image ripped from Jalopnik

Like many Americans, I watched the Superbowl and commercials with equal enthusiasm and enjoyed both. I thought the Clint Eastwood Chrysler ad at halftime was excellent. It never occurred to me that this was an overtly political ad, or endorsing Obama’s re-election, or supportive of corporate bail-outs. Who knew? Apparently I am not sufficiently politicized to recognize the offensive polarizing nature of the ad.

I naively saw the ad as simply a straight-line continuation of the theme and style of Chrysler’s excellent “Imported from Detroit” Eminem ad last year. [My Donk permissions do not permit me to embed the videos, but the 2011 Eminem ad is linked here and the 2012 Eastwood ad is linked here.]

Themes common to both ads include: Strength and resolve overcoming adversity; A focus on pride of place – (Detroit for Eminem – generalized to America with Eastwood); Dramatic uplifting music; A popular, way cool, instantly recognizable celebrity hinted at throughout the ad, emerging at the end, then dramatically delivering the money quote directly to the camera.

They are practically the same ad.

The purpose of advertising is to sell a product. The purpose of this ad is to sell Chrysler cars. Advertising sells cars by creating an image and cachet that buyers find attractive and associate with the car. This ad succeeds in this endeavor without ever showing the car.

Chrysler had\has an image problem. Along with GM, Chrysler suffered a serious black eye with the American public. Cerberus – the private equity firm that bought Chrysler from Daimler Benz cut its losses by means of of a government bailout and a managed bankruptcy with heavy handed terms dictated by the Obama administration. At the end of the day, Chrysler was purchased by Italian car manufacturer Fiat, mostly because no one else would buy it.

All of this was considered rather unseemly and distasteful to American car buyers at the time, but that was all in the past way back two years ago. Now we have a resurgent automobile industry with Chrysler cars “Imported form Detroit” creating jobs in America and competing with foreign manufacturers. Right? Well… not quite:

These ads are great because they succeed in wrapping Chrysler and their cars in the image of a resurgent Detroit and project a message of resilient Americans fighting out of an economic downturn – all delivered by respected and well-liked celebrity personalities.

If there is a political message to found here, it has nothing to do with the advertisement itself. The ad is doing exactly what any good ad should do. In fact, it does more - Memeorandum is tracking reactions, people are writing columns about it, it is being posted on blogs and social networks. Chrysler is getting more than their money’s worth from this spot.

The political problem is with the underlying company. The problem is with the moral hazard unleashed when they were bailed out with taxpayer money. The problem is with the subsequent heavy handed politically motivated machinations orchestrated by the Obama administration in the bankruptcy proceedings. I would not want to buy a car from that company.

I’d rather buy a car from that other company. That Halftime in America, Clint Eminem, Imported from Ohio Illinois Canada Mexico Detroit company. You know the one I mean… Fiat.

UPDATE:
You had to know this was coming. The Parody is linked here.

^{x-posted from “The Dividist Papers“}

So, as I was drinking my coffee and combing through my Facebook feed this morning (because I just don’t get the Google+ thing), I stumbled across this article and found it most interesting:

South Sudan has become the world’s newest nation, the climax of a process made possible by the 2005 peace deal that ended a long and bloody civil war.

Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon are among international dignitaries attending celebrations in the capital, Juba.

Sudan earlier became the first state to officially recognise its new neighbour.

The south’s independence follows decades of conflict with the north in which some 1.5 million people died.

Celebrations in Juba began at midnight (2100 GMT). A countdown clock in the city centre reached zero and the new national anthem was played on television.

South Sudan became the 193rd country recognised by the UN and the 54th UN member state in Africa.

However, despite all of the celebration, the new nation has some heavy challenges ahead:

The new country is rich in oil, but one of the least developed countries in the world, where one in seven children dies before the age of five.

Unresolved disputes between the north and south, particularly over the new border, have also raised the possibility of renewed conflict.

Still, independence rarely comes easily.

Now, call me crazy, but this seems like the type of news that I should have seen on the teevee or heard on the radio — not found haphazardly via a friend on Facebook.

Given our own nation’s tumultuous start in 1776, followed by a bloody war for independence against our colonial parent country, I would think that the story of South Sudan might have gotten a bit more attention in American media.

Then again, this was no Casey Anthony trial.

Apparently the irony was lost on the Mail Online editors when choosing the hook for this story:

It was pitched as a classic grudge match between the left and right of network television.

And when Daily Show host Jon Stewart entered the ‘lions den’ of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the results did not disappoint.

Despite trying to maintain his comedic detachment, Stewart lost his temper during the 15 minute interview as the two TV heavyweights battled over perceived liberal biased in the mainstream media.

Here’s the video. Tell me what you think. It’s worth watching the entire thing…

Is Stewart frustrated? Sure. Wallace shows a little frustration too. But did anybody lose their temper. Ummm…no.

But he doesn’t think they have a liberal agenda.

From Politico:

“”I think their bias is towards sensationalism and laziness. I wouldn’t say its towards a liberal agenda. It’s light fluff so it’s absolutely within the wheelhouse,” Stewart said. “”If your suggestion is that they’re restlessly partisan, then why haven’t they gone and backed away from [Rep. Anthony] Weiner?”

Or Bill Clinton…or Eliot Spitzer. The list goes on and on.

Listen, what the media loves the most is public, human frailty. On a whole, they live for that because that’s what we’ve demanded to see. So we’re all to blame with this.

So while it’s impossible to say who started it, as audience members we can all start ignoring the nonsense and try to focus on the issues. Because if not, the media will keep getting worse because it’ll become this never ending loop of perception-based reporting that only reinforces what we already think is the truth…because that’s what gets ratings…and that’s what advertisers want.

Just saying…

I wouldn’t want to be Donald Trump today. Ouch.

Obama’s part opened with the theme song “I Am A Real American,” and it just got worse for Trump from there. Trump jokes are at 9:45 in, but you’ll probably want to watch the whole thing.

And then SNL’s Seth Meyers weighed in. His Trump jokes are at 12 minutes in…and he shares the same feeling about Trump as I do…this is a joke, right?

What did you think?

One of the most fair, evenhanded journalists in the game has passed today.

Among his many accomplishments…

In 1973, Mr. Broder and The Post each won Pulitzers for coverage of the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard M. Nixon’s resignation. Mr. Broder’s citation was for explaining the importance of the Watergate fallout in a clear, compelling way. [...]

He covered every presidential convention since 1956 and was widely regarded as the political journalist with the best-informed contacts, from the lowliest precinct to the highest rungs of government. [...]

Mr. Broder was praised at the highest echelons of political power. The White House issued a statement from President Obama that called Mr. Broder a “true giant of journalism” and added that he “built a well-deserved reputation as the most respected and incisive political commentator of his generation.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said in a statement, “In his thoughtful and probing questions based on decades of scholarship and on-the-scene observations, David Broder set the modern ‘gold standard’ for those of us engaged in political life as we sought to persuade others, to legislate and to administer the successful progress of our country.”

He will be missed.

In the interest in serving up a heaping helping of current event meat on the Donklephant table, here is what memorandum informs us is the story of the day. There are many posts and stories to choose from, but we’ll go with the Weigel description:

“The video sting artiste publishes the latest work from his shop — a covertly taped interview with then-NPR Foundation senior VP for development Ron Schiller and current senior director of institutional giving Betsy Liley. Shaughn Adeleye and Simon Templar posed as members of a wealthy Muslim education foundation “founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood,” and taped the NPR representatives — largely Schiller — answering them with exactly what they wanted to hear… Schiller is a professional fundraiser, not a journalist. His pandering to the group is actually sort of masterful.”

I can’t get too worked up about this latest episode of Jackass Journalism* – The art of pranking political opposition in the hope of getting stupid and embarrassing quotes on tape (with extra credit for reinforcing your teams worst stereotypes of the other team).

I put this particular clip in the same category as the prank call to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. What did we learn from these “expose’s”? We learn that politicians and professional fundraisers are willing to pander and pretend to agree with whatever comes out of the mouth of potential contributors with big checkbooks. I’m shocked… shocked. Oh – we also learned that Ron Schiller and Scott Walker are dicks.

The only potential policy issue here is the federal funding of NPR. Frankly I don’t see how or why this should have any impact on that debate. It is interesting that Schiller says NPR does not really need the funding, but he also said he was speaking only for himself and not NPR. Personally, I don’t think there is any particularly good reason for taxpayers to fund this organization. But in terms of the actual level of funding, it is meaningless and a distraction from the very real budget crisis we are facing. I would far prefer to see our legislators working to solve the real problem – entitlements, rather than debating the merits of funding NPR.

We’ll get to the real issues eventually. One way or the other.

^{*BTW – I believe I am the first to use the term “Jackass Journalism” in this context, and am afraid I must insist on attribution whenever and wherever it is used from now until forever. Yes you can google some random earlier uses, but this is the right name for the O’keefe style.}

Cross-post at Divided We Stand United We Fall

Both Newt and Rick are making presidential rumblings and that means that paying them on a “news” channel is a bad idea…apparently.

From New York Times:

On Wednesday, the cable news channel suspended two paid contributors, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who are both weighing presidential bids.

While the channel’s move seems pre-emptive — Mr. Gingrich is expected to signal his intentions on Thursday — it still leaves Fox with three other potential candidates: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and John Bolton. But those three, according to Fox, have not shown serious intentions to set up presidential exploratory committees.

This is what they had to say…

“We can’t have Speaker Gingrich on our payroll while he is in the midst of an exploratory committee to see if he’s going to run for office,” Dianne Brandi, Fox News’s executive vice president for legal and business affairs, told the Los Angeles Times. “It’s a clear conflict.”

So, Gingrich and Santorum are gone. Now they need to do the right thing with Huckabee and Palin (I seriously doubt Bolton would run). We all know those two are running.

By the way…

No other television networks employ anyone who is expected to run for the Republican nomination.

Do they employ any Democrats?

Just saying…

Obviously this doesn’t mean that unions haven’t overreached or don’t have flaws. They have and they do…just like businesses and governments have flaws and put their employee in harm’s way, discriminate against them, etc.

Because let’s remember that unions didn’t spring up because they weren’t needed. And let’s not pretend that employers won’t exploit their workers if they can. A business is nothing more than an amoral system designed to make a profit. Some companies are awesome and put their employees (and customers) above some “business” decisions that would fatten the bottom line, but they’re not exactly common. So workers need an equally amoral system that’s focused on getting everything they can too.

Also…we’re talking about taking away the ability for people to collectively bargain. Walker won’t concede, and yet the unions in Wisconsin have already said they would cut back on salaries, benefits, etc. Where’s the compromise?

I’m glad Joe has said this publicly and I wish more Republicans would say the same thing instead of being so knee-jerk anti-Union.

As previously noted, Taiwanese animations are the future of all mainstream news. Here the folks at NextMedia have distilled US TV news, newspaper commentary, blogs, and twitter feeds on the Wisconsin standoff into an easily digestible two minute animation. I actually think four posts in a row on the same subject is probably two too many, but as this story is winding down anyway, I’ll give NMA the last word.

[I think Jacob said he would put the weekly Open Thread out today, but if not - feel free to use or abuse this one.]

This is what a cheesehead protest looks like in Taiwan:

I wonder why I waste time watching the news. It is easier to just wait for NMA to distill every story down to its essence.

They did miss all the giddy excitement on the left about the embarrassing prank call to Governor Walker from a fake David Koch. Walker did not say anything in the call that is going to change the dynamic in Wisconsin. The problem is not anything he said. The problem is that he took the call. The only likely effect will be to Walker’s presidential ambitions and potential re-election. He’ll be running against that audio recording for the rest of his political life. So it goes. He took the call, now he’ll live with it. I’m good with that.

Taking that call fanned the flames of left wing paranoia about David Koch which is beginning to take on the epic proportions of right wing paranoia about George Soros. But as far as the legislative standoff is concerned, this is a foregone conclusion. Walker will win.

Wisconsin Democrats run for the exits.

Polls do not support the AWOL Wisconsin Senators. The Wisconsin State Assembly passed the Walker Budget Repair Bill after beating back a filibuster and the Senators will have to return sometime or be recalled. The protesters in Madison will have to go back to work or be fired. The Republicans have the votes and Walker has the will. Done deal.

It is all Kabuki Theater in Wisconsin from this point. To quote another blogger who occasionally posts at this site and is currently basking on a Mexico beach “Moving on.”

X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

Usually I try to avoid stuff like this, but the following video was just too crazy. I mean…how does this guy have listeners? How is he so powerful? More importantly, why can’t GOPers distance themselves from or criticize him without having to apologize a couple days later?

Answer: morons.

Listen, most of you know I don’t usually get into name calling on this blog, but if you know somebody who likes or respects Rush Limbaugh after this…it’s safe to say that they’re a moron, right? If not…what’s wrong with them? Or what’s “right” with them?

Let me know…

And you know what? I agree with him. I'd even go further.

I know it'll never happen, but one thing to keep in mind is the fact that these are our airwaves, not the networks’. I think many have lost sight of the fact that the public owns the airwaves and I hope this post serves as a reminder.

From Real Clear Politics:

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future.”

Fox News and MSNBC have been a bane to serious political discourse in the past half decade and it’s time we all raise our hands and say, “No more!” Regardless of your political affiliation, I hope we can acknowledge that this back and forth isn’t helpful.

To those of you who would tell me I’m trying to censor certain opinions, I’d offer that there are plenty of different avenues for those voices to find an audience. But the public channels shouldn’t be used to perpetuate propaganda from the right or the left. And yes, this also applies to radio. So the Right’s dominance in this area could be called into question if we’re willing to have a serious conversation about who actually owns the media.

Of course that won’t happen, but there it is nonetheless.

We started the weekend with the Olbermann kerfuffle, might as well end with it. For most of the weekend there was a lot of high dudgeon, pontification, indignation and snark but not much new information. One story claimed that Olbermann was suspended by management for refusing to apologize, and Olbermann broke his silence by tweeting his appreciation for the support of fans, but not offering an apology or his side of the story. Finally, on Sunday night MSNBC President Phil Griffin released this terse statement.

STATEMENT REGARDING KEITH OLBERMANN – SUNDAY, NOV. 7
From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:
After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

So that will be the next chapter of the story. Will he or won’t he apologize? Should be good for a nice ratings boost on Tuesday.

More interesting than the specifics of the suspension and reinstatement itself (which strikes me as a pretty straightforward management action and not very newsworthy) is the reaction across the partisan spectrum, which I find fascinating.

In general, the right-o-sphere is amused. They acknowledge the right of Olbermann’s employers at MSNBC to suspend, discipline or fire Olbermann as they see fit, but in general think it was a mistake for them to do so. After all, it is not like he was hiding his bias for Democratic candidates. The surprise would have been if he was not contributing to Democratic Party causes.

A more interesting schism is on the left. The vast majority on the left can be exemplified by the Daily Kos reaction: Olbermann is right. MSNBC management is wrong. Full stop. But not everyone on the left felt that way.

Lets go back to Keith’s “good friend and colleague” Rachel Maddow (who owes her TV career on MSNBC to Keith Olbermann) when she explained exactly what happened on her Friday show:

If you look past her sympathetic demeanor and pay close attention to what she is saying, the unmistakable takeaway is that (unlike most of the left-o-sphere) Maddow is standing foursquare on the side of MSNBC management. She is saying her “good friend and colleague” Keith Olbermann was flat out wrong. Worse than that – he was “Fox News wrong.”

She spends several minutes tut-tutting over a litany of egregious examples of Fox personalities raising funds and contributing to Republican candidates and causes. Well and good, but once she starts down that path, there is no way to backtrack and justify Olbermann’s contributions to Democratic candidates as acceptable since – you know – that would make MSNBC just like Fox.

Ever since Jon Stewart put Fox and MSNBC in the same journalistic basket at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, the MSNBC punditocracy have been a bit touchy on exactly that subject.

It is obviously important to Maddow to demonstrate that she works for a news organization that has higher standards than Fox. Important enough that, if necessary, her “good friend and colleague” Keith Olbermann had to go under the bus. She even seems to agree the punishment meted out from MSNBC management is fair (as long as the suspension does not go on to long – which it didn’t), concluding with a wish that he will be back soon (which he will be). Perhaps it was more like a plea for an MSNBC News Presidential Pardon (which he got). Perhaps she is hoping that Olbermann will show remorse. Perhaps.

Or perhaps he won’t apologize, and will emerge as a Hero of the Kos Kids by bravely standing up to the MSNBC corporate bullies for the right to – ummm – Be just like Fox!!!

Although in a minority, there are some on the left who were not riding with the herd. A good synopsis from this perspective – Nojo at Stinque (a group blog that is hard to categorize, but sits well left of Dennis Kucinich and a bit right of Bernie Sanders) describes The Cult of Keith:

“…we don’t come to this mess from the perspective of an Olbermann-basher. We like Keith. He’s fun. He’s the only reason we even turn on the tube at 5pm Pacific. San Diego has a 24-hour jazz station. We have options. That said, we agree with MSNBC management: Olbermann violated a clearly stated ethics policy, and his suspension is not unwarranted. Olbermann did the same thing with Richard Wolffe, after all. What disappointed us after the news broke Friday is that we’re in the minority. At least among progressive bloggers — the progressive bloggers we also read daily as we scrape the Internets for story tips. They’ve ignored entirely the facts of Olbermann’s suspension, and the principles behind it. And in so doing, they’ve shown themselves to be hacks.”

This is how I think it nets out:

If you stand with MSNBC management, you are standing for a principle (however weakly enforced) and claiming that MSNBC is something qualitatively different than Fox News. This possibly explains why much of the right wing is with Olbermann. It validates that they are the same, except with vastly different ratings. That is the point that Maddow tries to refute.

But – if you stand with Keith Olbermann against MSNBC management, you are acknowledging that you don’t really care about whatever principle that Maddow was flogging, and saying you prefer MSNBC to be (as Jon Stewart describes it) Fox-Lite.

The remaining question is this – Where does Keith Olbermann stand? Will he apologize, acknowledge he was wrong, and work to make MSNBC something qualitatively different than Fox? Or is it to be – Fox-lite Starring Keith Olbermann!

partially cross-posted form “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

Keep Keith! – William Kristol

MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous.

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News “policy and standards.” But NBC doesn’t have real news standards for MSNBC—otherwise the channel wouldn’t exist. It’s a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

But there’s now a Republican House, and perhaps GE is trying to curry favor by dumping Olbermann?

Republicans of the world, show you believe in the free expression of opinion! Tell the crony corporatists at NBC—keep Keith!

Ummm… I don’t know what to say.

Kranky requested an open thread. Knock yourself out.

As regards the interview itself, I thought it was more enlightening than most “real news” interviews I’ve seen. Full interview linked here. Some reactions…

Taylor Marsh:

Talking with Jon Stewart last night, Pres. Obama didn’t say the words “unemployment” and “jobs” until around 27 minutes into the program. He even invoked Larry Summers, saying “Larry Summers did a heckava job,” which brought a wry smile from Stewart with the retort, “You don’t wanna use that phrase, dude.” Obama seemed to pause to recalculate, then said “pun intended.” But clearly it wasn’t.”

Dana Millbanks:

Obama wore a displeased grin as Stewart diagnosed, with high accuracy, the administration’s condition: “The expectation, I think, was audacity going in there and really rooting out a corrupt system, and so the sense is, has [the] reality of what hit you in the face when you first stepped in caused you to back down from some of the more visionary things?”

“My attitude is if we’re making progress, step by step, inch by inch, day by day,” Obama said, “that we are being true to the spirit of that campaign.”

“You wouldn’t say you’d run this time as a pragmatist? It wouldn’t be, ‘Yes we can, given certain conditions?’”

“I think what I would say is yes we can, but — ”

Stewart, and the audience, laughed at the “but.” Obama didn’t laugh. “But it’s not going to happen overnight,” he finished.

Try shouting that slogan at a campaign rally, dude.

It was an entertaining give and take. As is often the case these days, the harshest post-mortem criticism of the Presidential performance seemed to come from the left.

As these have become a cultural phenomena, I think we need a new word for stories that get the Taiwan animation treatment. How about “twam” – as in “Jon Stewart gets twammed.” Other suggestions welcomed.

Since I’ve posted a few of these on my blog, I’m now on their mailing list. Without further comment, the verbatim NMA/tv blurb/explanation:

“Comedian John Stewart plans to hold a rally for viewers and fans in Washington on October 30. Dubbed the “Rally to Restore Sanity,” the event is seen as a response to a similar rally held by Glenn Beck over the summer. Lending their support to the rally are high-profile liberals such as Arianna Huffington and Oprah Winfrey. Conservative critics allege Stewart is attempting to mobilize young viewers and influence the November 2 elections. Indeed, the rally is seen as benefiting Obama and the Democrats, who are likely to the polls next week. Obama in turn plans to appear on Stewart’s show. Whether Stewart’s fan base can stay energized and show up at the polls remains to be seen. November 2, after all, marks the return of the McRib sandwich at McDonald’s.”

I liked the Stewart/Obama mutual back scratch sequence, and can’t wait to see how The Daily Show responds.

How is his new role at Fox News fitting him?

Like a glove!

Here’s what he said this morning:

This is evidence of one-party rule and one sided thinking at NPR that leads to enforced ideology, speech and writing. It leads to people, especially journalists, being sent to the gulag for raising the wrong questions and displaying independence of thought.

I also like that Williams claims he was fired for telling the truth.

That’s right. You were fired for telling the truth. Your truth.

And NPR had every right to fire you. Especially since it was against their ethics code…

10. In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows electronic forums, or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.

Now, should they have fired you? That’s not for me to decide, but I bet they wished they would have handled it differently. Let your contract expire or something along those lines.

But you’ve got a choice. You can turn into a professional victim/hack Fox News “journalist” or you can realize you said something dumb, take your lumps (and your new $2M contract) and grow up. Do you really want to be remembered for saying you were scared of Muslims who are dressed in traditional garb? You do realize that the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 (and everybody after who has attempted attacks in the US) were dressed in plain clothes, right?

Juan, seriously…think of your legacy, think of your credibility and just move on.

I was not intending to post about this, as I though the entire incident was blown out of proportion. However, since I am apparently the only one in the blogosphere that thought so, here is an open thread for any in the commentariat who want to weigh in.

A couple of thoughtful posts on the subject:

Glenn Greenwald:

“I’m not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments. But if that’s going to be the prevailing standard, then I want to see it applied equally. Those who cheered on the firing of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez — and that will include many, probably most, of the right-wing polemicists predictably rushing to transform Juan Williams into some sort of free speech martyr sacrificed on the altar of sharia censorship — have no ground for complaining here. Those who endorse speech-based punishments invariably end up watching as the list of Prohibited Ideas expands far beyond the initial or desired scope, often subsuming their own beliefs. That’s a good reason to oppose all forms of speech-based punishment in the first place. There’s obviously a fundamental difference between (a) being punished by the state for expressing Prohibited Ideas (which is isn’t what happened here) and (b) losing a job for doing so, but the dynamic is similar: those who endorse this framework almost always lose control over how it is applied. And that’s how it should be.”

Conor Friedersdorf:

“Contrary to what Mr. Williams implies, it is irrational to fear for one’s safety upon seeing someone on a plane dressed in “Muslim garb.” The vast majority of people who dress in the way he alludes to aren’t terrorists, the odds of a plane carrying people in Muslim dress being hijacked is minuscule, and actual Islamist terrorists don’t advertise their faith. Nor is there anything inherently scary about identifying oneself “first and foremost” as a Muslim. The equivalent sentiment among Christians is quite common.

But I don’t think that Mr. Williams should be fired by NPR, or that it’s good practice in general to fire people based on a single remark, however offensive. (There are exceptions. This isn’t one of them.) I say this as someone who is glad that there is a strong social stigma against bigotry. There is an upside to this stigma that is under-appreciated: it signals to some people that bigotry is wrong, even if they don’t quite understand why.”

My take – Juan Williams comments betrayed irrational bigotry toward Muslims, but not maliciously so. He should have had an opportunity to acknowledge the mistake and keep his job. That said, I understand and appreciate that any media outlet or broadcast entertainment organization, whether public or private, are well within their purview to dismiss on-air talent who make public statements that alienates their audience, subscribers, and advertisers.

As noted here before, Taiwanese animation is the future of news. This week, Republican Senate hopeful Christine O’Donnell gets the animation treatment and is explained to the domestic China/Taiwan audience by the Taiwan NMA News Network:

This begs the question asked by Chris Cillizza: Why does Christine O’Donnell get so much coverage and attention from the media and Democrats?:

“Tonight’s Delaware Senate debate between marketing consultant Christine O’Donnell (R) and New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) will be carried live on CNN and co-moderated by the network’s lead anchor Wolf Blitzer. Judging from that treatment, a casual viewer might conclude that the race for Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat is among the most competitive in the country. That, of course, would be wrong. Way wrong…

it is important to keep O’Donnell in context. She is a decided long shot to even come close to being competitive in Delaware, and there are at least 15 Senate races that are closer, according to public polling, at the moment. Covering her is one thing. Covering her as though her race will decide the fate of the Senate is quite another.”

Christine O’Donnell is a clown of a Senate candidate who is going to lose by a large margin to a Democratic opponent in a Democratic state for the seat vacated by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden (to whom she already lost before). The Senate contest does not even make Nate Silver’s top 10 list of Senate Seats vulnerable to switching parties. Her debate performance was laughable and did not help.

We know why NMA selected her for this treatment. It is because watching our media, NMA determined she must be a big story. The real question – Why is she such a big story here? Why is she getting so much new and old media attention that she pops up on the NMA meme radarscope?

Dave Weigel takes a crack at explaining this phenomena:

Which reminds me of an old joke (modified to suit our purpose here):

A despondent Democrat was crawling about on the sidewalk under a lamppost at night.

A Police Officer came up to him and inquired, “What are you doing?”

The depressed Democrat replied, “I’m looking for my car keys of hope.”

The Officer looked around in the lamplight, then asked the Dem, “I don’t see any car keys. Are you sure you lost them here?”

The Democrat replied, “No, I lost them over there”, and pointed to an area of the sidewalk deep in shadow.

The policeman then asked, “Well, if you lost them over there, why are you looking over here?”

The despondent Democrat looked at him and said, “Because the light is better over here.”

x-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall.

First he told Jeffrey Goldberg that he was wrong when he told Russia to bomb us during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Now he’s saying that the entire Cuban model is flawed?

From The Atlantic…

But during the generally lighthearted conversation (we had just spent three hours talking about Iran and the Middle East), I asked him if he believed the Cuban model was still something worth exporting.

“The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore,” he said.

This struck me as the mother of all Emily Litella moments. Did the leader of the Revolution just say, in essence, “Never mind”?

I asked Julia to interpret this stunning statement for me. She said, “He wasn’t rejecting the ideas of the Revolution. I took it to be an acknowledgment that under ‘the Cuban model’ the state has much too big a role in the economic life of the country.”

What a difference a near death experience makes.

Your thoughts?