The Invisible Counterpoint

Many of you probably watched the famous Jon Stewart "smackdown" of -- in particular -- Tucker Carlson on Crossfire. I knew then that the primary crime Tucker was guilty of was possessing too much personality (his punchy bow-tie, pink shirts, buoyant, boyish hair), self-determination / initiative (he is famous for being the ostensible conservative who did the non-permissable, the treasonous, in accurately reporting the extent of Bush's "potty-mouth.") at a time when Stewart's accrued fame and true power had accumulated to the point where his maternal alter would hereafter determine his course, telling him to activate to suppress / destroy those who most closely represent his own desire for full autonomy / actualization and satisfaction. Stewart and Colbert still now strike me as the type liberals will look 
to to ensure a guilt-free purity crusade. Ostensibly, what they 
champion is sanity, reasoned discourse, but what they are against is 
uncur...

The Democrats, as usual, are still fighting the internecine party battles of the '90s. While Jerry Brown struggles with the 1992 presidential primaries out in California, Bill Clinton is attacking a prominent liberal critic and defending his legacy of triangulation. At a joint appearance with former British prime minister and warmonger Tony Blair, Clinton complained about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (without naming her) for, basically, telling the truth about his presidency. (Alex Pareene, “Bill Clinton peeved that Rachel Maddow called him a Republican,” Salon, 14 Sept. 2010) Chelsea I foremost think of Republicans as emotionally-neutered individuals. Subdued blues; nothing bright, pink, and affecting. As such, Maddows and Obama (and Jon Stewart / Colbert) feel more Republican to me than do either of the Clintons. Take a look at who they begat: bright, spunky, welcoming Chelsea: the Democratic essence stirs in them. Too bad they had their reign when they could only reign, R...

I still don't understand why the right is giving O any public praise for this. I would've expected the right to quietly toast and gloat, but continue its public criticism of of O and the Oslo speech on whatever trivial or manufactured grounds it could come up with. I don't see what the right gains tactically from publicly praising a Dem prez for a war speech, when the Repubs have gotten so much mileage for decades on asserting ownership of national security. Someone 'splain, please? (ironwood, response to post, “The strange consensus on Obama’s Nobel address, Glenn Greenwald, 11 Dec. 2009) Left vs. right is in a process of re-sorting into war-craving, sacrifice desiring, and the genuinely peaceful. The war-craving understand that Obama is the right cover to legitimize sadism on a scale that Bush could never accomplish, owing to his whole aesthetic seeming about 20 years out of date. For many Republicans, Obama is the new Israel, in a way; and the left that just cannot...

As Tucker Carlson pointed out in the famous "this'll be the end of Crossfire, episode of Crossfire," Jon Stewart has had his days of kissing noteworthy guests' asses, of being a bit too "I'm not worthy," too. But he's now King, takes no shit, but has become, also, something of an unempathic terror. If Cramer reforms, and starts hunting corporate heads' heads, to get him some of that "my opponent is so awful that self-criticism is now optional" heaven, that Stewart comports on, I'm fairly sure the world will not be the better for it. There is real goodness and strength in Cramer (as there is in Stewart), and it is a crime for Stewart to not have shown somewhere in his interview that he senses this in him, too. The way he did it, Cramer will be that much more inclined to pay it all back on some other appropriately set-up unfortunate. He should have realized that something about the situation was making the normally feisty Cramer b...