So a couple Obama admin officials criticize Fox "News" channel, and this means that Obama is waging "War on Fox". Why does the media have to characterized criticism as a "war"? It cheapens and demeans the term.

I'm not sure that the term can be cheapened and demeaned any more than it already has. "War on Poverty" to "War on Drugs" to "War on Terrorism" to ... "War on Christmas"?

Also, what was it before the Whitehouse started "fighting" this "war" by pointing out what's obvious to anyone willing to look? Was it a "mugging" of Obama? An "assault"? Or -- and let's say it quietly -- was it a "lynching"?

It's not really any of those things, of course. It's just business to Fox, and this is their business model. It's not journalism by any means, even as stretched as the term has been by rest of the media. But it pulls in the eyeballs and fills their coffers via corporate advertisers who no doubt appreciate the even-more-than-usual irrationality of the audience.

it's a pity,..

that Obama can't simply have Cheney arrested on some trumped-up treason/sedition charges.

Why would they need to be trumped-up?

He and his administration aided and abetted Al-Qaeda by doing exactly the sorts of things Osama bin Laden wanted.

Of all the entirely predictable responses, it's hard to pick out which are the most amusing.

I think my favorite is the "Fox isn't right-wing, but every other news source is left-wing!" Suuure, as if Fox is the very definition of "center" and everything not as far right as they are is "left".

But a close runner up is the claim that by simply exercising his First Amendment rights, Obama is somehow threatening Fox's First Amendment rights. Yeah, that's ... um, no.

Try breathing into a paper bag for a minute, folks. We don't want any more fainting spells now, do we?

The President's "First Amendment rights are no greater than yours or mine. He is not entitled to decide which American's first amendment rights is "legitimate" and which aren't. He cannot move to block access to public information to a person or organization. He cannot use his official power to soften criticism against him.

That's correct. And Obama hasn't done any of those things. So -- assuming the hyperventilating isn't just for show -- I'm not sure what's causing it.

But it's amusing, a little. Do you have a convenient couch to gracefully collapse onto, if necessary?

“Ailes knows how to frame an issue better than anybody, and that's what we need now,” an anonymous fan of the Fox head told Allen.

Because it's not about how intelligent they are, or their beliefs and values, or their experience, or how they've handled the mistakes they've made, or how well they can get people to work together, or anything silly like that ... it's about how good they are at framing. Yeah, that's what this country really needs, a brilliant framer as President.

... partly because I was hoping for a really good Amelia Earhart flick, and partly because when Hilary Swank is good, she's very, very good. But mostly she's not. I don't know if she just has bad luck in directors, or choices of roles, or what. She's clearly got talent, but for whatever reasons we don't see it often enough.

Oh, ginseng? Have you not seen "Boys Don't Cry". That was one of the times Swank was very, very good and her character was definitely not "noble". He was admirable in some ways and in other ways he was not, but nobility was not one of his qualities.

Someone's playing head games again.

Interesting study by Harvard, Dr. Parikh. In it's hurry to protect trial lawyers (I believe Harvard has trained a few lawyers) ...

Harvard Law School has trained a few lawyers, yes. And Harvard Medical School has trained a few doctors. And based on my experiences working at Harvard-affiliated organizations with Harvard-affiliated doctors, the only time most doctors wouldn't piss on a lawyer is if they were on fire ... and from the lawyers I've met, the feeling is returned in spades. It's not exactly a mutual admiration society. The thought of researchers at HMS intentionally slanting a study for their bestest lawyer buddies is laughable.

Hmmm. Actually looking at the study, I see the researchers are from the Harvard School of Public Health, who would be even less inclined to provide cover for lawyers.

Heck, don't even take my word for it -- if you're going to be smarmingly suspicious, fine, but why the heck would doctors not want trial lawyers to be reigned in? If you're going to be suspicious, wouldn't it make far more sense to be suspicious of doctors who claim that legal actions against them are a huge waste of resources?

If this week’s awards send one message to the venture capital community, said Grose, it’s this: “ARPA-E knows what they are doing, and will be akin to a well-run government VC fund.”

Well, except for the fact that the return on investment for taxpayers is indirect. (But potentially very high.)

Why shouldn't Christians (or even "Christians") love her books?

I'm an agnostic who loves the Narnia books. The fact that C. S. Lewis was a devout Christian isn't generally relevant to that, even though it heavily played into the symbolism in the stories.

I see what you mean, but -- at the risk of beating the dead horse of a keshik -- there were some admirable things about Genghis Khan. His methods worked well for the context in which they were used (as Ghandi's did within his) and some of the changes he reportedly implemented after conquests were steps forward from what had existed previously.

So admiring both of them wouldn't be that much of a stretch, though I admit that having both of them as one's "greatest heroes" would be decidedly odd.