Here's The Thing:

I should be in bed. I should be sleeping. I just recently had my wisdom teeth out (like, on friday), and anyone who follows me on twitter or even just popped in over the last 2 days knows that I look like a deranged chipmunk and that I've been a little pathetic regarding the whole thing.

Plus, I get to go sign a lease for an apartment in the morning, all the while looking like a deranged chipmunk.

So, I really should be sleeping, both because signing a lease will require me to be somewhat awake and because nothing else seems to be helping the chipmunk effect I'm presently suffering from.

And yet what I keep getting drawn back to, again and again, is Sady Doyle and her #MooreandMe crusade on twitter. If you haven't checked it out, I highly recommend doing so. It is probably the only thing aside from the current condition of my face I'm tweeting about with any regularity.

The latest post by Sady is perhaps the one that truly demonstrates how Michael Moore's comments are merely the ones that broke the camel's back. But she does it beautifully when she writes:

We’re not backing down. We’re not disappearing. Because they scared and bullied and threatened and shamed and lied to and lied about and disappeared all of those women, all of those women who were scared enough to go away or too scared to report in the first place, they all went away, and somebody has to not go away. We have to not go away.

Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann are progressive men. But they are flawed progressive men and their flaw, in this case, is minimizing rape because the man accused of rape is someone they admire.

I am a Countdown viewer, and I gasped at loud in my car when I heard Michael Moore perpetuate the lie that Julian Assange is in custody merely because of a broken condom during consensual sex. I felt like I was kicked in the stomach when Keith Olbermann did nothing to correct that blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

But, and here's why I'm not sleeping, I have come to accept and expect that sort of feeling when I watch liberals and leftists and people with whom I am in agreement almost 99 percent of the time. I have come to accept that Michael Moore is going to call on the president to take off his tutu and fight, as if tutus represent all that is weak because tutus are feminine. I have come to accept that men I respect and admire are going to use gendered terms, are going to not quite get it, are going to come to the defense of other men at the expense of women.

This is (was) my nihilistic stance. That to ally myself, even just intellectually, with the progressive community is to acknowledge that, sometimes, women are going to get thrown under the bus. To listen to progressive podcasts like Best of the Left, I'm going to have to hear about how we should make flying an expensive venture again, with stewardesses we can all leer at. To listen to progressive shows like Countdown, I'm going to have to hear Keith Olbermann or a guest say something sexist, demeaning, or outright demoralizing, and know that it will never be corrected.

About two months ago, Hugo Schwyzer wrote "Keep quiet for the cause": on sexual abuse in progressive movements. That post is almost directly related to Sady Doyle's latest piece about standing outside Michael Moore's tower. A student of Schwyzer's was raped by a progressive leader and the response was:

“He’s helping so many”, she was told, “and he hurt you. Isn’t it better to just avoid him? We’ll warn him to shape up, but we can’t go further than that. He’s too valuable.”

He's too valuable. For too long, my nihilism was based in that: liberal voices were so precious to me that they were valued far and above their occasional mishaps. I was starving for intellectual nourishment that made me feel like I was not crazy to feel the ways I was feeling or to think the ways I was thinking. And for a long time, I was able to separate the, "but what about that whole 'feminism' thing?" from it. I was able to convince myself that every stumble, every statement that made me see red, every nonapology apology, was worth the price of admission. Because I had access to 'my people'. And because nobody's perfect.

Well, no one is perfect. But as @FeministSpock wrote,

To err is human. To acknowledge, logical. To apologize, evolved.

Julian Assange is no more Wikileaks than Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann are Progressivism. And because they cannot separate their false idols from that which they admire, I have to.

I stand with Sady Doyle. Not because she is an idol. Not because she is perfect. Because here and now, she is right. Women matter. Rape victims matter. Justice matters. And if Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann or anyone else is looking to be a prominent voice in progressive circles, then they are going to have to acknowledge that. They are going to have to acknowledge women, and the lives of women.

Keith Olbermann: Today's Worst Person in the World

Look, Keith, I like you. I listen to your show as I drive into work daily, and I would watch you live if I had access to a television at 8 o'clock on any night except mondays, when Chuck is on. Actually, I probably wouldn't, because I'm bad with commercials. I get all restless. And my method works fine for me, because it gives me something that is approximately as long as my ride to listen to, and while you're on television, your show isn't exactly on the cutting edge of the visual medium. Except for Oddball. I kind of regret not being able to see things like Justin Bieber run into glass doors.

Anyway, I think we've established, through my semi-frequent posting about how much you and your suits rock, that I am a fan. I enjoy the sports talk! I enjoy your random freak outs! I follow you on twitter! Your pictures from various baseball stadiums are cool! I even read your blog!

So. The thing that I don't expect? Really ever? Is to be hit by some weird hardy-hars about sexual harassment on my way into work. From you. Because, dude, you are a progressive. And I know, I know. Progressive≠feminist. Progressive≠good on gender issues. Progressives can sometimes be sexist dipshits. Progressives can sometimes not be sexist dipshits, but still say some really sexist dipshitty type stuff. You, yourself, have said some sexist dipshitty type stuff in the past.

I should probably let you in on what has brought on my ire, shouldn't I?

It's this:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Billo replied, "Yeah, I thought that they - basically, in the very beginning - should stuff every member of NBC News in that hole".

Maybe we should listen, Bill, because based on the Andrea Mackris lawsuit, I gather that you were the expert on unsuccessful attempts to stuff things into holes.

Whoa. That is a lot of misogyny in a very teeny tiny space!

First, there's the problem of exactly how the alleged sexual assault is framed here, ie: referring to a woman's vagina as a "hole". Problematic, for that whole "dehumanizing" aspect. Also, for separating the vagina from the woman, and vice versa.

But let's move right on the the part wherein Bill O'Reilly is subject to your derision not because he allegedly repeatedly sexually harassed a member of his staff, but because he didn't succeed in having sex with her.

No.

Seriously, no.

Let me spell this out for you: the problem is that O'Reilly allegedly repeatedly made sexual comments to someone who worked for him. O'Reilly should be derided and looked at as less of a human being because he did that. Not because he failed in his ultimate goal to loofah Mackris up.

You are mocking him as being less of a man because he didn't seal the deal. He isn't less of a man because of that. He is less of a worthwhile human being because he sexually harassed someone.

And for that, Keith Olbermann, you are Today's Worst Person.... IN THE WORLD!

James Thurber

I have a horrible habit of not listening to my mother's recommendations, of avoiding reading the things she says to read or watching the things she says to watch or listening to the things she says to listen to until I'm driven to doing it simply because I've gotten bored with the things I've been reading or watching or listening to over and over again. She is the person who first thrust The Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler into my hands, the person who gave me The Secret of NIMH, the person who insisted I watch The Sound of Music and Dirty Dancing, the person who told me I'd really like Elton John and The Band, the person who introduced me to Simon and Garfunkel and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.

And yet, with all of that, it still took me months before I read A Wrinkle in Time after she gave it to me and told me I'd love it. She gave it to me along with The Mixed Up Files and NIMH, in fourth grade, and it took me until midway through fifth to bother with it. It, and the other three books in the series, became my veritable Bible from fifth to eighth grade. It, among other things, gave my shop teacher a reason to not let me actually participate in shop class after a fairly harrowing experience with a drill, because he'd lived next to the author, Madeline L'Engle, while growing up and talked to me about this worn out book I insisted on carrying everywhere with me.

In eighth grade, I was spending the day with my father. We were driving around the state, visiting his various clients, talking, and listening to this book on tape he'd gotten out of the library, My Life and Hard Times. I knew of the book. A chapter had been in a compilation book series my parents owned and I'd poured over. Another chapter had been in my seventh grade Lit book, and I'd poured over that one as well. Listening to My Life and Hard Times with my father made me appreciate it, and the author, all the more. It was hilarious. And when I acquired the book-book, it took the place of A Wrinkle in Time as my new Bible.

I've been to the Thurber House in Columbus, OH several times. One time, my father got them to open the house early for us, because I loved it so much and because at some point we were going to have to leave Ohio, and he preferred that to be sooner rather than later. I have several James Thurber tee shirts, a lot of his books, and I still read portions of My Life and Hard Times on a weekly basis. James Thurber's Is Sex Necessary? is the book that I took out with my best friend and roomie's library card whilst in college, and then failed to return promptly (or rather, at all), and ran up a significant (around $200 or so dollars) late fee/replacement cost.

There are problems with James Thurber, as there would be with any white, straight, middle-class male author born in 1894. There are problems I've only begun to assess in my continued and continual rereading of My Life and Hard Times, with regard to race and gender and where the two meet. But his humor oftentimes comes from the ridiculousness of people, and more often than not from himself. And so, I was abso-freaking-lutely thrilled when Keith Olbermann professed to reading James Thurber to his father, because James Thurber is one of those authors who helped shape my life (and this whole beginning part is at least in partial reference to this meme), and who I feel is underappreciated - or at the very least, too much of an unknown. My happiness increased exponentially when the final segment on friday's Countdown was, in point of fact, Keith Olbermann reading a short story of James Thurber's, "A Box to Hide In". And because I love Thurber more than possibly any other author, I had to share. This story doesn't come from my personal Thurber Bible, but I do love it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Letters To My Editor: No One Deserves A Trial Edition

So, I'm going to write about a letter to my paper's editor, and you're going to have to take in on faith I'm not making it up because in order to pull it on-line you need a user name and password. And I'm pretty sure you have to subscribe, so... Here's the letter, entitled Terrorists Don't Deserve U.S. Justice:

How does U.S. government figure the Christmas bombing attempt on Northwest Flight 259 was a failure? It accomplished what al-Qaida wanted. Whether it brought down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial.

He, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and those wackos in Gitmo do not deserve American justice. They should be executed as soon as the plane lands. We could use the money on more important things.

First, some minor grammatical grievances. This sentence:

Whether it brought down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial

makes very little sense.

It could read:

Although it did not succeed in bringing down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial.

An added sentence about how one of al-Qaeda's stated goals is to bleed America dry would have really improved the sentiment.

But the real problem, aside from the fact that the letter writer seems to be cribbing off of Bill O'Reilly without giving O'Reilly his proper due, lies in the philosophical assertion of the letter, that being:

He, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and those wackos in Gitmo do not deserve American justice.

I'll let Keith Olbermann - because I am into giving props when props are due - take the reins about one of the real problems with this argument (relevant part transcribed below):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

KEITH OLBERMANN (SPEAKING AS BILL O'REILLY): "Simply put, al-Qaeda thugs have no rights, none. They should be killed on the spot. And they are being killed by the drones. So if they're captured, they should undergo harsh interrogation and be placed in military prisons."

KEITH OLBERMANN (SPEAKING AS HIMSELF): Okay, were you planning to still put them in the military prisons after you kill them on the spot, or do you need to rephrase your plan? Seriously, Bill, we need to walk you through the idea of why we have trials? Ultimately, why we ask questions first and shoot later? It's not about rights, it's not about who's a thug, it's not about how much sadistic joy you and the sickos like you from the thought of "harsh interrogation". It's so we get the right guy. Mankind figured this out thousands of years ago, and we replaced that old method of "kill them then ask them if they're guilty" because the dead men proved to be mediocre at answering questions! And then it also turned out that often we were killing the wrong guys which is inconvenient! Especially for them!

But, aside from the inconvenient aspect of killing the innocent, there is a not so insignificant fact that applying an impartial judicial system is one of those key things that sets us apart from those who wish to terrorize us. Applying our rule of law to those who would indiscriminately kill, allowing for the fact that our values system is strong enough and significant enough and, perhaps most importantly, sacred enough to try and convict those who are guilty, and try and set free those who are found not guilty.

Because even though Olbermann is right that it isn't wholly about rights, it is at least somewhat about rights. Because the judicial system isn't set up for the government to reign supreme. It has been set up in favor of the defendant. Because the guilty aren't the only ones accused; but also because the guilty have the fundamental right of due process as well. Partly, that is to protect the innocent, because if the guilty are not worthy of trial by jury then the whole process by which we decide who is indeed innocent gets a bit truncated. And then we circle back to a lot of the wrong people dying, which - again - is inconvenient.

Perhaps my Letter Writer means only al-Qaeda terrorists don't deserve American justice. Perhaps those others who break the law are still subject to the rule of law, as long as they aren't Islamic extremists. That may be where his line is drawn. But that doesn't mean that's where everyone's line is drawn. Maybe someone else's line for which crimes deserve a fair trial is less broad than "everyone who isn't engaged in terrorism for the benefit of al-Qaeda"; maybe someone else's line encompasses those who drive while texting, or who kill anyone for any reason. And that's really why denying the American system of justice to one group you personally don't like, even if it saves a bundle of cash, is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard - because it rests predominately on the idea that everyone else will agree that this subset of criminal is the subset that does not deserve to go through due process and be subject to Amendments 5 through 8.

Let's take in that number for a sec, shall we? Our Founders felt that the whole criminal and civil trial thing was so important, they chose to utilize four whole amendments out of the original ten to explicitly setting down rules for how trials should be set up. Four. It is inconceivable to me that those who purport to love our country so much they want to kill anyone on our soil immediately who allegedly engaged in an act of terrorism could so willfully ignore the very words of our Constitution. For all the talk about how actually trying these people plays into the terrorists' hands, those same people do little to engage with the notion that ignoring those parts of our society that makes it our society because we're scared or angry or vengeful does more harm than it does good. Because it fundamentally alters our society, and not for the better. Because it ignores that the justice system isn't there to exonerate the innocent. It is there to provide rights to the guilty.

On Lipstick, Sexism, and the False Equivalency in "Double Standards"

Runners Up, Beck and Orly Tates Limbaugh. Gretchen Carlson has just complained, "If you're a conservative woman, you get more attacks than if you have a liberal's point of view". Well, Beckerhead and Limbaugh have evened that out in a hurry. Each speaking of Senator Mary Landrieu, and each called her a whore.
Beck - "We're with a high class prostitute, that's what we're with".
Limbaugh - "That may be, folks, may be the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution. And she's bragging about it. Mary Landrieu."
Well, he's an expert.
So the next time I say something about Michelle Malkin being a bag of mashed up meat with lipstick on it and I'm called sexist by conservatives because I used the word "lipstick", even though every week on the football show I use the exact same phrase about men, only I don't say "lipstick", and "lipstick" was the one word punchline to a joke by Sister Sarah Palin, just remember, Beck and Limbaugh call a sitting US woman Senator a, quote, "prostitute", and not a single conservative woman has as much as disagreed with them. Ms. Carlson, where's your umbrage now, ya fraud?

I'd love to spend this time, here in this space, unpacking Glenn Beck's statement about Senator Landrieu. But instead, I'm compelled to use it to unpack Keith Olbermann's, because if I don't, when I want my umbrage I may be called a fraud (quelle horreur!).

Lesson the First: This isn't grammar school. Little Johnny punching Mark and getting away with it doesn't negate the fact that you pushed Rob down.

Or, your sexist statement stands alone.

So, for instance, if you compare a woman to a mashed up bag of meat with lipstick, that is still a problematic statement even if some other assholes call a different woman a prostitute. Both statements are bad. Okay? There is no, "Well, he said something worse and no one from that side called him out on it, so I'm totes in the clear!!!" Dude, you're so not in the clear. What you are is a bit of a dunderhead if you are figuring your sexism by the standards of the other side. Do they have political reasons to call you a sexist, and to not call out the sexist actions of the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs of the world? YES! Does that automatically make them wrong? NO! And to absolve yourself of any wrongs based on the fact that Gretchen Carlson of Fox-freakin'-News (and who, incidentally, has "legs" pop up as a popular Google search when you start typing in her name, which kind of sums up a lot) hasn't called some other anchor on her own network out on his sexist bullshit doesn't make your sexist bullshit any less bullshitty or sexist! It just doesn't. And to justify your own sexist remark because the other side is hypocritical is ridiculous.

Lesson the Second: When friends agree with antagonists, the antagonists may have a point. I understand why someone might not want to take the Right's cries of "Sexist" seriously. These are the people who complained that Tina Fey's portrayal of Sarah Palin was sexist, and who had problems with Newsweek not photoshopping a Palin cover. Frankly, the Right calling "sexist" is about as believable as that boy who kept crying "wolf".

Gretchen Carlson wasn't the only one saying the sack of meat comment was sexist; Megan Carpentier called it misogynistic. On the Air America blog. You know, that beacon of conservatism. Alternet got in on the action, which is, as you know, one of the havens for those on the Right. Shakesville also got down to business. Which is practically the National Review! Oh, and me. I'm a regular Barry Goldwater.

So, yes, when the Right cries 'sexist', we all have the right to be skeptical. But when the people who are generally pretty good on feminism and calling out sexism expressed by all sides are saying that a comment made was not only sexist but also misogynistic, then the appropriate response is to actually think about it. To mull it over. To ponder. And to maybe use the next time a conservative or Republican or Fox News Anchor says something sexist as an opportunity to own up to your own fuck up and to challenge those on the Right to call out all sexism when they see/hear it and not just when it happens to the conservatives. Challenge them to not be hypocrites.

Lesson the Third: There is no double standard here. Other places, maybe. But not here.

This one may be hard to wrap the mind around, I know. It kind of seems to fly in the face of "fair is fair". And, frankly, it probably deserves its very own post. But here we go.

Men and women face some different obstacles in society. Not totally different obstacles, obviously. But there is a false equivalency going down if you think you can just automatically say the same thing about a woman you have about a man, if you gender it up with a bit of lipstick.

Note, here, that comparing a football player, a man who has been tackled and in some cases pummeled in the pursuit of his sport, to a mashed up bag of meat could very well be a valid, if grossly insensitive, statement of fact. However, the difference between a football player who has been out on the field of play and a woman who writes and talks for a living (two things that very rarely lead to constant physical interactions) is not a little one. And that's not even taking into consideration Megan Carpentier's point about the rate of domestic violence against women in this country.


So, I'd rather be unpacking Glenn Beck's statement about Mary Landrieu, about how he called her a prostitute, how he called this prostitute "what" instead of "who", about how bad that is. How that is bad because prostitutes, as one of the more marginalized groups, are often stripped of their humanity. I'd rather be talking about how Mary Landrieu securing aid for a state ravaged by a storm whose destructive force was at least partially the fault of the Army Corp of Engineers and whose people were left pretty much high and dry by the federal government being called a prostitute is (a) deliberately fostering ignorance about how the Senate (and politics in general) works, and (b) obstinately refusing to recognize that she wouldn't have needed that kind of aid if we'd taken care of her state in the first place. I'd rather talk about how when men broker deals for plane parts to be made in most of the 50 states, it is good politics (until it isn't), but when a Democrat - not even a liberal - works to make the system work for her constituents she's just a whore for the money.

But no. Because liberals I'm aware of keep saying self-righteously assholish things. Liberals I like. Liberals I generally agree with. And then I have to spend my ride into work fuming. And then when I get home, I have to write these long-winded posts in order to not be seen as a liberal equivalent of Gretchen Carlson.

"Sick Puppies"

This is actually why I like Keith Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

When not on his own show, he's actually not bombastic and hard-liney. He's rather reasoned and calm(ish) and intelligent-sounding. That kind of sounds like I don't like his show, and I do. But I'm sure that if Olbermann covered this on his own show, he wouldn't be offering up the paternal defense and going straight for the "Are you calling me a sick puppy, you sick puppy?" And I like that defense, because it is actually understanding of the different impulses human beings actually have - even Republican ones.

Keith, Ya Done Wrong

I like Keith Olbermann. Mostly, this is linked to the fact that I - unlike a great many other people - am actually unbothered by hysterics in regard to politics. I don't particularly like Bill O'Reilly, but the only time he really gets my dander up is when what he says is an instigation to violence (or is sexist; I'm also not so good with the sexist). I think hysterics are needed, I think people who are far to the right and far to the left are needed as much as people who lean more toward the center, and I don't have a real problem with ideologues. Also, Olbermann looks good in a suit. And that's important, because so few liberals on television do (I'm looking at you, PBS).

But liking Keith Olbermann is problematic. Liking Keith Olbermann means sometimes listening to the same type of shit I'd be hearing if I were listening to some partisan figures on the other side of the isle. In short, listening to Keith Olbermann means sometimes hearing him say something profoundly stupid, hurtful, and the opposite of progressive. Like, his recent commentary on Michelle Malkin:

[Malkin's] total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascistic hatred, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.

Both Air America and Shakesville have posts up about this, and they both come at the problem from different perspectives. I agree with them both.

Megan Carpentier makes the salient point that

on average, once every 24 minutes in this country, a woman does become a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." Nearly 1.3 million American woman will be a victim of domestic violence this year, and one in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime.

A liberal, progressive critique of Malkin need not and should not resort to an attack on her looks or her gender or rely on silly stereotypes or imagery that brings to mind victims of domestic violence.

Over at Shakesville, Paul the Spud argues Olbermann's description

is sexist, it is dehumanizing, which is a central strategy of racism, and it is not helping.

They're both right. They both cover different aspects of why Olbermann was wrong, and they're both right. Olbermann f'd up.

He should apologize, but he probably won't. He won't because most of his viewers probably didn't catch how wrong he was, didn't catch how woman-hating it was, and - most depressingly - probably wouldn't care if they did. Because it is "just" Michelle Malkin. Just like it was "just" Sarah Palin when sexist and at times misogynistic crap was being flung at her. Just like it was "just" Hillary Clinton. And these viewers and Olbermann himself presumably feel these women deserve it, that these women are a special case when dehumanizing language is allowed, is appropriate, is understandable. But it isn't. Precisely because of the reasons Carpentier and the Spud point out.

A Connecticut Sports Story

This story made me blub on my way to work:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My only complaint - aside from Keith Olbermann's terrible glasses - is the pronunciation of Wolcott. It's pronounced, for whatever the reason, Wulkit; much like Southington isn't pronounced South-ington, but Suthington.

Why I Watch Keith Olbermann

Because every so often, he has moments like this, where he isn't his pompous windbaggy self (and don't get me wrong, I love self-righteously angry Olbermann as well - it just isn't why I watch him), but is angry without being bombastic and coming up with a pretty good plan of attack:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"It is useless to urge restraint on men who believe self-editing of freedom of speech apply only to others, that they are flawless and blameless and righteous. It is useless to make Frank Schaeffer's argument even though they have made parallel ones about how 'liberal' television degrades children, about how 'liberal' television hypnotizes voters, about how liberal entertainment destroys American values. When they reply, "Not in this case, bad apple, tv can't make that happen", it is useless to say, "If tv can't make something happen, then why do people advertise on it with the same commercial again and again and again in hopes of making buzz words sink in. The Geico Gecko, Viva Viagra, Free Credit Report dot Com. Tiller the Baby Killer...

...So what to do? Your boycotts mean little. You are already here; you are not watching Fox News Channel. Advertiser boycotts are also of limited value. Most make barely a dent in a company. Besides which, in this economy, an advertiser who found its sales boosted by association with Malaria would start breeding mosquitos. If there is a solution, it is perhaps an indirect boycott. It is probably your experience, as it has been mine, that stores, bars, restaurants, waiting rooms, often show Fox News on their televisions. Don't write a letter, don't make a threat. Just get up and explain. If they will not change the channel, leave the place and say calmly why it is you are taking your business elsewhere..."

I have to say, it is a workable plan.

The Highs and Lows of Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann has a lot of highs and a lot (like, a lot) of lows as well. These two are really just from last night's broadcast, because I was particularly struck by them as I drove into work this morning. First, Olbermann talks about the part contraceptives play in President Obama's budget:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The relevant part for me being:

And yes, all ye puritans among us, America will pay for contraceptives. Taxpayer dollars for evil condoms and horrible birth control pills. Contraceptives that states already have the option of providing for low-income fornicators. Fornication that would otherwise lead to untold, unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies, unwanted abortions, unwanted drains on families, unwanted drains on, yes, the national economy. The congressional budget office estimates that $200 million saved in 5 years thanks to, yup, contraceptives and family planning.

I kind of feel like he should have been talking to Chris Matthews about how the government helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and diseases) is so completely different than a government working to "regulate the amount of kids people might be in the mood for".

And yet, on the top of this rather concise illustration for why contraceptives aren't completely out of place in a government concerned about budgetary issues and the quality of life for its citizens, Olbermann was just off the friggin' wall with this:

[Limbaugh] apologizes - or analogizes - the 'I want Obama to fail' to rooting for the Steelers in the Super Bowl, except - and you would think that a self-professed football expert would know - that the Steelers' coach and the Steelers' owner campaigned for Obama and they did so to such an extent that the second person the team owner, who was a Republican, thanked after they won the Super Bowl was Barack Obama. Does this suggest that this internecine battle is rattling Limbaugh to some degree?

This insane ramblings interrupt a segment of Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This sort of eyerollingly ridiculous explanation of a pretty simplistic analogy is one of the things that makes Keith Olbermann seem unhinged. Instead of recognizing the analogy for what it is, rooting for the winner instead of the loser, Olbermann makes it about which football team supported which candidate.

Chris Hayes Is A Dork

I love the guy, and look forward to his editorials in The Nation with glee, but he is also totally a dork:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I actually think his dorkatude works to his advantage. It may just be that he fails to use contractions when he says, "I am obviously being sarcastic". It may have been more annoying had he'd said "I'm obviously being sarcastic", but the combination of that statement when it was indeed obvious and the lack of contraction really makes it.

Now, onto more important things; I'm starting to believe that what Chris Hayes says is correct, that many of the Republicans who have reached the upper echelons of their party's leadership have decided that the best way to win back some power in America would be to stymie Democratic attempts to fix America. If they obstruct many pieces of legislation, or, you know, the sitting of a senator, then they are playing on the hopes that it fails and that they can point out its failure in 2010 or 2012 without mentioning the part their obstruction could have potentially played in that failure. I have no doubt that Norm Coleman really wants to be Minnesota's senator. But really, at a certain point in time it is more than appropriate to throw in the old towel; and this, along with Republicans voting against the stimulus bill and then bragging about all the goodies they got in it, along with continued Republican lies about organizations like ACORN and what was actually in that stimulus bill, makes me a might bit suspicious.

The game many Republicans are now playing seems directly related to the game they play in regard to national security. I live in a blue state - not a blue dog state, just a true blue one. Our Republicans are for things like gun control laws and abortion rights (not that we have any more on the national scene), that's how blue we are. And even I have heard and seen plenty of talk about how Bush kept us safe for 8 years, because after 9/11 there hadn't been another terrorist attack. The problem with that is two-fold; it is trying to prove a negative in that it is trying to create a correlation between the policies that have ostensibly proven to create more terrorists with the fact that we have not had a terrorist attack, and it is playing the numbers game. There is no way to keep America perfectly safe, especially now that we've (we've) destabilized a nation in an already tumultuous region and tortured people; we can keep America fairly safe, even very safe. But what the Bush administration and those who have fixed upon their talking points have done is to ensure a climate where any hint of terrorism under Obama equals a fail for him, even if those engaged in terrorism had turned to terrorism because of Bush era policies. And that is as intellectually disingenuous as it is politically savvy. 

A less politically savvy aspect of this "My country when it thinks I'm right, but I hope it fails when it thinks I'm wrong" are things like Sean Hannity's poll asking what kind of rebellion his followers would prefer against the country, and Rush Limbaugh hoping out loud and often that President Obama fails; but the presence of such ideas in the overall dialogue lends credence to the thought that the other obstructionist stuff may be less based on principles and more on politics. It doesn't prove anything, but it sure does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

But back to Chris Hayes. Chris makes a point that "the town remains wired for Republicans. It still listens to Republican talking points. We saw this in the stimulus and when you had all these Republicans on the cable networks talking all the time about, you know, their objection to this part of the stimulus. That still permeates the institutional structure of elite consensus opinion in Washington despite the massive change in public opinion about how people feel about conservative ideas and the Republican party. The smaller, kind of insular, beltway establishment still is far more willing to cut Republicans slack than actual voters at large are." This is an echo, though less tinfoil hat extreme, of someone I thought was just insane on Bill Moyers' The Journal on February 6th. Says Glenn Greenwald:

I think it raises an interesting dilemma. Which is, if you look at what the media were saying about Obama favorably, both around the time of his election and subsequent as well, they kept insisting that he could continue Bush's counterterrorism policies that were so controversial.

They were praising him for leaving in place all sorts of Bush officials that the media wants to see is continuity, that he's not threatening to their way of life and to their establishment, for the reason that we talked about before. That's how he wins praise from them, is by showing that he isn't going to change things fundamentally, and therefore, isn't a threat to their system.

At the same time, as Jay said, what he needs to do more than anything to fulfill the commitments that he made, is demonstrate that he's a true change agent. And I think these objectives are very much in conflict, because the more he threatens the Washington system, I think the more hostility the press will feel towards him, and therefore, project to the public about him. And that, too, can undermine his political popularity.

And while Nancy Pelosi may have schooled Rachel Maddow about how effective the Republicans dominating the talking points during the stimulus debate was, I think at some point the dominance will affect American perception of the presidency and the legitimacy of the Democratic rule and liberalism in general. Liberal is already a damned dirty word, and I would like that to change. But as long as the Republicans can play keep away without being seriously called on it, that isn't likely to.

Michele Bachmann Is Why We Need To Elect More Republicans

No, seriously; that title isn't MST3000 material. I think Michele Bachmann is why we need more Republicans in Congress. Just listen to her crazy ramblings:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

A good democracy has more than one party, and at the moment the Republicans left - especially in the House - are tending toward the unhinged side with Michele Bachmann being the head of them all. And while that leads to fun Chris Hayes, I really think that bipartisan efforts and better legislation in general could come about if there were more moderate Republicans in the mix. I can't help but feel like maybe we (collective we, because I don't live there) shouldn't have voted Chris Shays out of representing Connecticut's 4th district.

Dear Keith Olbermann,

Metaphors work much better if you don't explain every intrinsic detail of them, down to what each part of said metaphor refers to in its real world application. That's the whole point of a metaphor, to obliquely reference the situation at hand. This?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Misses the point of the function of the metaphor. As does your even more detailed, possibly footnoted, explanation during Countdown's intro:

"The football is bipartisan action in the time of crisis, this time the stimulus package. The Charlie Brown character is the president. Lucy, pulling the football away - again, is the Republican Party."

Look, Keith, I know you have a tendency to err on the side of pomposity, and I even like that about you. But you know who else had a tendency to err on the side of pomposity and still managed to make a workable Charlie Brown-Football reference? Aaron Sorkin:

BARTLET: You know what you are? You are the Charlie Brown of missile defense. The Pentagon is Lucy.

It was funny, and succinct. And yes, he was able to extrapolate on the details later:

LEO: I'm not familiar with the reference.

BARTLET: Peanuts. Charlie Brown.

LEO: I've heard of them. I'm just not conversant in them.

BARTLET: Why?

LEO: I've never read the comics.

BARTLET: Leo, were you born at age 55?

LEO: I know there's a dog.

BARTLET: Charlie Brown wanted to kick a football and Lucy would hold it, except she'd pull it away at the last minute and Charlie Brown would fall on his butt.

LEO: That's funny?

BARTLET: No, but each time Lucy would find a way to convince Charlie Brown that this time she wouldn't pull the ball away. But she would and, once again, Charlie Brown would fall on his butt.

LEO: And that's funny?

BARTLET: It's satirical.

LEO: What's it satirizing?

BARTLET: The DOD bringing you to the Situation Room every time they run a new missile test so that you come to me and tell me how great it works so I'll put money in the NMD system.

because he was a talented guy with a knack for dialogue. You, Keith, you're no Aaron Sorkin. I know that must be hard for you to believe, but you're not. Nor are you writing a drama where conversation is paramount. You're hosting a liberally slanted opinion show; and you've just got to learn to trust that your audience is not made up of Leo McGarrys but of people who have not only read Peanuts but have seen at least one of the holiday specials in their lifetimes. Trust the audience, Keith. We'll do some of the work for you. And if you don't trust the audience and continue to explain your metaphors down to the most infinitesimal detail, I'm going to have to assume that you just really don't understand how metaphors work.

Wednesday's The Hump Day, Right?

Work sucks, and I'm very, incredibly, mind-numbingly tired. So here's Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This statement sums up how I feel about the whole thing: "That's what's so vicious about the entire logic that has guided this from the beginning; it's that if there are people who act unlawfully, the law no longer applies. Which is on its face absurd, right? I mean, the whole point of the law is to create a frame work to deal with people who violate it."

And I agree with him when he says, "I will say that I found it incredibly offensive that he referred to it as a symbol. The fact of the matter is there are actual people who were actually kidnapped and actually held and actually tortured away from their actual family members. So there is nothing symbolic about what has happened to the people in Guantanamo."

But at the same time, Dick Cheney is about half right as well; Guantanamo Bay is not just a symbol. The reason the Left is up in arms is not just because Guantanamo is symbolic of the Bush disregard for rule of law - unless it is their law - and lack of respect for civil liberties. But the fact of the matter is that while the reason for the outrage is the fact that there are actual people who have actually been tortured, with the benefit of this process actually discrediting the United States in the global community, it is also symbolic of a power structure gone horribly awry. Guantanamo also represents a greater injustice, or rather a series of greater injustices. There is the injustice of actually torturing people; and then there is the injustice paid to those who have actually been affected by terrorist acts allegedly perpetrated by the detainees at Gitmo. After all, because the military engaged in tactics that were tantamount to torture, Susan Crawford - the woman who decides who stands trial at Gitmo - has dropped charges against Muhammed al-Qahtani, the alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker. And although I am with Chris Hayes completely in that it is incredibly offensive and unacceptable for anyone to be tortured in the name of America's safety, it is almost more offensive for actual justice to be stymied because of that torture. Gitmo is a symbol as well as a terrible institution. It is the symbol of much of what went wrong in the Bush administration. It is bad enough to decide that the end justifies the means when those means include betraying some of the country's core values; it is just that much worse when the ends one has betrayed those values for turn out to be nothing more than an ideological mirage. Gitmo is just one example of the intersection of that insult to injury; it is also one of the most glaring.

First Sarah Haskins, And Now Some Chris Hayes

First, I have to say that I'm not loving Keith Olbermann's suit and tie combination in the first video. I usually think he's a pretty snazzy dresser (I like the grey suit-white dress shirt-purple tie combo in the second video), or that he at least has a really good wardrobe supervisor. But that yellowy brown striped tie? Not of the good. Now, onto Chris Hayes, who seemed to be tripping over his own tongue.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I gotta say, I like anyone who juxtaposes "talking a lot of smack" with the word "capitulate" within a sentence. And I agree with both he and Keith Olbermann here. The Democrats won! Why are they then being oddly obstinate? Is it just something akin to the post-Christmas letdown that occurs in my house, where they were all excited for election day and are now grumpy and cranky and sleep-deprived while being overly sugared? Because I don't really remember Harry Reid standing up too often to President Bush. And while I agree with what Reid said, in that Senate Democrats need to work with Senate Republicans and that Reid doesn't work for Obama, I think it is kind of odd that he felt the need to state that outright, right now. And I do love Hayes' eye roll at Reid's assertion that he will be Majority leader until 2015.

I have to say, Democrats shot themselves in the foot with the whole Roland Burris thing, but that's really all I want to say about it; and I'm hoping that what with Jesse White signing the document certifying Burris' appointment, this will all fade away into one of those crazy but innocuous stories we all tell each other in a few years if the world has managed not to go to hell in a handbasket. But while I understand not wanting to look like limp noodles going back on a promise not to seat anyone appointed by a corrupt public official, I have to imagine that it would have been more politically expedient to have just quietly done that and allowed the story to fade away rather than to allow a continuation of coverage of this whole mess. And to think, this could have been spared if only the Illinois legislature had voted to hold a special election.

The second video, about Sanjay Gupta and the lack of accountability when someone gets something wrong in a socially acceptable way. I have no real opinion about the Gupta pick one way or the other, but I do enjoy the conversation about what frustrates the Left about this whole process.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ralph Nader's Gotta Be Pissed!

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Although Bush has turned into less of an ideologue over the economy - where he never truly was a fiscal conservative or anti-big government anyway (just for all those little people) - he is still doing a number to our country and those of us who have to live in it. When Keith Olbermann posed his question, he was discussing Bush's last minute environmental policies. But I think this sort of thing applies to the "doing as much damage to the country" thing as well. Call me crazy, but I would like my roof to not collapse on me in the event my car rolled over; and if my roof happened to, I would want the company responsible for such shoddy construction and design to have to pay - big time. Aside from my on-going intellectual crush on Chris Hayes, I do think he has a point in that one needs regulation or litigation in order to maintain a balance of power between corporations and citizens. I tend to like a mixture of both, but having neither is less than acceptable. Ralph Nader must be furious right about now.

Presidential Motivations

Last night, I got to sit down and watch The Countdown. I know all the cool kids like Rachel Maddow better, but I love Keith Olbermann. It may have something to do with the fact that they tend to cover the same topics, and Keith is on first and after that first run I get a little bored of the topics they discuss. I was all excited, because it was 8 o'clock, I was home, and no one else was home who had the power to take the remote away from me by virtue of being the person who actually pays the cable bill. And at the end of "Bushed", Keith Olbermann posed this question:

"I'm going to ask you something, and it's going to sound like a joke but I'm serious. In those quiet moments when you contemplate this extraordinary administration - without anger, without bitterness, just with a kind of centered awe - do you ever wonder if Mr. Bush's goal was to become president so he could spend eight years doing as much damage to this country as time and his own energies would allow?"

And to that I say - actually, no. I take a different view, either kinder or even more damning, depending upon one's perspective. 

One thing I flash on whenever Bush does something indescribably indefensible is Roger Mudd's question to Ted Kennedy - that being, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy froze, and was unable to give a straightforward answer even though he had a ready-made one in that whole "My brother John was president, and was assassinated before his grand vision could be enacted. My brother Robert was running for president because he saw the continued injustices present in the world, and was assassinated before the primaries were over. I want to carry their vision of a better America to fruition" thing. In those moments when Bush does something incredibly stupid or short sighted, or when his verbal ticks really start to bother me, I wonder what his answer would have been to that question - because I honestly don't think he had any other reason for running for president other than to be president. [As an aside, I give Ted the benefit of the doubt there; I assume he had visions of his brothers, both dead in the course of being or becoming president, and decided that maybe that whole 'president' thing just wasn't for him - and that he would be happier in a crowd of 99 other people.]

I tend to think that in order to even run for president, a person must have either an incredible, indefectible ego - or craves the recognition of the presidency as a way to inflate his ego. I also tend to think that two motivations more than any other come into play, those being believing one can do great and glorious things with the presidency and wanting the grand and glorious stature of the presidency. Generally, there is a grand interplay between the two. John F. Kennedy ran for president because it was his father's dream to see his oldest (living) son to be president. He was a good president because he not only embodied the dreams and visions of America and her citizens in his Camelot White House, but because he had the gravitas necessary to recognize the good he could achieve once he was president. Lincoln seems to encompass much of the first motivation and less of the second, though the second is still present; same thing with George Washington. And being more in tune with the first motivation instead of the second does not ensure a good president; Jimmy Carter is a perfect example of that. As would Herbert Hoover. Being more in tune with the second motivation does not ensure a bad president; Teddy Roosevelt was definitely someone who wanted the stature of the presidency. But what is needed is some sort of underlying understanding of the world no matter which motivation is more present - a philosophical undertaking, and the finesse to bring that philosophy into legislation. It takes intelligence; it takes gravitas; it takes a curiosity, a pragmatism, and an ability to know when to hold 'em and to know when to fold them. And I don't think George Bush really had any of that. The problem with number 43 is that he didn't seek to do damage to the country or the world. It just - in oddly sitcomish fashion - happened that way. 

If he had intended to create half of the chaos he has, then that would be at least something. After all, I don't agree with much of Reagan's philosophy or many of his policies, but I respect that he was a good president because he had that knowledge of when to be pragmatic and when to push for the conservative ideologies he believed in. He was able to enact the change he wanted to see; I don't think George W. Bush can say the same. And that is what made him a particularly bad president.

"This Tiny, Symbolic, Semantical Grain of Happiness"

I've been seeing The Countdown's latest Special Comment pop up everywhere today, but on the off-chance anyone's missed it:

I love it. I said so on Oh, You're a FEMINIST (and my comment may still be awaiting approval), and I'll say so here. I like Keith Olbermann and I enjoy The Countdown, even as I often feel he's gone too far and stridently in the direction of the left. Some of the things he chooses to care about baffle me, as in the case with the supposed Sarah Palin on SNL incidents (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, all the better; I wish I didn't know what I was talking about - thanks, Keith). I've often thought that if one of the editors of The Nation Magazine is the one telling you to chill out on the crazy leftist agenda, maybe you've gone too far from time to time. But as I said, I like him; and I agree with the underlying principles in much of what he says, no matter how much I sometimes - good naturedly - roll my eyes at the voraciousness of his comments. However, this special comment is special in that I genuinely feel emotionally moved by his perspective. I not only agree, but I feel as though Keith Olbermann has hit the right note in which to express this opinion. It isn't strident or overly sanctimonious. There is no bluster or waving of the finger but a genuine concern and disappointment over this election decision. I'm one who feels as if weddings and the ceremonies are practices in frivolity, and that those things are ridiculous. But I wish the people who desire to participate in them no ill will; I'm not anti-marriage. And, as Olbermann states, it is a "semantical grain of happiness", so why, in the name of anything one holds dear, would anyone wish to bar someone from such a pursuit? And so, hats off to Keith Olbermann and his special comment on a disappointing loss.

Joe The Plumber Went To Bed

Things I never want to hear again:

1) Senator Obama voted to raise taxes on people making 42 thousand dollars a year. 

-We heard it before, in the past two debates. Obama has explained it, twice before in each debate. But tonight he said something I really liked: "Even Fox News disputes it". Go Obama!

2) Joe the Plumber.

-I understand that there is Joe who happens to be a plumber out there. But I never want to hear about him again. I suppose it is good that "Joe Six pack" who got such a workout in the vice-presidential debate was put to bed. Maybe he found the local AA meetings, I don't know. But I don't want to hear about Joe the plumber again. If I find a plumber I like who happens to be named Joe, I may not hire him.

3) Bill Ayers.

-Thank God for Obama. I loved him pointing out that the debates and the last three weeks should be about the issues, not about some guy who did some despicable things when Obama eight years old. I liked that Obama said he could handle three more weeks of attacks but that the country could not handle 4 more years of failed economic policy. I also enjoyed Obama's point that McCain's focus on Ayers said more about McCain's own campaign than it said about Obama himself. And McCain claiming that he didn't care about some washed up terrorist kind of underscored his own point.

I also thought that McCain seemed to come off as petulant and very immature. I was almost out of my seat when McCain said that there were things yelled at Obama rallies that he, McCain, wasn't happy with; had I been Obama, I may have snapped, "Yeah, but at least those at my rallies aren't threatening your life". If Obama could handle three more weeks of attacks, McCain whined about the little nicks he has been subject to. If I had to take a worse or more unsettling insult, I would take the "terrorist" or "kill him" more to heart than anything Obama or Obama's people said about McCain. Obama came off as much more presidential on this particular issue than McCain did. Especially since the only negative statements I have heard about, especially John Lewis', were in response to McCain's own side's attacks on Obama.

Things I Liked:

Obama on the abortion issue. I thought that Obama embraced the shades of grey. I wish he had cast anti-abortionists as anti-choice. I wish that McCain et al. of the anti-abortion side would stop saying they would 'counsel' the woman through this difficult decision, when their policies and their votes and their Supreme Court justices would remove the actual decision from the process. I thought John McCain played into the worst memes regarding the pro-choice movement and women who have third trimester abortions when he suggested that "women's health" was an overused and false excuse exercised by the pro-choice movement.

Obama's friendly smile and reminder that an across the board freeze would limit the amount of money available for special needs education and funding.

Things I Would Have Liked To Have Seen:

I would have liked Obama to have hit at McCain and Sarah Palin a little harder. I do think that there is a point to be made about how Obama has to walk softly and appear more even keeled, that it has been working for him and to react in anger or even show too much emotion may hurt his chances of winning blue-collar white voters who are iffy on him due to his race. But when McCain started talking about Columbia and how Obama never visited that country, I so wanted Obama to shoot back that McCain's running mate just got her passport last year and apparently could see Russia from her house.

I'll leave it with this quote from Rachel Maddow on John McCain: "He looks like he doesn't want Barack Obama to be president than he looks like he wants to be president". Overall, I think John McCain is a good guy. My father made a point that McCain's temperament is similar to his own; that he gets agitated easily but is a good man. My contention is that there is a reason why my father should not be president. And McCain does seem to have the same inclination (though I would mention that my father tends to be less grumpy and has a nicer smile), and that isn't incredibly presidential. Obama does come off as presidential - and nothing like my father. I think McCain did a much better job this time around; I would put this one as a tie, though I myself was infinitely more persuaded by Obama. I like his positions better; I like his attack of the situation better. But I am a bleeding heart and a feminist. Of course, according to Keith Olbermann, most polls have the debate won by Obama. Then again, Olbermann is probably only slightly less liberal than I am.

Chris Hayes Is Flabbergasted

Here's some Chris Hayes for your Friday afternoon: