I watched CBS tonight and was amazed how slanted the coverage was. Elizabeth Palmer did the story, and threw her 2 cents in to the effect that she couldn't see how Iran's actions could do anything but make them look "even more suspicious in the eyes of the west."(?????!!!)

I've haven't seen ANY teevee talking head speculate that the Brits may have actually been inside Iran's territorial waters, wether on purpose or by an honest mistake. So they released gps co-ordinates. Big deal. Didn't Colin Powell show the UN a bunch of photos of aluminum tubes and satelite images in early 2003? We know what that accomplished, but what did it actually prove?

On the other hand, it occurs to me that perhaps American Journalist Josh Wolf was released from prison today in part because of Iran. Tough-guy protestations not withstanding, the Bush administration was loath to allow keeping Wolf imprisoned to make them look like, well, the goons that they are.

rarely have i seen such wisdom.

my stupid? your stupid!

this is one of Gary Kamiya's best articles in some time; nevertheless I think Kamiya lets the US press off a little too easily when he suggests they've improved. The weathervane factor he cites is mostly responsible for their recent skeptical turn, and it may well pass. The (mostly brainless) mainstream coverage of the conflict with Iran certainly suggests they've learned nothing from experience.

As far as the question of the justness of canning his tv show goes, I agree that pointing out that various black rappers also use some of the same language is besides the point. The "they did it first" defense is irritating and disingenuous, but I don't find it nearly as irritating as the he's-basically-a-good-guy-who-erred routine, and that he needs to be measured by his "internal goodness."

It exasperates me to no end when social conservatives offer this argument, about "what's in their heart." I don't presume to judge Imus's heart when I concur that he deserves to have his tv show stripped from him. I presume to judge his behavior, and the fact that the Rutgers team incident was just one in a long line of supposed flubs with racist overtones doesn't speak well for him. I'll still allow that he may well be a heck of a guy in many other respects-- I have no problem with that, and I'm not saying that to seem reasonable-- I understand people are complex.

(As far as his right to speech goes, 1. He still has his bread and butter, his radio show, and 2.where were Imus's defenders when Phil Donahue was canned, also from MSNBC, on the eve of the current war?)

It occurs to me the bottom-line regarding Imus's tv gig is not his character, nor his contriteness, nor his right to speech. Consider: If he was just some guy working in an organization and numerous co-workers came forth, documenting numerous incidents like the ones Imus has offered forth on the airwaves, uttered before said coworkers (or say, before coworkers and customers), he would have been fired forthwith. Can you imagine a cashier at Wal-mart keeping her job if she was conclusively documented describing some customers as "nappy-headed hos" to a customer as the young ladies were walking in or out the store, even if they were out of earshot?

I haven't seen the picture yet, and while I agree the title isn't all that clever I hope people can get past that.

Stephanie Zacharek sees the non sequiturs, but I'd argue, as someone with a passing familiarity with the tv show, that the relationships are a big part of the appeal. On the show, humor is mined from the interplay between the earnest innocence of Shake and his manipulation by Meatwad, with Frylock often interceding as a strange sort of parental figure. Then there's their surprisingly matter of fact relationship with Carl next door, which suggests that in our society it helps to be outcasts to accept someone like the boorish and unkempt Carl(and vice versa). I hope these relationships aren't lost in the film.

Actually, one of the things that strikes me about ATHF is how it's very much a latter-day Munsters. I always preferred The Munsters to the tv-show version of the Addams family, in part because the Addamses were always preoccupied with how exotic they were, while the Munsters were befuddled by their inability to fit in, as they were sure they were nice normal suburbanites.

The tv show of ATHF has some of that same flavor, and it helps to have some affinity with that stance. If, for example, you think Shake is just stupid instead of likeably sympathetic, you're less likely to like ATHF in general.

the main reason we shouldn't repeal the 2nd amendment is the proto-fascist authoritarian contingent that has always been with us, and I suspect always will. Take away their amendment, per se, and they'll go after the other nine members of the Bill of Rights in retribution, and pretty soon we might find ourselves living in John Hagee's America.

I exagerate of course, and I don't see the 2nd amendment as an otherwise useless antique which exists simply to mollify a certain lunatic fringe. Nevertheless, politically, it serves that function.

even though I am no great fan of HRC or her vote for the war in 2002, I think criticism of her for her reluctance to apologize for having voted for the Iraq war is somewhat misplaced. It's done.

What's far more troubling, on both her part and that of other democratic presidential hopefuls, has been their unwillingness to challenge Bushco's martial bluster regarding Iran. When you're dealing with the current administration, silence, and worse, "all options are on the table" are forms of consent.

Would it kill her to point out that our GI's in Iraq would be sitting ducks for the reprisals that would inevitably follow an attack on Iran?