within Al-Queda which supposedly viewed the 9/11 attacks as a tactical mistake which jeopardized their Afghan operating bases. My understanding is that the Taliban are essentially nationalists, while Al-Queda are transnationalists. George Bush opted to expand rather than contact the battlefield, giving the transnationalists a larger playing field. Let's not forget that according to the 9/11 commission Bush and Co had decided to oust the Taliban prior to the 9/11 attacks if they did not had over OBL.

Quoting bjkeefe: I thought TC was perfectly cast in "Rain Man."

Yes! He was superb - and really outshone the "Look at me! Look at me!" antics of Hoffman.

Quoting nikkibong: Vanilla Sky, a great movie? I bow to no one in my affection for Tom Cruise - I think he's one of the most underrated actors of his generation - but your review of VS is pushing even my limits. It's been a while since I've seen it, but, if I recall correctly, it featured one of the most idiotic endings of all time.

For a similar-era Cruise film that may actually qualify as great, may I recommend Minority Report?

What'd you think of Born on the 4th of July? Personally, I thought it was masterful. But I was pretty young when I saw it; perhaps it's full of flaws that I was oblivious to at the time.

Quoting TwinSwords: What'd you think of Born on the 4th of July?

Personally, I thought it was masterful. But I was pretty young when I saw it; perhaps it's full of flaws that I was oblivious to at the time.

Me too, I think it's excellent. But then again, I like to think I still qualify as pretty young.

Quoting AemJeff: I think that phenomenon may have a bit more history than that. And not quite as polarized as conservatives seem to believe. Reagan got great press for much of time on office. Nixon, of course had Agnew. Clinton was generally not treated well. GWB had a period of amazing press coverage followed by completely dismal relationship with the press. The pattern just isn't partisan, and O's presidency is too young to draw conclusions.

Yes. And something else that FFA may not realize is that GWB, the cowboy, also had extremely positive press coverage until, really, Katrina. That year, 2005, was when it all fell apart. Bush barely won reelecton the year before (by manipulating public opinion with false terror alerts and a billion dollar blizzard of FUD and lies.) And immediately following that victory, he started arrogantly posturing about "I gots me some political cap-i-tal. And I intends to spend it!" Then he went right into his Social Security Destruction project, you know, the Republican scheme to transfer the retirement savings of hundreds of millions of Americans to wealthy Wall Street investment bankers. That didn't go down well. Then, after the miraculous defeat of Bush's plan to loot Social Security, Cindy Sheehan emerged: that was

Clinton got closer to nailing OBL than Bush from outside the country, well that's what I hear.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Clinton got closer to nailing OBL than Bush from outside the country.

do you really want to put "Clinton" and "nailing" in the same sentence?

Good one, I'm sure there is an obvious bj reference that would normally go here, if not for the new comments policy.

Quoting bjkeefe: I thought TC was perfectly cast in "Rain Man."

I mildly enjoyed the first "Mission:Impossible" movie, although I do agree with you that he wasn't credible in that role. I think he was carried by the rest of the cast -- Jean Reno and Ving Rhames are two of my favorite actors -- and the action of the movie itself.

As to the money made, yeah. What can we say except, following Mencken, that no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people?

As I am sure you know, the exact quote is: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. I suppose intelligence and taste are related. As Stendhal said: Le mauvais goût mène au crime. Bad taste leads to crime.

Quoting Ray: From Andrew Cockburn's book on Rumsfeld:

...Bush 43 still sometimes drew on his father's wide knowledge of the world. Though he refused to read newspapers, he was aware of criticism that his administration had been excessively beholden to a particular clique, and wanted to know more about them. One day during that holiday, according to friends of the family, 43 asked his father, "What's a neocon?"

"Do you want names, or a description?" answered 41.

"Description."

"Well," said the former president of the United States, "I'll give it to you in one word: Israel."

I knew I couldn't get a definition of neo-con without a mention of Israel. I bet you are one of those that believes that Israel controls our foreign policy. Sigh. How ignorant.

Quoting freedomforall: I knew I couldn't get a definition of neo-con without a mention of Israel. I bet you are one of those that believes that Israel controls our foreign policy. Sigh. How ignorant.

How do you define neo-con?

Quoting nikkibong: Me too, I think it's excellent. But then again, I like to think I still qualify as pretty young.

True, you are, but you're much more knowledgable about film than I was when I saw it. (Or am now, for that matter.)

Mickey doesn't really have the Uncanny Valley quite right. It's not about a spectrum from something like werewolves, to zombies, to humans. It's specfically about things that are anthropomorphic -- things that attempt to give the impression of being human. Video game or cartoon characters that look completely unhuman -- e.g. with the big-eyes-small-mouth anime look -- are interesting to watch, and we can even get emotionally invested in their stories. And of course, we all enjoy watching actual humans on film, or looking at them in pictures. But in between, when you have a robot or an animated character that looks almost-but-not-quite human, your brain gets a sense of WRONG-ness from looking at them. You might be able to portray the Valley by wearing a thin latex mask (maybe latex gloves, too), and moving and speaking in a slightly stilted manner. If you can find any clips from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "I Was Made To Love You", the robot in that speaks in an unnaturally crisp manner that triggers the "whoa, that's creepy" response. And of course, there's always HAL's speaking style.

Quoting Tara Davis: I'm with you on Vanilla Sky, Bob. It was a terrific movie.

For some reason, I always find Tom Cruise entertaining when he's in quirky/artsy films like Vanilla Sky, Magnolia, and Eyes Wide Shut, where he's been a consistent critical and box-office failure... but I flat-out can't bring myself to see him as a credible action hero, and for some reason his awful action flicks make money hand over fist. Go figure.

Have you seen War of the Worlds? Granted, the movie itself is an appalling mess: what with the the explicit 9/11 imagery, the ridiculous Tim Robbins role, the sadism in some of the shots (zooming in on crying women being vaporized etc.), the abrupt eding, and the utterly needless Morgan Freeman narration. That being said, Cruise is SPECTACTULAR in the movie. I was blown away.

I'm not sure. I think I've heard Norman Podhoretz define it is as former liberals who were scared off from the Democratic Party by the New Left. They usually don't have any problems with the New Deal and Great Society progams. I know it is used by Leftests as some conspiratorial non-sense. It basically used by libs as "war mongers." Stay classy.

Quoting freedomforall: I knew I couldn't get a definition of neo-con without a mention of Israel. I bet you are one of those that believes that Israel controls our foreign policy. Sigh. How ignorant.

Quoting TwinSwords: How do you define neo-con?

Quoting freedomforall: I'm not sure.

The mind reels.

Quoting freedomforall: I'm not sure. I think I've heard Norman Podhoretz define it is as former liberals who were scared off from the Democratic Party by the New Left. They usually don't have any problems with the New Deal and Great Society progams.

I know it is used by Leftests as some conspiratorial non-sense. It basically used by libs as "war mongers." Stay classy.

Do you consider yourself a neocon? You might be able to learn some interesting history about neoconservatism (as well as some contemporary details) from this remarkable BBC broadcast: — The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear I'd be interested to hear what others in the forum think of this film. Here is the film's the Wikipedia page. From the article:

Part 1: "Baby It's Cold Outside"

The first part of the series explains the origin of Islamism and Neo-Conservatism. It shows Egyptian civil servant Sayyid Qutb, depicted as the founder of modern Islamist thought, visiting the U.S. to learn about the education system, but becoming disgusted with what he saw as a corruption of morals and virtues in western society through individualism. When he returns to Egypt, he is disturbed by

Quoting TwinSwords: Do you consider yourself a neocon?

You might be able to learn some interesting history about neoconservatism (as well as some contemporary details) from this remarkable BBC broadcast:

— The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

I'd be interested to hear what others in the forum think of this film.

Here is the film's the Wikipedia page. From the article:

I couldn't get into it, but I really enjoyed Curtis's other big series, "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tra...mentary_series)

Quoting TwinSwords: How do you define neo-con?

There's really two neocons, 1) the old Public Interest crowd, a mixed bunch of social policy types that don't really fit into neat boxes (Daniel Patrick Moynihan for example), and 2) the warmongering types we're all familiar with. There's some continuity through Irving Kristol, but they're since they're separated by about 30 years there's not much they have in common. Everybody should just refer to the old Public Interest crowd as "the old Public Interest crowd" because nobody except Reihan Salam gives a shit about them anymore. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...eoconservative

Not really since the cruise missiles hit an abandoned camp.

Wow! Deus ex machina!

The term has been watered down to mean "people who are for foreign intervention pretty much all the time". It's become pretty useless to describe contemporary political debate, but that doesn't mean that neocons are not for foreign intervention pretty much all the time.

Did these two get ANYTHING correct in the first 15 minutes? Good lord.

gen. mcchrystal was one of the foremost experts of counterterrorism. from 2003-2007 he implemented that strategy in iraq, search and destroy w/ light footprint. isn't it odd bob that he is now proposing the opposite in afghanistan--Counter insurgensy? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0803132_2.html

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Wow! Deus ex machina!

And Bob so loved the commenters that he shed his earthy body and ascended into the forum to dwell among them. This story sounds vaguely familiar... but backwards somehow.

Quoting Robert Wright: Oh, right--I stated my theory backwards. It's Almost
Famous that critics raved about and hailed as a likely blockbuster but that then did not-so-great at the box office, and my theory is that critics didn't want to go out on a limb for Cameron Crowe a second time, which is why Vanilla Sky got not-so-great reviews. So if you play this clip backwards, it's true!

Your theory seems to suggest that critics care if their reviews are correlated with box-office results. I think Transformers 2 proves that they couldn't care less. Even if your theory was true, shouldn't the critics' ire have been directed at the viewing-public and not at Mr. Crowe? Still an interesting theory though!

Quoting Francoamerican: As I am sure you know, the exact quote is: No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. I suppose intelligence and taste are related. As Stendhal said: Le mauvais goût mène au crime. Bad taste leads to crime.

"Public," not "people." At least according to the link I offered (repeated). But thanks. And thanks for the Stendhal line, too.

Quoting nikkibong: Yes! He was superb - and really outshone the "Look at me! Look at me!" antics of Hoffman.

Don't agree with that at all. Both played their roles well, and played off each other well, I thought.

Quoting Simon Willard: And Bob so loved the commenters that he shed his earthy body and ascended into the forum to dwell among them.

This story sounds vaguely familiar... but backwards somehow.

Nicely done.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Good one, I'm sure there is an obvious bj reference that would normally go here, if not for the new comments policy.

And the fact that some loudmouth commenter would probably take it personally.

The Obama people messed up their war with Fox, because I believe the thing that set them off was when Fox was the only network that DID NOT broadcast Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on health care reform.
The Obama people had a very legitimate reason to want to extract a pound of flesh from Fox for that unprofessional, disrespectful, irresponsible and BIASED behavior.
The best way for the Obama people to react to that would have been some way that would magnify the awfulness of Fox's behavior in not broadcasting that address. What the Obama people did instead was allow Fox's misbehavior in that specific incident get completely forgotten about while creating the perception that they (the Obama people) were pettily trying to suppress Freedom of the Press.

Yes, I agree. Fox behaves idiotically and sometimes grotesquely, and I have no problem with elected officials attempting to work the media in their favor (I just expect the media to push back, which we often fail to do). However, the Obama admin--in attempting to go after Fox--has done so in such an incompetent way that Fox is benefitting. Given that, one wonders if it was a battle worth picking at all.

How does the old political adage of "never punch down" or is it "only punch up" as it places you at the same level. But since there is no political institution more powerful the the President of the United States, in this hegemonic world, at least he took a swing; he missed, lost his balance and then got an counter punch to the chin from a minor opponent.

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Yes, I agree. Fox behaves idiotically and sometimes grotesquely, and I have no problem with elected officials attempting to work the media in their favor (I just expect the media to push back, which we often fail to do). However, the Obama admin--in attempting to go after Fox--has done so in such an incompetent way that Fox is benefitting. Given that, one wonders if it was a battle worth picking at all.

You got a better strategy? Let's hear it.

Quoting Markos: The Obama people messed up their war with Fox, because I believe the thing that set them off was when Fox was the only network that DID NOT broadcast Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on health care reform.
The Obama people had a very legitimate reason to want to extract a pound of flesh from Fox for that unprofessional, disrespectful, irresponsible and BIASED behavior.
The best way for the Obama people to react to that would have been some way that would magnify the awfulness of Fox's behavior in not broadcasting that address. What the Obama people did instead was allow Fox's misbehavior in that specific incident get completely forgotten about while creating the perception that they (the Obama people) were pettily trying to suppress Freedom of the Press.

I believe you are mistaken in believing that the WH's only concern with Fox was their refusal to cover the joint session. It likely has to do with the entire Fox News record, starting with peddling rumors last year that Obama was raised a Muslim in a radical, terrorist-training madrassah, through scores or hundreds of

Thanks twin for the link to the BBC documentary. I was only able to watch Pt. I, but I found it on the whole useful--- at least for a general public ignorant of the intellectual background of Islamism. However, the link between Leo Strauss and the neocons was, I think, exaggerated, giving far too much prominence to a scholar who wrote obscure and controversial commentaries on ancient, medieval and modern political philosophers with the avowed purpose of demonstrating that the ancients-- Plato and Aristotle above all---were superior to the moderns (starting with Machiavelli, Hobbes and Spinoza). There were of course personal links between the Straussians and the neocons, but the latter were (are) at best superior journalists whose thought, if you can call it that, is focussed on current affairs. They were propagandists who hitched their anti-liberal, anti-détente wagon to the most hawkish wing of the Republican party, but hardly if at all religious. Hence, I found the documentary's parallel between Islamists and neocons forced. Straussians may talk as if they thought that religion is good, indeed indispensable, for the masses. They are above such niaiseries (=contemptible silliness) themselves.

Yea and there are probably somewhat shy of 10% increase in FOX viewers now seeing the alternative voice. I don't believe that was what the White House was expecting for it's effort.

actually the way the "media" worked was like this: 1980s - fawn over reagan late80s/early 90s - look warm to bush sr. - probably the most balanced coverage of a president that i've seen. 1990s - war against clinton and the idea of "liberalism". completely rabid partisan media environment. 2000 - roll over and suck Bush's balls. lie, cheat and steal to get the country into war and push the oligarch's agenda. 2006 - see the writing on the wall - start criticizing Bush jr. and ramping up to be "critical" again since a democrat will be in office soon and the blatant felatio will no longer be seemly

Quoting nikkibong: The mind reels.

nice distillation of vapidity, nikki. careful the vapors don't knock you out.

Quoting Francoamerican:
However, the link between Leo Strauss and the neocons was, I think, exaggerated

I agree, there is a link between them, but not all of them were/are Straussians. Most notably the Kagans. Also you'd be hard pressed to find a blueprint for Democratic-Revolution in, say, "Natural Right and History". Maybe Allan Bloom was a bigger influence on the neocons, but I'm generally wary about the evil-philosopher-lurking-behind-all-sinister-political-actions argument.

Quoting piscivorous: Yea and there are probably somewhat shy of 10% increase in FOX viewers now seeing the alternative voice. I don't believe that was what the White House was expecting for it's effort.

Or was it the balloon boy? "In total day, Fox News averaged1,255,000 total viewers, up from 1,194,000 the week before and enough to rank as the #6 network in cable for the week. This may have been a result of the "Balloon Boy" coverage, which Fox News — anchored by Shep Smith — won by a wide margin."

got me there.

And here is my idea of the fair and balanced take on fox's policy on the executive branch vs. the "media".

Quoting piscivorous: got me there.

I was somewhat surprised myself. Cheers

Quoting Markos: The Obama people messed up their war with Fox, because I believe the thing that set them off was when Fox was the only network that DID NOT broadcast Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on health care reform.

but markos and preppy, FOXNEWS DID broadcast the obama healthcare speech address in congress. it was FOX the entertainment channel that decided to run "so you think you can dance". so again, why is the white house and it's followers waging war on FOXNEWS based on THAT when FOXNEWS carried obama's speech? here's example of faux outrage from the left, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLyNLOK1DPw (watch how rove smacked down mcauliffe) http://themoderatevoice.com/47021/wh...nore-fox-news/

Quoting claymisher: You got a better strategy? Let's hear it.

I think liberal watchdog groups and mainstream journalists--who are equally incensed by Fox, for different reasons--should be calling them out as dishonest and as not quite a news organization. Some are doing so; some could be doing so more vociferously. We could be chucking Fox reporters who cross the reporting/opinion line out of industry trade groups, for example. Granted, liberal watchdog groups are unlikely to persuade those who already watch Fox, which puts the major onus on the rest of the journalism profession to produce real news programming that can reach the Fox audience. The White House has every right to deny Fox interviews with the President or his senior officials or even to quietly squeeze them out of routine press events. That's an aggressive media strategy, but presidents have done it that way before. When a Fox reporter asks a REALLY egregious question at a press conference, Robert Gibbs can and should laugh it off. Or just not call on that reporter the next day. But I don't think the WH should be actively and publicly chastising the network. It only gives them

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: I think liberal watchdog groups and mainstream journalists--who are equally incensed by Fox, for different reasons--should be calling them out as dishonest and as not quite a news organization. Some are doing so; some could be doing so more vociferously. We could be chucking Fox reporters who cross the reporting/opinion line out of industry trade groups, for example.

Granted, liberal watchdog groups are unlikely to persuade those who already watch Fox, which puts the major onus on the rest of the journalism profession to produce real news programming that can reach the Fox audience.

The White House has every right to deny Fox interviews with the President or his senior officials or even to quietly squeeze them out of routine press events. That's an aggressive media strategy, but presidents have done it that way before. When a Fox reporter asks a REALLY egregious question at a press conference, Robert Gibbs can and should laugh it off. Or just not call on that reporter the next day.

But I don't think the WH should be actively and publicly chastising the network. It only gives them more viewers and allows them to

Quoting Toryentalist: I agree, there is a link between them, but not all of them were/are Straussians. Most notably the Kagans. Also you'd be hard pressed to find a blueprint for Democratic-Revolution in, say, "Natural Right and History". Maybe Allan Bloom was a bigger influence on the neocons, but I'm generally wary about the evil-philosopher-lurking-behind-all-sinister-political-actions argument.

Yes, of course. There is nothing in Strauss that points towards "regime change" by military action and all that nonsense. But Straussians, as I know from having met some of them, were a rather different breed. They were firmly persuaded that American liberalism was decadent, and they were fanatically anti-Soviet. The militarism of the neocons is in a direct line of descent from that kind of Straussianism.

I hate to keep harping on this issue, but... It seems to me that any president is within his (and someday, her) rights to, as Mr. Kaus said, refuse interviews with members of the media that they don't like. But the fact that so many people get their news from Fox means that the other networks must be missing something. And it's one thing to ignore people or organizations that one doesn't approve of; it's quite another for the president and his minions to condemn entire news organizations by name. If Bush had done the same thing to CNN or MSNBC you'd have had a zillion left-wing pundits decrying the death of press freedom in America. The silence of Fox's counterparts in the face of this onslaught (not to mention the actual cheer leading from some) is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. From my (limited) experience as a "media insider," I'd say the default political position of most newspapers and network news shows is solidly center-left. You can see it in the way stories are framed every single day. Just to give one example, CNN has an ongoing series of reports on the economy

Shorter rfrobison:

The media is liberally biased. You want proof? Here is one headline, to which I will now compare a hypothetical. QED.

P.S. Pay no attention to this headline. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Or this. And definitely none of these.

Hmm, well, I don't think I meant to say than the phrase "road to recovery" would never appear in the media other than in a pro-Obama context. And I confess to being nit-picky here, but a good number of the examples you cited were along the lines of "Bush says, blah, blah 'Road to Recovery,'" which isn't exactly refuting my contention. Of course one can always find examples of stories with a positive or negative spin to a particular news event and use that as "evidence" of bias. And I have enough faith in the professionalism of most journalists that I don't believe they go about their work with the thought, "Here's my ideological ax to grind, how can I best grind it today?" Nevertheless, I do think that the types of stories deemed newsworthy and the way that they are presented inevitably reflect the values, preferences, and predilections of the people in the newsroom. And much as you may deny it, those people are overwhelmingly left of center. Fine. But why not lay off the distinctly minority right-of-center media voices that are out there? I thought diversity was the sine qua non of American liberalism. Reminds me of that scene

Quoting rfrobison: Hmm, well, I don't think I meant to say that the phrase "road to recovery" would never appear in the media other that in a pro-Obama context. And I confess to being nit-picky here, but a good number of the examples you cited were along the lines of "Bush says, blah, blah 'Road to Recovery,'" which isn't exactly refuting my contention.

Of course one can always find examples of stories with a positive or negative spin to a particular news event and use that as "evidence" of bias. And I have enough faith in the professionalism of most journalists that I don't believe they go about their work with the thought, "Here's my ideological ax to grind, how can I best grind it today?"

Nevertheless, I do think that the types of stories deemed newsworthy and the way that they are presented inevitably reflect the values, preferences, and predilections of the people in the newsroom. And much as you may deny it, those people are overwhelmingly left of center.

Fine. But why not lay off the distinctly minority right of center media voices that are out there? I thought diversity was the sine qua non of American liberalism.

Reminds me of

Quoting bjkeefe: As I've said before, making sweeping claims about the media being "overwhelmingly left of center" can only be accepted as plausible if it is considered relative to the person saying it, and that person is very far out to the right. Somehow, given your report on your own work situation, where you see yourself as the only one out of ten to be conservative, I am inclined to think this applies.

I'm sorry, but other than that, I just don't accept your assertion, no matter how often you repeat it. The most I can buy is that most major players in the MSM lean a little "liberal" on some social issues; e.g., they tend to err on the side of political correctness, they convey an air of tolerance and acceptance towards minorities, they promote the arts and education, and they (usually, apart from 2001-2003) shy away from as jingoistic a tone as Real Patriotic Americans would like. But again, to act the opposite on any of these things would mean one was pretty far to the right.

I'll also note that the newsroom make-up does not tell the whole story (so survey data about reporters is of

Quoting rfrobison: I hate to keep harping on this issue, but...

Harp away! :-)

Quoting rfrobison: the fact that so many people get their news from Fox means that the other networks must be missing something.

No, they just tune in for the ideology. Besides, if the size of market share proved the merit of the ideological bent, then Fox News must be missing something, because its audiences are much smaller than those of the network news broadcasts, as well as NPR's All Things Considered and Morning Edition. For that matter, the New York Times must be missing something, because its sales are a tiny fraction of the National Enquirer's.

Quoting rfrobison: And it's one thing to ignore people or organizations that one doesn't approve of; it's quite another for the president and his minions to condemn entire news organizations by name. If Bush had done the same thing to CNN or MSNBC you'd have had a zillion left-wing pundits decrying the death of press freedom in America.

Bush did, in fact, name media organizations, including the New York Times and MSNBC. Sometimes it seems conservatives woke up after Obama was elected and forgot that they have been bashing the media

Couple of quick comments, then I'm off. Headed to the States today for a visit!

Quoting TwinSwords: Besides, if the size of market share proved the merit of the ideological bent, then Fox News must be missing something, because its audiences are much smaller than those of the network news broadcasts, as well as NPR's All Things Considered and Morning Edition. For that matter, the New York Times must be missing something, because its sales are a tiny fraction of the National Enquirer's.

I wasn't commenting on the merit of Fox News as an organization generally or their coverage of particular stories. I don't watch Fox myself. But the fact that they draw a large audience does seem to indicate a desire for news presented with a conservative slant. As for the rest, I don't know about your numbers, but the fact that the president of the United States and several of his top officials have gone out of their way to denounce Fox News would seem to fly in the face of the "Oh, they're not even important, why are you in such a snit?" thesis.

Bush did, in fact, name media organizations, including the New York

Quoting rfrobison: I wasn't commenting on the merit of Fox News as an organization generally or their coverage of particular stories.

You said "the fact that so many people get their news from Fox means that the other networks must be missing something, by which I assumed you were commenting on the quality of their reporting. I responded by saying, "No, they just tune in for the ideology." And from your latest clarification, it appears you agree:

Quoting rfrobison: I don't watch Fox myself. But the fact that they draw a large audience does seem to indicate a desire for news presented with a conservative slant.

So, we're agreed on this much, at least. I did consider responding to the rest of your post, but I don't see much point. When you compare a few mild criticisms of Fox News to "brass knuckles" and "Putin's Russia" and describe it as an attempt to "squelch dissent" and "freeze out" Fox News, it's clear that your understanding of this affair is so different from my own that there is nothing I will be able to say to allay your concerns. I assume you are yourself aware that there is very little truth to your characterization

Quoting rfrobison: I guess we're not going to come to a meeting of the minds on this one, BJ. And you're right, of course, that perceptions are perhaps more telling than "reality" when it comes to where the media falls generally on the ideological spectrum.

We're agreed that we won't fully agree. One minor quibble: I would say this is not so much a matter of "perception versus reality" as it is merely a case of perspective. Ultimately, as you indicate in describing your own workplace, whether another can be said to be to the right or the left depends almost entirely on where one stands.

As to your point about who owns newspapers vs. who makes them, while I don't discount that entirely, I would say that big media companies, like companies in every industry, care mostly about making money. They're as often as not willing to bend with the wind. If there's an audience for news with a certain flavor and nobody's speaking to that audience, then by God Rupert's gonna step into the breach and give them what they want.

Sure, we completely agree here. Most news outfits are run as profit-making businesses, which, while not a completely bad

Quoting TwinSwords: I did consider responding to the rest of your post, but I don't see much point. When you compare a few mild criticisms of Fox News to "brass knuckles" and "Putin's Russia" and describe it as an attempt to "squelch dissent" and "freeze out" Fox News, it's clear that your understanding of this affair is so different from my own that there is nothing I will be able to say to allay your concerns. I assume you are yourself aware that there is very little truth to your characterization of this affair, and I assume you are just resorting to some extra helpings of hyperbole so other readers can see how unhappy and scared you are. Which I understand. The first year of the Bush Administration was hell for a lot of liberals, and they, too, could be quite hysterical at times. You may not believe it today, but in 8 years I think you'll find that the First Amendment remains in full force, the the press as vibrant as ever.

To the charge of hyperbole, I plead guilty. As to the rest, sauce for the goose, I guess.

Quoting rfrobison: To the charge of hyperbole, I plead guilty. As to the rest, sauce for the goose, I guess.

Indeed. I have been known to blow some smoke myself, from time to time. Hope you enjoy your trip to the States!

Quoting TwinSwords: Indeed. I have been known to blow some smoke myself, from time to time. Hope you enjoy your trip to the States!

Thanks. "Maybe I'll be seeing you around." --Crocodile Dundee-- (or something like that)

Quoting rfrobison: All presidents get annoyed with media coverage.

True.

Quoting rfrobison: That's just a sign it's doing its job.

False. Or at least, not necessarily true. If saying things that annoyed were always a sign of "doing one's job," we would have no need for libel or slander laws.

Quoting rfrobison: But I do not recall Bush people saying things like the New York Times isn't a news organization, ...

Remember the "reality-based community" sneer? Indicative, at the very least. And come on, the NYT has been THE go-to symbol for the right's cries of "LIEBRUL BIAS," and this has been true for decades at least.

Quoting rfrobison: ... the RNC saying they were going to take on the "lies" of MSNBC, ...

As I've already pointed out, MSNBC is tiny in clout compared to Fox. This was even more the case a couple of years ago. And further, these days, if conservatives and Republicans are not holding up the NYT as the epitome of all that is unholy, the invariable second choice is MSNBC.

Quoting rfrobison: ... or administration officials trying to exclude CNN from pool reporting arrangements.

This is, I'm almost certain, factually wrong, or at least close to it. (I will hedge with the "almost" only because I don't feel like gathering up the evidence at the moment.) If it wasn't specifically

Quoting bjkeefe: This section is hysteria, plain and simple, and beneath you. I will excuse it only under the assumption that you dashed it off while thinking about catching your plane.

Already pleaded guilty to hyperbole. Not gonna cop to a hysteria charge. What's the punishment, anyway? Three to five years with nothing to read or listen to but Paul Krugman, Thomas Frank, and Robert Wright, I'm guessing. No deal, Judge. I am, however, gratified that you find some modes of argumentation beneath me. Will work on it if it will get me time off for good behavior. Say, nine days furlough in the States with little to no politics. Whaddya say?

Quoting rfrobison: I'm particularly distressed at the attitude of Preppy, who, as a journalist herself, ought to see the threat implied in such actions. In short, left or right, people who care about protecting the role of a critical media in a free society ought to be shouting from the rooftops that the Obama administration was wrong to subject Fox to the brass knuckles, and not just from a PR perspective.

Let me explain my view. I have always been taught--in both newsrooms and J-school classrooms--that the freedom of the press guarantees us freedom from active censorship of what we say, NOT the RIGHT to any information. So if the subjects of our inquiries choose to obstruct our pursuit of information, that's just an aggressive media strategy. [It's our public duty as reporters to fight back against that/outwit the obstructionists, of course, but they haven't actually violated our freedom of press.] That's why I accept that presidents--of all political flavors--routinely deny access to reporters. If the WH chooses to do that with Fox, fine. That's also why I DO agree that it's bad for them to actively chastise Fox for what they say once they say it. It's not illegal, because it's not active censorship, but it's not quite ethical. That said, I think what Fox produces these days borders on being not-quite-journalism, in that their opinion

Quoting PreppyMcPrepperson: Let me explain my view. I have always been taught--in both newsrooms and J-school classrooms--that the freedom of the press guarantees us freedom from active censorship of what we say, NOT the RIGHT to any information. So if the subjects of our inquiries choose to obstruct our pursuit of information, that's just an aggressive media strategy. [It's our public duty as reporters to fight back against that/outwit the obstructionists, of course, but they haven't actually violated our freedom of press.] That's why I accept that presidents--of all political flavors--routinely deny access to reporters. If the WH chooses to do that with Fox, fine.

Well put.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... but I think a few more viewers for Fox while they milk a nontroversy is trivial and transient. I think in the long run, there is more worth to the President and his spokespeople for having been unafraid to speak plainly. I also think it's good for the country.

It appears George W. Bush agrees. ;^)

Quoting rfrobison: And I have enough faith in the professionalism of most journalists that I don't believe they go about their work with the thought, "Here's my ideological ax to grind, how can I best grind it today?"

Fox News Journamalism Watch: Weigel via Kevin K./Rumproast.

Here are some pictures of other costumes Mickey could have worn on Halloween.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here are some pictures of other costumes Mickey could have worn on Halloween.

Sure, it's way late. But this costume post was too good not to pass along. (h/t: SEK/LG&M. See footnote there for an especially Kaus-like belief.)

Quoting bjkeefe: Here are some pictures of other costumes Mickey could have worn on Halloween.

LOL, those were great. Loved the Orly Taitz, and the Obamas' dog. :-D