Also - the sins of the Baby Boomers have given us our current mess, to be sure, but they are all in the past, which doesn’t make for easy and up-to-the-minute blogging.  So in the coming weeks, look for a new, more general interest domain name and for this site to linger as sister blog that operates as a rarely updated archive with more offbeat material.

Note to 70% of my audience: I will try to continue posting on the lizard people whenever I can.

• The Times staff is very liberal, and they are attacked for this very often, so they are constantly saw-sawing in an attempt to compensate. As it turns out, settling on one side or the other of the see-saw is easier than balancing in the middle, so that what we see.
• Times jobs are competitive and full of ambitious people “trying to make a mark” (if you read my posts about A and B careers, you’ll see I also think they are often uniquely unqualified for their jobs). This brand of reporter needs to be noticed and therefore writes stories that “stand out” by being contrarian, “incisive,” and “tone-setting” in terms of analysis. Unfortunately, this is not the point of newspaper journalism: it, and the Times specifically, built its reputation on outstandingly objective reporting.
• Times employees, especially for the A and B career reasons I describe elsewhere, and even flatly because they live in New York, are also uniquely unqualified to analyze how debates will affect public perception. They share this problem with TV pundits. Basically, reporters are too engrossed in the news and have too-skewed views of voters to ever understand how a normal voter will respond in the debate. What voters don’t realize is this very out-of-touchness tends to make the MSM lean conservatively, not liberally. Reporters have so little understanding, and so much unfounded disrespect for, the typical voter, they think that the simplest platitudes will sway them. Combine this with the fact that many reporters are way dumber than they think they are, and the bias is easy to understand. I should mention that lots of bloggers, especially those on the liberal side, are starting to pick this point up.
• Anyone who thinks that is doesn’t matter that the Times is a large corporate entity is naive.

Examples after the jump…

Post Election Headlines on the Times:

Palin Recaptures Her Image
In Debate, G.O.P. Ticket Survives a Test
Palin and Biden Are Cordial but Pointed

That’s it…

The facts of the debate are: a) objectively, Biden was in much better command of his material and, more importantly, b) every poll shows Biden winning. So: why the hell are two positive headlines about Palin and none on Biden the most objectively efficient way to portray this news? Lets look at it in terms of my points above…

1) On the last point: The Times is getting sucked into the media marrative about the Palin expectation game, despite the fact the very point (to me) of NY Times journalism (to me) should be to rise above this fray. Telling quote:

The debate wasn’t so much between Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ms. Palin as it was between the dueling images of the Alaska governor: the fuzzy-minded amateur parodied — with her own words — by Tina Fey on “Saturday Night Live” or the gun-toting hokey mom who blazed into history at the Republican convention.

…except that this is the very opposite of the truth. Maybe to media junkies, it was, but shouldn’t we get the facts- that we shouldn’t think of this debate as being about Palin and instead consider it as it was meant to be (and was): a argument on policy and readiness from the two VP contenders? The fact that what should be the standard bearer of journalistic objectivity doesn’t do this is a sad reminder that no one does.

2) The news analyst quotes three GOP strategists and zero Democratic strategists. Given their tendency to completely lie, I don’t think spinners have any place in serious journalism (undecided voters would be better); but come on, some semblance of balance? Also, in terms of my first and second points: this is a attempt to give the GOP a voice…and the Times must think Palin is more interesting to readers (pandering to the imagined expectations of readers: also the exact opposite of what an objective news source should do).

3) Even the the most objective article, theres the quote: ” [Palin] succeeded by not failing in any obvious way.” Now anyone who follows the news closely understands the sentiment behind that statement, but is it objective journalism? What does “succeeded” mean here? It doesn’t mean winning on points or polls. It doesn’t mean improving general polling scores (don’t even know that yet). A good editor should be asking these questions.

I could go on nitpicking, but that shouldn’t be my job. It is the job of the editors at what should be the most carefully objective paper there is. Instead, it has really become a shell of what it was due to intellectual laziness, me too-ism, corporate ownership, and a staff that isn’t up to the task of fighting for a gold standard.

That’s right; while putty-natured humorists like Colbert jokingly compare McCain’s antics to a lizard, I have realized the truth: McCain was letting slip the fact he belongs to the secret master race that has controlled all of human history.

Be very alarmed, friends. According to noted ex-soccer player historian David Icke:

Icke [posits] a network of secret societies referred to as the “Brotherhood,” at the apex of which stand the “Illuminati” or “Global Elite.”^[20] The goal of the Brotherhood is a world government…the methods of these conspirators include control of the world’s economies and the use of mind-control techniques.

[He identified the mebers of the network] as reptilians from the constellation Draco.^[25]They walk erect and appear to be human, living not only on the planets they come from, but also in caverns and tunnels under the earth. They have cross-bred with humans, which has created “hybrids” who are “possessed” by the full-blooded reptilians.^[26] The reptiles’ hybrid reptilian-human DNA allows them to change from reptilian to human form if they consume human blood.

There are too many links to list on the nefarious Babylonian Brotherhood of half lizard people, but I can only say one thing for sure: McCain is one of them! Look at that tongue action! He is probably being disciplined by the B-Hood (that’s what I call it) for being so sloppy. McCain has also taken issue with Obama’s “path to Denver,” the home of the brotherhood, with a strangely symbolic ad.

I will keep on the case of this frightening new development. (also, I recommend McCain make sure Palin hasn’t been briefed on the Brotherhood, because it seems she is just the type to be monitoring the lizard-people situation closely)

Obviously enough, I was wrong.

Over the past weeks I’ve been pretty much strangled (as my lack of recent posts shows) by the torrent of absurdities that McCain’s camp has thrown at the public, each one less worthy of serious consideration than the last - Sullivan, with his relentless anger, has been responding closest to the way I would if I had to post every hour. This election is no longer about the divide between old and young - it’s a difference between rashness and competence, gimmicks and defense, politics and governance.

Both the first and last straw was this: McCain’s overt culture war ad. It left me a bit weirded out but hesitantly optimistic. Already, in July, McCain was playing the culture war angle hard. I was expecting to have to carefully unthread strands of the debate to reveal these distinctions, but McCain slapped them on the table early and obviously. It turned out to be just one cheap trick of many he’s gone on to play; in fact, he’s now writing a new book of cheap tricks for use in High School elections everywhere.

In the end, this election won’t be about the Baby Boomer / Millennial divide in political philosophies and the final triumph of one or the ascension of the other. It’s about McCain and Palin themselves, and whether the most outrageously ham-handed and cynical campaign in American history will work or not.

Alas, this has allowed Barack to do the most prudent thing - stand back and play establishment candidate - as opposed to championing his new kind of politics. For one, it makes the most sense in his bid to win. Second, it is most reassuring to the country - we need at least one adult here, and Barack is doing a great job of showing he can play two different hands.

There are ways to connect this all to some sort of final Baby Boomer politics flame-out, but I confess to have been paying too much lurid attention to the scandal parade to suss them out. I’m also terrified of what the implication of what I write would be if McCain actually wins, which I do still believe could happen with the wrong kind of October surprise.

But oh well, I’ll give it a shot.

…so that means I have to start getting my act together.

After world leaders…condemned the “boundless greed” of world markets, [Michael] Douglas…[who] won an Academy Award for portraying the rapacious banker Gordon Gekko…was asked to compare nuclear Armageddon with the “financial Armageddon on Wall Street.”

…a reporter ask[ed]: “Are you saying Gordon that greed is not good?”

“I’m not saying that,” Douglas replied. “And my name is not Gordon. He’s a character I played 20 years ago.”

No less than three members of the man’s family including one by sworn affidavit have claimed that Sarah Palin engaged in an extramarital affair with hus­band Todd’s former business partner, Brad Hanson.

These sources have named Hanson as Palin’s secret love, and say their affair nearly wrecked both their marriages.

Maybe her witch doctor has her under some sort of protective spell?  Oh no wait, the McCain campaign is already handling that…

Instead of paying for worthless assets and essentially giving Wall Street free money while doing nothing about the underlying problem, give a tax rebate - a big one - to everyone making under, say $125k (giving over $2 grand - with extras for families with kids - to every household making under that threshold would be doable within a $700 billion dollar budget). The caveat to this second stimulus is that it MUST be allocated to exclusively to debt: first to subprime mortgage debt if you have it, then to standard mortgage debt, then to other debt. If you have no debt, you get a check. This way the money directly helps the very “Main Street” homeowners who are struggling, but also pretty much directly benefits Wall Street as well by making the subprime contracts they have worth a bit more. It wouldn’t be a total bailout, but it would get the economy moving on more than one cylinder. It would also avoid any moral issues - it wouldn’t unduly help the evil (really, more stupid than evil) Wall Street execs, and it would give a nice cash bonus to those who didn’t take on debts they couldn’t pay. I suppose it would be logistically difficult, but is there any other reason it won’t work?

The suggestion above comes back to the main problem with this “Wall Street meltdown” coverage. Wall Street did highly unethical things and had the main hand in making this crisis happen, but that is only because they encouraged sales of onerous loans to the very people who couldn’t afford them. Now, the main issue is that fact that people aren’t paying their debts - thats why subprime contracts are worthless. Shouldn’t the solution specifically address that problem? And prevent those debts from bankrupting by putting a moratorium on foreclosures? Why do the banks need more money? So the stock market does better? Wasn’t prioritizing top down concerns about markets and Wall Street at the expense of concerns about every day people being able to pay what they owe the exact thing that got us into this?