BuzzMachine
by Jeff Jarvis

January 31, 2005

Why, oh why
:
: Jon Stewart talks with Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek about the Middle East and asks: "Explain to me, why did God put all our fuel under there?"

America on trial

: Oh, gawd, the Michael Jackson trial begins. We watch him going to lunch. We watch him coming back from lunch. We watch the poor guy whose job it is to hold an umbrella over the poster boy for the dangers of fame. We watch MJ being wanded -- no pat-downs here. We watch reporters fill time. And it's just the first day. We're sentenced to months of this.

They said on TV today that 1,000 journalists had applied for credentials to cover the trial. Why, lord, why?

I'm going to bet that the trial will not be the subject of much talk in blogs -- unless something amazing happens -- but, of course, it will explode in big-media's coverage. If that's the case, what does that indicate about news judgement? You tell me.

: Folks are coming up with excuses to get off this jury. Who can blame them?

On TV

imus.jpg: I try to be jaded about media but I have to say it was cool to spend another day at MSNBC covering Iraqi blogs on Sunday -- so cool that I brought my son along for my afternoon session so he could watch TV being made.

I got there at 6a, knowing what Howard Stern feels like working his hours. They set me up at a new desk, which looks like a kitchen island in the galley of the Starship Enterprise. It has a computer and screen -- only problem is, Will, who preceded me, had to turn away from the anchor and the camera to use the machine: a TV problem. So I wheedled to get my laptop hooked up so I could look at it, the anchor, and the camera at once and feed the image of my screen onto the air. Meanwhile, a floor director sat down at the anchor's chair and I learned a new TV term: "belly mark." She moved tape on the edge of the desk dictating where the anchor's belly should be, assuring that she would be in the light and in the shot. They said the belly marks were already set up for the Imus crew. And it was then that I learned that this desk is intended for Imus when he comes to MSNBC's studios in Jersey. Sure enough, I looked down at the dashboard and there were Imus buttons for him and Chuck and guests. I took a picture with my phone as proof. I was not stupid enough to leave a Bababooey note for the I-man; I want to come back to MSNBC. I didn't go to HowardStern.com on the PC. I didn't make any jokes about cowboy hats. I behaved. But it was tempting.

One of my favorite scenes is watching the analysts who stick around all day finish a segment, for that is when the sound guy comes over to turn off their wireless mikes to save on batteries. The guests turn their backs to the sound man, bend over just a bit, and flip up their jackets. It's not a dignified pose. It's these little moments that puncture the facade of big-time TV.

Later on, when my son and I were standing at the edge of the big studio, one of the nice sound guys explained to Jake: You think the anchors are really smart but you don't see that they read the Teleprompter and people talk into their ear. It's show biz. And then I get a speaker in my ear and bend over and hike up my jacket. I thought my son might be impressed I was on TV. Instead, he sees me assume the position of analyst submission.

In this space, I rant and rave about exploding TV and how low-priced competitors are coming. Still, I admit it's impressive to watch TV sausage being made all day. Even at its greatest efficiency, it still takes a lot of work to put out a two- or three-minute segment: The booker books the guests. The producer figures out what the segment will try to convey; for my last segment of the day, on the Monica Crowley and Ron Reagan show, I worked with the prodcer to prepare pictures and video and words to put on the screen. The producer preps the anchor. The anchor interviews. Now ring the room with camera operators -- three big cameras plus a boom camera (that's how they get those high-altitude whooping shots) plus a SteadiCam -- and floor directors and that sound guy and lots of folks in the control room: all to convey a few sentences of news to you and make it interesting. TV's great to watch on either side of the camera.

This was the second time I did a segment with Ron/Mon and this time my counterpart was Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft. It was civilized TV. We had our says; we disagreed; but we didn't shout. Yes, it is possible.

Before we were on, Ron/Mon interviewed Natan Sharansky because he wrote Bush's favorite book (yes, he has one): The Case for Democracy. They're talking with the smart man and suddenly Sharansky yelps, "Oh, my God! Oh, my God!" and it looks as if he got a shock. Ron gets a puzzled look; it sounded as if Sharansky was reacting to something Ron had said but he hadn't said anything yet. They couldn't investigate because they lost the satellite. Then they get it back. They talk again. And again: "Oh, my God!" Ron now realizes this is what Sharansky says when he loses the satellite. But he recovers and asks Monica the quetion he was going to ask Sharansky and she recovers, too, and answers. This is TV. It's all about staying in control. That's the hardest lesson to learn.

Today, they called back asking whether I could dash in for another blog segment. I was too far away and suggested a couple of other bloggers but will admit that I wish I could have gone in. Sure, it's show biz. And there's an hour of hanging for two minutes on the air. But I'll admit it: TV is fun.

: Just now I see that Howard Kurtz wrote about changes and improvements at MSNBC.

Guess

: Lots of folks are gushing over A9's photos of storefronts automatically associated with yellow page listings. I go in an ask about my favorite sandwich joint, Cosi, and for reasons I can't figure, the photo associated with it is of a woman wearing a burkha.

I've seen years go online-yellow-page triumphalism. It was going to take over the yellow pages and destroy businesses... but it ended up destroying the destroyers first. I'm unimpressed. Show me why I'm wrong. Leave a search that works in the comments.

Denton, the brand

: Nick Denton launched two new blogs today: Lifehacker (the software response to the hardware Gizmodo) and Gridskipper (a travel blog from the edges). But that's not news. Heck, Dave Sifry told me he's now tracking 40,000 new blogs a day (up from 15k only about a year ago).

What's news is that Nick (a friend and business colleague of mine) signed up Sony for Lifehacker just as he signed up Audi for Jalopnik.

And here's what's newsworthy about that:

Since the internet started, many big-time publishers have struggled to convince big-time advertisers that this new medium is not just about direct response (click-through) but also about branding (that is, the value of associating your brand and product with a media brand -- the reason to advertise in a glossy magazine with a classy audience, for example). That is why the Online Publishers Association was created.

But note what Denton has done twice: He got big-time advertisers to sign onto a product that didn't even exist yet. Take it from a guy who started a magazine; that doesn't happen. So why did they do it? Clearly, they wanted to be associated -- branded -- with the next, new, cool thing. Just being the first in equals branding. That is a value of this new medium: its newness.

Now that won't last forever. One of my mentors in the magazine business said she never wanted to be what a famous creative director called hot models -- the hot thing. For you don't stay hot. But it's clear that this new medium, executed cooly, has heat, has whuffie. And the fact that it comes from the people and is promoted by the people may be enough to keep its heat, its whuffieness, its branding power forever. We'll see.

Next?

: The American right and left are analyzing the Iraq vote on the wrong basis: It's not about George Bush, pro or con. It's not about America, pro or con. It's not even about the war, pro or con. It's about the Iraqi people and democracy and their future, for which there is only a pro, not a con.

But Hoder has a proper question in his post from the Iranian perspective:

On the one hand I'm really excited that Iraqi people have been able to start the path to a potentially democratic political system, on the other hand I'm really upset that this will embolden neoconservatives and will be seen as a confirmation of their dangerous plans for the world.
If the goal is democracy and freedom and human rights -- and I do believe that is the goal that with which there is no good argument -- then the proper question is: How? How are these goals achieved for fellow citizens of the world who do not enjoy enjoy these fundamental right? Is diplomacy sufficient? Is war justified? Are there alternatives? Does this first step toward democracy in Iraq put pressure on the rest of the Middle East? These are all the right questions to ask. It's not about us, folks, it's about the rest of the world.

Mission underway

: Finally heard Bush's remarks on the Iraqi elections. How much better it would have been if he had given that after the fall of Baghdad instead of standing under a "mission accomplished" banner in a flight suit.

There's a lot of hard work ahead.

eeyore.jpgTo the eeyores whose party line today is that a vote does not a democracy make, I say that that a journey begins with one step. Of course, it was not a perfect election. Well, duh. Our elections aren't perfect.

It was a miraculous election. And the message of it is obvious -- or should be obvious: These people hunger for the opportunity to govern there nation. What people would not? The fact of the election is a powerful message to the rest of the Middle East (and they're hearing it); it is a message to those who said that Iraq is not ready for democracy; it is a message to the terrorists and murderers there who would try to stop the democratic inevitability.

But yes, of course, there is a tremendous amount of work to do.

Hell, democracy in America still requires work.

: The eeyore meme spreads.

More = merrier

: MediaBistro launches new blogs to go along with the redesigned (thank you) TVNewser on design and books and the media scenes in NY, Washington, and LA. I got to gander at them last week (and it's so embarrassing when you get insider access to the beta and have no brilliant suggestions to make). Good work to Elizabeth Spiers and Laurel Touby.

: Denton is launching new blogs today; I'll link when they go up.

January 30, 2005

The Eeyore Analysis of Iraq

: I'll be on MSNBC in the 5p hour with Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft, who tries to wrap-up blogger reaction to the election from the antiwar camp (I won't call it the liberal side).

Problem is, there isn't much. Oliver did the Chicken Little dance yesterday but hasn't acknowledged the success today. Jerome Armstrong of MyDD argues that this opens the door to an Iranian-like rule of fundamentalists but doesn't say how he makes that prediction when the clerics decided to stay out of the Iraqi government and every poll makes it clear the people don't want that. Armando at Kos does the Eeyore thing (see also Juan Cole, below); Kos is still silent, as is Atrios.

Whether it's Kerry or any of these bloggers, it would be the grownup, mature, generous, humanistic, caring -- yes, dare I say, liberal -- thing to do to be glad that people who lived under tyranny are now giving birth to democracy.

Democracy isn't a right-or-left thing, folks. It's a right-and-left thing, remember?

: I think the press analysis of the election will acknowledge the good news. Jackie Spinner of the Washington Post -- eviscerated by Tim Blair the other day -- said without hesitation on MSNBC today that the story is the turnout. An LATimes reporter on the Friends of Democracy telecast is saying the same thing now. We'll see.

The Times reporter is asked by the FoD's host whether the coverage tomorrow will be "more happy" and she replies: "Well, I don't know about happy. But we all feel it was a profound moment, there's no question."

When the people become the network programmers

: Here's a petition demanding that the Daily Show be extended to an hour. Now if only the citizens would pay Jon Stewart's added salary. [via Craig]

'Not an election, a revolution'

: MSNBC's Natalie Morales told me before we went on the air for the last blogging segment that Reuters reports 72 percent turnout. If it's anything near that, it's amazing. But Natalie said it better than I could: "That's not an election, that's a revolution."

: Think we'll ever see this good news from "Prof." Juan Cole or my blogging goomba, Eric Alterman? I'm buying a snowblower for my time in hell.
: UPDATE: The polls have closed and this is all the "professor" has to say: "Dozens Killed in Election Day Guerrilla Campaign"

: Expect Florida-like nitpicking about the number (it has already started in the comments) -- 72 percent, 50 percent, percent of what.... (Update: Command Post said some TV people there think the number is high and MSNBC is now empahsizing that was an estimate.) Doesn't matter. What matters is that people came out to vote in big numbers; they are creating a new nation.

This morning, I asked myself whether I would go to vote if I thought I could be bombed at the polling place or shot because of my blue finger. I don't think I'd have that courage. Most Americans would not (hell, most of us don't vote even in the lap of safety). Remember that every single Iraqi who came to vote today is a victory for democracy.

: NYTimes.com headline: "Iraqi Voters Turn Out in High Numbers Despite Rebel Attacks Killing Up to 36"
Guardian headline: "Iraqis vote as attacks kill 22"
Chicago Tribune: "Update: Iraqi voters defy attacks"
Washington Post: "Iraqi Turnout Appears Strong as Voting Day Ends"
MSNBC: "Voting amid violence"
FoxNews: "Turnout High on Violent Day"
BBC: "Iraq votes as attacks hit Baghdad"

: On Meet the Press this morning, John Kerry says: "This is the last chance for President Bush to get it right."

: Husayn adds two key words to the name of his blog: "Democracy in Iraq (is here!)"

: LATER: I've been watching the Friends of Democracy/Spirit of America special on C-SPAN. Christopher Hitchens is a guest and, of course, he's eloquent in the defense of human rights against fascism. He said we now have a warrant to arrest tyrants.

: Here's the Wall Street Journal's wrapup of Iraqi blogs (mostly the same as the links below).

: I spent the morning looking for negative reaction to the election on Iraqi blogs. I found none, until Raed posted. I'm not sure I understand his analysis:

The current early and premature Iraqi election is being marketed as THE event, THE peak, THE happening! as if everything will be over after the day of elections! just like in some stupid love movies where the curtain falls after the two lovers get married.

The romantic Iraqi elections will open the doors of hell. If the majority of Shia in the southern governorates of Iraq were "waiting", they will stop waiting after elections are hi-jacked. When the kurds in the north have their "unofficial" referendum on "independance" from Iraq, kurds and arabs will stop "waiting" in the north too. When sunnis are completely excluded from the government, they will continue "not waiting".

: UPDATE: Count on "Prof." Juan Cole to find the eeyore angle.

Welcome, MSNBC viewers

: Here are the links I'm mentioning on the air this morning.

At 6:50a:
: Husayn at Democracy in Iraq has great comments on casting his ballot.

I am happy to report...no I am honored to report that I have cast my ballot in our election. It is such an amazing feeling to be able to have some control over the destiny of my nation, a feeling I have not known before! I was one of the first ones to report to our local voting station, and I placed my vote, my stained finger is proof... The terrorists have not scared us.... It will be a day forever remembered....
: Check out the Kurdistan Bloggers Union for pictures from the voting -- and the celebration -- in London.

At 7:50a:
: Read the emotional message of thanks to his fellow Iraqis from one of the original bloggers in Iraq, Alaa.

I bow in respect and awe to the men and women of our people who, armed only with faith and hope are going to the polls under the very real threats of being blown to pieces. These are the real braves; not the miserable creatures of hate who are attacking one of the noblest things that has ever happened to us. Have you ever seen anything like this? Iraq will be O.K. with so many brave people, it will certainly O.K.; I can say no more just now; I am just filled with pride and moved beyond words. People are turning up not only under the present threat to polling stations but also under future threats to themselves and their families; yet they are coming, and keep coming....

My condolences to the Great American people for the tragic recent losses of soldiers....

I myself have voted and so did members of my family. Thank God for giving us the chance.

Salaam for now


: Ahmed at Life in Baghdad debated and agonized over whether he should vote -- whether he should put safety and family or country first. This morning, he gave us his eloquent conclusion: "I did."

bluefinger.jpgAt 8:50a:
: I'm going to focus on the great pictures by a U.S. security advisor named Ryan Stiles who -- along with other civilian Americans -- has been helping to ferry Iraqis to their polling places, since they cannot drive. Don't miss Cigars in the Sand. Later, Ryan posts:

Well for tonight, I imagine it's dodging the celebratory fire. I used to drive an SUV with a 9mm round hole in the hood, courtesy of some past celebration.

After that, its back to the hard task of capturing the momentum and translating it into real political access and choice. That road will be long and difficult -- undoubtedly plagued by further violence and setbacks. Today is a new beginning, not an end.

But for right now, I'm gonna celebrate. Disney World, anyone?

At 10:54a:
I'm going to read from the wonderful posts of the blogging brothers from Iraq, Mohammed, Omar, and Ali. I was going to quote a bit of Mohammed and Omar's post but it's all too good, so here is their report in full:
The people have won.
We would love to share what we did this morning with the whole world, we can't describe the feelings we've been through but we'll try to share as much as we can with you.
We woke up this morning one hour before the alarm clock was supposed to ring. As a matter of fact, we barely slept at all last night out of excitement and anxiety.

The first thing we saw this morning on our way to the voting center was a convoy of the Iraqi army vehicles patrolling the street, the soldiers were cheering the people marching towards their voting centers then one of the soldiers chanted "vote for Allawi" less than a hundred meters, the convoy stopped and the captain in charge yelled at the soldier who did that and said:
"You're a member of the military institution and you have absolutely no right to support any political entity or interfere with the people's choice. This is Iraq's army, not Allawi's".
This was a good sign indeed and the young officer's statement was met by applause from the people on the street.
The streets were completely empty except for the Iraqi and the coalition forces ' patrols, and of course kids seizing the chance to play soccer!

We had all kinds of feelings in our minds while we were on our way to the ballot box except one feeling that never came to us, that was fear.
We could smell pride in the atmosphere this morning; everyone we saw was holding up his blue tipped finger with broad smiles on the faces while walking out of the center.

I couldn't think of a scene more beautiful than that.
From the early hours of the morning, People filled the street to the voting center in my neighborhood; youths, elders, women and men. Women's turn out was higher by the way. And by 11 am the boxes where I live were almost full!
Anyone watching that scene cannot but have tears of happiness, hope, pride and triumph.

The sounds of explosions and gunfire were clearly heard, some were far away but some were close enough to make the windows of the center shake but no one seemed to care about them as if the people weren't hearing these sounds at all.
I saw an old woman that I thought would get startled by the loud sound of a close explosion but she didn't seem to care, instead she was busy verifying her voting station's location as she found out that her name wasn't listed in this center.

How can I describe it!? Take my eyes and look through them my friends, you have supported the day of Iraq's freedom and today, Iraqis have proven that they're not going to disappoint their country or their friends.

Is there a bigger victory than this? I believe not.

I still recall the first group of comments that came to this blog 14 months ago when many of the readers asked "The Model?"… "Model for what?"
Take a look today to meet the model of courage and human desire to achieve freedom; people walking across the fire to cast their votes.

Could any model match this one!? Could any bravery match the Iraqis'!?
Let the remaining tyrants of the world learn the lesson from this day.

The media is reporting only explosions and suicide attacks that killed and injured many Iraqis s far but this hasn't stopped the Iraqis from marching towards their voting stations with more determination. Iraqis have truly raced the sun.

I walked forward to my station, cast my vote and then headed to the box, where I wanted to stand as long as I could, then I moved to mark my finger with ink, I dipped it deep as if I was poking the eyes of all the world's tyrants.
I put the paper in the box and with it, there were tears that I couldn't hold; I was trembling with joy and I felt like I wanted to hug the box but the supervisor smiled at me and said "brother, would you please move ahead, the people are waiting for their turn".

Yes brothers, proceed and fill the box!
These are stories that will be written on the brightest pages of history.

It was hard for us to leave the center but we were happy because we were sure that we will stand here in front of the box again and again and again.
Today, there's no voice louder than that of freedom.

No more confusion about what the people want, they have said their word and they said it loud and the world has got to respct and support the people's will.

God bless your brave steps sons of Iraq and God bless the defenders of freedom.

Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq….Aasha Al-Iraq.

Their bother, Ali, writes on his blog:
The best Eid I ever had.

This was my way to stand against those who humiliated me, my family and my friends. It was my way of saying," You're history and you don't scare me anymore". It was my way to scream in the face of all tyrants, not just Saddam and his Ba'athists and tell them, "I don't want to be your, or anyone's slave. You have kept me in your jail all my life but you never owned my soul". It was my way of finally facing my fears and finding my courage and my humanity again....

As I got out it was still early and I saw no one on the streets but as I got near to the voting center I started seeing people in groups heading the same way. Most of them were women. I saw a crippled man and my old neighbor and his older wife leaning on their walking sticks going to vote. An old woman cleaning her door step stopped me, "Say son, can I go and vote?" She asked after she saw many people going to vote. "Sure Khala (aunt)! Everyone can". She thanked me and went inside apparently to change and get her IDs....

This was the same place I went in 1996 to cast my vote in a poll asking if we wanted to have Saddam as a president for life or not. I had to go at that time. The threats for anyone who refused to take that poll were no less than the death penalty....

This time we went by choice and the threat was exactly the opposite. As I was walking with many people towards the center explosion hit and gun fire were heard but most were not that close. People didn't seem to pay attention to that. Some of them even brought their little kids with them! It's like the Eid but only a thousand times better....

The only things I can feel so strongly now are hope, excitement, pride and a strange internal peace. I have won my battle and I'm watching the whole Iraqis winning their battle too. I'll try to write to you later my friends.
A'ash Al Iraq, A'ashat America, A'ash Al Tahaluf. (Long live Iraq, long live America and long live the coalition)

: Read Hammorabi, too.

LATER:

: A Star from Mosul explains why she's not voting today -- starting with the fact that she's only 16.

It appears that will be my last segment until the 5p hour with Ron and Monica. I'll keep blogging....

Many, many more links here.

More later...

January 29, 2005

On MSNBC

: For the sleepless, a reminder that I'll be blogboy on MSNBC Sunday from 6a to noon and again in the Ron and Monica show between 5 and 6p covering the blog view of Iraqi elections (see the posts below). I'm preceded by Will Femia (who better leave good stuff for me) and followed by Joe Trippi.

In a half-dozen segments, I plan on covering (and this can change in a second) some of the emotional reaction to the election quoted below; coverage of citizen journalists in Iraq via blogs and Friends of Democracy (links below); video and photo from citizen journalists in Iraq; blogs by young Iraqis; possibly military bloggers' reports; possibly American blog reaction; and, of course, news as it breaks and blogs.

If you find good links, please do email me or leave comments here. I appreciate the help.

Military blogging the election?

: If you see any military bloggers in Iraq writing about the election -- especially with accounts from the polls -- please leave links in the comments.

: Also, if you see particularly good American or non-Iraqi blog comment -- from both sides -- please also leave links in the comments.

Thanks.

: Here's one: RedSix, recently awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in battle, blogs this:

This is the first time I have seen the internet in days. This past week, the line platoons only have time to wake-up, be on mission all day without coming back to the FOB, and getting in near midnite to get some sleep.

The soldiers of 2-63 AR BN are out there hardening the election sites and working around the clock to provide security for the Iraqis. I'm pretty excited about being out there for something historical. Not all my soldiers can be out there but I have guys begging to be taken out in sector. Seeing how bad these locals want the elections to happen has been pretty inspiring for us. I will be posting photos of the guys laying wire and dropping barriers when I have more time, probably after elections are over.

: Another from Strawberry Fields:
I have some positive news to report for once. For the last few days, I’ve been feeling increasingly depressed over Iraq’s prospects. It doesn’t help that lately, part of my job has been to keep track of all the election-related violence happening in Iraq. So it’s been about polling stations being hit by grenades or mortars, elections workers quitting en masse because of threats and dozens of Iraqis killed in the last few days.

So after another 12-hour day at work, I was heading home for some much needed sleep when we drove out to the main road and saw a commotion of a traffic jam and car horns honking. Hanging out windows and on the back of pickup trucks were ordinary people and political activists carrying banners for various political groups. There were also people standing along the streets, cheering everyone on. It was the last day for campaigning but it looked like a big block party, and the celebration lasted past midnight.

As I observed the scene, a few tears dropped from my eyes. I was just so happy to finally see a positive result from this so-called democracy we have brought to Iraqis. Of course, I was brought back to reality today as I heard of a car bomb killing four Iraqis in Baghdad. And who knows what the day after the elections will bring. But for that one moment, I felt a measure of hope.

Anticipation

: Here are some quotes from Iraqi bloggers as they anticipate the vote. They all should be an inspiration -- and perhaps a shame -- to those of us who have become blase about democracy and freedom, who growl over our choices and don't even bother showing up at the polls. Democracy is fragile and precious; we forget that. These people don't:

: Ali of of Free Iraq (formerly of IraqTheModel) talks about his cynicism about politics and parties and his nation. But then he says:

Still and with all this skepticism, I'm going to vote and I don't care if it means risking my life and I don't even care that much how the end results are going to be, not now! ...

Now, and thanks to other humans, not from my area, religion and who don't even speak my language, I and all Iraqis have the real chance to make the change. Now I OWN my home and I can decide who's going to run things in it and how and I won't waste that chance. Tomorrow as I cast my vote, I'll regain my home. I'll regain my humanity and my dignity, as I stand and fulfill part of my responsibilities to this part of the large brotherhood of humanity. Tomorrow I'll say I'M IRAQI AND I'M PROUD, as being Iraqi this time bears a different meaning in my mind. It's being an active and good part of humanity. Tomorrow I and the Iraqis that are going to vote will rule, not the politicians we're going to vote for, as it's our decision and they'll work for us this time and if we don't like them we'll kick them out! Tomorrow my heart will race my hand to the box. Tomorrow I'll race even the sun to the voting centre, my Ka'aba and my Mecca. I'm so excited and so happy that I can't even feel the fear I though I would have at this time. I can't wait until tomorrow.

: Ali's brother, Mohammed, writes at Iraq The Model:
It's a moment of pure freedom but still surrounded by lots of dangers just like any beautiful rose surrounded by spikes.
There is fear from the enemies of freedom who have their weapons already prepared to intimidate us and stop us from choosing our future....
We're standing before a historic moment and I won't be exaggerating if I said that it's an important moment for the whole world; we're standing before a crossroads and everyone should watch and learn from the rebirth of Iraq.
Regardless of the winners in the se elections, those who opposed the elections and resisted the change will have to deal with the new reality.
In 48 hours from now, the dying dictatorships and their filthy tools, the terrorists, will find themselves facing an elected legitimate government in Iraq.
The neurotic Iraqi wife gives us a picture of the blue ink they put on voters' fingers at polling places and calls it the mark of my freedom.

And then she paints this great scene from the city where she voted (not sure where that is):

Crowds and crowds of people started walking in at 730am on a Friday morning. It was simply beautiful. Families singing and clapping as they made their way through. I cant describe the feelings of jubilation. There were chocolates and sweets being distributed and one family brought in huge pots of rice and mutton and gave it to everyone in the center. Umm, No Thank You...
: Fayrouz, an Iraqi expat in Dallas, watches her countrymen in Australia as they were the first to vote and she writes:
There are times when I don't know what to say. This moment is one of those times. Sorry, I'm so happy and don't want to ruin the moment by saying any silly words.
: Many, like Ahmed, are still deciding whether to vote:
Personally, I very much do want to vote, but up to this moment I have not decided whether I actually will. I think I’ll wait till the elections day, see how things will go and decide then. My family is afraid of voting and are asking me not to go fearing for my safety, but as I said, I have not decided yet.
: A Friends of Democracy correspondent in Mosul reports it is a "city in which the law of the jungle has prevailed for the past two months, the armed groups continue to threaten to target polling centers. The polling centers locations have not yet been announced."

: In Baghdad, more FoD bloggers report on the security going up around polling places:

Streets around voting centers being closed while families are leaving their homes....

Multinational forces’ patrols started to put up barbed wire in streets leading to polling centers in Baghdad, implementing a plan to have a security perimeter around voting centers to prevent attacks by terrorists in booby-trapped cars.

: Husayn at Democracy in Iraq says it's not just about Iraq:
It will also be a day that inspires our neighbors to develop their own democracies. I cannot wait, I have been busy the last few days with my own attempts to encourage voting in my neighborhood, I hope that these efforts were put to good use.
: London Kurd has wonderful photos of the packed polling place in England.

: Faiza says this is not the way to hold an election:

We need to know the names of candidates, hear their plans, see them on TV or newspapers, and understand every candidate clearly. We should watch public debates between different parties and candidates to understand what is really happening, we need to understand who are we voting for because these people will have a very important and dangerous responsibility in the next years, they should lead Iraq to a better future.
: Abu Khaleel is against the election now:
On the one hand, I am passionately for democracy in principle. It is the only hope for Iraq. On the other hand, I am passionately against these particular elections. They are only an ugly, distorted imitation of democracy. I am convinced that they will not lead to stability … or even democracy.

I agree with fellow Iraqis who want these elections postponed or even boycotted. We have already seen these elections boycotted by the vast majority of expatriate Iraqis.

But I cannot blame the people who want to take part in them! In fact, I have nothing but admiration for those people who are going to risk their lives to cast their vote tomorrow.

: Alaasmary says in anticipation:
Today I met my friends all of them want to vote and ready to challenge of the dangers and we will vote.
Yesterday explosion happened at the night near one of elections center in my city it was a rocket that means our elections center is a target to the terrorists, but we must sacrifice for Iraq and for our future and we will crush the terrorists.
The democracy will win.
: LATER... The Observer in London -- even the Observer -- gets the point of it all:
This is not a moment for missionary zeal or blind optimism. But it is a moment to find hope in small advances and to remember that, despite the violence, democracy is the aspiration of Iraqis. We are duty-bound to help bring that about.

Wankers of the day

: I wouldn't use such an infantile headline except to demonstrate that what goes around comes around.

Atrios joins the Washington Post going after Dick Cheney for what he wore at Auschwitz. Hey, there's plenty of things to go after Dick Cheney for. But the man is a heart patient. What's so wrong with keeping warm? And are we on the left really reduced to the Mr. Blackwell party? I've got it: If we can't decide who should head the DNC, let's elect Joan Rivers.

Iraqi election coverage

: Here's a roundup of blogs covering the Iraq election. I'll be using this list when I appear on MSNBC Sunday as blogboy from 6 a.m. (!) to noon and again in the 5 p.m. hour. If you have more blogs to recommend, please add them. Also, can someone give me a link to current U.S. military blogs?

IRAQI BLOGGERS

: Friends of Democracy has citizen correspondents in each province filing reports, mostly in Arabic, which are translated and posted here. Michael J. Totten is acting as anchor-blogger through the election. Note that they will have a webcast show about this starting at 2p ET Sunday and it will also be aired on C-SPAN.

: Friends of Democracy was founded by Omar and Mohammed of IraqTheModel. They will be covering the election. Their brother, Ali, is covering things from here.

: Hammorabi has been critical of security and the current government but is excited about election day (a great post).

: Democracy in Iraq is a new one to me by a 26-year-old whose European-educated father taught his children English.

: Kurdo is blogging the election from Kurdistan, complete with pictures and an endorsement for List 173.

: Here is a Kurdish group blog. Read this post by Sami: One citizen talking about his choice in the election.

: A Kurd in London covered absentee voting there, complete with pictures of electioneering by the poll.

: A Family in Baghdad is written (in Arabic and English) by the other of Raed (Salam Pax' pal) and his brothers. It is generally against the occupation and recent posts include letters from the mothers of American soldiers killed there.

: Riverbend's latest post is about getting water, not the election.

: Live from Baghad is by Ayad, who just returned to Iraq from Cleveland.

: The Neurotic Iraqi Wife thinks that registration is light.

: Rose, a mother in Baghad, isn't sure she'll be able to get online for the election. She writes about daily life in her city.

: Fayrouz covers the news via Dallas.

: In Sun of Iraq, Alaasmary writes: "There are four days and the democracy will win; it will be a real war against the terrorists."

: Iraqi Thoughts is covering the election from Canada and today writes about the numbers in expat voting.

: Life in Baghdad.

: Baghdad Dweller is covering the election.

: Citizen of Mosul is a doctor who writes about a typical day there.

: Iraqi Comments is from a 25-year-old in Belgium.

: I expect to see Alaa posting here.

: Zeyad is in Jordan until after the election.

: Iraq Election blog with links to the parties.

: Iraqi Letter to America.

: Iraqi Enterprise is a company offering news links.

: Iraq Blog Count.

IRAQI YOUTH

: Aunt Najma gives us the perspective from Mosul.

: Nabil, Zeyad's teen brother, talks about the election in his school.

: Baghdad Girl, a 13-year-old who writes about living in fear and puts up pictures of her cats, like any self-respecting blogger.

: HNK is eager for the Americans to leave Mosul.

: Khalid, Raed's brother, blogs here.

: Then Some is an Iraqi college student already cynical about elected politicians.

MORE

: Hardblogger's David Shuster is reporting from Baghdad.

: Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist, reports from Iraq. [via Lost Remote]

: The BBC's reporter blog and citizens' blog.

: Command Post, of course.

: Mark Cuban's HDnet (high-definition TV) will be covering the election full-time.

: Later... Here's the Iraq Election Newswire.

: Here are Friends of Democracy's original Arabic-language reports (using the world's first Arabic-language blogging tool!).

: Here are the latest photos from Friends of Democracy.

: RSS: Follow all the links above on this Kinja aggregator page.

: LATER....

: Christopher Allbritton is blogging again from Iraq.

January 28, 2005

Copps the cop speaks... oh, no

: The most frightening FCC commissioner, Democrat Michael Copps, speaks to TV execs at the NATPE conference. The man is clueless about the state of media -- all media, including the internet; he doesn't understand the real dynamics of the media business today; he's the most eager kneecapper of the First Amendment. A few choice remarks:

...I know that a lot of you in
this audience share my concern about the media track we’re on. Some of you have already spoken out and contributed your creative thought and hard work to the issue of how we reinvigorate the diversity and competition that our consumers and citizens not only deserve, but require....
He wants to do that with regulation when the real solution is innovation. The internet is exploding TV -- changing the business models, opening up competition, driving diversity -- and Copps is too blind to see it.
History shows us that combining distribution with production was how John D. Rockefeller built his stranglehold. I’m not saying that history repeats itself exactly, but often there are enough similarities that we ought to at least pay attention to it. This is one of those times....
What's really happening, Copps, is that distribution is losing its value as the internet increases competition -- for audience, for attention, for advertising dollars, for distribution. The fact that the internet showed Jon Stewart's performance on Crossfire to at least 20 times more than the old network, CNN, proves that distribution and production are becoming separated. Read the news, Copps.
By the way, in contrasting network power now with, say, 30 or 40 years ago, remember that back then they didn’t have their own stable of “owned-and-operated” stations. Plus we had financial interest and syndication rules to check market power. We had a real FCC re-licensing process for stations. We had specific public interest requirements. And broadcasters had a Voluntary Code of Conduct far more disciplined than anything they have today....
Oh, yeah, those were the good old days for monoplists, regulators, and censors. Those were the days of... The Beverly Hillbillies!
Each of us as citizens suffers from the lack of diverse programming. So much of today’s network menu is geared to the 18-34 year old age demographic.... But I think many of you would agree that a case can be made for more programs geared to older Americans—and let’s remember that shows like Golden Girls were independently produced.
I smell a quota coming on: Not enough old farts, damnit: More gray beards. (Hey, wait a minute, maybe that would be good for my career!).
Similarly, there is evidence that younger viewers are being left behind in the new media environment. Children Now examined the impact of consolidation on kids. They analyzed the market in Los Angeles and found that the number of broadcast TV programs for children dropped nearly 50 per cent after independent local stations were swallowed up in media mergers!...
Yo, Copps, get yourself a cable box! Kids have entire channels now devoted to them; they have tons more programming -- good programming, better than the crap I watched.
So it is time—it is long past time—for the FCC to consider and approve a setaside,
like 25 or 35 per cent of prime-time hours, for independent producers and creators....
Man, this guy is enough to turn me into a libertarian. Well, when it comes to the FCC, I am. This is -- and so much more about technology and spectrum and freedom -- is why I want to see the FCC abolished. (Are you listening, George? Go with it, George.)
Big media companies argue that they need the economic efficiencies of consolidation in order to survive. Now, we all realize that we live in a national economy—and a global economy—where the pressures of competition are extreme. We know that we cannot turn back the clock to a simpler past which never was, truth be told, quite that simple. I have never equated bigness with badness, and I have supported mergers and acquisitions that serve the public interest. That being said, we are talking here about a special industry—a very special industry. When we talk about media, we are not talking about just another commodity.
And there's the heart of what's wrong with Coppsthink and FCCthink: Media is special. It deserves to be treated differently. It deserves more regulation, in their view. No, sir, it deserves less because media is speech and -- does this sound familiar? -- Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

FCC applies supply and demand to freedom

: Ernie Miller passes on the news that the FCC is raising its rates for Freedom of Information Requests. Guess they've had a lot of them, eh?

: When you think about it, the web should make FOIA obsolete: The goverment should put all its documents up online for all to see. It is our government, after all. That's real freedom of information.

When the F word was OK

: Coz digs into the past to find that Bono's profane and illegal F word was not the first time he'd uttered it on TV. At the 1994 Grammys:

U2, a band that had been around nearly 15 years in 1994, won the Best Alternative Rock award for their Zooropa album, and frontman Bono accepted it with heavy irony.

"Yeah, alternative all right," he said. "We shall continue to abuse our position and f--- up the mainstream. God bless you."

Did life and society and morality all suddenly change just because Janet Jackson kinda exposed her breast? Apparently so.

Sponge Michael, SquarePants

: Timothy Karr at MediaCitizen reveals the unholy alliance of Michael Powell and SpongeBob -- and the coverup.

Bush: As confused as everybody else on indecency

: On the one hand, George Bush defends the First Amendment in an interview on C-SPAN this weekend. But then he seems to realize that he has just painted himself in the corner, so he turns around and defends Michael Powell, too. Such is life on the slipperly slope.

But note that George Bush does say that the first and best reaction to what you consider indecent is not government regulation but the remote control.

Go with it, George. Go with it.

From Broadcasting & Cable's coverage, the transcript (full C-SPAN transcript here):

LAMB: ... one of the big issues moving around Capitol Hill is indecency. And I want to ask you, how far do you think government should go in telling people who use the airwaves, the broadcast stations, what can be said?

PRESIDENT: As a free speech advocate, I often told parents who were complaining about content, you're the first line of responsibility; they put an off button on the TV for a reason. Turn it off.
Amen. But he continues:
PRESIDENT: I do think, though, that there can be a -- that government can, at times, not censor, but call to account programming that gets over the line. The problem, of course, is the definition "over the line."
Well, but Mr. President, that is censorship. And, yes, that is precisely the problem: Where is the line and who draws it? Should it be government? No, it should not. You know that, in your heart of hearts. Go with it, George. Go with it.
PRESIDENT: My answer would be, if I were interviewing an FCC chairman, please tell me where the line is, and make sure you protect the capacity of people to speak freely in our society, but be willing to -- if things get too far, call them to account. I think Michael did a good job of balancing that.
Mighty tight corner you just painted yourself into, Pres.
LAMB: There is a bill that if it were passed on Capitol Hill would up the fees, up the fine from $27,000 for using bad language, for instance, to $500,000 as a maximum fee.
Actually, that's only the fine per incident. The maximums go up to $3 million. That is a serious chill on free speech. That is the intent of the legislation: to chill free speech. But to the President, it's amusing:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, they're going to collect a lot of money when some of these TV shows are still on.
I'm not laughing, George.
LAMB: But is that -- I mean, at what point, though, do you have somebody that says, that word can't be used, but that word can be used?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I understand. Look, it's the old -- the classic definition of the Supreme Court -- by the Supreme Court on pornography, you know it when you see it. I think that was Judge Potter Stewart who said that.
That was, I believe, what the court said on obscenity and that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about indecency on broadcast. He continues:
PRESIDENT: Look, we are a great society because we're a free society. On the other hand, it is very important for there to be limits, limits to what parents have to explain to their children. Nevertheless, I do want to repeat what I said earlier -- the parent's first responsibility is to pay attention to what their children listen to, whether it be rock songs or movies or TV shows.
The poor man just gave himself whiplash flipflopping like that.

Let me help you out here, George: You are a Republican. You believe in small government. You abhor regulation. You should kill the FCC. Go with it, George. Go with it.

Whereabouts

: Sorry to have deserted you, my second family. Been busy. Work, you know. Happens. Back soon. Whether you want it or not. Complete sentences to follow. Promise.

January 27, 2005

About Alterman

: In the world of one-from-column-A/one-from-column-B TV, I spent a few minutes on MSNBC Tuesday night on the other side of rabid conservatives Pat Buchanan and Michael Medved (on The Passion of the Christ and the Oscars) and the next day I'm back on MSNBC placed on the other side of rabid liberal Eric Alterman (on Iraqi blogs and the election). I mentioned the confrontation here but didn't go into detail mainly because I long ago stopped paying attention to Alterman and didn't think he was worth the effort and moreso because I did not want to again spread the blood libel he engages in regarding Iraqi bloggers: After quoting his favorite blogger on Iraq -- who else but Juan Cole? -- Alterman repeats the irresponsible, unfounded, dangerous speculation that, gee, if Iraqi bloggers are pro-American they must be CIA plants, huh? '

I told Alterman on the air that that was irresponsible and dangerous. I said he had not one shred of evidence or reporting or fact to back up his speculation. I said that he could end up getting these men, whom I've met and whom I know, harmed.

Alterman said, well, gee, the CIA has done weird things before so why couldn't they do this?

That's responsible journalism? Not in any universe I know. That's the worst of tabloid, tin-hat, anti-intellectual, ammoral rumor-mongering. That's Eric, the rumor monger.

What he did was, let me repeat, not journalistic. Any editor worth his salt would have killed that speculation in print (well, except at the NY Times).

I was going to let that dog lie but now Alterman has gone on the attack:

I never had any reason to give any thought to the issue of blogs and the Iraqi elections, until I was asked to appear on a segment about them on MSNBC yesterday with Ron Reagan and Monica Crowley, who are getting a new show there, with Jeff Jarvis as the other guest.
Well, if a booker calls me to ask about coming on the air about a topic I "never had any reason to give any thought to" I would decline. But not Alterman. He'll make up an opinion about anything, it appears.
Reagan and Crowley just might work, as cable TV goes, I dunno.
I smell Alterman sucking up to his bosses at MSNBC. But I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist.
Monica is just about the least annoying television conservative I know and Ron Regan [sic] is, for reasons of his pedigree, given permission to say genuinely liberal things that are allowed to no other cable pundit.
Monica and I had our own interesting conversation about Eric after we got off the air. I won't speak for her.
But I’m getting a little tired of Jarvis, I must say, who seems to combine an intense TV Guide/Entertainment Weekly-style commitment to anti-intellectualism (he attacked me once for the crime of seeking to understand the motivations for Arab attacks on Jews in Europe), with an equally religious attachment to the liberating power of blogs as a piece of God’s Kingdom here on earth.
Speaking of the promised land, don't miss Eric's attack on Andrew Sullivan and defense of Muslims who refused to commemmorate the liberation of Auschwitz.
Look, unlike. Mr. Moral Outrage, I’m a Jew, but I don’t expect Arabs to pay tribute to my people’s suffering while Jews, in the form of Israel and its supporters—and in this I include myself—are causing much of theirs. Would Andrew want to go to a service in honor of the suffering of gay bashing bigots? (Wait, don’t answer that. Would a gay person who didn’t regularly offer his political support to gay bashing bigots want to go?) Anyway, I’m sure what I’m saying will be twisted beyond recognition, and so I suppose that makes it stupid to do, but I’m sorry. The Palestinians have also suffered because of the Holocaust. They lost their homeland as the world—in the form of the United Nations—reacted to European crimes by awarding half of Palestine to the Zionists.
Oh, no, we wouldn't want to give a second's pause to remember the deaths of 6 million Jews, nope, that wouldn't fit Alterman's definition of liberalism. But we digress. Back to the current Alterman screed:
I’m pleased that Jarvis has found a reason for living, but I can’t really share his uncritical enthusiasm for blogs, nor, in this case, his unqualified cheerleading of this crazy elections scheme. Whoever heard of an election where the candidates have to remain in hiding for fear of their lives; where the election observers have to “observe” from an entirely different country because it is too dangerous to show up anywhere near the election; where its sponsors are already attempting to undermine any conceivable criteria for judging whether or not it’s a success.
And why is that? Because terrorists and murderers attack people who would vote, attack the schools -- schools! -- where those people would vote, and decry democracy as evil. Alterman said on the air they were defending their country. From what? Freedom?
Yesterday Jarvis was crowing about how just how terrific the American invasion of Iraq was because there are now a few bloggers there—his tangent on his blogging “friend” in Iran scared me on this point—when I pointed out that it wouldn’t tax my imagination to wonder if perhaps some of those bloggers might be planted by the CIA to confuse credulous readers, especially since supporters of the Bush invasion appear to be numerically significantly over-represented relative to the rest of the population.
Wow, so much packed into one little sentence. First, I hardly called the invasion "terrific" (golly-wowy-gee-whiz wonderful might have been my wording... naw, it wasn't that either). I have said often that getting a murdering tyrant out of power is a good thing. Once upon a time, that would have made me a nation-building, interventionist liberal. In my book, it still does. Just not in Eric's. And then there's his snide remark about a blogging friend in Iran. You should meet that friend, Eric. He, too, is opposed to the war. He, too, believes that Bush is dangerous. But he, unlike you, has the courage to fight for democracy and freedom. You could learn a few things from my Iranian friend, Eric. Many things.

And now we get to the meat of it: You speculate -- admitting it is out of your "imagination" -- that bloggers in Iraq who are not anti-American could be CIA plants. Well, Eric, if I speculated that you might just be getting paid by the DNC because you are such a lockstep liberal, that would be wrong and irresponsible and certainly unjournalistic but it would not jeopardize your life. You go speculating -- out of your "imagination" -- that an Iraqi might have a tie to the CIA and you do jeopardize their life.

There is nothing responsible in that idle speculation. It is based on no fact, no reporting, no journalism, no knowledge. It is idle speculation and nothing more. It is -- as you now openly admit -- "imagination," that's all. And it is dangerous. And you should be ashamed of yourself for it, Eric.

(Remember bloggers have no “gatekeepers; that’s their strength and their weakness.)
Neither did you have a gatekeeper to say that on the air with no basis in fact at all, Eric. But here, on blogs, you have millions of gatekeepers.
Jarvis flipped out over this suggestion and called me “irresponsible,” and implied that my words might get people killed among other things and demanded proof. I don’t see just what has to be proved, when all I was doing was saying, “Well bud, this kind of thing is why the CIA is in business.” It’s not as if I made any specific accusations, but Jarvis seemed to think the idea so horrific as to be not only unmentionable but also unthinkable. (He touches on my crimes here. I think they probably gave the job to that Doonesbury intern.)
I could speculate that you kill baby kittens, Eric. I could send PETA to your door to drum you out of the liberal corps. I could do that. But I deal in facts, not imagination and speculation and tin-hat conspiracies.

Alterman continues with more out of his imagination but I won't waste your pixels with it.

: LATER: I just got email from Edward who says:

I can't resist offering this minor observation to Alterman's "question" about "an election where candidates have to remain in hiding for fear of their lives"...
Yeah, I've heard of one Eric...America, 1860. Abraham Lincoln had to enter Washington DC dressed as a woman in a shawl for fear of assassination by Confederate nutjobs. And not unfounded as we know since one of them caught up with him five years later.

Advertisers: You have lost control of your message. Get over it.

: VW is going berserk over the parody ad that showed a terrorist blowing himself up inside a small but tough sedan. The company is demanding apologies and threatening to sue.

Sorry, guys. That VW has already left the barn.

You are no longer in control of your message, advertisers. You can fight it or you can embrace it.

Learn the lesson from the music industry. They fought. They lost. Big media is trying to learn that lesson now. TV is trying to learn that lesson. Your turn, advertisers.

If you embrace this, I'll just bet you will find something amazing happen: You will find that your customers are better at marketing your products than you are.

Oh, I know your fear: 'But what these people say will be off message!' Well, then, maybe your message is off.

If I were you, VW, I would hold a contest to get people to create the best damned VW commercial anywhere and promise to spend big bucks to air it on, say, the Oscars. You don't have to pick the terrorist commercial. You'll be making clear that the thing was not made by you. At the same time, you will learn a lot about new messages that truly resonate and reverberate from your customers -- because your customers are creating them. How's that for market research?

This is the Cluetrain economy, guys: Markets are conversations. Join in the conversation, don't try to muzzle it.

If you let them... your customers will tell you how to create your products. If you let them... your customers will market them for you. If you let them... your customers will even be your free customer service department if you let them -- yielding more happy customers and no complaints about putting people on hold and pissing them off.

Look at how TreoCentral: That's a guerrilla customer movement of Treo fans helping Treo fans. That is the future.

: More on sell-side advertising and the idea that consumers are your best marketers here. More on exploding TV here.

Ruff, ruff

: Yes, I bark. But my bite is worse.

That's a sly link to Jack Shafer's Slate column about last week's Harvard journalism/ blogging confab and hooha.

Ed Cone is right: Shafer's column is pretty clueless.

: Jay Rosen assigned the class around the table to write up what changed their mind at the conference. Collective blatherings here.

: LATER: Rosen takes down Shafer... hard.

Besides being lazy, Jack Shafer’s suggestion that the conference theme was "blogs will triumph over the traditional news media... you guys are toast!" is intellectually dishonest. That's a few doors up from lying, but the same general neighborhood.

Allegedly, I and other bloggers at the conference are saying today what some clown said 33 years ago, that "the network news programs would collapse under the weight of their own lies." Allegedly we "declared blogs the destroyers of mainstream media." Allegedly, we (well, Dave Winer) "discounted any chance that the clueless media would adapt to the blogofuture." Allegedly, we have misread media history and don’t realize that "old" media don't get replaced, they adapt.

All are false characterizations of the meeting. Same neighborhood as lying -- not about facts but about ideas.

During my initial remarks at the conference, I specifically rejected the claims Shafer attributes to me and other bloggers.

Read the rest. Shafer gets an F in that class.

: In an email exchange about all this, Jan Schaffer said that Shafer's column looks like a classic case of a "journalist framing a story to get the biggest bang for his words." I agreed and said:

Right. And we from the trade do know the tricks of the trade, eh? So part of our duty of transparency is exposing those tricks when we see them -- as Jay does so well in his response to Shafer.

I recently tore apart The Times' Sarah Boxer story about the Iraqi bloggers (something I didn't even mention at the conference because I thought it would be confrontational... note that I wasn't trying to be confrontational when I mentioned the other Iraqi story Shafer says I barked about). In that post about Boxer's story, I called her out on what I know damned well is a trick of the trade: sexing up a lead with something you won't end up substantiating just to sell the story inside the paper.

So add that to the lessons of the conference: Those of us who straddle both worlds have an added responsibility to push our colleagues to expose their process and when they don't to expose it for them.

And what about Bugs Bunny's carrots: Freudian?

busterfarm.gif: Josh Marshall's reader found the lost episode of Buster the Bunny's lesbian adventure. Says Buster's blog:

While there, we visited Emma, David, and James, who live with their two moms, Karen and Gillian. Karen and my mom used to work at the same newspaper together.
Yup, that'll make the next generation gay.

: Meanwhile, the United Church of Christ proves that not all churchgoers are humorless, bigoted prigs. They issue a press release welcoming Sponge Bob and all his nefarious cartoon buddies to their pews:


Joining the animated fray, the United Church of Christ today (Jan. 24) said that Jesus' message of extravagant welcome extends to all, including SpongeBob Squarepants - the cartoon character that has come under fire for allegedly holding hands with a starfish.

"Absolutely, the UCC extends an unequivocal welcome to SpongeBob," the Rev. John H. Thomas, the UCC's general minister and president, said, only partly in jest. "Jesus didn't turn people away. Neither do we."

spongebobchurch.jpgFor that matter, Thomas explained, the 1.3-million-member church, if given the opportunity, would warmly receive Barney, Big Bird, Tinky-Winky, Clifford the Big Red Dog or, for that matter, any who have experienced the Christian message as a harsh word of judgment rather than Jesus' offering of grace.

The UCC's welcome comes in the wake of laughable accusations by James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, that the popular SpongeBob and other well-known cartoon characters are crossing "a moral line" by stressing tolerance in a national We Are Family Foundation-sponsored video that will be distributed to U.S. schools on March 11, 2005.

Later, an assistant to Dobson called SpongeBob's participation in the video "insidious."

Thomas said, on the contrary, it is Dobson who is crossing the moral line for sending the mistaken message that Christians do not value tolerance and diversity as important religious values.

"While Dobson's silly accusation makes headlines, it's also one more concrete example of how religion is misused over and over to promote intolerance over inclusion," Thomas said. "This is why we believe it is so important that the UCC speak the Gospel in an accent not often heard in our culture, because far too many experience the cross only as judgment, never as embrace."

Dobson, despite his often-outrageous viewpoints, is arguably one of the most oft-heard religious voices in popular culture today. Through his Focus on the Family media empire, Dobson produces daily commentaries that appear widely on television and radio stations across the United States, often times as "public service announcements."

Meanwhile, the UCC's recently released 30-second paid television commercial - produced to underscore the denomination's belief that Jesus didn't turn anyone away - has been rejected by two major television networks for being "too controversial."

Amen. Let's hear it again: Amen!

: LATER: What's so extraordinarily distasteful about all this is the idea that merely exposing a child to a person who is homosexual is somehow offensive or wrong. How intolerant. How bigoted. How unChristian. How unAmerican. How many first stones they're throwing, these fools.

: See also Andrew Sullivan.

15 years later...

: The 15th anniversary of Entertainment Weekly caught me quite by surprise. I wasn't counting.

Rick Tetzeli, EW's third editor, was nice enough to quote my editor's note from the first issue and it got me to look back at the 10 promises I made to EW's readers:

10. This is a national magazine. We cover what's at your local 'plex instead of what's on Broadway because more than 200 million of you don't live in New York (you lucky ducks).

9. We won't have long, ponderous, pompous articles about show-biz--5,000-word stories about 50-minute albums ... Short is fine.

8. The magazine is current.... Each issue will tell you what you need to know now.

7. Entertainment Weekly is selective. We don't review and report on everything, on what's notable... In fact, finding what's notable is our most important job.

6. The magazine must be easy to use.... You also should be able to find out quickly and easily what our critics think, and that's why they grade (from A+ to F) everything they review.

5. This magazine will be a voice for quality in a business that needs one.

4. Since we are boldly and loudly opinionated, we also must be open to the opinions of others.... In this magazine, everybody's a critic.

3. Our critics enjoy the areas of entertainment they review. They are discriminating fans and members of the audience, just like you.

2. Guaranteed: The opinions expressed in this magazine are those of the writers and are free from influence by advertisers, corporations, public relations people, or stars.

1. Entertainment Weekly will be entertaining....

Sounds a little blogish, I think. Not a bad list, eh? You'll have to tell me whether the magazine follows those rules.

Another time, I may start telling some of the stories of the magazine's launch and my departure (I refused to sign the editor's contract at Time Inc., with its shut-up clause, precisely because I believed it was important to maintain my right to tell those stories, good and bad).

This week, I simply want to congratulate editors Tetzeli and Jim Seymore before him and the staff of the magazine through the years. Good work. So the baby's a teenager already. Damn.

January 26, 2005

Fighting freedom

: John Podhoretz looks at the election in Iraq through the evil eyes of our enemy -- yes, the enemy -- there:

...once a legitimately elected Iraqi assembly is seated, the insurgents will have no argument left with which to advance their cause — except for the open hatred of liberty.

The latest tape from Iraq's terrorist master, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, made that point crystal clear. "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology," Zarkawi says. "Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it."

Note that Zarqawi doesn't say he's fighting imperialism, or foreign invaders on Iraqi soil, or any other (and far more seductive) argument. He is waging war on democracy inside Iraq — on the right of Iraqis to choose their own leaders and structure their own governments.

Zarqawi is a very frightening and very evil man, a destructive force with hundreds of gallons of American and Iraqi blood on his hands. Iraqis and Americans alike have reason to be concerned about his declaration of war. But calling democracy "evil" is a self-defeating exercise. By doing so, he is including among the evildoers all Iraqis who go to the polls.

His fight will no longer be with Western devils, but with Iraqi patriots. There is a very real likelihood that under such conditions, his insurgency will collapse from the inside or will merely transition into becoming a brutal gang of parasites who use kidnapping and the threat of terrorism to extort money, pure and simple.

Numbers

: The toll from the tsunami has now passed 228,000.

Numbers

: 37 Americans died in Iraq today, 31 of them in an accidental helicopter crash. We pay more attention when more people die. That's ridiculous, even offensive. Others died yesterday and the day before. Some died in accidents, some at the hand of insurgents/terrorists/murderers. None of them should have died, of course. Some try to blame the president for these deaths; too few blame the murderers with blood on their hands. Blame won't bring them back, nothing will. But it is important that we at least remember them and their tragic sacrifice as we reach an important milestone this Sunday with the first election in Iraq. I don't know that I believe that death can be given meaning but if it can, bringing democracy to a nation is a noble cause. It is also important that we remember all the innocent civilians who have died at the hands of Saddam and now the terrorists in Iraq and as a result of war. The people of Iraq will be risking their lives this Sunday to bring democracy to their nation; the soldiers there will be risking their lives to protect them. Democracy is that precious.

Evil cartoon bunnies strike again

: Hoo-boy. Washington, big media, and, of course, those wacky religious folks keep thinking that cartoon characters can ruin our morals. The latest silliness:

The nation’s new education secretary denounced PBS on Tuesday for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles.

The not-yet-aired episode of “Postcards From Buster” shows the title character, an animated bunny named Buster, on a trip to Vermont — a state known for recognizing same-sex civil unions. The episode features two lesbian couples, although the focus is on farm life and maple sugaring.

A PBS spokesman said late Tuesday that the nonprofit network has decided not to distribute the episode, called “Sugartime!,” to its 349 stations. She said the Education Department’s objections were not a factor in that decision.

WGBH will air the episode. It's as if people think that even mentioning that there are gay people is going to cause an explosion of gay people: the Teletubbie gambit.

You'll remember that Fox pixilated a cartoon character's butt and the so-called Parents Television Council complained about another cartoon characters naked butt -- but at least the FCC, in a moment of sanity, decided that would not ruin the nation's morals.

On MSBNC

: I'll be on MSNBC with Ron Reagan, Monica Crowley, and Eric Alterman today at 12:30p ET (delayed by Condi) to talk about the Iraqi elections and blogs.

: LATER: Alterman spewed tin-hat insinuations about pro-American blogs in Iraq with absolutely no basis in fact, no journalistic justification whatsoever . I said he was being irresponsible. That's the light version.

: MORE: As of now, I'll be back on MSNBC this Sunday, covering blogs' coverage of the Iraqi election from 6a-noon and again from 5-6p ET.

Policy or palaver?
:
: I applauded what George Bush said about supporting democratic movements and setting a goal and a mission of spreading freedom in the world.

I said so on Air America's Morning Sedition yesterday -- though I also quoted Zephyr Teachout when she told me that she liked what Bush said but wasn't sure he was the president to do it.

Still, this seemed to be a speech with vision, a doctrine with courage. I was eager to see how he carried it out with North Korea, Saudi Arabia... you name the undemocratic nation.

Yet already, there's spin from the White House -- the kind of spin you see when somebody tries to pedal backwards. Howard Kurtz captures it:

You might think that calling on the United States to spread freedom around the globe and stand against tyranny might have consequences.

It was a statement of ideals.

But what does the president plan to do to carry out those ideals?

There will be no change in administration policy.

But how can Bush call for action against regimes that oppress their people and still do business with the dictators of China, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

The goals the president set forth can only be met over a generation, not in a year or two.

Then was the speech just meaningless rhetoric?

It was an attempt to lay out his strategic vision about moral choices.

So we shouldn't take his words seriously?

The president believes in bold action to advance the cause of freedom.

But if he doesn't take any practical steps, won't he have failed to clear the bar he set for himself?

It was a statement of ideals.

And what are you going to do about it?

: UPDATE: Zephyr clarifies/amplifies in the comments:

I wasn't nearly as optimistic as you. More precisely, I said I agreed with the spirit and goals and content of most of the speech, the kind of international, civic democratic focus that I'd like to see our country do more of -- but Bush was EXACTLY the wrong person to give it. Postmodern the way CLEAR SKIES is postmodern -- and then these postmodern responses reinforce it. Uggh.

Homeless

: The New York Post and The New York Times editorial pages almost agree that the homless should not be making the New York subway their home after a fire apparently started by one of them caused damage and disruption that will take months or even years to fix. The Post started it in an editorial:

Let's face it: Some subway-station bum starts a fire, probably to warm his tootsies, and subway riders suffer for years.

He's culpable, of course, even if he is crazy as a loon.

But blame for this fiasco also must accrue to those who have made the notion that "homelessness" is just an "alternative lifestyle" into public policy — which insanely grants vagrants the right to take up residence anywhere they damn please....

Was the perp just crazy? Was it deliberate arson? Or just carelessness or recklessness, a street-dweller trying to stay warm in sub-freezing temperatures? Or smoking a cigarette (or something else)?

Does it really matter?

New York City spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year to feed, clothe, shelter and provide all manner of services to needy street folk.

When they resist help, their self-appointed "advocates" rise to defend their "rights" to do so.

What do these "advocates" say now, when millions will have to suffer, likely for years, so that the "rights" of a single lunatic could be preserved?

For years, responsible New Yorkers (including us) have argued that these people are a danger to themselves and others (not to mention, a daily blight).

If they refuse good-faith help, they need to be hauled off to Rikers Island.

For the benefit of law-abiding New Yorkers, if not for their own sake.

Cruel? Hardly.

After all, there's a lot more heat and food at Rikers than on the streets.

Living in the city's nooks and crannies — on a subway platform near a signal station, for example — must be a crime.

New Yorkers should be boiling at the thought that one man could be allowed to cause pain for millions, so he can exercise his right maybe to freeze to death.

And The Times editorializes today:
The subway is also no place for the homeless, and it's a sign of the system's shaky state that hundreds of people have been allowed to live in its grapevine of tunnels and passageways. It is not safe for them and, as Sunday's fire makes clear, it is not safe for the millions who ride through those tunnels every single day. The city's police and homeless outreach programs need to be mobilized right away.
Well, The Times isn't going for that Rikers Island solution but it is at least agreeing that the homeless shouldn't be living in the subway.

Rudy Guliani was the first politician in New York to have the guts to deal with this issue; other cities (I'm thinking of you, San Francisco) haven't.

And the real issue isn't homelessness. It's insanity. The laws in this country make it impossible to commit and help even the obvioulsy and often the dangerously insane.

I say that One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is as much at fault as any politician, for it made the institution frightening and the people who run it bad guys.

Guliani saw that because of the fear of the rubber room, we ended up with a doctrine that said it's a right to lose your mind but he said it's not a right to interfere with the lives of people around you.

He got rid of the squeegee men years ago -- and personally, I was relieved, for a bunch of them attacked my car one night and tried to drag me out of it, sending my wife into premature labor. It is a danger.

The fact that people are living in the subways of New York is, in the end, a dereliction of our duty to these people. The Post and The Times are both right. Now let's do something about it.

: UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds and Helen Reynolds have much more here.

Damned ice dam

: I just spent the last two nights on a roof banging at ice-filled gutters on the roof above because ice is backing up under the roof and melting and dripping and driving us crazy: Jersey water torture. I hate heights. So I feared falling; I feared huge hunks of ice and gutter falling on my head; and because I fear looking like a dork, I refused my wife's suggestion that I wear a bike helmet. And now it's snowing again. Call me when winter's over.

Should I consider a metal roof?

January 25, 2005

God's work

: I skipped out of my church's budget committee meeting tonight to appear on Pat Buchanan's show on MSBNC on The Passion of The Christ. Hmmm. That may be a new definition of profanity. I'm going to say that I am a Christian and I did not like Passion. I even preached a sermon about it. To say that not liking Passion makes Hollywood godless is illogical, silly, even offensive.

: LATER: Michael Medved and Buchanan went on about seething mobs of securlists in Hollywood. I said it's not a matter of religion and it's not a matter of right and left (being that they blanked out Fahrenheit 9/11). It's a matter of taste.

The indecent indecency bill rides again

: The prigs and prudes and enemies of the First Amendment are at it again, trying once more to get their indecent indecency bill through Congress. This time, it will make it all the way to Bush's desk, and we know what will happen there. An holier-than-thou alliance of Republican and Democrats are joining to kneecap the Constitution:

Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Commerce subcommittee that has jurisdiction over the issue, unveiled on Tuesday a bill to raise fines on broadcasters and entertainers to as much as $500,000 per violation.

It would also require the FCC to consider revoking a station's license after three violations.

Meanwhile, Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, plans to introduce a measure on Wednesday to boost fines to as much as $325,000 per violation and a $3 million maximum for continuing violations, according to spokesman Aaron Groote.

[Hat tip: Oliver]

: By the way, this is why I had a problem supporting Joe Lieberman: He's a cosponsor of this travesty.

Michael Powell's final spin

: As he leaves the FCC, Michael Powell finally gets the guts to say no to the so-called Parents Television Council and now he tries to take credit for everything from iPods to blogs... though I fail to see what the FCC had to do with either. He said on FoxNews:

If I tried to capture in a nutshell, we tried to do one thing, which was to get the law right in a way that would stimulate innovative technology and put more power into the hands of consumers. And I think all you have to do is walk into an electronics store today and look at a TiVo or buy an iPod, or look at some of the phones that are available today, and you will see the vision coming into fruition.

If you look at the Internet and the role that it played in the election and the political campaign, if you look at the fact that an Internet blogger can bring challenge to a network as formidable as CBS, you realize that more and more democratization of technology is leading to strong consumer value and that's what we're most proud of. And that's what we really wanted to focus our agenda on.

[Hat tip: TVSHenry]

Media on media

: I'm on MSNBC twice tonight -- at 6p and 9p -- on the Oscars, the first time about the awards as awards and the second time about Passion of the Christ.

: I'm also set to be on MSNBC Wednesday at 12 regarding blogs and the Iraqi elections. Making a habit of this? I hope so.

Free the internet

: Hoder calls for ending the embargo on Iran -- and other repressed nations -- when it comes to the Internet so the people there can find and exercise their human right of free speech:

I really believe it's time to use the momentum that "freedom for repressed people" rhetoric of Bush has created and ask for some of the stupid parts of the US embargo on Iran that only harm the free speech of the Iranian people to be lifted....

I think the whole thing deserves more attention from the American liberal media and, honestly, it's a perfect topic for editorial writers of liberal newspapers, such as New York Times. Can anyone help?

'Help my dad'

: The daughter of Roy Hallums, being held hostage in Iraq, started a web site about her father.

F that

: Reuters says that three of five FCC commissioners have voted to turn down complaints about the use of the F word in Saving Private Ryan. Yes, that's no surprise. But because the FCC refused to do that before the movie was to air -- and because the FCC had just ruled that the F word was the first word decreed by government to be profane -- 66 stations refused to show Ryan and I say they were right: They did not want to put themselves at risk for breaking the law the FCC had just made.

I quote from the FCC's Bono decision:

...[W]e believe that, given the core meaning of the ``F-Word,'' any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a sexual connotation....

We conclude that the answer to this question is yes. The ``F-Word'' is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language. Its use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image.... If the Commission were routinely not to take action against isolated and gratuitous uses of such language on broadcasts when children were expected to be in the audience, this would likely lead to more widespread use of the offensive language..... The fact that the use of this word may have been unintentional is irrelevant; it still has the same effect of exposing children to indecent language. Our action today furthers our responsibility to
safeguard the well-being of the nation's children from the most objectionable, most offensive language....

We also find, as an independent ground, that the use of the phrase at issue here in the context and at the time of day here constitutes ``profane'' language under 18 U.S.C. § 1464....

This is the kind of inconsistency that is driving broadcasters bonkers and that also exposes the danger of government regulating speech. Where's the line, guys, where's the line?

And the winner isn't...

: It's a rare day when you can call Hollywood courageous but I give the Academy props for ignoring Fahrenheit 911 and all but ignoring The Passion of the Christ in today's Oscar nominations. I know we'll hear arguments that the Oscars are "wrong" because these movies both made a lot of money. Well, first off, the Oscars are always wrong; they're just hooey and hype. Second, this is supposed to be (even though, of course, it often isn't) a reflection not of the box office but of quality. And both movies sucked.

And I think that a best makeup nomination for Passion is nothing but an inside joke.

The impact

: The first report of the World Trade Center Health Registry to include data on health problems is out. After the attack, 47 percent of the respondents had sinus problems; 42 shortness of breath; 38 wheezing; 37 cough; 33 eye irritation; 26 digestive; 21 severe headaches; 14 skin rashes; 9 hearing loss. They found that 8 percent reported psychological disorders (which tells me we're a pretty well-adjusted people) vs. 5 percent in a study of New York as a whole. They will do a followup study to find how many problems persisted. My own heart problem now appears to be permanent; I have no persisting lung problems, though I will watch this with obvious interest to see what longterm lung problems emerge, for I fear they will.

Filthy lucre

: Listening to NPR's report on the Supreme Court decision okaying use of drug-sniffing dogs even when you are not stopped on suspicion of having drugs, I heard this amazing stat: 80 percent of paper currency in the U.S. has traces of drugs. I'm surprised every dollar bill doesn't curl at the ends.

January 24, 2005

The Parents Television Council loses one 36

: The FCC just rejected 36 complaints by the so-called Parents Television Council.

I have a theory that the people in the FCC -- including even lame prude Michael Powell -- are secretly embarrassed that they have turned themselves into the nation's chief prigs and mouth-washers, that they have kneecapped the First Amendment, and that their tenure will be marked in history for the stupidity of following along with what they thought was a political movement but turned out to be only a few religious nutjobs with no lives. But that's just a theory. If it were true, it would explain how the FCC decided to reject these 36 PTC complaints just as Michael Powell ducks out of office.

Note, however, that they still have not ruled on Oprah Winfrey saying exactly what got Howard Stern an indecency violation.

In the first set of rulings, the FCC seems to bravely decides that "dick" in various forms is OK. Ditto ass, penis, vaginal, nutsack, and a three-way. In the second set, they add the words hell and damn -- as if they were ever in contention as indecent and blaspamous -- as well as breast, nipples, can, pissed, crap, bastard, and bitch. It's the liberalization of America, I tell you, it's the second damned sexual revolution!

Woops, not so fast Jarvis, put away the tie-dyes and scented oils. The FCC explains:

A number of complaints cite isolated uses of the word “dick” or variations thereof. In context and as used in the complained of broadcasts, these were epithets intended to denigrate or criticize their subjects. Their use in this context was not sufficiently explicit or graphic and/or sustained to be patently offensive. Although use of such words may, depending on the nature of the broadcast at issue, contribute to a finding of indecency, their use here was not patently offensive and therefore not indecent. Similarly, we find that the fleeting uses of the words “penis,” “testicle,” “vaginal,” “ass,” “bastard” and “bitch,” uttered in the context of the programs cited in the complaints, do not render the material patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.
Ah, so I can call the FCC commissioners a bunch of dicks, asses, bastards, and bitches and get away with it. Get me on the air! But if I use those words in a sustained manner --
FCC is full of asses and asses and asses and asses -- my ass would be grass. As clear as ever.

You'll be relieved to know that the FCC did not find a fleeting glimpse of a cartoon boy's butt indecent.

And aren't we glad the FCC didn't rule that this complaint from the homophobic, bigoted PTC was indecent: "The show also contains several scenes in which male characters talk about kissing men and female characters talk about kissing women." Yeah, so?

Meanwhile, Paul Boutin just sent me the latest headline from the Onion: "U.S. Children Still Traumatized One Year After Seeing Partially Exposed Breast On TV"

Just to show you what an incredible exercise in stupidity and wasted adulthood this is, here is the list of the rejected complaints ... all of them filed by PTC prudes who have no life and nothing better to do than listen for the word "dick". ...

a. “Everwood,” September 16, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: a character remarks to another: “I got this black eye because of you, dick.”

b. “Fastlane,” September 18, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: one character threatens another by stating: “…in my next life I’m coming back as a pair of pliers and pull off your nutsack.”

c. “Girls Club,” October 21, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: a young female attorney says to an older male attorney: “. . . those power dicks are going to start giving me trials.” The attorney responds: “Is that what you call us? Power dicks?”

d. ““Girls Club,” October 28, 2002, 9 p.m. EST: a female character remarks: “I’m not feeling too sexual these days . . . . Especially here, I’m having a little trouble with one of the power dicks.”

e. “Dawson’s Creek,” October 30, 2002, 8 p.m. EST: one character remarks to another: “Listen, I know that you’re pissed at your dad for flaking on you. It doesn’t mean he’s a bad dad, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t love you. Another character responds: “No, it just means he’s a dick.”

f. “Dawson’s Creek,” December 11, 2002, 8 p.m. EST: one character tells another: “. . . you’re being a dick.”

g. “Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me,” January 8, 2003, 8 p.m. EST: musical number during which the title character’s naked torso and genital area are blocked by objects, furniture, and, in one instance, by his hands. Later scenes include the use of the phrase “fat bastard,” and the word “testicles.” In another scene from this film, a male and a female character are in bed together, but no sexual or excretory organs or activities are depicted or discussed.

h. “NYPD Blue,” April 8, 2003, 9 p.m. CST: a character states: “That dickhead in a wheelchair.”

i. “Friends,” May 1, 2003, 8 p.m. EST: a female character and her husband encounter the husband’s former girlfriend at a medical office. After a conversation concerning fertility treatment, the female character says that she has to go because she’s got “an invasive vaginal exam to get to.”

j. “The Diary of Ellen Rimbauer,” May 12, 2003, 9 p.m. EST: one scene depicts two female characters and one male character in bed together; all three are under the covers and there are no sexual or excretory organs or activities depicted. Another scene depicts a male character tying a female character to a bed and then applying ice to her abdomen. The female character moans and writhes. A third scene depicts a maid undressing while a male character surreptitiously watches. A portion of the side of the maid’s breast is shown, but her nipple is not exposed.

k. “Jamie Kennedy Experiment,” October 23, 2003, 8:30 p.m. EST: the title character Jamie pulls a prank on the mother of one of his friends. The mother believes that she is participating in a serious television interview about Jamie. The interviewer, who is in on the prank, mentions that Jamie reported that the “hottest night of his life” occurred when he became “intimate” with the mother, and that Jamie and the woman’s son used to play a game called “you show me yours, I’ll show you mine.” Later, the woman confronts her son and tells him that Jamie said he’d “had sex” with her. She asks her son “you didn’t show [Jamie] your penis or something, did you?” When the joke is revealed, the woman calls Jamie a “bastard” and threatens to “kick his ass.” In another scene, involving a fake funeral home, Jamie says “it