We've already got Larry Sinclair on YouTube saying that he gave Obama a blow job (or maybe it was the other way around) and they did cocaine. Now, courtesy of National Review, completely fact-free musings on Obama's "communist" upbringing. (I didn't know that we were still supposed to be afraid of communists.)

The next 8-9 months are going to be so excruciating, I honestly don't know if I can stand it.

If you didn't like it, you didn't "get it". No room for honest disagreement.

Thanks. That clears it all up.

That has to be the funniest thing I've ever read here.

Yes, of course! Those of us who didn't like this movie are Republicans!

We seem to be talking about:

(A) Do people understand the goal of the film?

Speaking for myself, I think that I have a pretty good understanding. And, a lot of the letter-writers here have helped with that, for which I am appreciative.

(B) Did the film achieve its goal?

Reasonable people can certainly debate this issue, and come to a disagreement. Personally, I'm about 50-50 on this one.

(C) Can people who have a pretty good understanding of the goal of the film, and who agree that the film reasonably achieved its goal STILL NOT LIKE THE FILM?

Yes. Not everyone has to feel the same way about a work of art. Do I really need to say this?

I would guess they'd have to be very secretive about that!

There was even a red digital countdown clock!

Did Steny Hoyer really say "There is no urgency." three times?

And didn't those Republicans look angry as they were walking down the steps to the waiting microphones? All they needed were torches and pitchforks.

Hey, isn't that Red Forman (from "That 70's Show") playing Jay Rockefeller? I think Kitty needs to kick his ass.

...single, childless women in their 30s are more likely than mothers, fathers and childless men to do unpaid overtime work.

No mention of married childless women there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5746.html

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/26/countdown-rep-harman-gives-more-details-on-bogus-terror-threat-on-capitol/

I see that Bystander was the first one with a link, so I don't think I deserve a prize. (Unless that prize is an autographed photo of John King!)

Isn't it just thrilling to hear a presidential candidate address the issue so boldly? I think I can finally stop mourning the loss of John Edwards and get behind Obama.

Someone else mentioned the "Aw, shucks" phenomenon and, indeed, we do seem to be witnessing a spectacle where people who we used to depend on to search for the truth are interested in nothing more than being in the presence of the powerful and groveling before them. Can you imagine Edward R. Murrow behaving the way King (and countless others) do in interviews like this?

I don't want journalists to be like "most Americans". I want them to help me out, to ask the tough questions, to not necessarily be adversarial, but to be just a little bit distrustful of those who hold so much power.

The discussions about flag lapel pins these days remind me of something I read a long time ago about the "tyranny of the red ribbon". You remember when every celebrity at every awards show was wearing a red ribbon, to symbolize support for the fight against AIDS? It became so commonplace that to not wear a red ribbon made one conspicuous. "What?! You don't support AIDS victims?!" As if merely pinning a red ribbon on one's clothing actually meant something tangible. It became nothing more than a fashion accessory.

It's the same thing with flag lapel pins. A meaningless piece of metal, more than likely made in China. But so much easier than being patriotic, which is pretty much a full-time job these days.

I certainly didn't mean to step on any toes, and I greatly respect the work you do in AIDS research. I hope that progress continues to be made.

But, when you say:

Unless, of course, you buy into the meme of dehumanizing anything that mere celebrities care about, which says more about you, than about the celebrities who speak out.

I think you misunderstand me.

Celebrities speaking out is important. They can bring a lot of attention to serious matters that need to be addressed, and generate a lot of good will by sheer force of their fame and personalities.

But wearing a ribbon (or a flag lapel pin, which is why I even started thinking about ribbons) is not "speaking out". It is pinning something to one's clothing. And the mere act of wearing a ribbon (or a flag lapel pin) doesn't tell me much about the wearer's motive. Does he/she truly care about this issue, or does he/she truly care about fitting in and not being singled out for not wearing it? IOW, I need something more to back it up.

No worries. We all have times when we're overloaded (physically, emotionally, or spiritually). I hope you're having a much better day today.

I was struck by this:

I guess my assumption is that a person would not wear something unless they had actually (at some time) considered the worth of it. And that they do so to raise awareness and foster dialogue.

Because my assumption is often quite the opposite. Which means that I am way too cynical for my own good, and I should try to be more like you in this respect. Seriously.

this is all about fear.

White evangelical churchgoers from Texas are infinitely less scary and threatening than black, urban, bow-tie wearing Nation of Islam members.

And, of course, the 60 Minutes story on "Your Black Muslim Bakery" (shown the same night as the Don Siegelman piece), although a legitimate news story, helps to reinforce the perception that the Nation of Islam is full of scary people.