Oh, I know it's nothing new. But I think it's been noticably worse in recent years. Maybe with the current folks in power it's just hitting my buttons more, but I don't think that's all it is.

I'm listening to my iPod (to the band Stereo Total) so no earworm for me.

Maybe with the current folks in power it's just hitting my buttons more, but I don't think that's all it is.

The whole "Swiftboat Fuckers for Truth" think really upset me - all the claims were blatantly politically motivated, yet the press didn't talk about that. They just kept repeating the accusations, so the coverage confined to stuff like: "He's a lying coward" - "No, he's not."

Here is an interesting exchange from a conservative talk show and a doctor:

[link]

Paul Krugman has a joke that if the Republicans came out and said the world was flat, and the Democrats responded by saying that wansn't true, the newspaper headlines would read, "The Shape of the World - Two Opposing Views."

Scientific American put their own twist on this for their April 1st issue -- the editorial page was a tongue-in-cheek apology to the right wing, promising to stop favoring things like peer-reviewed scientific studies and to start giving more "fair and balanced" coverage of the issues. Cracked me up.

This is a damned shame:

Actress Catherine Zeta-Jones has laughed off reports she's set to star in a movie remake of classic TV drama Dallas. The Welsh Oscar-winner was heavily tipped to play wholesome Pamela Ewing in the series' big screen resurrection, 14 years after the last Dallas episode aired. However, Jones' spokeswoman Sarah Fuller insists frenzied rumours claiming the actress is on the verge of signing to the project are completely false. Fuller says, "Reports regarding Catherine Zeta-Jones being cast in the feature film, Dallas, are incorrect. There have been no discussions regarding this." Jones' Ocean's Twelve co-star Brad Pitt has also been touted to feature in the film, which begins shooting later this year.

Here is an interesting exchange from a conservative talk show and a doctor:

Heh.

ION, does anyone have the latest issue of Scientific American? This is supposedly an editorial from the April issue - it's damn sarcastic.

In retrospect, this magazine’s coverage of socalled evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it.

Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

I can't get to it from the SA website - apparantly it's print only. Or it could be a fake.

eta - xpost:

Scientific American put their own twist on this for their April 1st issue -- the editorial page was a tongue-in-cheek apology to the right wing, promising to stop favoring things like peer-reviewed scientific studies and to start giving more "fair and balanced" coverage of the issues. Cracked me up.

t stops going to the movies forever

I can't get to it from the SA website - apparantly it's print only. Or it could be a fake.

No, that's what they printed. It was so perfectly pitched.

Aims, that pretty much happened when Emma was born (or depending on how badly your bladder was smooshed, a few months before).