Caught in the Crossfire?
Good news on the mass media front: The situation for Tucker Carlson is not looking good.
In an attempt to cash in on the resurgence of liberalism in the U.S. (mainly as a backlash to the last seven years of abject stupidity on parade in Washington) MSNBC is moving gradually to the left in an attempt to be to the rising liberal tide what Fox "news" has been to the right. They started with Keith Olbermann declarations that the emperor has no clothes and slowly but surely are creeping to the left. Chris Matthews - who has been a notorious right-wing mouthpiece - is now trying to convince us he's always disliked Bush and been against the war.
The one fly in the ointment is Tucker, who they are never going to be able to pass off as anything but a rightist.
Ever since Jon Stewart ate his lunch on CNN, things have been in a bit of downhill slide for Tucker. I guess smarmy just isn't selling these days as well as it used to.
While the bitch-slapping Jon Stewart gave him was one of the great moments in media of the last ten years, one of my favorite bits of Tuckerness is this little gem:
Tucker Carlson's exchange with ESPN radio host Max Kellerman on MSNBC's The Situation Dec. 15, 2005

CARLSON: All right, first up, a war of words gets heated, and it sounds like our neighbors to the north are mad. That, of course, would be Canada, for those of you following along at home. The prime minister of that country, Paul Martin, says he will—quote—“not be dictated to” by the U.S. over, of all things, lumber tariffs, which are a big deal in Canada.
It‘s the latest salvo in an increasingly pitched battle that had David Wilkins, our ambassador to that country, strategy—quote—“It may be smart election-year politics to thump your chest and criticize your friend and your number-one trading partner constantly, but it‘s a slippery slope. And all of us should hope it doesn‘t have a long-term impact on the relationship.”
Here‘s the problem, Max. Here‘s the problem with telling Canada to stop criticizing the United States. It only eggs them on. Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States, right?
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right? Canada spends all of its time thinking about the United States, obsessing over the United States. It‘s unrequited love between Canada and the United States.
We, meanwhile, don‘t even know Canada‘s name. We pay no attention at all.
KELLERMAN: Well...
CARLSON: Canada thinks we‘re married; we don‘t know it exists. Every time we tell Canada to knock it off, it just feeds the fire.
KELLERMAN: Well, yes. I very much like your “Canada, the adults are talking” stance. I—I like that.
(LAUGHTER)
KELLERMAN: However, we really do have to engage them on this.
And this is—this is the devil‘s-advocate position, but I may actually believe this.
CARLSON: All right.
KELLERMAN: They make us look bad internationally. And it‘s really not fair.
We have the—the longest, friendliest border, you know, for the—for the longest time in the history—in recorded history, really, with Canada. And they get to sit on their moral perch, you know, take the moral high ground, say, oh, United States, shame on you about Iraq.
They—they had—they must take no—virtually no responsibility, certainly in terms of their military, around the world. We have to do all the heavy lifting. And then to have them, our—one of our really strongest allies, when you think about it, internationally...
CARLSON: Oh.
KELLERMAN: ... to the north, constantly criticizing us and making us look bad internationally, it needs to be addressed.
CARLSON: First of all, anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York.
Second, anybody who sides with Canada internationally in a debate between the U.S. and Canada, say, Belgium, is somebody whose opinion we shouldn‘t care about in the first place.
Third, Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he‘s nice, but you don‘t take him seriously. That is Canada.
KELLERMAN: No, you don‘t. You don‘t. But what if the rest of the family does? In other words, yes, the United States can rely on...
CARLSON: That‘s their problem.
KELLERMAN: ... England, Australia, Israel, a few staunch, important allies internationally. But we have lost a lot of international support.
And Canada, by others in the global family, is, for some reason, taken seriously. They have about 30 million people. They have some natural resources.
CARLSON: Oh. They have dogsleds and trees, and that‘s it.
KELLERMAN: And comedians.
CARLSON: Look, I like Canada.
KELLERMAN: Tucker, they have comedians.
CARLSON: Every single comedian in Canada is now living in the United States.
KELLERMAN: Well, that‘s true.
CARLSON: Every one of them. They sneak over the border and live among us unseen. It‘s actually kind of scary.

Big talk for a man who stole his sartorial splendor from Pierre Burton. A word to the wise Tuck, you need to be pretty butch to pull off a bowtie. You look a lot more like mama's boy George Will than you probably want to. To paraphrase Jack Palance, Pierre Burton crapped bigger than you, you sad pathetic frat boy poseur. Get off the airwaves and get yourself preppie talk show on the campus station at Andover or Choate. Maybe there's an opportunity to start your own Frat TV network.

Jon Stewart was right, he is a dick

Regular readers know that while I live in Tokyo, I am Canadian right down to my Stanfields. I like my hockey, my Molson's, my maple syrup and Stompin' Tom Conners. Like many Canadians, I have mixed feelings about our neighbours to the South. Lately I'm starting to agree more and more with the Carolyn Parrish crowd, mainly because of the reaction south of the border to our Prime Minister's very reasonable comments on the state of affairs between Canada and the United States. The U.S. Ambassador felt compelled to shoot his mouth off and interfere with our election (not the first time this has happened, Paul Celluci did the same thing last time around) and now the rightwing pundits are starting in.

Tucker Carlson -- who incidently dresses like Pierre Berton without being anywhere near as cool as the late popular historian and author -- has apparently been taking way too much of whatever the hell it is that John Gibson is on. I'd like to extend a personal invitation to him to come up and visit the Great White North, where he will be very happy to learn we have low cost socialized health care, because if he gets anywhere near anyone who has read this pile of insulting crap, he's going to need it. I just ask my fellow citizens to save me a piece of him when they go all Dave Schultz on his preppy hide.


From Canadian Press

Last week, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson, a well-known conservative pundit, let loose with a string of anti-Canada rants.

''Anybody with any ambition at all, or intelligence, has left Canada and is now living in New York,'' he said.

''Canada is a sweet country. It is like your retarded cousin you see at Thanksgiving and sort of pat him on the head. You know, he's nice but you don't take him seriously. That's Canada.''

Carlson also said it's pointless to tell Canada to stop criticizing the United States.

''It only eggs them on. Canada is essentially a stalker, stalking the United States, right? Canada has little pictures of us in its bedroom, right?''

''It's unrequited love between Canada and the United States. We, meanwhile, don't even know Canada's name. We pay no attention at all,'' he said.

Clearly the man needs a swift mukluk in the hindquarters, the question is who to sic on him? Don Cherry? Stompin' Tom Conners? Rick Mercer? Rex Murphy? Post your suggestions and we'll have a contest.

I think the thing that drives these guys nuts when it come to the True North Strong and Free is that Canada is the country that U.S. liberals would like to see the U.S. resemble - clean, polite, free and safe with a strong economy, a falling public debt, a government that tries to help those that need it and unquestionably liberal social policies. Canada works and that drives guys like Neil Cavuto and Tucker Carlson crazy.

By all means drop the ignorant sissy-boy a line at Tucker@msnbc.com

It's spelled T-U-C-K-E-R, but it's pronounced "Fail"

Everyone's least favorite bowtie model and smarmy right-wing media douche bag Tucker Carlson has decided that, despite having utterly failed on PBS, CNN and MSNBC to do anything but prove himself a loathable loser, the internet community desperately needs another pathetic, fact-free clearing house for the screeching of the neo-nazi, paint-chip-eating fraternity brother wing of the right that aren't already on Red State or Big Hollywood. Ah well, on the bright side, think how much easier this will make things for people like Tbogg, Roy Edroso and the General. This won't be low-hanging fruit, this will be apples that jump off the tree and into the basket, peel and slice themselves and climb between layer of pastry, demanding to be baked.

And yes, Tucker is still a dick.

another one bites the dust
First they came for Tucker Carlson, now John Gibson -- when will it be O'Rielly's turn?

We interupt this blog for an important news bulletin

This just in - MSNBC "pundit" Tucker Carlson is still a dick. In fact, he's an even bigger dick than previously suspected.

In other news, Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead.


Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Word of the day

'Backpfeifengesicht' (Back-fie-fen-ge- zischt.)


1. German, literally "a face that cries out for a fist in it'

Example:

Of course, no mention of Tucker Carlson should be made without including this clip of the day Jon Stewart effectively ended his career as a pundit:




Update!

Required Canadian Content example:

 This is Matt Meier, president and CEO of Racknine, who has no idea how all those bogus illegal election calls got made to Liberal supporters telling them their polling stations had been changed

Tweet

The Age of Dumb
As ususal, we had CNN on in the newsroom today and I was, as usual, reminded just how crappy the "News Network of Record" usually is. Larry King was on, taking a break from his breathless "coverage" of Anna Nicole Smith and promotion of American Idol to lob softballs to Laura "the Joker" Bush, followed by a short interview with James Cameron about whether researchers (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense) had actually found the actual tomb of the actual Jesus.

This lead into a segment on "Mysteries of the Bible" with former MuchMusic VJ and senior CNN hair model John "JD" Roberts exploring the usual parade of long since debunked religious based scams - the shroud of Turin, the search for Noah's Ark etc etc - while a constant computer graphic scrolled the words "faith" "religion" and "Jesus" in a quasi-subliminal way in the sceen margin.

The sound was off so I can't say for sure that Roberts wasn't ridiculing the notion that Noah Ark was for real, but given the tenor of the discussion on Larry King, in which the only person he really seemed to challenge was the scientist who was rightfully contemptuous of the notion of "proving" it was Jesus and Mary Magdelene in the tomb through DNA testing, and the current fear in the media of offending any nutbar's oh-so-sacred religious sensibilities, I'll go out on a limb and guess that his was not the skeptical point of view. The King show transcript for the Jesus tomb James Cameron segment isn't available yet, but you can find his hard-hitting interview with the first lady here.

However, lest you think it is just something in the water in the USA, CNN brings us this gem from South Korea on how children are learning that Jews control the United States.

I guess my biggest complaint about CNN and the 24-hour cable news horrorshows in general is that they constantly pander to the lowest common denominator (yeah, yeah I know, it's TV -- what the hell did I expect) with mindless celebrity worship, fearmongering sensationalist crime stories, unspeakably shallow analysis of complex issues, the not so subtle reinforcement of the notion that having money makes you smart and important and the non-stop dumbing down of western culture. If the 24-hour cable news station were the irrelevant sideshow they seem to aspire to be, such a lack of serious news content would be one thing, but the problem is that they now set the public agenda in United States and to a lesser extent the Western world as a whole.

As Jon Stewart so famously said to Tucker Carlson and Paul Begalla "Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America"

"It's a thin line between clever and stupid"

I'll confess I don't read the entire Washington Post every day. In fact, I usually only scan the front of their web page for the headlines, read the pieces that interest me, maybe check the occasional column or editorial. Since, however, my newspaper carries their Sunday "Outlook" - albeit a few days late - I always get to read their main weekly opinion "think piece section.
Sometimes it's a good read, sometimes not and while it has slowly become more conservative over the last half-dozen years, this week had a piece that really made me think very, very hard--"Yes, We're Out of Power. But I'm Still Starstruck" by S. E. Cupp. Not having previously heard of the author, I really couldn't decide on the merits of the article itself whether it was a staggering work of brilliant satire, an inside joke, life imitating McSweeny's or just what the hell it was, but read some of these bon mots and see what you think:

See, in my world, stars don't come any bigger than Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney and Mike Pence (if there were a congressional version of Teen Beat, the Indiana congressman would be on its cover every month). Michael Steele, Mike Huckabee and John Boehner are the Jonas Brothers of conservative celebrity.

You see my confusion - that last comparison will mean different things to different people. On the surface, I suspect conservatives will see comparing Steele, Huckabee and Boehner to the very popular teen idol popstars as an endorsement of their star quality, their charisma and penchant for success. All of which ignores the truth that lies only nanometers below that surface - the Jonas Brothers are a trio of talentless pretty boys assembled in a Disney PR laboratory to appeal to a group of very unsophisticated, uncritical consumers - preteen girls. They, and others like them, are the personification of all that is wrong with America. (Now, I know dear reader,　you are dying to ask "who does he mean 'they'? Is he talking about the pop stars or the politicians?" To which I can only answer "Yes.")

Obviously, something like "And doesn't everyone want to have "Breakfast with Phyllis Schlafly"? Just me?" can never be anything but ironic, but just how deep is the irony intended to penetrate? And what are we to make of this vision of hell:

"I'm also looking forward to drinking boxed wine with such friends and colleagues as Tucker Carlson, Stephen Baldwin and Andrew Breitbart during the forced socialization of conference happy hours...And, yes, I just totally name-dropped."

The article ends with same kind of awkwardness that one might experience upon walking into the men's room and seeing Ann Coulter emerging from a stall.

And let's not forget the thrill of the unplanned and unexpected. The environment at conferences like CPAC is ripe spectacle -- the hilarity of an inebriated speaker, the hysteria over a surprise guest, or an awkward moment between you and that woman you met last year whose name you've completely forgotten.
Last year a disheveled-looking man sat on a street corner near the hotel all four days, pan-handling. He held a cardboard sign that read, "Bush is Bi." I'm not sure what he meant by that -- I have a feeling he didn't know, either -- but I really hope he'll be there again. Who needs star power when you have memories like that?

Having checked out Ms.Cupp's website, I'm still undecided - she's either the nee plus ultra example of the "sassy young conservative sex bomb pundit" right down to the librarian glasses and the guns-and-nascar fetish or she's mining the same territory as Stephen Colbert but in a much more subtle and undercover way.

Weimar Amerika?

Read this thought-provoking little essay by Robert Freeman and you'll find yourself wondering whether this kid has learned all the words to "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" yet.

In other news, Tucker Carlson is still a dick.

.... ... ... door ... ... .. ... ass .. .... way out - I'm sure you can fill in the blanks
In what I'm sure was a moment of emotional conflict for Jon Stewart, it was revealed today that grating, talentless, preening hack with pretentions of intellectual adequacy Tucker Carlson will no longer have his own extended version of the two-minute hate on MSNBC.

And there was much rejoicing.

Common sense on the march
Jon Stewart is the best journalist on television today for one reason only-he speaks the truth. He is the little boy telling the realm that the emperor is buck naked. He also hates media whore pundits who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them on the ass. Take at look at this transcript and smell the fear in the heart of pundit land as
Jon Stewart hands Tucker Carlson his ass in bag or watch the video.
Meanwhile, veteran high-quality scribe Helen Thomas, who has covered more campaigns than some of us have had hot meals, has these words of wisdom about the use of the L word

Civility and polarization -- which side are you on boys, which side are you on


CC has issued a call for more serious civil discussion of the issues in the Canadian blogosphere, while, of course, reserving the right to snark and heap abuse on boneheads when appropriate.
This got me to thinking about the polarized nature of the blogosphere and the tone and tenor of most of the debate. Pour yourself a drink, this is going to be a long one.

The vast majority of the popular political sites tend to be echo chambers to some degree with most of the debate being among people who are in fundamental agreement.

If you are commenting on major lefty blogs such as Eschaton or Firedoglake or even humorous site identified with the liberal side such as Tbogg you are likely a liberal prochoice Democrat who opposes the war and dislikes George Bush or you're a knuckledragging troll who is there to bait such people. Moderate conservatives who oppose the war don't comment there - though I'll concede they might lurk. If you are regularly reading and commenting on Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs or Free Republic you are likely among the minority who still back George W. Bush, favored the invasion of Iraq and think that God, guns and guts made America great - or you're a liberal blogger looking for material.

Wingnuts stick with wingnuts, moonbats stick with moonbats and when we are talking amongst ourselves about the other side the rhetoric can and does run pretty high -- though I would argue you hear lot less eliminationist rhetoric and accusations that people who believe X are traitors who hate America/Canada/Western civilization in Left Blogistan. Most of it is preaching to the converted, rallying the troops and pointing out the mistakes of the other side. Which is all fine and good up to a point, but even if three quarters of us think Bush is a moron who ought to be in prison, we still have to live next door to the quarter who think otherwise. We need to get along a bit better with people who don't agree with us.

I think the effect of the political blog wars and the ratcheting up of the rhetoric has done little more than polarize the general public. The coverage of elections as if they were horseraces and media emphasis on red state vs. blue state divides has contributed greatly to this. People are being told they must choose a side in the blogosphere, in the culture war, in politics. The idea of a "swing voter" choosing the party who will work for the greater good is being replaced with an us vs. them "you're either for us or against us"mentality that insists on ideological purity and encourages extremism.

There are left/liberal sites where the rhetoric is more restrained and the emphasis is more on information and discussion of policy. There is still a partisan agenda, but slapping the other side around for laughs tends to be pushed to the back burner and the writing is more of the sort one might expect to see on the op-ed page. I'm thinking of sites like Crooked Timber, Juan Cole, Glenn Greenwald, TPM Cafe and to a lesser extent the Huffington Post. You'll find thoughtful factual, researched posts there that deal with the opposition is more or less civil terms. These kind of sites seem to embrace the sort of civility that CC is calling for and one would think that oppositional comments from Republicans and conservatives would be treated according to the golden rule -- if the comment is polite, the response tends to be polite, and trolls get flamed.

I'm not sure such sites exist in Right Blogsilvania. Is there a conservative version of TPM Cafe? If there is, I would like to see it.Does the right have its reasoned, thoughtful online pundits that mirror intelligent, liberal bloggers like Juan Cole, Glen Greenwald and Josh Marshall? (And please don't suggest Instapundit or the Townhall gang present anything like reasoned, civil discussion. There is a reason an entire swath of the liberal-left blogging community has evolved into a group who do little more than document the atrocities against logic, good taste and decency committed by these radicals in sheeps clothing --because it is damn near a full time job.)

I'm all for civil discourse, and I'm willing to discuss any issue in a reasonable manner. People of good will can disagree and democracy lies in working out a way to overcome such disagreements and work for the common good. It is those who seek partisan advantage and try to score political points instead of seeking to understand the facts and find a solution to the problems of the day that are destroying civility and threatening democracy. The echo chamber blogs have their role to play,--we all need a place to let off steam, bitch and poke fun-- but more constructive discussions between liberals and conservatives really need to happen and soon or we are all in lot more trouble than we realize.

Leaving the mess in Iraq to fester so it can be blamed on someone else gets people killed. Ignoring science for ideological or political reasons or simply to placate the people who donated money to your campaign is going to ruin the environment. Letting problems with education, immigration, trade and infrastructure get worse because no one wants to admit a mistake or give ground is only going to make those problems harder to solve in the long run.

When Jon Stewart bitchslapped Tucker Carlson and Paul Beglala and the whole Crossfire forced dichotomy view of politics, he had it right ---stop it, you're not helping. The trash talking just isn't getting us anywhere.

I'm as guilty as anyone of making fun of the opposition and deriding the opinion of those I disagree with. And it is okay to do that, as long as we accept the fact that people have a right to disagree with us and have a right to make fun of us for disagreeing with them. But the feces-flinging and calls for physical intimidation and outright violence really need to stop.

Having said that, I also think it should be a two-way street. I promise to stop calling Jonah Goldberg Doughy Pantload just as soon as he criticizes Ann Coulter for calling for the New York Times building to be blown up. I'll stop insisting that the posters on Free Republic are knuckle-dragging bloodthirsty brownshirts when they stop saying that the solution to the problem is Iraq is "nuking the cameljockeys" and the solution to immigration issues is sealing the borders and shooting latinos on sight.

I'm all for civil discourse, but if you want to be a jerk, be prepared to take it as well as dish it out. Troll should be flamed, and hypocrites mocked and the dishonest and the petty and the small-minded called on their bullshit. For the rest of us wellmeaning people who disagree, lets put the knives away and talk without the table-pounding, flag-waving and histrionics.