prole

When is it not Obama campaign season for you?

Boy, you're sure "getting shit done"! At this rate, slavery will be reinstituted by 2024.

We have to play the hand that's dealt us, not work to level the playing field!

Or telling us how great Citizen's United is?

Are you going to start singing Joe Lieberman's praises again?

They're called patterns. It takes more than seeing how many google hits you can get on a topic to discern them.

When the Spokane terrorists are identified, rest assured the event will be described as a random, isolated act perpetrated by lone, fringe wackos. And down the memory hole it will go...

Who's sitting next to whom?

Google News results: MLK Spokane -- 527 Sit next to State of the Union -- 3,700

But then, they don't do that anymore do they? [video:youtube] [video:youtube]

There have been a number of "historical events" for which the media hasn't done its job in connecting the dots.

The incendiary atmosphere in the immediate aftermath of Tuscon probably goes a long way toward explaining why this event didn't get a lot of coverage. But more broadly (at the risk of stating the obvious), there's a certain amount of self-censorship that's gone on with regards to the domestic terrorism issue. Why? Here's a theory. While there is a segment of the media that breaks down along clear partisan lines (Fox vs. MSNBC, for example), many smaller outlets still compete for readers and viewers across a broader spectrum. As with any business in the hyper-politicized atmosphere, it pays to water down content to appeal to the widest possible audience. Given that audience is extremely polarized currently, there is a danger that investigative reporting or keeping domestic terrorism stories in the fore would lead to charges of bias and alienate customers, no matter how clinical and balanced those stories were. There are plenty of examples of such charges in every comments section of thoroughly innocuous Associated Press articles on the topic. Despite the fact that there's a clear, present, and rising danger from rightwing violence, journalism operating as a business in an environment where a significant part of the population is somewhat sympathetic to the ideas underpinning domestic terrorism, if not the actions themselves, reporting on those stories (and the broader movement) would represent a potential business liability. In a climate where "old" journalism is already in deep shit, it doesn't pay to play in minefields.

Mustn't lose potential market share by alienating a large portion of the viewership, don'tcha know!

Maximizing utility and functional efficiency first, cool later.

I'm endlessly amused by the fact that Ayn Rand-types, supposedly dedicated to individualism in the abstract, are not only the blandest, most conformist people you'll ever meet, they're also the most disdainful of individual expression in practice. Not that the hipster isn't deserving of all the disdain we can possibly muster.

Gentrification has never been funnier.

Sorry, make that bath salts.

Where'd all the people go?

Just out of curiosity, what is the "political window dressing" value of the appointment of a jobs-killing, outsourcing expert to the "jobs czar" post? Who is Obama marketing to, I wonder. Is the window dressing for us? We're supposed to be impressed that he's drawn someone from a sector that actually makes things (other than ginormous profits from knowingly issuing bad loans), so that's good I guess. More likely, as he's been bending over backwards to do since the mid-terms, Obama's showing corporate America he'll provide returns on their investments (ahem, "contributions") after '12.

UNCLE SUGAR!!!

Blood libel.

As opposed to its unofficial policy? Yes.

Given that everyone seems fine with the obvious conflict of interest here, I'd say GE's future looks fairly bright.