this election, I'm blaming Salon.

I actually have reasons that are in fact only slightly more tongue in cheek than this article, meaning that they're a mixture of satirical and sarcastic, and things I actually believe.

But enough about me.

On the more interesting points to this clearly somewhat satirical piece, I think that it illustrates something I've long seen: you become where you live.

You know, in the tradition of the "you are what you eat" series of expressions. That's one of my versions of it. Over and over I've seen the place change the person rather than the other way around.

Of course the other way around happens a lot also. However I think we expect it to happen almost always, that is, we expect that influxes of people from the East make the West become more East-like, or that flight to the suburbs makes former rural areas full of suburban yuppies. Which it does.

However in areas that were already built up, and just absorbed more people, then the politics especially of the place wind up changing the immigrants, not the other way around. I can think of lots of examples.

Peer influence is a very, very big thing in political views. If everyone you work with and live next to and go to church with and etc spouts certain views constantly, then chances are pretty soon, so will you, at least to some degree. It goes a long way toward explaining why the most bizarre rumors can seem so widespread in certain areas, despite all evidence that they're false.

"You are what you pretend to be" was how one of my favorite writers put it. And one thing people pretend to do a lot, I would add, is pretend to fit in.

Wait...

Did I just go to Slate? Must have... only Slate would publish a pointless article with a sophomorically provocative title like that. I meant to go to Salon, of course it is getting harder to tell the difference these days...

You have got to be kidding.

I mean yeah Slate is bad at that too but my god, Salon has always done that. Countless times I clicked on some headline that had literally zero to do with the article, and then realized they just pump up the most divisive, sensational angle possible even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth, i.e., not from the fabric of the article because it wasn't there.

Every time I read "What's happened to Salon recently??" I want to remind people that Camille Paglia has been given a platform here from nearly day one.

Which about says it all.

What was it? 4 years ago

That freak heatwave in France in August. 15,000 people died mostly old people left on their own by their children who take the whole month for vacation. Not much of anything is air conditioned in France. So that worked out well.

This may actually be the most ignorant idiotic post I've ever seen on Salon.com, and that's saying a mouthful.

There were some urban legends about the grandparents left by families, no one could prove any of them though.

You notice the "freak" word you used, do you know what it means? It means that this is why there's less air conditioning there. Plus of course the "Not much of anything is air condition in France" was more hyperbole, last I saw stores were selling out.

When I heard the McCain campaign's response "I don't think the Obama campaign wants a discussion about houses.." I thought oh, yes they do.

The problem for McCain and co on this one is that those invented and complicated ones that no one really understands and are pretty much BS anyway aren't exactly a match for McCain not remembering how many muilti-million-dollar houses he owns, a fact that no one disputes whatsoever.

We really have to thank the age of video and youtube and all the rest, the whole quote would be buried and lied about and etc etc years ago. Like when McCain was younger. It's a meeting of old school tactics (just lie and claim you never said it) and new school technology (uh, here you are on video saying it).

Also this is an old one. Bless the media's little heart, as fast as they'll run to fresh meat when it's tossed, the Pavlovian response does seem to have a shelf life (sorry for the mixed imagery, I think we've got dog's brains sitting on shelves now?) so old ones are kind of sniffed at but not pursued as much.

Although if it takes off, one thing is for sure: Salon will be in the forefront.

If that seems harsh sorry, but the Reverend Wright days were despicable. Looking back I bet even others see that here now.

I've been hoping that Glenn Greenwald would turn this kind of hard-hitting analysis on the campaign. God knows no one else at Salon will. I was thinking just recently "Imagine if anyone at Salon actually took on the campaign the way Greenwald does with other issues, but I guess he's focused on constitutional law and civil rights isssues, which makes sense".

What a refreshing change, an article in Salon about the campaign that doesn't end with the obligatory "But I'm concerned that Obama might be hurt by his own...."

Thanks.

Salon got the dem talking points

Salon obviously is getting a direct feed of talking point from the Obama campaign.

Let me get this straight, you think that Salon is a paragon of far lefty pro-Obama slant?

Wow.

Seriously, that's amazing. What a funny little world you must circulate in.