Terri Gross is chairing a a discussion about health care solutions with two people.  One is Paul Krugman.  I knew the name, but not too much about him, and so here’s what I found:

• Professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton,
• Centenary professor at London School of Economics,
• 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics,
• Author of “25 books and 40 scholarly articles” (Wikipedia).

I thought to myself, wow, awesome — I want to hear what he has to say.  And the other person?  “Stuart Butler, [some position at] conservative thinktank, the Heritage Foundation”.  Ok, so red flags go up for me.  Who is this guy?  Here’s the best I can find:

• Author of a series of “WebMemos” and “Heritage Lectures” on the Heritage Foundation website,
• Adjunct faculty at Georgetown,
• Identified as a very influential person by a D.C.-insider periodical. (per his resume)

For cryin’ out loud — why why why?  How in the world does a discussion between these two people serve listeners?  How is Butler any different from Creationists who write “research” papers that they publish in their own personal “scientific journals”?

Here’s just one of the many problems with this:

As a consumer of news and content, I’m shortchanged.

If there is a well-represented competing current of research and solutions in the field, then I’d like to hear from someone who would disagree with Krugman on some issues.  But please, this person should have similarly solid credentials, and should represent a similarly broad stream of research in the subject area. 

But I come to the opposite conclusions by calmly looking at the facts:

• The Court’s conservative majority reached its decision by creating law in the form of a new standard — a “strong basis in evidence” of the success of a disparate effect lawsuit is now required.Sotomayor shouldn’t have done the same (and didn’t) as an appellate judge, whose role is to interpret, not create law.
  
• The Court’s reasoning was based on a reading of the facts that was different from that of the trial court.  Several long and conflicting recitations of the facts caused the decision to reach ~90 pages.  In other words, the case was reviewed “de novo”. Sotomayor shouldn’t have done the same (and didn’t) as an appellate judge, who is required to give deference to the trial court’s findings of fact.
  
• The Court reached a 5-4 split decision along the supposed political lines: 4 conservatives, 4 liberals, and Justice Kennedy in the middle. Attempting to label Sotomayor’s decision to uphold the district court’s decision as radical or racist is simply disingenuous.

“I ghost-wrote letters to the editor for the McCain campaign”

“You can be whoever you want to be,” says an inviting Phil Tuchman. “You can be a beggar or a millionaire. A mom or a husband. Whatever. You decide!”

The assignment is simple: We are going to write letters to the editor and we are allowed to make up whatever we want — as long as it adds to the campaign. After today we are supposed to use our free moments at home to create a flow of fictional fan mail for McCain. “Your letters,” says Phil Tuchman, “will be sent to our campaign offices in battle states. Ohio. Pennsylvania. Virginia. New Hampshire. There we’ll place them in local newspapers.”

Phil bends over my computer screen and reads. This takes a while. I am expecting roars of laughter or to be kicked out. Then he says drily: “I like that. It appeals to the hearts of people. Can you write more letters?”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/24/mccain_letters/index.html

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on these. . . . On what grounds could Obama not answer / refuse to answer? Why wouldn’t he answer just to shut this guy down? . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs This video has close to 2.5 million hits.

I did some “due diligence”, and am convinced that the video contains many untruths and arguments made in bad faith.  So many, that I didn’t have time to chase down each statement that sounded questionable.  I like to apply the science-investigation ethic  — “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.  The video fails this test. Here’s what I found:

(1) Intro screen by the film-maker: “I invented the Internet”
This is unfortunately a common falsehood.  Al Gore didn’t say this [4], and what he did say is correct.  I have personal knowledge here: I’ve been involved with the Internet as a user and software/network engineer since 1986; when it was still the “Arpanet”. I’m additionally confused as to why this is the title for this video. I don’t understand the connection to Obama; possibly this is simply a (presumed easy) swipe at another famous liberal politician. Indicates a lack of seriousness.

(2) Berg: “Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen”
Berg provides no support for this statement.  (In law school, we’d call that “conclusory”.) It begs the question, as it forms the basis for more statements.  I find this fairly shameless, and it appears to be disingenuous: Berg seems to want to come off as a concerned citizen. Instead, this is evidence that he is an ideologue — that he has an axe to grind.

(3) Berg: “FactCheck.org . . . supposedly checks out documents to make sure they’re correct.”
A slanted characterization of factcheck.org with no supporting details or evidence.  He then goes on immediately to another topic.  This is propaganda [5] intended to create doubt.  (And further, what does it mean, “to make sure they’re correct“?  He probably means “authentic“; this is typical of his imprecise language throughout.)

(4) Berg: “[in re Annenberg] There’s a little conflict of interest there, I believe.”
Same as previous.  This is tossed out, and then not followed up.  Is he claiming that Factcheck is wrong?  If so, where?  Did they fabricate?  If so, where?  He doesn’t say.  This is propaganda. [5]

(5) Berg: “John McCain . . . immediately released his birth certificate . . . he immediately released his medical records . . . . He said, ‘Whatever you want, I’ll give it to you.’ and he did, right away.”
This seems to be false:  I could find no evidence of this.  What’s more, I found plenty of evidence to the contrary.  It seems to have taken 4 months for his certificate to become public, and it wasn’t through McCain’s organization:

Feb. 21, 2008: Earliest mention I could find of McCain’s citizenship question. [1]

May 2, 2008: Dept. of Homeland Security refuses to hand over copy of McCain’s birth certificate in response to a subpoena, claiming improper service. [2]

June 20, 2008: The Dallas News runs picture of birth certificate, courtesy of a source, “Don Lamb in Panama.” [3]

(6) Berg: “Obama . . . has refused to release any records . . .”
Untrue on its face.  The video itself talks about the records Obama has released.

[1] http://newsbusters.org/forums/latest-news/q-panamanian-born-john-mccain-natural-born-citizen-united-states-19392
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224_pf.html
[3] http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/06/mccains-citizen.html
[4] http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
[5] “Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Ms. Rhodes used vulgar language that likened Mrs. Clinton to a prostitute at an event sponsored by KKGN, the Air America affiliate in the San Francisco area, on March 22. . . .

In a statement, Charlie Kireker, the chair of Air America, said the radio network “encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts.” (NY Times)

Here’s an example of how the conservative media is reporting it:

Air America radio has suspended talk show host Randi Rhodes for what has been described as an appalling rant . . . (Fox News)

The transcripts are online, but one really needs to see the video to get the feel of the event; that this was definitely schtick: (YouTube)

But there’s no big problem with what she said, nor with Air America’s reaction.

Contradictory? I don’t think so:

1. This was an entertainer, doing a stand-up comedy bit in an adults-only venue. Her routine was typical and appropriate for that context.
2. The content of her routine, likening some politicians to prostitutes, is political language that usually deserves a high level of deference.
3. Nothing she said is any worse than what one hears in right-wing talk forums. For example, I recently switched off the David Letterman show when comedian Dennis Miller was on, and in the beginning of an energetic routine called Senator Harry Reid a “bloated pussbag” and other pejoratives. I found it unfunny and bizarre; simply insulting for the sake of insulting.
4. It’s actually a real stretch to call her bit ad hominem. The prostitute analogy is pretty directly about the politician’s acts and behavior. For real ad hominem, consider the Dennis Miller quote, above. Or, alternatively, most times that pundits on either side of the political spectrum liken someone to a Nazi.
5. Finally, Air America is a business, and Rhodes seems to have made this appearance as representing them. And they apparently didn’t bargain for this kind of performance, nor consider it appropriate representation.

So, me personally, I’m not so shocked as I am interested in how our society is working out these events that intersect three spheres: media, politics, and comedy.