Halliburton = The Devil [Around the Internet] 12/10/07

-The National Intelligence Estimate, as explained by a cherry and a kitten. [QuizLaw]
-Turns out Rudy Giuliani married his cousin in 1968. Talk about family values! [Mental Floss]
-The Fresh Prince hops on the Obama train. [NY Post]
-David Sedaris in The New Yorker. Read it. [The New Yorker]
-Impeach Cheney! I don't know who this Wexler guy is, but I like the way he thinks. [Wizbang Politics]
-Halliburton continues its bid for "Evilest Company Ever." [Think Progress]
-Mike Huckabee spoils the end of the world for everybody. Let's hope he hasn't read the last Harry Potter book. [Mother Jones]
-The lady who stopped the church shootings in Colorado is a stone-cold gangster. In other news, stop giving everybody guns! [Denver Post]

Newt Gingrich makes me angry and so does NBC. Fox...well, it goes without saying.

Last week, NBC refused to run a TV spot from a group called Freedom's Watch "[asking] viewers to remember the troops during the holiday season" because it violated their policy against airing politically controversial ads. The backlash from conservatives was immediate and considerable, and included former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calling for a boycott of NBC Friday on rival Fox New's "Big Story." By Saturday night, NBC had "reversed course," deciding to modify their ad standards guidelines and to begin running the ad the next day.

The fact is that NBC should have told Gingrich to stick it where the sun doesn't shine, not because the network is run by liberals (although it might be -- I couldn't tell you) and not because the former speaker is anything less than an upstanding American (although the "eighty-four ethics charges [that] were filed against Speaker Gingrich during his term" make me wonder), but because he was just plain wrong. The difference between giving Al Gore "35 hours for global warming propaganda" (as Gingrich angrily charged NBC with doing) and running this ad from a radical right-wing political group is that Al Gore didn't use "Green Week" as a platform to spew hate on conservatives (or to promote any websites that spew hate on conservatives).

To give you an idea of what we're dealing with, this is a direct quote from the website of Freedom's Watch: "For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interest groups and their left-wing allies in government." Besides being kind of crazy, it is an unapologetic attack on the left-wing. And that's fine -- they have every right in the world to publish that kind of nonsense. But, by the same token, NBC should have every right in the world not to support it. What's particularly galling about this incident -- and what Newt and the Fox News puppets neglect to mention (by the way, I don't know who that chick is, but her suggestion that this was such a "PR...thing" for NBC does not speak highly of her) -- is that NBC offered to run the ad (whose actual content no one had a problem with) without the link to the website, which is what they felt was too controversial. And Freedom's Watch refused. So, what, Freedom's Watch doesn't care enough about the troops to run the ad without their own little plug? Seems kind of hypocritical, but maybe that's just me.

As far as the NBC showing their "true colors" stuff, Chris Matthews (who also drew Gingrich's ire) has a political talk show on MSNBC where, despite being a former Democratic staffer himself, he usually lays pretty well into members of both parties. And, even if he didn't, I find it ironic that Fox News, of all networks, would take anyone to task for being partisan. As for criticizing the president and the war (apparently the ultimate insult to America); well, they need to be criticized -- that's why we have a free press in this country. Frankly, this notion some conservatives have that no one should be allowed to criticize the administration in a time of war is about as un-American as it gets -- it goes against every ideal of freedom that those men and women overseas are fighting for, and it pretty well explains why they shouldn't be there to begin with. If we can't stick to our own principles at home, what business do we have going to another country and telling them how to live? And why should Americans be dying for that? And why can't anybody differentiate between supporting the troops and supporting the war? The whole thing is mind-boggling.

The worst part of the story, of course, is that NBC ultimately backed down and agreed to run the ad, link and all. So not only did they get the "bad press" from their initial refusal to air it, but they also ended up looking weak to boot. And, as usual, the wrong side (ironically, the right side) won.

When are we going to learn that every time someone backs down like this, it further legitimizes the politics of intimidation? And when is the left-wing going to figure out how to grow a pair? Because if we can't even stand up to a has-been demagogue like Newt Gingrich, it's going to take a lot more than ads to beat the best the GOP has to offer come November.

Sources:
NBC Decides to Run Conservative-Group Ad [AP]
Newt Gingrich [Wikipedia]
NBC Rejects Ad From Conservative Group [AP]

Oprah-bama! [Weekend Links] 12/9/07

-Mike Huckabee hates the gays. Well, nobody's perfect, I guess. [Wizbang Politics]
-Just like a liberal, NBC backs down on ad controversy. [Huffington Post]
-Turns out Democrats were cool with waterboarding in 2002. Guess they thought it was some sort of S&M thing. [Washington Post]
-Cryptkeeper Helen Thomas drives White House press secretary Dana Perino to the verge of a nervous breakdown. In related news, Dana Perino wishes Helen Thomas would just die already. [Crooks and Liars]
-Germany tries to make up for WWII by banning Scientology. Throw in a case of Heineken and we're even. [BBC]
-Clinton campaign counters Oprah-bama with the hotness. Mmm...Chelsea. [NYT]
-Charles in Charge got married. I give it a week. [People]

Check out how professional we are!!!

Crazy mad props go to Ryan for the sweet new header design. Next stop: Total world domination.

The cost of fame in America

On Wednesday, a 19-year old (boy? man?) walked into a department store in an Omaha, Nebraska mall with an assault rifle he had stolen from his stepfather and fatally wounded eight people before killing himself. The gunman, who has since been described as a "lost puppy" by his landlady -- and who will forever remain anonymous here -- had apparently spent "four years in a series of treatment centers, group homes and foster care after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002" before "state supervision was terminated by agreement of the court, the state, his therapist and his father" last year. In an effort to explain the rampage, apparently brought on by a breakup with his girlfriend and the loss of his job at McDonald's, he left a hand-written suicide note at his home that said, among other things, that he didn't want to be a "burden on the ones that I care for my entire life" and that he "just [wanted] to take a few peices (sic) of shit" with him.

"Just think tho," he told his friends, "I'm gonna be (expletive) famous."

And he is famous. If you do a search for his name through Google's news search engine, you will find about 5,000 results, most of which include pictures -- either a high-school photo, or a still from security footage released by the police on Friday, or both. By comparison, a search for Amy Adams, the star of the number one movie in the country for the last two weeks, provides about 2,000 results.

Of course, I don't think that fame was the primary motivation behind these murders -- I won't purport to know or understand the reason that a person snaps like that, beyond the fact that he had some serious issues and obviously needed more help than he got. But I can't imagine that the trouble we have in this country differentiating between good fame and bad fame did much to discourage him -- famous, as far as we are concerned, is famous, and we tend to reward the good and not so good alike (just ask Paris Hilton).

And, most of the time that's not a big deal -- embarrassing, certainly, and perhaps damaging to the national culture, but not dangerous. Somebody, though, is bound to take it too far, and then we have eight people dead in a mall shooting because a teenager felt like an outcast. It has happened too many times before and it will, no doubt, happen again unless we do some serious soul-searching.

In the next few weeks, there are bound to be all sorts of new security measures at malls across the country (which should make holiday shopping that much more delightful) and a renewed vigor in the debates about gun control and violence in movies, etc. Fine. But I think that the first step towards preventing this from happening in the future is for all of the media outlets around the country to stop immortalizing a killer. Instead of his face, why not show the faces of his victims, the innocent people who were just trying to buy gifts for their friends and families? Why not send the message to anyone thinking about becoming "famous" that there is a difference between glory and infamy, and that there are real consequences for murder that have absolutely nothing to do with the murderer? It's funny how so many people in this country run around with their rhetoric about "not letting the terrorists win" abroad and, yet, when someone right here uses violence to get he wants, we give it to him.

There is a lot more going on here than we can fix in a few days, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't take this opportunity to examine our society, and to change it for the better -- not just superficially, but fundamentally. In the words of Dante, "the hottest seats in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crises, choose to do nothing." Let's not occupy them.

Sources:
Shoppers return to Omaha mall [CNN]
From "Troubled" to "Killer", Despite Many Efforts [NYT]
Searching for Clues to a Young Killer’s Motivation [NYT]
Images of Gunman, Suicide Note Released [AP]
Omaha Wonders: Why Did "Lost Puppy" Kill? [ABC News]

Crappiest vacation ever

In the interest of not flunking my senior year of college, I'll be taking a couple of days off from blogging to study for exams (by which I mean "write eighteen papers in the next two days"). Sad times. Be sure to check back for updates this weekend.

"The most sophisticated piece of technology you will ever pee on" [Around the Internet] 12/5/07

-Chilean prostitute whores for charity, gives new meaning to "hooker with a heart of gold" [QuizLaw]
-The Washington Times is a hot mess [Wonkette]
-Remind me why they gave the ESPN guy a show about politics? [Radar]
-Tom Tancredo is an asshole. I feel like I've said this before... [Wonkette]
-Italian court subpoenas Mickey Mouse. Somewhere, Julius Caesar weeps. [AP]
-Dick Cheney thinks we should get out of Iraq ASAP. Psych! [Politico]
-The Democrats had secret debate yesterday on something called the "radio." Here's a recap. [Huffington Post]