Wow, what a treat on this morning’s CSPAN. A Bush sighting! The petulant chimp threw this dingleberry at Congress: “I ask Congress to provide this essential funding for our troops, before they leave on this Christmas vacation.” Again, the old “pass this bill and you can go home” ploy.  Haha, like that’s going to work. Oh wait….Shit. Does government really function this way? Does this happen in civilized countries? Would this make George Washington puke out his mythical wooden teeth? My head hurts.  

Slain NFL star a ‘homebody,’ girlfriend says, 
Feds: Cop burned husband’s child porn, 
Holloway parents to meet Aruban prosecutor, 
Newton: Johnny Carson was ‘mean-spirited’ 
Body found in search for Internet porn star

This is ourrrrrrr countryyyy. These are some “headlines” taken from the current CNN scroll. It’s usually worse than this (at least the Turkish plane crash is on the cover), but the scroll is a pretty good list of sex/violence/celeb stories that’ll never affect you. Unless of course you were into that porn star. In which case condolences to the nth degree (hopefully you have some tissues left for tear-drying). The ‘Hot Topics’ Bar looks something like this: ‘Teddy Bear’ Teacher • Sean Taylor • Writers’ Strike • CNN/YouTube Debate

I don’t want to go into a cliché diatribe against the mainstream media. But Christ. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. This is ridiculous.

How the hell did it get so bad? I’m only 22, but I remember an era (currently sliding into my E-Z fit pants and beige crocs) when Turner’s newscycle didn’t make you want to drink a cyanide cocktail. Take a peek at a news alert, and instantly feel revolted. At your own culture. At what we’re representing. At how our information “beacons” are one part fatuous, one part macabre (usually in a weird sexual way).

But this isn’t going to be a rant. As corny as that sounds, if we don’t all hope for something better, we’ll never get it. So I’m hoping that we’ll never, ever, have to hear another smear against the sainted Johnny Carson. Just kidding. I’m holding out for The Great American Cable Television News Network. Is a reputable mainstream news channel an impossible dream? I doubt it. If we can have the TV food network (dropping in quality in a CNNesque manner, by the way), we can have a great news channel. And I don’t mean a liberal “counterpoint” to Fox propaganda. I mean a trenchant conveyance of important current events. And by that I mean a liberal counterpoint to Fox propaganda.

PBS doesn’t count. Don’t even give me that shit (slipping out of E-Z fit pants, kicking off crocs, turning PS3 on). Though there is quality content, the station got flooded by putrid pundits (I love how “pundit” has replaced “bureaucrat” as the code word for “douche bag” these days). Now, when I want my comforting old people news, I have to suffer though David Brooks (Dude’s got the same initials as “douche bag.” Coincidence?). The hot air from Jim Leher’s show could assuage our mayoral tryst-sized heating bills. A saving grace, given that I often feel the vicarious cold grip of death whenever I see too many olden person commercials on network news (Geritol, anyone?).

So I’ve watched enough CNN. MSNBC has some flashes (Olbermann, Olbermann, Olbermann) but it often fails (Tucker Bowtie). Wait. This wasn’t supposed to be a diatribe. Dammit. Anyway, while CNN was burying the recent Rudy scandal(senior foreign hater Lou Dobbs dismissed it all as political assassination and moved on to pimping the Youtube “debate”), I was praying for a better TV option. While 360 degrees of vacuous white-haired pomposity prattled on about the infamous Gay general, I was kind of wishing for an actually distinguished anchor. How will it happen? I have no fucking clue.

Seems another Berkeley blogger has issues with CNN, but for very different reasons. To all parties, CNN’s about as attractive as Larry King in a speedo (will he hurry up and die already, by the way?).

A break from politics to appreciate the greatest man alive…Oh, Stephen. After reading this, I feel inspired. Many players fall off the national consciousness a mere half-decade post retirement. Quickly, they are forgotten altogether. We see the legions of good players in blurred, grainy narratives. The narratives are about guys like Chamberlain or MJ–not dudes like Charles Oakley or Sam Cassell. And certainly not dudes like Stephen Jackson. God I hope we don’t forget about Jack. There’s something about him that transcends basketball. It’s almost as if he embodies the spirit of the East Bay. The tough guy. The underdog. The “misunderstood” eccentric. Who better to represent Oakland than a loveable nutcase who constantly teeters on the precipice of violent eruption?

I don’t mean to make violence seem endearing. But his lack of common sense is just so damned loveable. Jack’s more benign outbursts (non-violent referee squabbles, mostly) have such a child-like petulance to them. When you see that pleading, crazed grimace… Well, it’s impossible to really hate the guy. Ironically, only Tim Duncan has a similar aura when it comes to call-arguing. His questionable forays into packed lanes, his bad shots at the beginning of possessions, these are the things that would make you hate a player. Jack somehow rises above the bad decisions. Paradoxically, they seem to almost fuel his unique game. The lack of common sense befuddles the opponent. If Jack folds on pocket aces, then what the hell is he going to do next?

And like Baron, he has a rare ability to feed off a crowd. In the Bruce Lee spirit, Jackson is not one to think–he’s one to feel. SJ tapped into Oracle’s crazed spirit en route to hitting a gazillion consecutive robotic threes against the Mavericks. Maybe I’m getting a bit hyperbolic here, but that game was one of the most awesome experiences of my life.

Well Jack has played a big part in keeping me attached to the NBA. David Stern’s senility threatens to destroy everything I love about the game, but this Warriors team is a reminder of why I fell for basketball in the first place. The squad’s spontaneity, charisma, and character would not exist without the Strip Club Shooter. As a UCB student, I should be lauding the efforts of Nobel laureates. Screw that, I’ve found few famous figures more compelling. It’s why we dumbly incorporated him into a fucking political cartooning website. Thanks, Stephen. You make the Bay proud. We won’t forget ya anytime soon.

This was originally posted at the most unstoppable website of all time.

A big high-five goes out to James A. Thomson. The man is credited for single-handedly ending the war on embryonic stem-cell research. (Although, it shouldn’t be overlooked that he was the one who started the moral debate in 1998 when he first experimented on human embryos. But hey, even spider-man killed someone in his early days.) Now, only human skin cells are needed for stem cells, and we’ve got a whole layer of that.

“A decade from now, this will be just a funny historical footnote.”

Think about it: No more embryonic stem-cell research and no more moral ambiguity. Christian fundamentalists can stop lamenting over could-have-been babies. Stem-cell research can reach unrestricted heights. U.S. Presidential candidates can stop sweating about scientific knowledge. Everyone wins, right? Wrong, at least for now.

    The debate on embryonic stem-cell research is arguably one of only two science-related issues for U.S. Presidential candidates. (It plays second fiddle to global warming.) Truth be told, it’s not even a debate—most candidates supported embryonic stem-cell research as long as it is within reasonable limits. But with Thomson’s new findings, we just might see stem cells disappear from political agendas for good.

    Let’s hope not. Science seems to be increasingly marginalized, and this is bound to lead to unknown dangers. Remember, it was only recently that we realized global warmingis real (and many people still don’t believe it). Worst yet, nanotechnology is slowlyclimbing the things-that-could-kill-you ladder. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a Presidential candidate to know his/her science, and sadly, we just might lose one of the two qualifiers. Sorry, James A. Thomson, but I’ll take that high-five back.

Yes, Roger Cohen. Bush and Palestinian quasi leader Salam Fayyad should relate over Salam’s University of Texas roots. Solution city is around the coroner! Wait, I’m sorry. I meant “corner.” I think.

Never mind that Annapolis is probably a sham conference—one meant to turn Syria and Iran against each other. Much as I wish the cynical Syrian alliance façade were a crazy conspiracy theory, Bush admin mouthpiece David Brooks said exactly that on Jim Leher’s snooze button. I posted it before, but what the hell. Once more, David. With feeling:

“This is about trying to build a coalition against Iran. If they can turn Syria, make it more anti-Iranian. That could be a big win.”

Ugh. But hey, let’s be optimistic. This conference can only end well, man. All the pundits seem to think Annapolis a good thing. They’re reasonably positing that Bush hasn’t meddled enough in Islamic countries. He’s like Steve Erkel in a room full of porcelain dominos. Let’s turn him loose and see what happens! Perhaps, Bush will get lucky this time because God knows, the man is due. So let us optimistically follow Roger Cohen’s vague outline for peace as best we can.

Step 1: Bond with Salam Fayyad over some kind of Texas thing:

Fayyad: Meester Buush, how I love drive thru liquor stores! And titty bars! We don’t have enough of them een the West Bank, my friend!

Bush: Hehe. Yer my kinda guy, Sal-AM. Maybe this peace thing can work after all…ya amusing brown rascal. You sure you ain’t Mexican?

Step 2: Preach moderation, moderation, moderation:

Bush: To moderation!

Fayyad: Go Longhorns!

Abbas: Down with Hamas! And by that I mean let’s all pretend they don’t run Gaza.

Saudis: Down with Iran! Up with oil prices!

Syrians: Um, how much more of this till we get the Golan Heights back? We’ll say anything. Seriously, we’ll say Hezbollah sold nukes to Iran. Whatever man, we just really really want our strategic military area back.

Step 3: Steer the Palestinians away from victim-tripping.

Bush: I don’t believe in the soft bigotry of not believin’ Ayrabs can’t not adopt our ways and culture and Christian lord. Now, ya’ll aint victims, so stop actin’ like it! Aint that right, Condi?

Rice: Well sir, I would put it a bit differently… But yes, you have a point.

Fayyad: You’re right, grand Western leaders. Victimhood is bad. Like every former World Bank employ, I understand that a nation fails because the people in it are miserable failures. External forces, such as, say, the World Bank—an organization that theoretically should externally improve nations—has no impact.

Step 4: Make Israel concede something like a settlement freeze. This should be very easy.

Olmert: Oof, (crunching food), mmm, oh wow. This spread is AMAZING. Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m drunk. Who wants the Golan Heights? Anybody? What about Jerusalem? Wooo!!!

Step 5: Put pressure on the Israelis to actually stick to what they promise.

Olmert: Ughhhhhhh (rolls out of bed). Oh god, my brain. That Annapolis conference was too wild. It’s like there’s an audit in my head, and everyone’s invited. Wait (looks at a wrinkled, booze-stained generous two state agreement). Oh fuck! Condi, get out of my bed. We got some work to undo!

From Thomas Friedman: “The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region.”

Hmm, the domino theory again.

But I feel Friedman on this one. We cannot succumb to the jihadist. And the way to beat him is simple: Use all our steadfastness and resolve to militarily turn Iraq into a democratic utopia. If we don’t, the consequences are dire. The terrorists will “set up shop in Iraq”, and get nuclear weapons from Iran. THEY will then drag their nukes across the Mexican border (the sneaky bastards will be wearing sombreros presumably). And THEY will blow up Los Angeles. After which THEY’ll dance on the Arab Street. THEY’ll hit their women with more vigor. And worst of all, THEY’ll laugh.

THEY. Must. Be. Stopped. But how, but how? Well let me tell you a little something about a thing I’d like to call “Modernization.” See, we just have to introduce the Iraqis to our better way of life (this is best done by sending non-Arabic speaking American kids over there to shoot at arbitrary targets), and wham! Wait. That “wham” was actually an IED explosion (looking at watch, pacing). And wham! Democratic sweeping utopian Constitutional Convention amazingness.

A beacon of light shall flood the sun-bleached dunes of MiddleIranabia. They’ll learn how to be just like us. Just like us, I say! With pigtails and popcorn and “Girls Gone Wild” tapes (can you just imagine the freaky porn these people will come up with?!).

Now, some might argue that taking in refugees would be an effective way of spreading modern Western betterness. Those naïve fools would get us all killed. You see, these people, we want to help them. But we don’t necessarily trust them. They could be THEM. There could be a jihadist in THEIR ranks. We can never really know with these savages. Did I say savages? Oh, I meant the slightly misled people whose plight we’ve worried over from the start. After all, we did this for them. Not ourselves.

Unfortunately, many a granola-munching closet homosexual wants to get in the way. NPR McDoonesberry wants to bitch about how this has gone on longer than World War II, about how there seems to be no real plan. Would ya grow up, people?! That attitude is not the answer. It won’t convince us that we’re winning, and it certainly won’t convince THEM that we’re convincing ourselves that we’re winning. Be serious, you crazy Jane Fondas!

But back to the dire consequences. Oh man, they’re truly awful. If Iraq should descend into chaos, it wouldn’t look like every other third world shit farm we ceased caring about in the post Cold War era. No, no, no, it’d be a painful reminder of how “we lost.” Sure, they would have to deal with the death and all. But the malaise America would suffer through. It boggles the mind how bummed out we’d be about this whole defeat thing. Plus we’d be worried since Iraq would become a terrorist beacon. We don’t know much about terrorism, but we do know that an Iraq loss will mean another terrorist attack from THEM.

So that’s where we find ourselves. If we pull out, THEY will attack us. If we stay, they will adopt our ways and spread democracy throughout “the region.” Just remember, it takes awhile. The American Revolution took years, and it aint perfect (we still have travesties like Social Security and Medicare!). Give Bush more money, please.

David Brooks again. He was on The Newshour With Jim Leher, being a pundit (”So David, a giant meteor is about to hit Philadelphia and it will destroy Western Civilization as we know it. What will this mean for the Edwards campaign?”).

Brooks was asked about the upcoming Mid-East peace talks in Annapolis and he said,

“This is about trying to build a coalition against Iran. If they can turn Syria, make it more anti-Iranian. That could be a big win.”

Um, this is how we conduct peace talks now? By turning volatile nations against each other? I naively thought this get together was about peace between Israel and Palestine. That’s what the talks were supposedly focused on. Apparently, we’re preparing for WWIII brinksmanship, and we can thank smirking pundits like DB for helping us along the way.

(Editors Note: We did the research, and I’m apparently the only PBS news watcher under the age of 40.)