Speech Impediment

If you need a perfect example of how the domination of the click-bait headline is really just screwing our culture and its collective intellect without Vaseline, here you go.

Over the weekend, Ashton Kutcher picked up a kind of lifetime achievement award at Nickelodeon's "Dear God Please Send the Angel of Death to Smite Every Tween in the Country" Awards. His acceptance speech for the thing was, admittedly, pretty impressive, attempting to impart upon the crowd of screaming 13-year-old girls a little wisdom on succeeding in life through hard work, persistence, and grace.

Really, it was about four minutes of minor greatness from a guy I normally couldn't give a crap about.

So, what most-important-revelation did the Huffington Post reduce Kutcher's speech to?

This:

The Huffington Post: Ashton Kutcher Reveals His Real Name at Teen Choice Awards/8.12.13

I guess it could've been worse. He could've been wearing something that revealed side-boob.

Quote of the Day

"I can see how the lettering is offensive. They could have made the statement of 'Fry Rice' without changing the lettering. That obviously made all the difference. I don't think it was racist, just borne out of ignorance. They clearly don't know why many Asians might find it offensive. It's a good opportunity now for them to learn. It's hard to comprehend what you don't know, and clearly the editors of the newspaper have no idea what many Asians experienced and experience in terms of racial prejudice."

-- Huffington Post commenter "Kacey" on the controversy over a poster printed by a Vermont newspaper supporting a local basketball team whose opponent was Rice High School

The poster read "Fry Rice" in the standard "Chinese calligraphy" font. You can see it for yourself above.

I love this comment because it's all there: the concerned suggestion of alternate routes that somehow might've been less offensive, as if there's anything you can say these days that won't offend someone; the call for this to be a teaching moment about tolerance; the insinuation that white, or some other kind of majority, privilege is to blame for this supposed ignorance. It's all so, so -- utterly fucking joyless.

You know, the theory of Dunbar's Number -- what David Wong of Cracked humorously calls "the Monkeysphere" -- dictates that a human being can really only care about 150 other people, maximum. That after that it becomes a zero-sum prospect where in order to bring new people into your sphere of concern you have to turn a certain number of people out. I swear, these days my circle is down to about twenty people. I care about them very much and would fight to the death for them. Everyone else I just don't give a shit about. You're the victim of ignorance or injustice? Sorry, life sucks. Thankfully, while my circle may be closing in an effort to keep out the stupid, the circles of others, thanks to the various media that connect us all, are rapidly expanding. There's always somebody willing to endlessly fret over your plight. Which is good because it means I don't have to.

Misanthropy. It's the new black.

Comment of the Day

In response to my Daily Banter piece on the dethroned Miss Delaware Teen USA Melissa King, which was cross-posted over at the Huffington Post: (Remember, the title of the column was "Today, We Are All Beauty Pageant Winners Who Did Amateur Porn.")

"No, we are not all beauty pageant winners or amateur porn performers.

Some of us are doctors, lawyers, scientists, chefs, teachers, physical therapists, veterinarians and pilots. Some of us chose to rely on our brains and skills to make our way in the world instead of trading on our youth and beauty and sexual appeal to horndog men. We knew better than to do porn for money.

Sorry, but anyone who does porn has no business in any role where girls are expected to look up to them or where they will be role models for girl children.

Men like you are behind the destruction of girls and women's lives, men like you who consume porn and who think that girls exist for your sexual arousal, titillation and gratification, men like you who want porn for masturbatory material, men like you who want prostitutes available to service you. Porn is prostitution, it is having sex for money. that is prostitution, and you are perfectly happy to turn our daughters into prostitutes because your heart and soul are too calicified and depraved to know that love and sex are sacred gifts not meant to be exploited by crass capitalism. Men like you reduce women to objects here to service men and their programed misogynistic and patriarchal sexual desires.

No, we women are not all beauty pageant winners or porn performers. But it is looking like most men are pornheads who view women as nothing but objects and body parts. Blame yourself."

Mere words can't express how much I love the HuffPost peanut gallery. It's where the ability to know a joke when you see one goes to die.

By the way, the screen-name of the commenter?

"Whalepeace."

Quote of the Day

"There's absolutely no pretense from any of these publications of giving a policy a sort of objective hearing. It's very clear that it comes from the same mindset as talk radio and Fox News. This is something that's by and for a particular kind of conservative. It’s a circle jerk, isn’t it?"

-- Daniel McCarthy, editor of The American Conservative, on the state of conservative media in the era of Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and Drudge

Michael Calderone over at the Huffington Post dissects the whole conservative entertainment complex and the problems it presents for the modern right pretty damn well in a piece he's just published. It's amusing to see quotes like the one above -- the kind of thing that goes on record with the fact that a major disservice is being done to conservatives by their own "news" organizations -- and then to watch idiot pretend-journalists like Matthew Boyle of Breitbart and pretend-thinkers like Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post defend the state of things on their end.

Think about the big "scoops" conservative media outlets have spit into the echo chamber lately: Chuck Hagel's disturbing connection to "Friends of Hamas," a story based on a joke, and Robert Menendez's affinity for Dominican hookers, a story that fell almost completely apart even as it was being shouted from the rooftops. And those are just the ones we've seen over the past month. Go back a bit and you truly see the pattern of inanity that's been allowed to develop.

I've said this on more than one occasion, mostly on the podcast, but I'm not actually one of those people who wants to see the Republican party and conservatives in general drown in a puddle of their own spit. Having at least two vital political parties is good for America and I didn't completely abandon the Republicans until after they lost their minds. The reason I find it almost impossible to side with anything the GOP or the conservative movement says or does these days is that they've willingly let themselves become dominated by the most stridently insane and anti-intellectual within their ranks. When the inmates completely overrun the asylum and no one even bothers to try to stop them, it's time to just cut your losses and bail before you become part of the madness.

A press that lives for actual news, regardless of whether it's left-leaning, right-leaning or straight down the middle -- one that isn't intent on using phony scandal to try to take down its political enemies -- naturally creates an atmosphere where common sense political compromise can flourish. That's because truth and a dedication to it fosters respect between the sides. That's good for the country. Period.

Suffering Without Silence

Lindsay Noonan SanGiacomo is one of my favorite people in the world. She and I worked together as producers at CNN in New York City, hung out a lot outside of work, and generally bonded over everything from the perils of producing news to what at the time was our mutual lousy luck with relationships. I can't mention her without being honest about the importance of her role in my life: She pretty much saved me during the early part of 2009, when my marriage was falling apart, New York City began to seem like a very dark and lonely place, and I felt like I had nowhere to turn. Linds gave me a friend to talk to, a shoulder to lean on, and a place to go that I knew was safe. For that I'll always be grateful.

She got married not too long after I left and had a baby boy not long after that. She always wanted to be a good wife and a loving mother and I know that she's now both -- and this makes me very, very happy. A couple of weeks ago, though, she wrote to me to ask if I'd take a look at something she'd written that she was hoping to get published somewhere. I of course agreed and, upon reading, was heartbroken to learn that she'd recently had a miscarriage. She lost her second child. What she wrote about the experience, in the form of a series of tips on what not to say to someone who's miscarried, was tough stuff, but it was easy to see how valuable it could be to other women dealing with a kind of grief I can't even imagine (and those around them).

The Huffington Post has now published Lindsay's column.

Do yourself a favor and take a look.

The Huffington Post: What Not To Say To a Woman After a Miscarriage/3.4.13

Armed Response

You know, it used to be that when I wrote something that got published at the Huffington Post, the blowback I received came from HuffPo's regular peanut gallery of humorless, perpetually aggrieved professional liberals. These days, though, especially when you dare to get near a landmine in the culture war, the angry comments tend to come more from the right. I'm not sure whether there's always been a bunch of holdovers from the site's infancy -- when Breitbart was associated with it -- living underground at Huffington, waiting for the right time to stage some kind of coup, or it has something to do with HuffPo's merger with the official internet service provider of the flyovers, AOL, but there seem to be more and more voices from the far-right hijacking any and every conversation over there.

Case in point: the somewhat surprising amount of anti-gun control vitriol and general resistance in response to my piece on the role that Joe Arpaio's "posse" is playing in the guarding of schools in Maricopa County, Arizona. A good portion of the comments -- I'd say most of them, actually -- took me to task for daring to suggest that cracking down on guns and gun possession is a better idea than putting an armed retiree in a car in front of most Phoenix-area schools to defend against the problem of gun violence rather than actually trying to stop the problem of gun violence.

Behold, my public:

"Stop at your local shooting range and see who is there. You'd be hard-pressed to find a police officer.

Most of the regulars are just ordinary civilians. There are many talented people there. Yes, I want them around when the SHTF.

I don't expect libs to know these things."

-- bloodytongue

For those of you who don't speak crazy, let me help you out: SHTF, which of course stands for "Shit Hits the Fan," is a common refrain among the conspiracist "prepper" crowd. It's lingo that not only allows one nutjob who believes that some kind of societal collapse is imminent to easily know that he's talking to another, it justifies his desperate need to build a panic room in his basement, stock up on canned goods and, of course, assault rifles, and otherwise prepare himself for the arrival of the end of days. The above commenter's use of that acronym tells you immediately where he's coming from -- and it's basically a homemade bunker.

"The author is surely against anything that remotely shows signs of protecting the 2nd Amendment by utilizing trained volunteers, who have been praised by the DEA, the FBI, the DPS, ICE and Border Patrol for their conduct, behavior. knowledge and dedication. Sheriff Joe does what he feels best to protect the citizens of Maricopa County - after all, that is his job."

-- jwb544

Arpaio also unlawfully harasses Latinos, disregards the Constitution when he feels like it and has failed to investigate more than 400 sex crimes cases, most involving molested children, because he was busy taking on the Mexican menace and self-servingly grandstanding. That also part of his job?

"Assault rifles aren't used in crimes or mass shootings.

Yes we are going to 'fix' the problem of crazy people killing other people by taking away one thing they can use. Then the crazy person will be snapped back into sanity and say, 'I can't use a rifle to kill anyone, so I guess that means killing is bad and I shouldn't kill.' Magically all homicidal and suicidal thoughts stop at the signing of the AWB.

I don't think a AR-15 would make someone 'heavily armed.' Also they aren't 'military grade'"

-- Spot the Mighty

If you don't think wielding an AR-15 makes you heavily armed, it terrifies me to imagine what you think does.

"This article shows the utter absurdity of the gun control extremist position

According to the author, a gun makes an untrained kid invincible, but it's useless in the hands of a good citizen, no matter how well trained they are.

His position is a complete contradiction and makes no sense at all.

Also, mass shooters almost never seek out gunfights. That's why they virtually always carry out their massacres at gun free zones. They want helpless victims, not people who can shoot back.

If they wanted shootouts, they would go to a police station, gun shop, or target shooting range, where the people at those locations would be happy to oblige them.

Instead they pick gun free zones full of people who are disarmed and defenseless. That is not coincidental."

-- Ohio9

"Yet, mass murderers always seem to target areas where the ability to defend your life is denied. Your premise suggest we are way past due for a sociopath to show up and start shooting at a gun show or public shooting range."

-- William Ashbless

The above two comments were a pretty standard response -- that school shooters and others willing to incite an active shooter situation in a public place drop their weapons or take their own life at the first sign of armed resistance. There's a difference between being surrounded by a 30-man ESU or SWAT team and having the drop on one old guy sitting in a car, armed or not. The fact is, as I said in the piece, it would take all of two days of casing the area or simply noticing your surroundings to figure out how to easily get rid of that kind of threat. The shooter has the element of surprise and that counts for quite a bit. There very likely wouldn't even be a gunfight. The shooter doesn't need to be invincible -- he only needs to pay attention.

"Many private citizens ARE more skilled with a gun than the average cop, that is a fact."

-- EZSundayAM

"Since the feds can't enforce the existing laws on the books, then Sheriff Joe wil along with volunteers and vigilantes who cost ZERO tax payer dollars."

-- InspectorClouseau

Yes, and, I'd bet, zero taxpayer accountability.

"Well the Presidents response was to put together a crack team of gun banners to have a 'conversation' and put together a plan to ban some guns... All the while the guns were still out there, the crazies were still out there, and the kids were still in so called 'gun free zones.'"

-- Brian Bender

Ah, yes, those pussy, gun-hating liberals and all their talking. I swear, I'm seriously considering shooting the next asshole who rails against how our kids are left as defenseless lambs by any attempt to stop guns from getting near their schools. I get the impression that eventually these psychopaths are going to lobby for the right to arm the kids themselves (if they haven't already).

"I think you are missing the point, the guard aren't there to act as a deterrent, they are they to act as a barrier. If some kid with a gun rolls onto campus carrying a shotgun in plain view or tries to shoot through a door to get in, the guys with guns are there to shoot back. No remorse, no stopping to ask questions. if you walk onto campus with a rifle in plain view, you get a copper jacketed ticket to the afterlife."

-- Trevor Lawrence

A copper-jacketed ticket to the afterlife. Settle down there, Clint. Sure, this is a throwaway line but it inadvertently provides all kinds of insight into the way some of these guys regard guns and the use of them -- the 'roided out, hyper-masculine fantasy they have of what it must be like to kill somebody the same way they get to in Black Ops 2.

It's this way of thinking, this kind of gun idolatry, that's the problem. And a person who talks this kind of shit, who looks at the act of killing another human being as some kind of expression of macho bad-assery, is the last person you want carrying a gun.

High & Mighty

Just for the hell of it I decided a couple of days ago to post my month-and-a-half-old piece on marijuana culture, with a fresh lede, over on the Huffington Post's politics page. I figured if nothing else it'd be fun to see the reaction from the HuffPo peanut gallery. Unfortunately, for the first time in my four-year history of writing for the site, a piece of mine got kind of buried instead of being afforded pretty good placement. Not quite sure why but I'm certainly not going to read too much into it.

Anyway, I've managed to eke out around 30 comments or so, so far, and as you can imagine they're all highly indignant -- and some of them, as expected, are pure gold.

Here now, a few of my favorites:

"You need to crawl out from under the rock you're buried in and spend ten minutes to actually get educated. I don't use pot in any form right now ... Hemp isn't a legitimate reason to legalize cannabis, even though you admit it's got merits? Medical use isn't legit in any situation because you have seen people abuse the system? I'm sick to death of my tax dollars being wasted imprisoning people for no good reason, big pharmaceutical companies controlling dangerous medications that are less effective, and the most green crop, hemp, being outlawed for absolutely no good reason. Do some reading, maybe you'll even manage to accidentally learn something."

-- Jeremy Echols (who then proceeded to post six links to articles, more than a few of them from NORML and such, that supposedly proved his point; by the way, Echols is, as it turns out, a serial commenter on pot legalization issues over at HuffPo)

Thanks for the advice. And it's not like there are a handful of people abusing the system here in California -- the system itself is a joke and everyone knows it. My contention is that the reason for this is that the entire notion of a medical marijuana system is a joke. Either legalize it and accept that it's something people enjoy and that they have the right to or don't -- but don't pretend that it's "medication" that some people need and others don't.

"This kind of misinformed propaganda actually does damage to the movement. This Chez guy has got to be a little embarrassed for exposing his ignorance. Peace Chez!"

-- Adobewan

And peace right back at you, hippie.

"The only damage Chez has done is to his reputation as a compassionate human being, if he ever had one that is."

-- The Walker

I didn't.

"You should of gotten high before you wrote this, it would have been more authentic."

-- madkoz

That'll do, madkoz. That'll do.

"'Pot is popular because it messes you up good -- everything else is incidental.' So? 'in the end, you're pushing for the legalization of pot because it makes you feel good.' So? Keep in mind that Morphine is legal. Valium is legal. Alcohol is legal. Recreational sex is legal. The first two have medical uses, as does Marijuana. The second two don't - they just makes you feel good. The fact that something creates a pleasant effect should not make it illegal, and unless it affects you personally, it should be none of your business."

-- DocJoseph

Yup. And I acknowledged all of this in the piece.

"'Maybe pot-smoking can ease the pain of terminal cancer' Not maybe. Not only terminal cancer but the wasting effects of HIV/AIDS patient and those with arthritis and glaucoma. 'Maybe there are religions that require it as part of their ritual' Not maybe. Just because your beliefs don't embrace this ritual, does not mean it is not valid. 'Maybe it's been used throughout the years by brilliant minds and its history is so interesting that university-level classes can be taught on it' Not maybe. Try throughout the history of mankind, Years make it sound like this spans a couple of decades."

-- Peace-riding

It eases the pain of terminal cancer because it fucking feels good. There are undoubtedly a hell of a lot of other things can perform this same impressive feat. Again, not saying marijuana doesn't have its benefits, only that if one of them wasn't the fact that it gets you high, nobody would be arguing. It's promoted for, ironically, the exact same reason it's inexplicably prohibited. As for the religious aspect -- yeah, couldn't care less about that. It's not a legitimate concern. A lot of stupid religious rituals have demanded a lot of odd and even grotesque acts and furnishings throughout history, it doesn't mean they all deserve to be made legal or considered moral.

"I guess bothering to google the facts before you blog is to much to ask of Chaz. I guess the Federal Goverment has run a Medical Marijuana program because the Feds really enjoy getting 4 Americans super messed up."

-- Nicon (whose profile icon is a guy smoking weed)

Wow. Seems like a surprisingly small program.

"Personally, I prefer some lying old fossil with his horror stories of gateway drugs to this kind of faintly patronizing hipsterish put-down. For the record, I've been smoking pot for 55 years. I don't have a medical marijuana card and wouldn't--I can get better quality, cheaper, and the government doesn't know who I am or where I live, and the respect I have for law enforcement on any drug issue has long since evaporated. The issue of legalizing marijuana, to those of us who aren't first-time users, who don't believe that it's a universal panacea, and who aren't giddy with the idea of being able to smoke it in public (because we already do), to such as us, it has less to do with obtaining the government's permission to toke up and almost everything to do with ending forfeiture, the corrupt practice of seizing property, and getting tens of thousands of otherwise harmless people out of jail. And Mr Pazienza, who is apparently unaware of the teenybopper eidolon evoked by his ecstasy use, should be ashamed for hanging his argument on the lamest of stoner stereotypes."

-- flanardiente

Yes, the lamest of stoner stereotypes. Please see several of the comments listed. As for the argument that legalization would end a governmental practice that's ruined the lives of people for no good reason -- no shit, that's self-evident and I even said so in the piece. And yeah, I did ecstasy. Did a hell of a lot of other drugs, too.

"Why doesn't he care about injustice? Or innocent people going to jail? He can't possibly think pot is worth locking people up over! That doesn't make any sense to anybody who isn't a terrible bigot and/or making money off of it. First they came for the potheads and nobody cared ..."

-- Sister Lauren

I want a bumper sticker with that last line on it.

"Oktoberfest? st patricks day? cinco de mayo? happy hour? alcohol poisoning, dui, date rape, fighting... gooooooooooooOOOOOOO alcohol!!!!"

-- sean omearar

Because it's obviously one or the other. Besides, I could easily say, "mild hallucinations, sloth, giggling like an idiot, making shitty music, being a general annoyance to anyone not high, faux-philosophical arguments that make sense only to you, your whole house smelling like hell, sitting on your couch watching How High? for the 138th time and actually thinking it's funny... goooooOOOO weed!!!" and it'd be just as dumb.

And drum roll, please -- my personal favorite:

"What is getting high?? Getting high is altering your consciousness. Altering your consciousness is a form of travel . Travel is a breaking with the routine in order to explore the enviroment in novel ways. Deviating from the preconceived routine is crucial to gain insight into our relationship to life,others and our place in the cosmos. It also provides us with the knowledge that there is more than one way to experience and live life. This is crucial in nourishing curiosity, flexibility and tolerance, all important attitudes in decreasing tensions and promoting sharing among humans. Perhaps Chaz snickers at the pairing of the word cosmos with getting high. Yet mainstream religions are well respected when they promote a quest for the Divine. Unfortunately they then hand out rules saying "And this is the only way". End of curiosity and tolerance. Would Chaz say that prohibiting travel is a legitimate issue determining who you vote for? He would say that travel is a human right, I'm sure. That only dictatorships limit travel. Yet not all of us have the means or ability to travel.Fortunately our centuries of human ancestors have passed down the knowledge of plants that can allow the most humble of us that experience."

-- tbone99

Whoa.

Well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Headline of the Week

From the Huffington Post.

Well no shit.

He's the Establishment, Man!

If you thought that my largely even-handed piece last week on the departure of Cenk Uygur from MSNBC would be met with magnanimity and an interest in healthy debate, free from petty dismissiveness, over at the Huffington Post -- well, you obviously don't read HuffPo much. While there were a few comments that could be called thoughtful and engaging, a good portion of them sounded like they were written by people who had just been forced to gargle a tall glass of cat piss.

The biggest argument seemed to be that Cenk's unrefined, blunt-instrument delivery -- which I think works alright on his internet show but is a little irritating on television at six o'clock -- just proves how genuine he is and constitutes a much-needed breath of fresh air on cable news.

"Mr. Pazienza..­..sorry you don't appreciate the straight-f­orward... and honest style of journalism that Cenk Uygur embodies, but maybe you need to get over that."

-- LelioRisen

"I completely disagree with this person'a assessment of Cenk. Everything he said he backed up with facts. He's REAL."

-- efffox

Then there were the people who specifically zeroed-in on my use of the word "polish" to describe what Uygur lacks.

"'I don't think Uygur's a very polished broadcaste­r, so from that perspectiv­e I can understand why Griffin might want to relegate him to MS's basement for a little while.' Yeah, we are all looking for 'polish' vs adherence to principal in our reporters."

-- zlohcuc

"Does the author mean polished like most of on-air hosts on most of the networks in the U.S. who don't know what questions to ask and do not listen to the answers given for proper follow up but look good doing it? That kind of polished?"

-- gysgt213

For the record, and I've made this clear here a couple of times, saying that Cenk isn't polished was a really nice way of not saying that he sounds like he's talking with a mouth full of marbles. What he's saying is decent -- it really is. How he's saying it needs work, and his combative delivery just makes his deficiencies when it comes to enunciation more pronounced. I'm certainly not saying that he should be banished from network news for all eternity; I'm saying that he needs to learn to be passionate without letting it consume him to the point where it highlights his faults as a broadcaster and therefore works against him when it comes to trying to effectively get his point across, and that's simply something you learn with training and over time.

Then, of course, comes the inevitable guy who accuses me of working for Fox.

"More importantly Chez. Who pays you? Roger or does Rupert pay you directly. This was a hit piece on MSNBC if I ever read one. The snide comments about being yelled at, bellicose, lame at broadcasti­ng, nonstop left handed remarks about KO, Shultz, Cenk, and others."

-- Liberalbuzz

But the number of people who had one very specific word to describe me -- presumably for having the gall to not offer what they deemed an unequivocal defense of Cenk -- well, just see for yourself.

"This from a guy with 20 years inside establishm­ent news. Hmmm..."

-- HeevenSteven

"'presumabl­y, nobody wanted to be shouted at for four minutes by a crazy guy who couldn't stop flailing his arms in their direction' C'mon, that is absurd! Uygur is nothing but respectful with guests who are respectful to him... Get with the program, Chez."

-- Aber

Rersponse: "He's establishm­ent, what do you expect. Both sides are "50/50", always."

-- MyMindSpray

"HuffPost's tone is set to defend the establishm­ent. Impressive­! Why don't you tell us why Phil Griffin is more credible than Cenk?"

-- Genna

"'It's one reason I respect Cenk so much - he sticks to his principles first.' This would be the reason Chez, and any number of other media figures critical of people like Cenk have a problem, you see. Because he maintained his integrity, even at personal cost. While the ones griping are those who've sold theirs off a piece at a time for a little more cash and notoriety. People who wholly abandon their principles for mere profit of one kind or another are always upset with someone who won't, no matter the pressure. Because it makes them realize what weak, hollow, and pathetic excuses for human beings they really have become. Everyone should be just like them, so they don't have to feel bad about being a sellout."

-- Asmodeus

That last comment I actually responded to, which I rarely do. All I wrote was, "That's pretty rich. You don't know much about my history, do you?" The idea that anyone should have to pass a political purity test is obscene to begin with, but to call me in particular "establishment" is fucking ridiculous. Like Cenk, I whipped right around and publicly bit the hand that fed me -- burning not just a job but potentially my entire career to the ground -- immediately after being fired by CNN for blogging. Speaking my mind, and the suicidally stupid need to go on speaking my mind, cost me a whole hell of a lot. It's a breeze to be ferociously vocal about your views -- and to criticize those who aren't -- when you're hiding behind an online handle and posting comments at the Huffington Post. Try doing it when there are serious negative repercussions that threaten your livelihood and everything you hold dear. If you can't do it then -- or until you're even in that position -- shut your goddamned trap.

This guy had a decent question (although he was apparently trying to get it to read the way Cenk often talks):

"Wait a moment, first you say he got a big of an ego, and then you say 'To hear Uygur address his online audience about the whole thing, you get the impression that at least on some level he really did feel like he had a responsibi­lity to the people who put him in the position to be moved up to the big leagues in the first place, and he didn't want to sell them out or let them down.' So which one is it, integrity or ego. ?"

-- Zacky Ahmed

Why can't it be both? You think it isn't possible for someone with a healthy ego to have integrity as well?

Then, needless to say, came the Sharpton defenders.

"Don't knock Rev. Sharpton! He doesn't have the experience as Cenk didn't, but give him a chance. I'm sure he will improve if he's allowed to stay. This is a new venue for him and hopefully, he will find coaches to help him refine his presence on TV."

-- madatnewsmedia

"Sharpton's rhetorical style may differ because of his background as a minister but there is nothing incoherent about him. I think Pazienia may not be experience­d in listening to a diverse group of speakers."

-- db08

The problem with Sharpton is that, unlike Cenk, it's not just what he says and how he says it -- but who he is. Cenk makes good points, he just does it poorly sometimes from a broadcasting perspective. Regardless, his passion is commendable and I do believe he's 100% sincere in his beliefs. Sharpton is on TV because nobody likes seeing himself on TV more (besides maybe Gloria Allred, but if I get into that we'll be here all day).

End of Days and Confused

As I would've expected, my weekend piece on the non-Rapture resulted in a pretty good amount of entertaining back-and-forth from the Huffington Post peanut gallery. Since this is HuffPo we're talking about, quite a few people agreed with my take on things -- namely that regardless of whether you tout an actual date for Jesus's return or simply believe in a divine entity called Jesus at all, the belief is equally ridiculous. But there were quite a few dissenters (or, "decenters" as one irate commenter might say), and they generally alternated between the over-thinkers, who truly believe that the more big words they use the more likely it is their opinions make a lick of sense, and the God-said-it-I-believe-it types. Here's the best of the bunch.

"Too many people have seen Left Behind and follow Kirk Cameron's belief that the Rapture is a one time thing. Well, lets take a look around us. I am from Birmingham­, AL and three weeks ago many were killed within 100 miles of my current location. Massive Floods down the Mississipp­i River, Tsunami's in Asia, Earthquake­s in India, Asia, and Haiti. Big Brother, Wars taking place everywhere for different reasons, we are living in the end times. There isn't one day set aside for 'All Believers to ascend into Heaven' Alot of those that will be Left Behind will be believers as well as non-believ­ers. The prophecy is a long one and all this will not happen overnight."

-- Idries King

In other words, it's what Harold Camping said: the Rapture is already upon us so he and his followers weren't actually wrong. Yeah, that's it. Never mind that there have been earthquakes, floods and so on since the dawn of time.

What I just said about using a lot of Triple Word Score language in an effort to supposedly lend academic heft to what's essentially horseshit? Read on:

"This blogger offers an overly reductioni­stic and conflated view. A belief in something called the 'rapture' as an event within history has historical­ly been a minority view. It is only since the late 19th century (Darby) and early 20th Century (Scoffield­) that this view gained popularity­, reaching its height in the cold war (Lindsay's Late Great Planet Earth) and reprising again in the 90s (The 'Left Behind' series). Many Christians never have ascribed to such a belief... you cannot claim that religious beliefs are unilateral­ly irrational­, baseless, and frequently contradict­ory to the "normal rigors for determinin­g truth." I'll give that most might meet the last criteria, but they are not baseless nor irrational (empericis­m, for all it's benefit, does not have a corner on the rationalit­y market). The final criteria, while generally true, is not unequivaca­lly so. There are many religious beleifs founded upon historical evidence and thus subject to the same rigors, the only difference is that they don't reject supernatur­al explanatio­ns prima facia, and might be more prone to them than others (but that doesn't mean they reject "normal rigors for determinin­g truh and fact.") It also is just plain false that they are frequently contradict­ory. People, as a whole, are not that stupid and if religions had been around for 1000s of years they are probably at least ineternall­y consistent (so this is really a ridiculous claim). Let's at least be honest about the facts of the matter instead of making broadly sweeping and unnecessar­ily derogatory remarks. "

-- George Medley

Say this for Professor Medley: Of all the arguments in defense of religion that you've ever read, his was the most recent.

"It's all about truth. What is true? Each person has to decide."

-- syntax facit saltum

No, actually. There has to be an agreed-upon set of facts that we all understand to be true (or false). If each person decides his own reality what you get is chaos. You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts.

This next one, by the way, could be my personal favorite -- simply because I can't imagine what the hell a hardcore Christian is doing at the Huffington Post in the first place.

"Where are the Christians­? When I look at the banner at the top of this page, it says Christiani­ty. Yet, the first story I see in the corner is some ventriloqu­ist talking about porn. We as Christians need to get these infidels off our page. Find your own page. Preach your blasphemie­s somewhere else. Maybe, the net. can give you a page called 'anti-chri­sts.' I have no more need to hear from adulterers­, fornicator­s, liars, thieves, the high-minde­d rich, blasphemer­s, covetous, self-servi­ng idlolators­. Are you so insecure in your on self-worth that the only way to value your own life is to tear down the beliefs of others. I believe, so. Go elsewhere and preach your doctrines of descent."

-- rankinkri

I like this next one as well because it presumes that I'm rich, which is honestly the most laugh-out-loud conceit you'll find on the HuffPo religion page right now. It's probably because my mini-bio has me listed as the CEO of DXM Media, which I technically am -- but trust me, there's a CEO and there's a CEO. Guess which one I am.

"This post seemed remarkably glib. Granted, one does not generally expect a serious treatment of such a subject in this sort of forum, but it's horrifying to see how the author roped in 2 billion Christians with Harold Camping's group. I suppose that this much at least was expected. What is particular­ly nutty is action, not generally beliefs. After all, one man's lunacy is another man's logic. Camping's group was defined as nutty because their belief system created dangerous behavior. The author of this also fundamenta­lly misunderst­ands why people are drawn to doomsday prediction­s, and this is common from people who have wealth and status in the world. For him, people are drawn to this because the world is so mysterious that we are desparate answers. I'm sure for a CEO, the biggest problem on his plate is the world's mystery. The less fortunate, who live pay check to pay check and cannot logically expect much else from this world have a real reason to yearn for an escape... It's not the religious alone who need to pull their heads out of their collective asses; it's folks like this guy who don't seem to understand that it's suffering, not mystery, that has created this yearning for heaven."

-- mmccathron

By the way, mmccathron makes an argumentative mistake that a lot of supporters of religion tend to make: he draws a distinction between belief and action. Yes, people are entitled to believe whatever they want and if faith gets you through the day then the argument can be made that it does some good. (Approaching it from that angle, however, doesn't in any way make the subject of your belief-system real.) But the thing about belief is that it doesn't happen in a vacuum; it informs your actions. Everything you do in life you do because you have a specific set of beliefs and values backing up each decision. To assume that someone will simply "believe" in something without it ever having a real-world effect is ludicrous.

These next two, just -- good luck.

"My intuition of the "Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" idea is just that--it is at hand, present with you, within you, and you have access to it, here and now, if you will only see it. You must use the "eyes of the spirit" however. Looking out into the world, paying someone else to proxy for you--this misses the point completely­. Rapture happens to each person when they let the ego-based, me me me world drop away and allow spirit to be fully present to you (within you, as you). It has nothing to do with what anyone else is doing. It doesn't mean you're better than anyone else. It gives you no right to condemn anyone else. It just simply means you realize and directly experience your intimacy with God, that has, in fact, always been here. You just allow the scales to fall from your eyes, and directly experience what Jesus was saying. God so loved the world...Yo­u are saved. Accept it, be with it. And everyone else is saved, too. Your job is simply to fully get it for yourself. Directly experience divine love in the here and now--that is rapture."

-- fatafalena

"The reason anyone can miss when the rapture takes place is the scriptures haven't provided them with a vision. There's a cycle vision of civilizati­ons, morning's [this] and evening's [Revelatio­n 21], with short transition periods between them. There are two mass raptures, the first two days of Genesis 1 one is an all-at-onc­e and the one-person­-at-a-time (Matthew 20:1-16) while replenishi­ng of the earth (Revelatio­n 20:5) for Revelation­'s. The 6 days of creation and rest day was the transition from Revelation­'s, Revelation 20:4&5 are the 7 days [millenniu­ms] reverse going into the next civilizati­on. The first day's 'waters' the spirit moved upon symbolizes people, the light and dark was separating them and the firmament between the second day's 'waters' was the all-at-onc­e rapture of the people who couldn't die (Revelatio­n 21:4) which Adam brought upon us. Igniting the sun on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14) [therefore extinguish­ed on the fourth millennium before the earth is rejuvenate­d anew like a plowed field becoming flat again after a time] was for a "signs" to put the Bible's message into as KJVs replenish (Genesis 1:28) and Ecclesiast­es 1:9 tells us. In doing that we see what the 'narrow way with the straight gate' is, the transition­s between civilizati­ons, where the 'saved' ascends into the true promised land Jesus is scouting (John 14:3) to return and take us into one-at-a-t­ime after this civilizati­on is over... And if I'm the last prophet, Elijah (Malachi 4:5-5), whose purpose is to figure it all out and what's required to be part of the rapture, am I not fulfilling my purpose? We don't know who that Elijah is but we do know (Isaiah 49:1) it's his birth name, as mine is. We do know (Isaiah 58:12 & Matthew 17:11) he's to restore all things which he must know what has happened to do. I do know my vision does present an idea of what has and will happen time and time again, so if I'm he I am fulfilling my purpose. Who knows I'm not he except me, whose not saying it here, and what is termed god? "

-- Elijah A. Alexander, Jr.

This next person apparently didn't like my somewhat mocking tone (go figure) and then went on to miss the point entirely.

"Although the logic of this article is sound at a certain level, the author nonetheles­s assumes a certain level of 'of course this is ridiculous­' to certain beliefs but presumably not to others. Strictly logically speaking, one could amend the author's take home message to say the following: 'Believing in Jesus Christ as the resurrecte­d son of the creator of the universe who will eventually return to Earth equals crazy; NOT believing in Jesus Christ as the resurrecte­d son of the creator of the universe who will eventually return to Earth equals not-crazy.­' I'm sure many would protest that there is of course a difference between these views (which ultimately probably reveals little more than what one personally believes) -- and yes, that's exactly my point. There are also VERY important difference­s in the two beliefs the author discusses, and his differenti­ation only has cash value among those who already want to see anything that they don't believe in as lunacy. Summing them up in the reductioni­st way the author does, does not get us very far, nor does it clearly differenti­ate from ANY set of beliefs, at least not without assuming a certain level of what OF COURSE is crazy and is not (laugh, laugh, snort, snort)."

-- dw30

And then there's this:

"'So the Rapture turned out to be a bit of a bust.' ??? HELLO! It hasn't happened yet."

-- Marlyn

Oh, and one person who apparently got the check I mailed.

"Chez is one of the few reasons I even come to HuffPo anymore."

-- Rumi South

Yeah, dude -- I rock.

Arrest Report

If you've read this site for just about any length of time you know that I've gotten used to being a speed bag for the Huffington Post peanut gallery. Whenever something of mine gets published over there, it's usually possible to count the minutes before the HuffPo readers -- some of whom are incredibly bright, some of whom may as well be free-range retards -- begin wondering aloud whether I'm a paid operative for Fox News or just your average Renfield-esque flunkie. This is probably because the pieces of mine that get posted there have tended, especially lately, to be more centrist than the mixed-bag you find here. And for the professionally pissed-off liberal Star Chamber that holds court round-the-clock in the Huffington Post comment section, my attempts at being reasonably moderate mean I may as well be pissing on a welfare baby while eating a Big Mac and plowing a Hummer through the front of a Whole Foods in the Haight.

So with that in mind you can imagine the kind of ire my recent piece on Cenk Uygur and the arrest of Nicole Sandler drew. To be honest, not a lot of people commented on it, but quite a few of the ones who did -- particularly Brad Friedman from the Brad Blog, some of whose work I happen to like but who I wound up getting into a ridiculously drawn-out debate with -- basically took me to task. To say that it doesn't bother me one way or the other and that I'm actually just entertained as hell by it is a pretty gross understatement. But what it proves is that while, no, the left and right are nowhere near the same -- not when it comes to the level of intellectually dishonest hypocrisy they're willing to spew or the incomprehensible lack of shame they regularly display -- blind tribal loyalty is as powerful at one end of the political spectrum as it is at the other. And even a little bit of straying off-message -- even from someone who's obviously, for the most part, on your side -- just cannot stand.

I normally post the best responses here, but to be honest the only thing really amusing is the back-and-forth between me and Friedman -- so I'll just refer you to the post at HuffPo and let you read for yourself.

Enjoy.

The Huffington Post: The Arrest of the Story/4.29.11

Trig Unhappy

Remember the piece I posted here last week, pegged off an academic paper written by a Kentucky college professor, that kind of attempted to dissect why the mainstream media didn't bother with the Sarah-Trig Palin conspiracy theory? Remember how that piece was turned down by the Huffington Post?

Well, now we know why.

According to an article running at Politico right now, HuffPo has forbidden any debate over whether Trig is the son of Bristol Palin (and apparently any discussion of the anatomy of the debate itself). According to Huffington spokesperson Mario Ruiz, the reason for the ban on so-called "Trig Truthers" -- and I'll give you a minute to laugh at how fluent we've all become in this kind of ridiculous Orwellian Newspeak -- is that they would violate a HuffPo policy against publishing conspiracy theories.

Of course there's nothing wrong with declaring a controversy fabricated out of thin air and based on little more than unsubstantiated speculation to be out of bounds; it's good journalism not to entertain every half-baked hypothesis or long-debunked argument just because there are a few people out there who happen to be lunatic enough to refuse to let go of it.

I mean, that would be as absurd and unethical as, oh I don't know, constantly giving a former Playboy bunny without a medical degree a forum to pen long-winded screeds connecting autism to childhood vaccines -- even though such a connection had been widely and unequivocally rejected as fraudulent.

Right?

That the kind of conspiracy theory HuffPo's talking about not allowing?

A Womb With No View

I've mentioned on a couple of occasions that I've only had one piece turned down flat by the Huffington Post; that would be the one I wrote a couple of years back skewering Jenny McCarthy for her militantly ignorant stance on the supposed connection between childhood vaccines and autism.

Well, as of this morning, that number has gone up.

The HuffPo team says it's passing on the Sarah-Trig Palin column I published here yesterday. Why, I'm not quite sure -- and I didn't bother to ask since I know I'll get a nebulously deflective answer. But I'm putting this out there only because I'd be curious to see if you, dear readers, have any thoughts on it.

Obviously, the Huffington Post can publish whatever it wants; I'm not the least bit upset over this and I understand if the HuffPo brain trust -- which appreciates the notion of liability far more than I do and therefore is less likely to light everything on fire just for the hell of it -- considers the topic of the Sarah and Trig Palin rumor some kind of third-rail. But it did leave me wondering if I struck the right tone with what I wrote, given that I in no way meant to imply that there's validity to the Palin birth conspiracy theory, only that when considered relative to the Obama birther myth it would have been as worthy (or not worthy) of media scrutiny.

So, opinions? And should I now circulate the piece everywhere I can under the heading of "THE ARTICLE THE HUFFINGTON POST DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE"?

I kid.

Post Mortem

Well, that was fun while it lasted.

It's one thing for the mainstream media to wrap both hands around Andrew Breitbart and clutch his doughy white ass while they fellate him, only to suddenly have second thoughts when the act inevitably makes them feel all icky. That's what the mass media are there for: to be hopelessly out of touch with reality. When ABC News embraced Breitbart a while back, infamously announcing that he would be part of the network's mid-term election coverage, then had second thoughts upon being reminded that Breitbart had time and time again proven himself to be an unscrupulous tool, it almost didn't seem like that much of a shock. But while the traditional press may have looked at a guy like Breitbart and only seen his SEO status and Q Score -- and therefore his potential to help it reach that elusive red meat crowd -- you'd think that those within the new media sphere who are intimately familiar with the guy's modus operandi would've known to stay the hell away from him.

Case in point: The Huffington Post.

There's been a hell of a lot of indignation of late aimed at HuffPo for its decision to allow Andrew Breitbart a platform on the left from which to spew his anti-left invective. The argument is that letting Breitbart into one of Progressive America's most powerful media strongholds (I always imagine him being like the Terminator casually wandering into the rebel hideout, sending the dogs into a frenzy then pulling his phased plasma rifle and opening fire on the hapless humans) isn't simply a case of magnanimously allowing for a dissenting opinion or for honest dialogue between two highly polarized political camps; it's a case of giving one of the right's most shamelessly avowed con men -- a guy whose reputation for trafficking in lies and perpetuating hoaxes is irrefutably documented -- credibility as something other than the pompous bullshit artist and schoolyard bully he is. I wish I could argue with this, because I really do think we should try to move past the ridiculous left-vs.-right ethos, but given his track record there should be no abiding Andrew Breitbart -- not by anyone seeking to have a legitimate adversarial debate based on facts.

So, no, Breitbart never should've been welcomed as an above-the-fold Huffington Post contributor (regardless of the fact that he had a hand in creating the publication). That said, the decision by HuffPo to now rescind that above-the-fold status -- to basically allow him to post at the site, just without the raised profile -- is almost too absurd to even comprehend. Just yesterday HuffPo said it stood behind its decision to give Breitbart the kind of spotlight that other, lesser-known contributors would kill for -- but today it's announcing an institutional change of heart. Why? Supposedly because this morning Andrew Breitbart unleashed a vicious "ad hominem" attack on Van Jones in the Daily Caller; in other words, Andrew Breitbart did exactly what Andrew Breitbart does. Once again, it's not like the people at HuffPo couldn't have predicted that Breitbart would at some point say something that would offend their sensibilities; he's made an entire career out of doing that. To claim that he hadn't stepped over the line until this very morning is laughably stupid -- or entirely disingenuous, which is more likely. The fact is that HuffPo was besieged by a hellacious backlash in the wake of its decision to put Breitbart on the front page and, well, it caved.

But why?

Why would the Huffington Post even bother to put Breitbart on the front page -- where he could thumb his nose at those whose belief system he's sought to destroy -- knowing that there would be a revolt, then yank him when the inevitable revolt happened?

Because now all they've done is given Andrew Breitbart exactly what he wanted: the ability to shout to everyone throughout his own online empire that those arrogant liberals try to quash the opinions of anyone who disagrees with them.

By the way, Van Jones is a good friend of Arianna's -- and what have we learned is the one rule of writing for the Huffington Post? You don't insult Arianna's friends. Can you imagine if that's really what this is all about: a pissing match between two very rich new media titans? How fucking shameful and tragic would that be -- and how far removed is that kind of nonsense from the lives of rest of us, the little people who take sides between these two?

Die Hard

Back at the top of that bulwark of metaphysical celebrity pseudoscience known as the HuffPo Living section today: Dr. Bob Lanza.

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

The Huffington Post: "Why You Will Always Exist: Time Is 'On Demand'" by Dr. Robert Lanza/2.10.11

You've got to give him credit, he's really committed himself to becoming a virtuoso at this one particular subject -- although it would be kind of nice if he'd get some new material already.

Examples:

DXM: Gone of the Dead/3.24.10

DXM: Headline of the Week: "Does Death Exist? New Theory Says No"/12.10.09

Net Brutality

Allen West is a freshman congressman from Florida. He's a Tea Party darling who, among other noteworthy achievements, retired from the Army after taking a shot at an Iraqi civilian in order to intimidate him, compared President Obama to Hitler and encouraged people to arm themselves against the government, and named as his chief of staff a far-right talk radio host whose lunatic rhetoric was connected with a credible threat that led police to lock down every single school in Broward County, Florida last November.

In other words, Allen West is a real peach.

So maybe it's not surprising that he sees the AOL-Huffington Post deal as the end of all life as we know it.

From Media Matters:

"You look out there, you see that AOL has purchased the Huffington Post. Now all of a sudden a very far left liberal blogger such as Arianna Huffington has a huge influence in the Internet world," he said. We cannot allow ourselves to be suppressed. We cannot allow them to take over the Internet."

Three things: First of all, Arianna Huffington just sold her wholly independent, "very far left liberal" blog to the most conservative, milquetoast internet media conglomerate in America -- and pocketed $315 million dollars for herself and her partners in the process. If that doesn't win her some street cred from the big business-fellating crowd, what the hell will?

Second, is there anything more comical than listening to a right-wing blowhard feign victimization at the hands of the supposed liberal juggernaut bent on quashing his or her views? The constant cries of "we will not be silenced or suppressed" from a group whose media bullhorn is positively deafening these days is the stuff of cheap farce. That said, the conspiratorial "encroaching threat" argument is one that's been used by the most unimaginative political talking heads on the right -- to great effect -- for the past few years, so it's not surprising a hack like West would bust it out.

Third, you wanna know why the conservative movement is losing the internet? Media Matters goes on to nail it: What has the avowed right got in terms of new media that's truly groundbreaking? Sure, it owns the talk radio medium and it's correct when it boasts that as of now progressives don't stand a chance of breaking its stranglehold -- and there's even an argument to be made that the left can't put a dent in Fox News's adamantium hull on television. But the internet is an entirely different beast; it's a place where innovation and imagination triumph and it's one that lends itself to the non-linear way the left and center-left tend to think. In much the same way that conservatives look down their noses at any attempt by progressives to match the success of, say, Rush Limbaugh, progressives can rightly claim that their political adversaries haven't even come close to smacking it out of the park on the internet the way HuffPo has. Yeah, there's Drudge, but that's almost 15 years old and it's barely evolved since its inception -- and there's no way in hell a major corporation of any kind would get near Breitbart with a pair of rubber gloves and a cattle prod.

Don't like what you see when you "look out there," congressman?

Maybe you need to take a harder look at who your audience is.

Huffington Toast?

I've done a couple of phone interviews today and of course fielded a metric ton of e-mail looking for my reaction to the AOL-Huffington Post merger announced with great fanfare this morning.

To listen to Arianna explain it, the purchase of HuffPo by a company that's struggling for an ounce of cultural and technological relevance will align the new media stars; to listen to the reaction of the HuffPo peanut gallery, AOL will be nothing but an albatross around the neck of the site, watering it down politically until it's drowned altogether. The fear is that AOL, which almost since its inception has represented the doof-proof path of least resistance to the internet, will systematically crush the independent spirit of the Huffington Post under an avalanche of cookie-cutter banality. There are commenters already lamenting the fact that Arianna "sold out." News flash: If you think that, you seriously need to pull your head out of the clouds. Arianna Huffington has always been one thing above all else: a businesswoman. And her business just hit the jackpot to the tune of 315-million dollars. It's spectacular news for her and even better news for Roy Sekoff -- who's the unsung hero at HuffPo and an all-around terrific guy -- but what AOL's mothership status means for the future of the left and center-left's only real internet powerhouse is anyone's guess.

In a memo this morning that I have to assume went out to all the HuffPo contributors, Arianna talked about how the input of those who helped to make the site what it is today -- what made it worth this multi-million dollar buyout -- will continue to be valued as the new mega-media venture begins. For the moment anyway, we have no choice but to take her at her word; after all, she's apparently been doing something right all this time.

Of course given AOL's track record when it comes to mergers, this whole debate could be academic anyway. And the really big question still remains: Will Arianna's stable of bloggers continue to line up knowing that they're writing for a corporate media behemoth like AOL -- and that while they're working for free, Arianna just saw a 315-million dollar payday?

We'll see.

(On a personal note, I'll continue to contribute to HuffPo for a number of reasons -- my respect and admiration for both Arianna and Roy Sekoff being one and the fact that I cross-post my material here, often submitting it to Huffington as an afterthought, being another. But given my history, look for whatever I contribute from here on out to be decried by the HuffPo regulars as being the product of AOL's conservative puppet-mastery. Should be entertaining. Oh, and someone pointed out this little bit of irony today: The company that was once part of the company that fired me for blogging is now the owner of the site that I was blogging for when I got fired. And the circle of life continues.)

(Adding: Great quote from Gawker's legendarily idiosyncratic CEO Nick Denton -- who just became the last man standing in the independent media empire game -- on the AOL-HuffPo deal. As expected, he's appropriately barbed: "I’m disappointed in the Huffington Post. I thought Arianna Huffington and Kenny Lerer were reinventing news, rather than simply flipping to a flailing conglomerate. AOL has gathered so many of our rivals -- Huffington Post, Engadget, Techcrunch -- in one place. The question: Is this a fearsome Internet conglomerate or simply a roach motel for once lively websites?" No one can ever claim Denton minces words.)

You Don't Say

If you pay really careful attention, you'll notice that I occasionally soften the language of the pieces that appear here before submitting them to the Huffington Post. I have no issue being a profanity-spouting firebrand on this site, my internet home, but when it comes to HuffPo I generally try to temper my thoughts a little simply because of the amount of exposure the columns there tend to get and generate. The overall tone of the material doesn't change; I just go out of my way to be at least a little more dignified.

There have been a couple of times, however, that the blogging gods at HuffPo have actually asked me to edit something I've submitted -- or have asked for my permission to allow them to edit it themselves. Generally, I go along with it because, once again, as long as the point of the piece remains intact I couldn't really care less whether there are one or two fewer, as Jim Kirk would say, "colorful metaphors."

But with that in mind -- and we all know how I have no desire to bite the hand that feeds me some decent press -- I invite you to take a look at the way yesterday's little column on Keith Olbermann currently appears in the Huffington Post. It's, well, interesting, to see what changes needed to be made in order for it to be approved for publication. It was submitted without the Maddow coda, so you can discount that right off the bat. But some of the other edits -- which for the most part I agreed to, by the way -- they're pretty noticeable.

Remember, what's the one rule of writing for the Huffington Post?

Mr. Popularity

And now, a selection of commentary from the readers of the Huffington Post, in response to my column, God of War.

To truly appreciate the impact of the following, may I suggest listening to this as you read:



"I won't get in to detail here: But this invigorated screed distorting, caricaturing and demonizing Assange is predictable. It a familiar tactic in the conflicts going on in the battleground of the media. The U. S. military has been losing badly and obviously in Iraq and AfPak for nearly ten years. Now it and its mouthpieces are trying to make the farcical claim that Assange's exposures will harm its war efforts. Excuse me while I take leave to laugh at the laughable."

-- henryberry

"wonder why Huff Post is posting so much right wing nonsense lately. I just got through reading about all of Condolessa Rices's good qualities. What is happening?"

-- cheryl tobin

"What kind of person belittles revelations of mass crimes against humanity?"

-- blueskybigstar

"Who's blood exactly is on his hands? There's lots on yours, but I don't but his seem squeaky clean."

-- The Questioner

"War what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!' Endless corporate greed & endless corporate war are twin monsters devouring humanity. ANYTHING that can stop such madness, such evil, such insanity is a blessing for all of humanity!"

-- exoevolution

"I would have never redacted any documents released by WikiIeaks. Iraqi and Afghan victims have the right to know the names of their murderers and torturers."

-- fairwayhill

"The real Gods of War don't like the competition, eh? Puh-leaze! How many corpses must be tucked neatly behind the states secrets before they burst forth and cover the world in hatred and enmity?"

-- j0em0mma

"i have to disclose that i only read about half of this author's poem.. about his deep affection for authority and by extension his heartfelt responsibility to chime in on behalf of the extraordinarily powerful... when a reader encounters really tremendously bad writing or analysis or thesis or vision, etc.. why continue? we cannot read everything.. some of the outright propaganda must find its way to the 'unfinished' pile... i have read some CRAP. all the way through... but, much as with the article in question,.. if the vehicle has long since smashed through the guardrail and is plummeting plummeting plummeting so far as reason, logic, morality, self-worth, and dignity are concerned.. WHY read on as the obviously confused or threatened author plummets toward the conclusion of a VERY badly premised piece? gravity seldom reconsiders."

-- woodshoe

"More PROPAGANDA. The pentagon has killed more innocent people than Assange ever will."

-- fuzzychickens

"Your approach is right out of propaganda 101: shoot the messenger. Are you using this to put on the resume you're sending to F a u xnews?"

-- postrealitysyndrome

"'innocent soldiers' lol. what an oxymoron."

-- Danish5666

"The mentality displayed by the author of this piece is the real threat to more lives being lost and senseless wars continuing. It's people with this sort of mindset which led us into the Iraq war in the first place."

-- lonngfello

"In short, your piece is another hit job."

-- Dr. Jonathan David Farley

"'God of War'? Assange's goal is peace. If there is 'collateral damage' in the prosecution of war, then there must logically be EQUAL 'collateral damage' in the shutdown of that same war and prosecution of peace."

-- gmb007

"I bet Chez Pazienza had an apoplectic seizure after reading Greenwald's piece today. I'd love to see his little establishmentarian head explode."

-- The Baffler

"I know the first paragraph isn't really the point of the article, but thank you, Chez. It's about time someone said it."

-- Gogetter

God of War: PostScript

A while back I mentioned that of all the pieces I've submitted to the good people at the Huffington Post, there's only been one that was flatly rejected; that would be the scathing column I wrote mocking Jenny McCarthy for her inane, arrogant and potentially dangerous advocation of celebrity pseudoscience to parents of autistic children. That little experience marked the first time I became aware of what may be the one rule of writing for HuffPo: You can't insult Arianna's friends.

Well, maybe I didn't quite learn my lesson because although a slightly altered version of my piece on Julian Assange was accepted and published at HuffPo this morning, something happened to it that's never happened to one of my columns in the two-and-a-half years that I've been contributing to the site.

It got buried. Quickly. As in it stayed at the bottom of the politics page for about a half-hour then vanished into the abyss.

I'm obviously not going to criticize anyone over at the Huffington Post; they've honestly been quite good to me over the past couple of years, particularly Roy Sekoff, who's as big a supporter of the blogging rank-and-file, and of guys like me and Bob Cesca in particular, as anyone could be. HuffPo has given me a terrific outlet and brought me loads of readers, even going so far as to publish one of my pieces in the book Arianna and the Huffington editors released back in late 2008. I also knew going into it that I was taking a swipe at a few new media icons of the left -- people with enormous fan bases at the Huffington Post and who were much higher up on the contributor totem pole that I am. People like Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher and David Sirota, as much as I find them to be ideologues, and self-defeating ones at that, have an enormous amount of clout within the liberal blogosphere; you don't take a shot at them in what's ostensibly their house and expect to have it go unnoticed. So maybe I should've known that what I had to say wouldn't simply get me labeled a right-wing propagandist with a "deep affection for authority" who should be sending "(his) resume to Faux News" by the HuffPo peanut gallery, but would get my thoughts relegated to the slush pile where no one would even see them unless they went looking or happened to stumble across a link to them at the bottom of a related post.

A friend of mine told me not long ago that the best thing about me is that I hold nothing sacred and will take on anyone or anything -- and the worst thing about me is that I hold nothing sacred and will take on anyone or anything. Believe me when I tell you that it gets lonely being willing to piss off just about everybody.

The question of course becomes, does fearlessness -- or stupidity, depending on how you want to look at it -- matter if nobody can hear the tree fall in the forest anyway?

(Update: Maybe someone was listening over there, or Sekoff just sent the right kind of e-mail, because as of this morning I'm on the main media page. For the record, it was where the piece always belonged, rather than in the politics section, so we'll see what happens next.)