Colbert Goes There

The Colbert Report last night featured one of the most subversive and brutally honest half-hours of television in recent memory. It's a sad commentary that it takes a comedy program to provide more news and information on one of the most critical subjects in American politics that anywhere else in our broken media and political landscape, but I'll take this argument wherever I can get it. Colbert spent two full segments of his show focusing on the Citizens United Supreme Court case, which could - and probably will - lead to deregulating the entire campaign finance process, allowing corporations to give unlimited money to any candidate of their choosing. This severe step backwards with enormous implications has been barely discussed in any traditional media setting, but Colbert went after it vigorously, discussing the consequences and even the flawed legal rationale, a true third rail of American politics, corporate personhood. Colbert explained that the 1886 case (Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that conferred 14th Amendment equal protection rights onto corporations wasn't even in the original ruling. But when the Chief Justice made an off-hand comment that the Court wouldn't hear an argument on whether the 14th Amendment applied to these corporations (saying, "We are all of the opinion that it does"), the court reporter wrote it into the ruling opinion, and the precedent has held ever since. And that reporter of the Supreme Court didn't only have ties to the railroad barons, he used to run one.

These are subjects you just never hear about in the American media, precisely because the American media is owned by giant multinational corporations, who benefit from the corporate personhood rule and would stand to benefit more from deregulating elections so they could use their "speech" to buy candidates and fund their own with unlimited resources. And despite being on a Viacom-owned network, Colbert says, skewering the immorality and psychopathology of the corporation, "Corporations are legally people... they do everything people do, except breathe, die, and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River."

There's some backstory to that remark. Colbert actually worked with Robert Smigel on the "TV Funhouse" bits from Saturday Night Live (he's one-half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo), including the infamous episode from March 1998, Conspiracy Theory Rock. Here are some of the actual lyrics (remember this aired, albeit one time, on NBC, whose parent company is General Electric):

It's a media-opoly
A media-opoly.
The whole media is controlled by a few corporations
thanks to deregulation by the FCC.

You mean Disney, Fox, WestingHouse, and good ol GE?
They own networks from CBS to CNBC.
They can use them to say whatever they please,
and put down the opinions of any one who disagrees.
Or stuff about PCB's.

What are PCB's?
They come from power plants built by WestingHouse and GE.
They can give you lots of cancer that can hurt your body,
but on network TV, you rarely hear anything bad about the nuclear industry [...]

But the bigshots don't care.
They're all sitting pretty.
Thanks to corporate welfare.
What's that now?

They get billions in subsidies
from the government.
It's supposed to create jobs,
but that's not how it's spent.

They pulled this cartoon from the rerun broadcasts and it never aired again.

Colbert didn't just provide this lesson in corporate control of government in his "The Word" segment, but then had Jeffrey Toobin on to explain how the expected Supreme Court ruling would impact elections:

COLBERT: If this goes through, if they decide in favor of the corporations here, what's going to happen to elections?

TOOBIN: Well, they will be essentially deregulated. Corporations will be allowed to give money, corporations will be allowed to broadcast programs that are in favor of one side or another, it'll basically be no more rules about what corporations can do in political campaigns.

COLBERT: Now when I ran for President in 2008, as the Hail to the Cheese Doritos Stephen Colbert campaign for President, I was told that I actually couldn't do that, that I was breaking federal election law by being sponsored by that corporation. But if this goes through, if this court case, if they win, does that mean that I retroactively won the election?

TOOBIN: I don't think it means that.

COLBERT: But could you do that? Could I actually just wear a NASCAR suit and just have logos all over me and run for President as the sort of Gatorade Thirst for Justice campaign for President?

TOOBIN: You definitely could. No question.

COLBERT: What does it mean to individual donation? A corporation, as a person, gets to give any amount of money, but I as a person can give only $2,500.

TOOBIN: That's what's potentially the next legal challenge. Because if giving money is a form of speech, as the Court has held at various times, you can't prohibit a company from giving money. And then presumably the next step would be that you couldn't have limits on how much individuals could give either. That's the potential implication of this decision.

COLBERT: So right now, corporations would actually have more power as people than people, until people catch up with corporations.

Here's the point. Stephen Colbert, a comedian, devoted his show to arcane campaign finance law to show the power of corporations to engage in a hostile takeover of government and extract virtually any law they choose, with no consequences for any wrongdoing. Consequently, the self-described populists on the right - aided by a hapless political class - are working their minions into a frenzy over some unidentified alien "other" coming to take your hard-earned tax dollars, without the pernicious influence of rapacious corporations ever entering into it. Anonymous Liberal had a great post on this yesterday.

But even if you take these film-makers at face value and assume the worst, the reality is that ACORN has thousands of employees and the vast majority of them spend their days trying to help poor people through perfectly legal means (and receive very little compensation for doing so). Even before yesterday's Senate vote, the amount of federal money that went to ACORN was very small. This is a relatively insignificant organization in the grand scheme of things, but it's an organization that has unquestionably fought over the years to improve the lives of the less fortunate in this country.

That the GOP and its conservative supporters would single out this particular organization for such intense demonization is telling. In September of last year, the entire world came perilously close to complete financial catastrophe. We're still not out of the woods and we're deep within one of the worst recessions in U.S. history. This situation was brought about by the recklessness and greed of our banks and financial institutions, most of which had to be bailed out at enormous cost to the American taxpayer (exponentially more than all of the tax dollars given to ACORN over the years). The people who brought about this near catastrophe, for the most, profited immensely from it. These very same institutions, propped up by the American taxpayer, are once again raking in large profits.

But rather than focus their anger on these folks, conservatives choose to go after an organization composed almost entirely of low-paid community organizers, an organization that could never hope to have even a small fraction of the clout or the ability to affect the overall direction of the country that Wall Street bankers have. ACORN's relative lack of political influence was on full display yesterday, when the U.S. Senate (in which Democrats have a supermajority) not only entertained a vote to defund ACORN, but approved it by a huge margin (with only seven Democrats opposing).

Absolutely. Set aside the fact that the Glenn Becks of the world are smearing community organizations that help low-income folks, often at variance with the facts. It's the intensity of focus from the privileged on the poor, the disenfranchised, and yes, minorities, when measured against the influence and giant multinational corporations who are on the verge of buying American elections, that strikes such a discordant note. But not for the hucksters pushing the smears and the paranoids and racists who lap it up. They want to believe that black people have the power in America and they're coming for you and your children, so they can ignore the fact that they've been duped - that the ruling class has controlled the political machinery to keep them underfoot, and handed them welfare queens and illegal immigrants and all sorts of other members of the "lower orders" on which they can focus their attention. This boils down to a largely homogenous class of people not wanting their money, or anything, really, to go to people who don't look like them. "Illegals" or the undeserving poor need not apply. It's been a time-tested tactic going back to Richard Nixon's Southern strategy. And it allows a majority ruling class of whites, terrified that their stranglehold on the country is slipping away, to pretend that a race war is coming when it's the class war grinding them into the dust.

Matt Taibbi called it the peasant mentality. The powers that be get the lower classes to fight amongst themselves and split along ideological or tribal or other identifying lines, leaving room for them to prosper. For Republicans, that means painting their opponents, who are less homogenous and are made up of so-called "outsiders" of society - the poor, the disenfranchised, African-Americans, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, etc. - as undeserving of really anything; and painting the leaders of that party - whether it be a Governor from Arkansas or a war hero from Massachusetts or South Dakota or a multicultural community organizer from Illinois - as the head of a movement to destroy American culture. That's really basically it.

And all the while, both sides in DC studiously ignore the near-complete capture of the country by companies seeking only profit, and the corporate-owned media just follows the manufactured drama and goes mute on the critical stuff, such that it takes a comedian to shine a spotlight on this unexamined corner.

Comic Relief

Sometimes you have to laugh.

Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care

WASHINGTON—After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.

"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."

"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added.

Funny cuz it's true.

In other humor news, Stephen Colbert valiantly debates a dining room table - and loses.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Barney Frank Refuses to Talk to Dining Room Table
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

At What Point Do You Get Your House Speaking Privileges Revoked?

Michelle Bachmann, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, acting like Mrs. Malaprop.

BACHMANN: The recession FDR had to deal with wasn't as bad as the one Coolidge had to deal with in the early '20s, Yet the prescription that Coolidge put on that, from history, is lower taxes, lower regulatory burden, and we saw the Roaring '20s, where we saw markets and growth in the economy like we've never seen before in the history of the country. FDR applied just the opposite formula. The Hoot-Smalley Act, which was a tremendous burden on tariff restrictions, and of course trade barriers and the regulatory burden and tax barriers. That's what we saw happen under FDR, that took a recession and blew it into a full-scale Depression. The American people suffered for almost ten years under that kind of thinking.

None of this is right, but "Hoot-Smalley" deserves some kind of medal. Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley into law, by the way.

Bachmann is like a college student who skimmed the entire history book the night before the test, and knows a couple dates and places, and just connects dots randomly, making sense only to her.

Now I know where the people who think Stephen Colbert is a closet conservative come from - MN-06. Because clearly they elected one of their own to represent them.

More Responsible Then The New York Times

Stephen Colbert's vivisection of Glenn Beck is some of the funniest television I've seen in years.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

Incidentally, there is a 10.31 Project website, but it only has the picture up write now.

The transcript of this would actually be a direct contrast to the respectful take on Beck from the New York Times, so eager are they to ingratiate themselves with conservatives and not offend their delicate sensibilities. My favorite part of that:

In an interview, Mr. Beck, who recently rewatched the 1976 film “Network,” said he identified with the character of Howard Beale, the unhinged TV news anchorman who declares on the air that he is “mad as hell.”

“I think that’s the way people feel,” Mr. Beck said. “That’s the way I feel.”

Network was a satire, you idiot. About the vacuous nature of the news media. Which you exemplify.

Our Best Defense

At times like these, you can do nothing but laugh. And when you're done with that, you can laugh at CNBC, which has taken a major hit during this financial crisis, exposed as they are to be a cheap fraud.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

CNBC has no response because they couldn't possibly have a response. There's nothing that can be said. They are a network dedicated to offering zillionaire CEOs a platform to lie, and spinning pro-business and anti-worker policies as good for America. That's what they do, that's all they do. And when a crisis hits, they look foolish.



I actually thought the best takedown of them all was Stephen Colbert inviting Jim Cramer on The Colbert Report and then playing pictures of cute kittens and puppies behind whatever he said. That's basically CNBC in a nutshell leading up to this crisis, when Bush was still in office. They've only done a 180 now and gone market populist because they think they're protecting their bottom lines. CNBC is a farce, and Colbert basically proved it last night.

You Can't Parody These People Anymore

Stephen Colbert might as well give up.

Here's Dick Armey, decrying political discourse as "inane" and demanding that serious people go about their business and contribute seriously, and then minutes later saying to Joan Walsh "I am so damn glad that you can never be my wife".



And then, here's Glenn Beck, actually doing the idling the car outside the studio to "do his part for global warming" joke, months after Colbert did EXACTLY THIS JOKE on his show:



These are respected members of the conservative media elite.

Parody is dead.

I, Klan

So Color of Change and MoveOn put together a great protest of Fox News' racist attacks on Obama, delivering hundreds of thousands of petitions and enlisting rapper Nas, who actually has a new track called "Sly Fox" about the channel, to be their spokesman.



Since Fox News wouldn't accept the petitions, Stephen Colbert did and it turned out pretty funny.

So O'Reilly had to respond.

Fox officials are not only attacking Nas for selling his album (which already topped the charts), some are likening the anti-racism activists to the KKK. MTV reports that Bill O'Reilly also responded, deriding protesters such as MoveOn as "the new Klan" with "a radical left agenda." He continued:

"The latest smear from Move On is telling their Kool-Aid-drinking zombie followers that Fox News is smearing Barack Obama and is a racist concern. Of course, that's a lie. This broadcast and FNC in general have been exceedingly fair to Senator Obama. ... But in order to intimidate anyone from criticizing Obama in any way, Move On is playing the race card."

It's a fairly rare coalition that can include Nas AND the Klan, but that's the world according to BillO.

Being a member of MoveOn for almost its entire 10 years, it's pretty clear to me that they represent a kind of passive liberalism which engages people online who otherwise might not participate. In other words, they are the opposite of radicals, and while Fox News and other traditional media outlets want to marginalize them, they do so with exactly the wrong narrative.

But understanding MoveOn as the direct descendant of the '60s protesters gets the organization exactly wrong. MoveOn's success (and, indeed, its limitations) is powered by its appeal to today's non-shouters. Though its politics are in many ways the opposite of the Nixon silent majority's, they share a disposition. They are people not inclined to protest but whose rising unease with the direction of the country has led to a new political consciousness. For citizens angered, upset and disappointed with their government but unsure how to channel those sentiments, MoveOn provides simple, discrete actions: sign this petition, donate money to run this ad, show up at this vigil. "Before I joined MoveOn," says staffer Anna Galland, "I was organizing in Rhode Island doing faith-based antiwar activism. In March 2003, MoveOn had put out an action alert for a vigil against the Iraq War. There were 500 people on the steps of the Capitol, and I remember thinking, 'I know all the activists in the state; where did all these people come from?' I think many people have a MoveOn moment where they look around and realize that this organization has managed to tap into a much broader range of people than they might have seen at past activist events."

MoveOn is essentially a conduit for ordinary Americans to collect their voices and mobilize political power. Color of Change is doing the same thing in the African-American community. They aren't the Klan - they're actually you, your friends and neighbors. They have fairly baseline liberal beliefs, nothing shocking. This kind of activism isn't going to change the world - it's a gateway into more civic engagement and participation - and when it's demonized as "the Klan" or some outpost on the radical left the disconnect is remarkable. Of course, the goal of this marginalization is to strangle activism at the very outset - if MoveOn is smeared and made radical, there's not very much hope at REALLY engaging people. That's why it was so damn stupid for the Democratic Congress to condemn MoveOn for the "Betrayus" ad last year. MoveOn is effective not only in what it does, but by empowering citizens to do even more. And so it's a cornerstone in the movement to make the country more progressive. That's why O'Reilly can't stand it, that's why Democrats ought to be completely supportive of it, and that's why I'm a member. I don't always agree with them, I think they can always go further, but they are building organizers across the country and that's meaningful.

Singing For Citizenship

I'm trying to figure out if this really happened, but Canadian singer Feist (you have to say "Canadian singer" before mentioning Feist) was on The Colbert Report last night, and she mentioned that she has dual citizenship, and Colbert asked her how, and she replied that Steve Jobs got it for her as part of her deal for using her "1-2-3-4" song on iPod commercials.

I understand that she'd need a work permit to sign a contract in the United States, like any singer or touring band, but can a rich guy really get someone dual citizenship like that? How can that possibly be legal? And did every poor farmer in Michoacan just recognize that their key to a life free of hassle in the United States is simply to write a catchy indie song?

Matthew Yglesias, my usual source for all things Feist, didn't mention this today yet, so I'm still trying to figure out the implications here. I do know she did this good live version of "I Feel It All."



UPDATE: Apparently, she was joking and has an American father who currently lives in Canada. It was not told like a joke, in my defense, but I've been denser about plenty of other things in my day, and this won't be the last.

The Colbert Bump

There's now a statistical basis for it:

Democratic candidates who appear on “The Report” receive 44% more money than those who do not in the first month after their appearance. We no longer have to rely on the gut or Wikipedia — the evidence speaks for itself.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wouldn’t recommend anyone go on “The Colbert Report,” but these results show that Democrats who ignored her advice probably did themselves a favor. For Democrats, the “Colbert bump” is financially measurable, and it may be just what they need to keep control of the Congress in 2008.

This is so completely obvious. I remember going to the California Democratic Party convention last year and seeing Rep. Brad Sherman from a distance, and a young guy standing next to me said "Hey, isn't that the guy from The Colbert Report?" This raises visibility among informed people (yes, the Stewart/Colbert audiences are informed), and humanizes politicians. Everyone knows it's a joke and any Republicans trying to use Colbert appearances as attack lines will be laughed off the political stage. This is such a win-win.

Your Daily Matthews

So funboy Chris reacted to Rachel Maddow's assertion that Alan Keyes was the most important figure in today's Republican debate by saying "I want to waterboard you." Har!!

Then he reacted to Chuck Todd's statement that the debate offered no revelations because everyone got to answer the issues and there were no fireworks by saying "Everything we hate." Hoo-hah!!

Then he lamented that everyone who watches The Daily Show and The Colbert Report gets the impression that politics is ridiculous and worthy of satire, and that those people who get their information from those shows probably don't vote.

Yeah, nobody would want to watch a show where politics is treated like nothing but a GAME, right?

Oblivion looks at Chris Matthews and thinks, "This guy is clueless."

The Dream Is Over

The boldest, most important Presidential bid in the history of the globe has ended.

Stephen Colbert has dropped his bid for the White House.

His announcement came after the South Carolina Democratic Executive Council voted last week to keep the host of "The Colbert Report" off the state's primary ballot. The vote was 13-3 [...]

"Although I lost by the slimmest margin in presidential election history — only 10 votes — I have chosen not to put the country through another agonizing Supreme Court battle," Colbert said Monday in a statement. "It is time for this nation to heal." [...]

"I want to say to my supporters, this is not over," Colbert said. "While I may accept the decision of the Council, the fight goes on! The dream endures! ... And I am going off the air until I can talk about this without weeping."

In reality, "The Colbert Report" was going off the air because of a strike by Hollywood writers that began Monday. Many talk shows were expected to be shown in repeats during the strike.

If he was allowed on the ballot, and the writers went out on strike, would he be down in the Palmetto State right now doing non-stop campaigning? That could have gotten interesting. But politics has lost its sense of humor. And the world will never know a pretend conservative talk show host's thoughts on raising the tax rate on hedge fund managers.

Spoilsports!

UPDATE: Wow, Obama supporters pushed to keep him off the ballot?

The Colbert Bump... Off The Ballot

No joy for the heroes.

"Stephen Colbert’s satirical run for the presidency has run into its first roadblock -- his bid to be on the ballot in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary was rejected on Thursday," The Politico reports.

"The Democrats had to decide whether they considered Colbert to be a bona fide Democrat who is nationally viable and has spent time campaigning in the state."

The ballot-inistas and the vote-stapo may be trying to keep the runaway Colbert train down, but if he FEELS he's on the ballot, then he's on the ballot! That's truthiness, and it smells like victory to me.

Mr. Colbert, Tear Down This Cool Ranch Flavor Chip Wall

John Edwards should get the nomination just based on this funny press release attacking Stephen Colbert's ties to Big Snack Food.

Edwards spokesperson Teresa Wells also ribbed Colbert for his ties to the snack food industry. Colbert has said his campaign will be sponsored by Doritos.

"What is more troubling than his quest for a status his own mother won't grant him (favorite son) are his ties to the salty food industry," Wells said. "As the candidate of Doritos, his hands are stained by corporate corruption and nacho cheese. John Edwards has never taken a dime from taco chip lobbyists and America deserves a President who isn't in the pocket of the snack food special interests."

This meta campaign is a hell of a lot more fun than the real one.

Hope There Are Some Heroes On The Federal Election Commission

Apparently getting Doritos to sponsor your candidacy, even if it's a joke candidacy, could get you in legal trouble.

If his campaign plays out the way he's indicated that it will, Comedy Central and Colbert's sponsor, Doritos, could be violating federal laws that bar corporations from backing political campaigns, election law experts say.

"How serious can you get about running as a joke?" said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finances. "The Federal Election Commission doesn't have a great sense of humor."

Federal law bars corporations from contributing to candidates, either through donations or in-kind contributions such as free use of goods or services.

Media organizations are permitted to feature presidential candidates in covering campaigns.

But no precedent exists for a television network promoting and fostering a candidacy of one of its own talk-show hosts, said Lawrence M. Noble, a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. And comedian Pat Paulsen's 1968 candidacy predated current campaign finance regulations.

"The real problem comes in the fact that he actually has his own show, talking about his campaign, paid for by a network," Noble said. "These are the kind of things on slow days you'd debate until the late afternoon at the FEC, but there are serious questions that come up. In theory, he could end up having some campaign finance problems." [...]

On Thursday's program, he held up what he said was a letter from a Washington election lawyer, and made the legal framework part of his schtick.

"In accepting corporate money, I promise to respect federal election laws the same way I respect the must-shower-before-swimming law at the Y," Colbert said. "As a candidate, I am under no obligation to promote the zesty, robust taste of Doritos brand tortilla chips, regardless of how great a snack they may be for lunchtime, munch time, anytime."

He also said that, because of election laws, Doritos would technically be sponsoring not his candidacy but his program's coverage of his candidacy.

"It's illegal for my crunch money here to pay for the campaign, but it is legal for it to pay for my show, and the show can report on my campaign," he said. "Host: 'Eat them.' Candidate: 'I just happen to like 'em.' "

Maybe the good thing about a Colbert candidacy is that it will shed a light on our farcical campaign finance laws. This is obviously a promotional stunt, and something has to allow for that in the new-media age. At the same time, since Colbert so easily cleared the loophole allowing virtually unlimited corporate donations, maybe that should tell the FEC something, too.

In other news, Colbert's already polling at 13% in a three-horse race with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. I thought that terrible Robin Williams film "Man of the Year" was fiction; maybe not.

The D-Day Bump

I've been so darn busy this week that I haven't had a moment to congratulate one of the heroes, Stephen Colbert, for saving America by jumping into the Presidential race. He's attempting to get on the ballot in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in South Carolina, his home state. Apparently it'll cost some coin:

The fee to be considered for the Democratic ballot is $2,500, while it’s a hefty $35,000 to gain admittance into the Republican primary.

Colbert has indicated he will seek to appear on each party's ballot and the South Carolina Secretary of State's office confirms a candidate is allowed to run in both primaries.

But it remains to be seen if the State Democratic Party's Executive Committee, whose approval Colbert needs to get on their ballot, will vote to certify a candidate who is also running in the GOP race. The rules state the candidate must be "actively campaigning" for the Democratic primary.

Meanwhile, the State Republican Party does not require an executive committee vote and would not prevent a candidate from appearing on both ballots.

I'm giving him the D-Day bump, which should increase his poll numbers quite a bit, as my audience in South Carolina is beyond comprehension. If he sets up an Act Blue page he could raise that $37,500 in no time. Hell, he could probably outraise McCain in the space of a week.

Truthiness '08. Would it really be all that different?

News of the Odd

Just some fun stuff, some political, some not, I've noticed over the past couple weeks.

• This Jonah Goldberg mini-controversy is hilarious. Anyone who says he's writing a book that "is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care," especially when the book has a cover of a smiley face with a Hitler moustache on it and is called "Liberal Fascism,"... well, is there any need to mock? Oh yeah, by the by, the book is about 24 months late in publication. Probably because he is so diligently making it more thoughtful and more serious. And Wolcott has the last word:

Parenting Bleg [Jonah Goldberg]

Okay, so my four year old daughter desperately wants me to do more magic tricks. All I can really do for her are variations of "Hey, I found a quarter in your ear" stuff. And even then, the prestidigitation isn't really up to snuff. If she were five, she'd be on to me. So, I need really simple, stupid in fact, magic tricks that can be done with little skill, that will impress a four year-old. Any suggestions? -03/24 01:09 PM

Perhaps you could pull a completed manuscript out of your ass and watch those little eyes light up with wonder.

• Ann Althouse bullies yet another person who dares mention the fact that she criticized a liberal blogger for the unforgivable sin of having breasts. This one's on video, and it's pretty hilarious.

• Missile defense strike called on account of rain. Seriously, how much money have we sunk into this crappy system, which can't even FIND targets, yet alone blow them up? And if it rains, it gets washed out? Fortunately, thanks to global warming, that may not be a problem anymore.

• Batshit crazy Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann, bucking for the Katherine Harris scattered-mind-a-like award, wrote campaign supporters asking them to send in astroturf letters to local newspapers as a show of support. The only letters this plea elicited were from a State Senate staffer and the son of a Bachmann aide.

• The former "Pimp of the Year" is headed to prison for running a prostitution ring. Couldn't they have busted him the moment that he won the "Pimp of the Year"? For that matter, shouldn't the runner-up, and indeed every applicant for Pimp of the Year, be similarly arrested? Incidentally, this is serious, he abused these women he employed, but this is among the best quotes ever:

"If he gets out, I know he'll do it again," she said. "That's all he ever talks about - pimping and ho-ing."

• Scientists made a sheep that's 15-percent human. This is yet another example of the President not following through on his promises. He totally said he would ban human-animal hybrids (by the by, if you read that link, you'll see that human-animal hybrids actually have a role to play in medical science and should not be banned at all).

• Rahm Emanuel says Democrats should stay away from Stephen Colbert. Colbert fights back, calls him "Emanuelle," as in Emanuelle in Space.

• Three Jeopardy contestants ended up tied for the first time ever. Full disclosure: this should have happened to me. I was on Jeopardy (almost four years to the day before this tie) and ended up tying for first, and the third contestant would have tied as well, but in Final Jeopardy she crossed out the correct answer and put in a wrong one. I'm just peeved that I didn't get in an AP story.

That Would Have Been Awesome

From ex-Wonkette Ana Marie Cox' post about an Aspen event with Stephen Colbert:

The somewhat sour reception (to Colbert's famous White House Correspondents Association speech) only prompted one actual edit in the material. He had been planning on doing a bit where he talked about how journalists were always getting awards but "no one ever gives the President an award." So he printed up, and had with him at the podium, a "certificate of Presidency," which read, simply, "I, Stephen Colbert, recognize that George W. Bush is the President of the United States."

Realizing that the president seemed not to be enjoying things so much, he skipped that presentation, though at this point, I have to say, I don't think that necessarily made much of a difference.

If ONLY he forced the President to get up and give a fake smile and accept the award of acknowledgment. If only.