Because this is now a respectable web magazine, it is my obligation to keep you as informed as the mainstream media. That is why they have all that privilege stuff, right? At any rate, here goes with the hard hitting news that makes my opinion really count:
1.) Sharks are predatory animals that eat meat. They have large teeth, a keen sense for blood, and they reside in the water. They are generally attracted to things they can eat, and thus, it is dangerous to swim where they are looking for food. I know this sounds like common sense, and two people who are bitten when swimming in shark infested waters is hardly worthy of a lot of attention, but this picture is really scary:
That could be you, so clearly we should talk about this every hour for the next two months. Here are some tips on how to not be turned into tuna helper, including this one:
“Avoid areas where sharks are known to be present “
How to tell? Easy- if you see a big fin, hear funny music that goes Du-Duhmp every few seconds, or if you feel your leg being ripped from your body and replaced with a large pool of blood, there is a shark present. Immediately get out of the area.
2.) Some people are itinerant fucktards. Ward Churchill is one of them. Ignore him, and if someone is dumb enough to email you ten times asking what you think of him and why you aren’t writing about him, instead of recoiling at the stupidity of the question, simply say “Ward Churchill is an itinerant fucktard.”
3.) Puppies are cute. Stealing puppies is uncool. That is why MSNBC has this hidden video of puppies being stolen as the top US News story of the day.
4.) Somewhere in America, a pretty white girl is missing. Film at 11.
That should about wrap up our news coverage for the day.
Mike S
Will you be sending a coraspondent to Aruba?
Nathan Lanier
Cats get pregnant. . .
demimondian
Let me add the most important point of the day: Ward Churchill is an ignorant, objectively pro-fascist moron. How he ever got tenure is beyond me — his work has been of consistently poor quality over the years.
Nevertheless, he is tenured, so the University should retain him. We are a nation of laws and contracts — as well as a nation of ignorant fuckards — and the law is clear. In the light of his exalted status, however, I think that there are some steps the University should do to improve his working conditions.
(1) Given the high quality of his contributions to the community, he shuld be offered extra chances to lecture. I think that there is clearly a demand for him to lecture at least five hours a day during each school day.
(2) In order to give him a chance to appear more often in the media, his lectures should be scheduled to coincide with news broadcasts: the 10 pm Rocky Mountain time newscast, the 10:39 PM Rocky Mountain time newscast, the 11 pm Pacific time newscase, and so on. That way, his clear need to public display will be maximally satisfied.
(3) Given his clear identification with the poor and oppressed in this world, I strongly suggest that Prof. Churchill be offerred the opportunity to clean hiw own building. After all, Ward would certainly not want to exploit the working folk of Colorado so appallingly. Cleaning the Dept. of Indian Studies toilets every night will give him something to do while he gives his lectures.
Brian
Ya know, I’m bored of Ward Churchill. I’ll give $10 to anyone who can prove they ever heard of the guy before he became a bloggy bete noir. Seriously. If, indeed, he really exists and isn’t some sort of Jeff Gannonesque media construct. I wonder if you could trace his paychecks back to Rove if you had the resources of the FBI, IRS, and NSA handy.
Anyway, let’s cut a deal.
Democrats = Ward Churchill
IF you’ll allow
Republicans = Fred Phelps
John Cole
Fred Phelps is a Democrat.
Hokie
But the really important question is, have any celebrities gone on trial recently?
Sojourner
Phelps is a Democrat just like Zell Miller is.
John Cole
You mean as registered, lifelong members of the Democratic party?
Look- no one is saying Phelps is embracing thecurrent Demcratic ideal. I was just pointing out thsat Dobson or Falwell might be a better example.
dlnevins
But you can’t wrap up your news coverage yet! You haven’t discussed a single sensationalized trial. I know the whole Micahel Jackson thing is passe now, but surely there must be SOME other riveting (but ultimately irrelevant in the larger scheme of things) trial in progress somewhere in this country you could waste some bandwidth on (solely for the edification of your readers, of course).
jcricket
Dear Editor,
Thank you for returning to the appropriate mix of coverage.
– j
PS. Where are the pictures of Tom & Katie? My copy of your web-magazine seems to have been delivered without those. Can you re-send me a copy with all the pages?
Jon H
I think that girl in Aruba passed out drunk on the beach and was snatched by SEALs in order to create a weeks-long media distraction.
No, not really.
scs
You know, I understand that the media goes a little overboard in the missing white girl department, however, I still don’t think it needs to be treated like a joke. Maybe the media is just picking up on the incredible amount of violence towards women in this country and the world, and reporting it in some vane attempt to learn about it. I know that’s why I watch it.
Jon H
If I may go off-topic for a moment…
The Bush administration’s tin ear seems to still be in effect.
The new domestic intelligence group is named the “National Security Service”, or NSS.
“The service will operate within the FBI and combine the disparate assets of the Justice Department’s counterterrorism, intelligence and espionage units. The changes consolidate Negroponte’s power.”
I dunno, maybe it’s just me. But that just has an unpleasant ring to it. I’d rather not have security services named anything close to “SS”.
It’s like the weird watching eye logo that they wanted to use.
Jon H
“Maybe the media is just picking up on the incredible amount of violence towards women in this country and the world, and reporting it in some vane attempt to learn about it.”
Well, only violence against white women.
The irony about the runaway bride is that, if she weren’t white, the media wouldn’t have cared, and the city wouldn’t have spent all that time and money looking for her. So they wouldn’t have anything to complain about when she turned up alive.
Then again, the New Mexico police probably would have thrown the book at her if she was black or hispanic. And she certainly wouldn’t have the book deal. So I guess it’s a wash.
Dave Ruddell
Do I misremember, or were the two biggest stories in the early and mis summer of 2001 a missing white girl (Chandra Levy) and shark attacks?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Well here goes nothing…
I agree with much of what Churchill had to say about the September 11th attacks–it was our foreign policy of the last 30 years that brought about the attacks, however this latest comment is not only appalling, it is crossing the line.
While it may be free speech, I believe Churchill should lose his job for making this new comment.
TM
This is a great chart comparing lightning strikes/deaths to shark attacks/deaths. I don’t understand why the media isn’t all over this lightning thing. It seems to me that God doling out punishment would be at least as exciting as monster sharks.
I can’t seem to find the stats at the moment, but I’ve also seen comparison to those vicious killers of the animal world — deer. Talk about suicide bombers! These crazy animals kill 10-20 times as many people as sharks in the U.S. every year by launching themselves through our windshields. This CNN article gives a little perspective, although I’ve seen more in-depth comparisons.
Doug
Oh boy, don’t get me started on deer. They’re stealthy vermin who lie in wait during my dawn and dusk travels down back roads to and from work. So far my reflexes have been quick enough to foil their plots. But one day, their suicide tactics are going to ruin my car.
John Cole
There is an easy solution for deer overpopulation.
They are, after all, tasty.
nyrev
Shark’s pretty tasty, too.
Yum!
JPS
Disenfranchised Voter:
“I agree with much of what Churchill had to say about the September 11th attacks–it was our foreign policy of the last 30 years that brought about the attacks….”
Just curious, when al Qaeda-aligned Sunni fanatics shoot up or blow up Shiite mosques in Pakistan–as they do with some frequency–what’s your reasoning for how the Shiites brought the atrocity about?
Kimmitt
Apples and oranges — we’re a superpower, so no matter what happens, we had the power to affect it. That’s one of the reasons one bothers to become a superpower, to have the ability to affect the world.
JPS
Is your comment meant in response to mine, Kimmitt?
I ask because I agree with you, but the corollary to that is that because we affect the world so much, you can always make an argument that we had a hand in bringing about (or failing to bring about)…well, just about anything. It won’t always be helpful.
So I don’t find it very informative to say that our policies “brought about” 9/11. Have our policies been part of a chain of events that led to the attacks, and did they thus contribute in a causal sense to bringing about? Sure.
But whatever policy you might single about as causative, if we hadn’t done it, they’d have had another reason. Anyone in the way–including Pakistani Shiites, which is why I brought them up–is their enemy. They have a vision for how the world needs to be run, and it won’t ever come true as long as we’re around in any recognizable form, so whatever else we do or don’t do, we’re still going to be Enemy Number 1. That’s all I was getting at.
Kimmitt
But whatever policy you might single about as causative, if we hadn’t done it, they’d have had another reason.
Some of them, yes. I don’t think it’s true of all of them, though.
JPS
Kimmitt:
Can you elaborate? Not being polemical here; I’m interested to know which ones you have in mind.
[Also, for “single about,” of course read “single out.” Preview could be my friend, if I’d only let it.]
JPS
…or, Kimmitt, was my last question nonsensical?
I read “some of them” as meaning “some of our policies”, and wondered which ones you had in mind. But rereading the statement you were answering, my last “they” refers to people, so it occurs to me that you must have meant, some of those who want to attack us. (Obviously I don’t expect you to know their names!)
Sorry for any confusion; my fault.
Kimmitt
Nah, I was unclear, but you got what I was trying to say. S’cool.
The Disenfranchised Voter
JPS-
I by no means think the attack were justified, or that we deserved them. I do however think our foreign policy, particularlly in the middle east, was the catalist for the attacks and anyone who understands the history of the middle east and our foreign policy towards it would agree.
If you disagree, I suggest you do some research. People don’t kill themselves for no good reason. Clearly these people are pissed off, and it isn’t because “They hate freedom” and much as Resident dumbass would like you to believe that.
JPS
Thanks, Kimmitt.
TDV:
“I by no means think the attack were justified, or that we deserved them.”
Why, I wouldn’t have thought you did. I make a distinction between being (partly or wholly) at fault for something in a cause-and-effect sense, and deserving the consequences, so I usually assume others do. You’d have to gloat a bit before I made that leap, and you didn’t.
“I do however think our foreign policy, particularlly in the middle east, was the catalist for the attacks.”
Mind if I expand on your metaphor? I am really not trying (and wouldn’t want) to be pedantic or snotty here, but I make catalysts for a living, and I really like this metaphor.
First, a catalyst lowers the barrier for a process that was going to have a tendency to happen anyway. It can make a slow process very fast, but it never changes the outcome: it doesn’t turn an unfavorable process into a favorable one.
Second, some chemical reactions need a very specific catalyst; without it, the barrier’s too high and they won’t happen at a rate we’d notice in our lifetimes. Others are catalyzed by a trace of acid or by a trace of base, and in the real world it’s exceptionally difficult to exclude all traces of both. In practice, the reaction will always find a catalyst, so it’ll always happen.
Yes, our policies are a catalyst, but the hatred of Islamist fanatics for the West has a way of finding a catalyst. Most alternative policies we could pursue would do just fine. Our very existence, I believe, is one. al Qaeda hated us just as much, and wanted us just as dead, when we were delivering food to starving Muslims as when we started taking the fight to al Qaeda havens; and they want you dead just as much as me.
They attacked Spain because of their support for us in Iraq, right? The Spanish elect a new PM who promises an immediate pullout. And al Qaeda plans follow-up attacks (which, fortunately, were thwarted). If it’s not Spain’s Iraq policy, it’s the Tragedy of Andalusia. If you read the threatening messages Zarqawi was putting out in Iraq before the elections, they said democracy itself was a fatal affront to their brand of Islam, and could not be tolerated. [P?]Resident dumbass may be simplistic, but on that point is a lot closer to being right than being wrong.
So please don’t suggest I do some research just because I don’t see things your way. People sometimes kill themselves for reasons I understand perfectly but still find loathsome. There’s no contradiction there. People sometimes get violently pissed off just for stupid pride. If you’ve ever been assaulted by someone you’ve never met and never bothered, except by getting their attention at the wrong moment, you know that just because someone’s really pissed off at you, doesn’t mean they have a reason that makes sense to anyone but them.
The Disenfranchised Voter
JPS–
If you don’t understand that the middle east hates us for valid reasons then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
You seem to be implying that they would hate us no matter what, i.e. they hate us because we are “beautiful”. Not only is that absurd, it is laughable.
Jaybird
The Middle East hates us for valid reasons?
I’m not sure that this is totally defensible.
“There are reasons to hate us that, if the Middle East adopted them, would be valid reasons” seems a much more defensible statement.
I go back to Osama’s :
He sure talks about Jews a lot. Jews, Jews, Jews.
The reason this particular group of guys hates us has to do with Jews.
(aside, my favorite part of the letter is where he explains what they want from us:
We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.
Out of curiosity, are the fact that we engage in these things valid reasons to hate us?)
Jews and sodomites seem to be a reason behind a great deal of the hatred for the US. Not as a theoretical “they hate us for our freedom!” wishy-washy defense but as an actual “What did the guy behind flying planes into towers say? Why does he hate us?” kinda thing.
He said why he hates us.
He hates us because of Jews and Homos.
Personally, I don’t see these as valid reasons.
JPS
TDV:
Hold your laughter. What I am not implying but directly stating, is that if we examined those of our policies that you might consider “at fault”, and changed them, there would still be Islamist fanatics trying to murder us on a very large scale.
And if you don’t understand that, then no, there is indeed no point in continuing this conversation.
But I do find this ironic: As (I’m assuming) fellow Americans, we most likely agree on a vast range of questions so settled they just don’t come up for argument. Now I don’t hate you or even wish you ill, yet you consider me too far gone to have a discussion with.
Whereas Islamist fanatics who share almost none of your assumptions on what a decent society means, and who because of that want you dead (yes, you too) are presumptively reasonable and rational people who wouldn’t be so angry without a valid reason, and if you can meet them partway in a spirit of honest self-examination, they won’t want to kill you anymore.
Sorry. Take away the valid reasons, and you’ll still have some invalid ones. Jaybird mentions some.