GOP: "Here's a strong, confident & competent woman who will hide behind McCain and his handlers in order to support his patriarchal, war-like, opposed to equal pay, etc., agenda [or more properly, that of his handlers]. She is charming, no? And attractive—a fine spokesmodel for the GOP brand."

Gee, what's wrong with that? How could that be offensive?

[And no, I don't think it's fair at all to assume women deemed attractive lack intelligence or competence, but in the case of Palin we're making a judgement based on evidence.]

Big issue, of course, is that's absurd to think of Palin with her finger on the button (and coping with all the danger and complexity that metaphor implies).

Even Christopher Hitchens says:

"Stop covering Palin until she gives a press conference"

http://www.slate.com/id/2202642/

...but how can a person make such a ludicrous argument with a straight face?

And when will Dems figure out satire? It's not helpful if your effort easily lends itself to the opposition.

It's interesting to note that the article places so much emphasis on what might or mightn't be a violation of the letter of international war crimes laws and who may or may not be covered by such laws that it seems to forget to ask: what was the impetus for such laws in the first place?

Large numbers of heavily sanctioned civilians in an enclosed space being bombarded by long-burning white phosphorus and irradiated shells might have well been the sort of thing they'd steer clear of.

You're all right—these folks are Calvinsts when they're on top and whiny victims when they have to deal with the mess they made.

In Cramer's defense, he did make a valid point: it's not just B.Stearns; stocks are down across the board, so finding rosy-sounding predictions just before the big trouble isn't that tough.

For my money, though, the real purpose behind Stewart's satire/reporting wasn't to single out Cramer just to be funny/mean,

but to show him as an example of a larger trend—the childish, short-term mentality that got us here.

Cramer's answer to this? Well, he can't seem to get past the immediate and see the big picture.

i see mr greenwald and mr koppelman are vying for top spot on most read list ;)

niave, aye?

i'd also recommend columns on the topic at the nation and huff post

news flash: the world keeps turning even when tv cams aren't present

hard to fathom, i know, in this world of twitter and google earth, but i hear 'tis true

if you're an awkward public speaker and would rather have people focus on content of your ideas rather than the style of your message, maybe it's not such a bad idea

doesn't make for very snappy soundbytes, though, does it?

next article: obama's TOO good at public speaking; i don't trust him

pay no attention to the talking heads behind the bombast

not a happy trend, but is this the best we can do?

i mean, i'm sure millions of underage teens across the nation catch nude glimpses of themselves while showering, etc. are they "sexual predators" too?

meanwhile, it occurs to me that those prosecutors must have been combing through tons and tons (or exabytes and exabytes) of nude pics of teen girls and boys--shall we burn them at the stake?

(and that those whose consider themselves innately superior to the rest of the us are so blind to the absolute SUBJECTIVITY of this childish philosphy).

Sure there are definitely times when it's only just/logical to to consider one's own self-interest, and to think for oneself (I'm all for this!)—but the notion that empathy, humility, and,gasp, kindness, are weaknesses seems dreamed up by adolescents schoolboys stranded on a desert island blowing into a conch shell as in Lord of the Flies (and yes, this is condensed, but not really oversimplified).

In short, this philosophy doesn't result in liberty for all, just as a totally unregulated market only results in monopoly.

It's a basic concept.

Gee, do all these uber-smarties now get this, or do they just not care?

"It would be a heckuva lot easier if this were a dictatorship—so long as I'm the dictator.

—George Bush the Younger

"Monopoly is a terrible thing, till you have it."

—Rupert Murdoch

Rand grew up in a repressive, authoritarian Communist Russia and decided that individual liberty shouldn't be absolutely bound by the needs of the masses. Hard to disagree.

But she swung completely 180 and decided that individual self-interest should, essentially, be one's only concern.

Just as absolutist, you'll notice. Hmm...

Has anyone ever seen a motherfucking traffic jam? Just think of it—a great mass of humans all short-sightedly striving to fulfill their own self interests and getting nowhere. What a great invention are traffic signals. A little balance and perspective never hurt anyone.

Read Orwell. Animal Farm, but also Down and Out in Paris and London, his work on British imperialism in Africa (and on the humanity of all the people involved)...

...and then, finally, check out Brave New World, 1984, and Matt Taibbi's latest rant on "gangster capitalism" in Rolling Stone (July 2009: I read it online, but plan to buy the hardcopy to support one of the last bastions of journalism in the U.S.).

What is a king/queen without subjects? A lonely narcissist. The widgets don't make or buy themselves now do they?

red herring.

if you really favored liberty and truly free market, you'd be apalled by the corporate cabal hiding behind bumper sticker slogans and simplistic context-less truisms.

how about this for a system: representative democracy. let's give 'er a try!