Idiotprogrammer Blog

Category: Social Sciences

  • Pushback on Social Media

    Mike Phillips on Digg being dead:

    The biggest problem with Digg in the past was that unless you devoted serious time to it and knew how to work the system, you had little hope of ever making the front page. The only stories that made the front page were typically those voted up by voting blocs; networks of like-minded individuals attempting to send streams of traffic to each others’ sites no matter the content of the story. And if you didn’t make the front page, the benefits were very little, if any. Now, you still will need to dedicate serious time to the site — only this time you won’t receive near the level of exposure. That is, unless your "friends" vote up your stories at a breakneck pace. Which, for all intents and purposes, puts us right back where we started with Digg. In other words, there’s no innovation here and the real value proposition of Digg hasn’t changed, it’s just become more labor intensive.

    In the soon-to-be end, Digg will become known as the first network to die from social fatigue. Facebook and Twitter are booming, LinkedIn is holding steady and even MySpace seems to have settled into a niche. But Digg is in a deadly, unrecoverable tail spin. The fact is, people — real people — are beginning to tire. Submit this, upload that, vote on this, "like" that, be my "friend", check in here, suggest this, retweet that … there’s already so much to do. The only thing left to "Digg" is a grave.

    Charles Arthur writes a longer article examining why Digg’s web traffic has been going down. Apparently, the axing of the Diggbar and changes in Google’s algorithm had more to do with it than any social filtering trend.

    By the way, I had already predicted Digg’s downfall in 2006 and even expressed the opinion that Digg and Gawker Media  was evil. By now of course, Facebook and Twitter are out-meta-ing everybody.

    Joanne McNeil says that Facebook is the new AOL:

    when I heard about the “poke” feature that did it for me. It indicated the creators just weren’t serious about making something that could be more than a place for goofing around in a perplexingly formal way. “Poke” is the dumbest and worst feature ever invented for a social network. Even worse than that “suggest a match” thing on Friendster back in the dark ages (I still turn bright red and wince thinking of the time a less than socially savvy pal suggested a match for me with the person I had a crush on at the time.) I don’t really like when people lay out “best practices” for social networking like, “oh, she doesn’t @ reply enough people on Twitter.” And “netiquette” very often neglects the fact that introvert/extrovert classifications also exist in the digital world. But no, there’s never a good time for a poke. (Why stop with the poke? Why not call me and hang up before answering? Why not send me a blank email with no subject? Why not blank @ me?)

    …Facebook epitomizes filter failure for me. Yes, there are ways to segment information and keep groups, but there aren’t very good ways to keep worlds from overlapping. Facebook isn’t a more neutral LinkedIn and Myspace. It is the collapse of LinkedIn, Myspace, and a bunch of other networks, while many people want these worlds compartmentalized. I mostly avoid Facebook the same way that I’ll get drinks on a Monday night with colleagues, but not on a Friday or Saturday night. This generation blurs the line between work and play, but there is still a line or else you’re not getting the best out of either.

    Now, this is my experience with Facebook. I don’t doubt there’s value to it for lots of people. I like it as a visual rolodex, and if I were a heavy user, I can see the advantage of adding just about everyone you meet at a conference or class as a “friend.” But mainly my use of Facebook is transitionary. I import my contacts to newer, hopefully better social networks as they come along like Foursquare or Quora.

    McNeil also talks about how social media collides  with her tendency towards introversion.

    I spend a lot of  time on Facebook, mainly as a microblogging platform. That’s right. I’m cheating on this blog by posting a lot of things first on FB. (I eventually catch up though, so you never miss anything on my blog; things just arrive late).

    One reason I like Facebook is that acquaintances will actually read the things I post. That is gratifying.  With bloggers you never know if you are being read by anyone (except by other bloggers, and even that audience has been diffusing over time). One reason I started blogging was so I wouldn’t have to clog people’s emails with missives and shareable articles. I wanted the Robert Nagle Show to be a purely optional experience. But with blogging you go to the other extreme.  Friends almost never read my posts except in special cases. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. (People in my age bracket don’t use news aggregators). Or it may be that every blogger overestimates the value of his own postings (and  friends don’t have the heart to break the news to him).  Another  reason has to do with frequency of postings. Nonbloggers don’t have an easy time following infrequent bloggers. I post 2 or 3 times a week normally (if not more). But that is not often enough to make it worthwhile to check here regularly.  It is common for me to completely lose track of certain bloggers for long stretches of time simply because I forget to catch up on their posts in my news reader. . 

    With Facebook I get the sense that people actually read my microposts.  About 40% of my microposts are political, but actually, I do it only if I find an unusual news source that nobody is likely to stumble upon. Moreover, I limit myself to maybe one or two microposts on Facebook per day. I’ve been tempted to micropost more often, but I know that  more than that will simply clutter up people’s   friendstreams. The world can take Robert Nagle only in small doses.

    Some of my microposts are advocacy-oriented (“Pass a climate change bill”, etc), but I’ve drifted away from those  over time. The main reason is that on facebook you are dealing with acquaintances who don’t share your values. Conflicts occur.  There is nothing more futile or awkward or cumbersome  than trying to have an intelligible discussion on a Facebook thread. An acquaintance of mine who friended me on Facebook posted lots of offensive political comments on my posts.  He did it purely for trollish reasons, but it’s hard to ignore trolls. 

    What I like most about Facebook is that you are exposed to people who don’t share your values or curiosities. What things interest them? Perhaps I spend more time online (and find more interesting things in general) than most people. But  having conservative or less-wired friends on my friendfeed give me a glimpse of what kinds of things these people find superficially important.  A few of my conservative friends probably never get a chance to hear about climate change articles. Sure, they probably dismiss everything I micropost about on Facebook (typical eco-liberal hogwash), but at least they are coming in contact with it occasionally. Mission accomplished.

    My main complaints with Facebook are not about commercialism or privacy, but the fact that walled gardens can’t be easily  archived. Indeed, that is the point. Facebook has intentionally made it difficult to see items  posted more than a week ago. There is no way you can search old posts, and if you want to view something you or a friend  microposted a few months ago, you have to manually click a lot of hyperlinks to expand your old posts. Facebook (like Twitter) is about conveying ephemera – certain in the knowledge that in a few weeks this ephemera will be gone.

    Although this affords a new kind of freedom, it is contrary to the writer’s main mission – to create enduring messages and stories.

    Last week I met a meatspace friend  who has been following my microposts pretty closely on FB.  He and I share a lot of interests. He expressed amazement that I had a blog and  2500 posts on it. Even though I micropost fairly often on Facebook, I generally do not link to  my blog (unless there is a special reason – maybe once or twice a month). Generally I am happy keeping those two identities separate. My blog is for writers/intellectuals/geeks. My facebook microposts are for people who are not always wired, who have a family, who just want to share dog photos and snarky remarks.  

    Facebook will lose its prominence eventually, but for now I am happy with what it is (and isn’t). It’s conceivable that I could resign from it as a microposter, but I probably would still follow people’s feeds on Facebook – because there is no other way to obtain this content otherwise. 

    One final thought. My mother has criticized me on more than one occasion for spending too much time on facebook. I had to laugh. I spend hardly any time on Facebook. Maybe 15 minutes on posting and a little longer clicking on links that interest me.  Perhaps in a later post I could talk about the online activities which eat up my time, but rest assured that Facebook is only a small part of it. 

    Postscript: Here’s how to specify that a certain FB friend cannot make a comment on your microposts.  Privacy Settings –> Custom –> Customize Settings. On Things Others Share, select Can Comment on Posts –> Choose the dropdown list –> Custom Edit –> Hide this From and type the name of the individual in the text box. It should prompt you for names. Choose Save Settings. Whew! I didn’t realize it was so complicated!

  • Linkdump: Takedowns, smokers and dying culture

    Tom Slee has a good takedown of the anecdote-based arguments of Clay Shirky.

    But stories and analogies should be a starting point for thought, and not its terminus. They should be the spark that prompts more analytical, more rigorous investigation and introspection, testing out your idea to see where it fits reality and where it fails. In this essay, and in some of his others (see below) anecdotes are all there is, and that’s just not good enough.

    Slee alludes to Shirky’s statement that Charlie Bit My Finger youtube video was the number 1 video and that it suggested the paradigm-shifting nature of user-generated content away from complex production models. Except it isn’t. In fact, Slee says:

    the most watched video made in the last five years shows Lady Gaga and a group of hired models dancing on an elaborate set in a video that embodies complex production methods, that is part of the Vevo channel (a joint venture between Google and major record labels) and that features product placements by Nemiroff Vodka, Parrot by Starck, Carerra sunglasses, and HP Envy  [link]. Now there is a complex business model.

    That’s the thing about anecdote-related pieces. People can refute your larger point simply by mentioning extra details about the anecdote that show it’s not typical or valid any more. Actually,  you have to give credit to popularizers like Shirky, Friedman and Gladwell.  Making your prose interesting and readable is the hard part; fixing the logical errors is not as much of a challenge.

    Daniel Seidemann counters the logic of pro-Israelis about Jerusalem settlements. 

    93 percent of Israel – including most of West Jerusalem and the 35 percent of privately-owned land in East Jerusalem expropriated by Israel since 1967 – is categorized by Israel as "State Land." Only Israeli citizens and those entitled to immigrate under the Law of Return may acquire properties on this land. Palestinians of East Jerusalem, with rare exception, are in neither of these categories. So while Wiesel may purchase a home in anywhere in East or West Jerusalem, a Palestinian cannot.

    Since 1967, Israel has built more than 50,000 dwellings for Israelis in East Jerusalem, but has built fewer than 600 for Palestinians (the last was built 35 years ago). And from 1967 until today, as East Jerusalem’s Palestinian population increased from 70,000 to 280,000, Israel has issued only 4,000 permits for private Palestinian construction in East Jerusalem. Barred from building legally, the Palestinians built without permits – leaving them subject to Israeli demolition of their "illegal" homes.

    Today extreme settler groups have launched a campaign to evict Palestinian families – refugees of Israel’s War of Independence – from densely-populated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem. They are doing so based on the "right" of Jews to recover properties lost in the 1948 war. But under Israeli law Palestinians have no such right. So while Israel insists that Palestinians renounce any "right of return" – something understood as necessary for the two-state solution – it is implementing a Jewish right of return to Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, and turning 1948 refugees into 2010 refugees.

    Karl Levin has a testy exchange with Goldman Sachs CEO about shitty deals.

    Paul Krugman criticizes Mitch McConnell’s false logic for opposing new banking regulations:

    "And basically, the (Republican) argument boils down to saying that what we really need to do to deal with fires is abolish the fire department. Because then people will know that they can’t let their buildings burn in the first place, right? It’s incredible. So anyone who says bipartisan, should say, bipartisan doesn’t include the Senate minority leader."

    Jane Brody reports that teenagers engage in risky behavior not because they are oblivious to the risk but because they perceive the benefits of them as being greater or more important. Fascinating!

    Jonathan Schwarz lets us know about a South American mining tragedy that resulted in 8 million miners being worked to death.

    Wow, a great insight in an article about a terminally-ill blogger by Madison Park:

    "What we’re seeing over the last decade, we are gradually moving from a culture that had become during the 20th century, very closed about death," said Dr. Chris Feudtner, research director of Palliative Care Services at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania.

    A cultural shift has occurred, he said, referring to columnists and Randy Pausch, a computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon University, who discussed their impending deaths with frankness. Pausch’s last lecture, urging students to fearlessly pursue their dreams, went viral on YouTube in 2007, getting more than 11 million views.

    Their line of thinking may be, "I’m still alive. I don’t want to be closed. I want connection. I want to be able to share what I’m learning on this journey," Feudtner said.

    Bloggers like Miles Levin, an 18-year-old who had a rare soft-tissue cancer and died in 2007, and Michelle Lynn Mayer, a 39-year-old mother who had scleroderma and died in 2008, shared their thoughts on living and dying, too.

    "We all tend to be open via video, blog or Facebook about what we do every day. It’s hardly surprising that openness extends to people’s last days or weeks," said Dr. David Cassarett, author of the book "Last Acts," about end-of-life decisions.

    These bloggers, Cassarett said, are helping the rest of us through largely uncharted territory. He used a sports analogy to explain.

    "Hardcore bicycle riders ride in packs, and there’s a tradition," he said. "The one in the front points out hazards in the road to those who come behind. It’s both an opportunity to be helpful, if you’re in front. You spot sewer grates, so others can avoid accidents."

    Blogs like Markvoort’s could be acting similarly, he said. They don’t shy away from the ugliness and brutality of the dying process.

    "They’re not just about hope but also about despair. That is, they’re telling us not just what we want to hear but also what we need to hear," Cassarett wrote.

    This is a great insight. The sick and the elderly are easy to overlook especially because they don’t get out of doors as often. But information travels quickly over the Net, and unless one is a hermit, one is active on Facebook or blogging or some web-community. This network becomes a way for people to keep up with you. This happened to a friend of mine who has breast cancer.  It is convenient to have people check her blog for the latest anecdote. Web communities and blogging tools allow for more introspection than we used to have. Before that  we had poetry and prayer and churches and hospital socializing.

    1/4 of boys in Indonesia between 13 and 15, Margie Mason reports:

    As smoking has declined in many Western countries, it has risen in Indonesia — about 63 percent of all men light up and one-third of the overall population smokes, an increase of 26 percent since 1995. Smoking-related illnesses kill at least 200,000 annually in a nation of 235 million

    …

    "If Kelly Clarkson goes ahead with the concert, she is by choice being a spokesman for the tobacco industry and helping them to market to children," said Matt Myers, president of the U.S.-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has urged Clarkson to drop the sponsorship.

    "She has the power now to turn this situation around and to send a clear message to Indonesian young people and, frankly, to the young people of the world."

  • What percent of Americans have health coverage from their employer?

    Here are some statistics which I found in an October 2009 report from the Economic Policy Institute (available only in PDF).  A cautionary note: a lot of the percentages depend on knowing exactly what category is being spoken abo0ut. All of the statistics are about working-age Americans under 65 unless otherwise specified.

    In 2008, 62% of Americans (working & not working)  had health insurance with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI).  The percent decreased from 2000 where it was 68%.

    But in 2008,  70% of all employed   Americans  between 18-64  had ESI.

    Source of insurance coverage for people under 65 in 2008 :

    • employer insurance 62%
    • individually-purchased insurance 6.5%
    • public insurance   20%
    • No insurance  17%

    In Texas, working-age Texans with ESI was 59% in 2000 and 52% in 2008

    In 2008, 74% of full time workers had ESI; 51% of part-time workers do.

    Characteristics of uninsured workers in 2008 by income:

    • 39% were in the bottom 20% of income
    • 27% were in 20-40% range of income
    • 16% were in the 40-60% range of income
    • 9.5 were in 60-80% range of income
    • 7.4% were in  the top 20% range of income

    In 2008, out of the uninsured, 75% are working full time; 25% are part-timers or unemployed.

    In 2008, 55% of full time workers with only a high school education had ESI (a drop of 10% since 2000)
    In 2008, 79% of full timers with college degrees had ESI (a drop of 3% since 2000)

    Economic Policy Institute summarizes:

    One of the clearest indicators of the deepening recession is the unemployment rate. In 2007, the most recent peak year, the unemployment rate was 4.6%. Average unemployment rose modestly to 5.8% in 2008. The unemployment rate this year is expected to average 9.3% and reach 10.2% in 2010 (CBO 2009). This dramatic increase in unemployment over this recession is one of the worst on record (Shierholz 2009).

    While employer-sponsored health insurance remains the predominant form of health coverage for the under-65 population, when people lose their jobs, they often lose access to their health insurance. Therefore, the modest declines in ESI from 2007 to 2008 are likely to be exacerbated in the future by the sharp rise in unemployment from 2008 to 2009 and 2010. Research has shown that a 1.0 percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 0.9 to 1.0 percentage-point decline in the share of the under-65 population with ESI (Holahan and Garrett 2009; Cawley and Simon 2003).

    The under-65 rate of employment-based coverage was 61.9% in 2008, down 1.0 percentage points from 2007. It can be expected that the ESI coverage will drop another 3.2 to 3.5 percentage points in 2009 and nearly another point in 2010. These projections suggest that by 2010, another 10 million fewer people under 65 will have their employer-sponsored health insurance.

    While not one-for-one, a drop in ESI coverage is strongly associated with a rise in the number of uninsured Americans, only lessened by increases in public coverage (particularly among children). Using an association found between unemployment and the uninsured detailed in Gruber and Levitt (2002), it is predicted that the current number of nonelderly uninsured will be at least 50 million by years end and may rise another million in 2010.

  • Just the facts, Ma’am (Facts to enlighten our political discourse)

    Bruce Bartlett on the actual IRS rates vs. perceived rates:

    According to the CBO, the highest figure for all federal taxes since 1970 came in the year 2000, when they reached 20.6% of GDP. As we know, after that George W. Bush and Republicans in Congress cut federal taxes; they fell to 18.5% of GDP in 2007, before the recession hit, and 17.5% in 2008.

    Tuesday’s Tea Party crowd, however, thought that federal taxes were almost three times as high as they actually are. The average response was 42% of GDP and the median 40%. The highest figure recorded in all of American history was half those figures: 20.9% at the peak of World War II in 1944.

    To follow up, Tea Partyers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710, the median $10,000. In percentage terms this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.

    Of course, it’s hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.

    But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one’s gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one’s tax burden further.

    According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.

    Even though the Tea Partyers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it’s possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.

    To be fair to the Tea Party dimwits, these taxes are paid to the same source (IRS); it’s not easy distinguishing Social Security from IRS taxes if both come out of your paycheck. Adding to this perception are state-based taxes, which take the form of sales-taxes and property taxes. In Texas, the sales tax in my district is 8.25%. Contract workers are used to paying 16% off their income (which combines Social Secure/Medicare/IRS), so if you throw the rest of the taxes in, it’s not unreasonable to guess it being over 25%.  Also, I’d be curious about how much higher the rates are if your household income is closer to 100,000.

    After Obama’s announcement that the East Coast would be potentially open for offshore drilling, here are estimates about how it will affect the oil supply from EIA:

    … access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

    Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower 48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030, a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet. However, natural gas production from the lower 48 offshore in 2030 is projected to be 18 percent (590 billion cubic feet) higher in the OCS access case (Figure 21). In 2030, the OCS access case projects a decrease of $0.13 in the average wellhead price of natural gas (2005 dollars per thousand cubic feet), a decrease of 250 billion cubic feet in imports of liquefied natural gas, and an increase of 360 billion cubic feet in natural gas consumption relative to the reference case projections. In addition, despite the increase in production from previously restricted areas after 2012, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected generally to decline after 2020.

    After a family member forwarded a bogus rant about the unconstitutionality of health care reform, I found that the Wyden amendment specifically allows states to opt-out and devise their own solution. It states:

    b) Granting of Waivers-
    (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary may grant a request for a waiver under subsection (a)(1) only if the Secretary determines that the State plan—
    (A) will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive as the coverage defined in section 1302(b) and offered through Exchanges established under this title as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services based on sufficient data from the State and from comparable States about their experience with programs created by this Act and the provisions of this Act that would be waived;
    (B) will provide coverage and cost sharing protections against excessive out-of-pocket spending that are at least as affordable as the provisions of this title would provide;
    (C) will provide coverage to at least a comparable number of its residents as the provisions of this title would provide; and
    (D) will not increase the Federal deficit.

    Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse piles on. Igor Volsky speculates that Scalia has already made up his mind about the constitutionality issue.

    In other news, the House of Commons exonerates Alex Jones of any ethical or professional wrongdoing with the CRU hacked emails. IPCC’s Pachauri is cleared of financial wrongdoing and (a while back) Michael Mann is vindicated (and so is his hockey stick data). Funny, these spurious charges all made the front page of the NYT website; where are the retractions?  I expect the same lame hockey stick criticism to keep getting recycled for the next century.

  • Shallowness of Sunday talk shows

    I noticed that mediamatters is now  factchecking the statements made on  the Sunday talk shows. I don’t know how hard this is, but it’s extremely convenient to have this as a reference.  Up until recently, TV commentary was provided only on Sunday talk shows. Now with 24 hour cable, we have news commentary shows that appear in Prime Time.  The fact that political shows seem to be successful at prime time or late night on weeknights indicates how politicized a country we have become. 

    Steve Benen comments on the shallowness of Sunday Talk shows:

    ABC’s "This Week" held its usual roundtable discussion this morning, with Elizabeth Vargas hosting a panel of Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, George Will, and Paul Krugman.

    The last topic of conversation was introduced by Vargas this way:

    "[O]f course, this weekend, we have a brand-new White House social secretary appointed to replace Desiree Rogers, a close friend of the Obamas who is exiting after a bumpy tenure, I would say. Cokie, you spoke with her. She — she was highly criticized after the Obamas’ first state dinner in which she arrived, looking absolutely gorgeous, but in what some people later said was far too fancy a dress, but most importantly, that was the state dinner that was crashed by the Salahis, who walked in without an invitation when the social secretary’s office didn’t have people manning the security sites."

    This led to a surprisingly long chat about Desiree Rogers.

    Krugman sat silently while the discussion went on (and on), before eventually interjecting:

    "Can I say that 20 million Americans unemployed, the fact that we’re worrying about the status of the White House social secretary….

    Donaldson responded, "Paul, welcome to Washington."

    Steve Benen comments:

    But this panel discussion covered exactly four subjects this morning: health care reform, Charlie Rangel’s ethics problem, David Paterson’s latest troubles, and the fate of the former White House social secretary (and where she’s from, what her clothes looked like, what her next job is likely to be, etc.), which hardly seems relevant to anyone who doesn’t actually attend social events at the White House.

    In this same discussion, there was nothing about the jobs bill that passed the Senate this week, nothing about the incredibly important Zazi guilty plea this week (and the fact that it makes Republican talking points look ridiculous), nothing about Jim Bunning single-handedly delaying unemployment insurance for those who need it.

     

    (Wow, am I the only one who missed the fact that Zazi plead guilty!?

    The people at Washington Monthly have funny observations about this exchange:

    Donaldson responded, "Paul, welcome to Washington."

    Longer Sam Donaldson: "Washington is a fundamentally unserious place, completely removed from and uncaring about the problems afflicting ordinary Americans. Deal with it."

    ***

    The Sunday morning talk show is the Washington Beltway Establishment on parade. In no other place can you expect to see a party now controlled by its radical fringes, where elected Republican lawmakers are no longer in charge of their party must instead take orders from their far right factions, cable news broadcasters and talk radio demagogues. And yet they are still treated as royalty on these shows, fully the equal with Democrats who have won the past two elections.

    There is an unspoken code on these shows, and one of them is not to notice that Republicans have completely lost their minds. Watching insiders like David Gregory and George Stephanopolous preside over these farces you really start to believe that Washington has become another Court of Versailles.

    ***

    "Hey Krugman! Here’s a Nobel Prize in Shut Yer Mouth!"

    ***

    This is just standard high school stuff. The popular kids let one of the brainy nerds (Krugman, Maddow) sit at their table, but the eggheads always wanna talk about boring ol’ policy instead of wailing on the unpopular girl’s clothes and hair. "Welcome to Washington" = Like, what-ever.

    ***

    "Paul, welcome to Washington."

    Google Translate:

    "Paul, most of us can’t even get our kids into Princeton, much less teach there. We rise through sycophancy and ingratiation, and we assume that, being trivial ourselves, that the rest of the world is not. We don’t consciously try to create a tableau vivant from the pages of Laclos–or unconsciously either; for people like us, "Dangerous Liaisons" is that movie where Uma Thurman takes her top off. So go back to New Jersey and worry about the little people, while we go off to Sally’s brunch."

    ***

    "I wonder, who was the target audience for the discussion of Desiree Rogers…"

    The same as the audience for the Rangel and Paterson stories–namely, people who enjoy hearing about black people screwing up.

    I no longer watch the Sunday talk shows. (Wolf Blitzer does a good job – if you can stand the commercials). Fareed Zakaria’s GPS is by far the most cerebral shows out there. I just love how occasionally CNN will give a prime spot to someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

    Let me see. What is my multimedia news diet these days?

    • PBS Newshour (occasionally, but especially Friday with Shields & Brooks)
    • Washington Week in Review (smart reporters give the inside scoop on everything)
    • Bill Moyers (still the best; see also NOW on PBS).
    • Best of the Left podcast… Takes snippets from the political satire and commentary shows.
    • Fareed Zakaria’s GPS
    • McLaughlin Report. This retro program features blowhards from all political sides. What I like about it is 1)it lets me hear the loony rightwing talking point of the week (which I would otherwise miss). I sometimes learn a lot of things about political culture – for example that lots of conservatives still deny global warming as a reality. 2)Jim McLaughlin is good at identifying the next big hot issues. I always learn a few new things each time I watch, and it’s not only the extent of right-wing foolishness.
    • Paul Solman Economic Reports on PBS News hour. He’s the best, and frankly, he is good at bridging the gap between academic discussion and concerns of the common man.
    • Red, White & Blue, a Texas political talk show.
    • From Our Own Correspondent, a BBC behind-the-scenes 1st person narrative about the major and not-so-major news stories.