Idle threat of the week

During a week filled with religious celebration, it's only natural to encourage peace and harmony among mankind. Which is what two Internet heavyweights -- the guy who founded Wikipedia, and the guy who coined the nebulous phrase Web 2.0 -- are attempting to do with last week's call for manners in the Wild West world of Internet web logs.

Jimmy Wales and Tim O'Reilly are mulling over a series of proposals to clean up the blogosphere, which include banning anonymous comments on blogs and requiring bloggers to pledge to get a second source for gossip items before they hit the publish button.

While the panel of judges generally frowns upon anonymous commenters, more than one of us admitted that if we are having a bad day, instead of kicking our dogs, we get on the computer and call up a website -- let's say the Huffington Post -- and read the comment section. We find that after spending a few minutes shifting through the rants of vitriol we realize, however bad things might seem in our lives, we are infinitely better off than the guy who has been reduced to deriving his pleasure from directing screeds of hatred and dismemberment, anonymously, towards public figures, bloggers and other commenters he has no chance of meeting in his physical existence.

As for the proposal to get multiple sources for gossip: Whaaaaaaa? This from the guy who "invented" Web 2.0? What's next, a proposal requiring everyone to switch back to dial up? If you want carefully sourced, legally sound gossip check out US Weekly or the National Enquirer. You may have to wait a week, but your reward will be stale information which is slightly more accurate (and still gossip) than the Internet version.

High-mindedness may work in a Quaker Elementary school or in Sweden, but it has no place in the blogosphere. Just because we are rapidly expanding, it doesn't mean a sanitized blog world wouldn't bore people and push them towards other leisure activities, such as kite flying and pornography. Then it's out of the pajamas and back into the cruel world for many of us.

But it's nothing to worry about. A regulatory body for blogs stands about the same chance of succeeding as a ski resort in Texas.

And that's why Jimmy Wales and Tim O'Reilly can add Idle Threat of the Week for April 2nd to April 8th to their impressive cyber-resumes.

The perils of procreation and the presidency

I've noticed that certain segments of the blogsphere have noticed that Supreme Court Justice and law and order champion Antonin Scalia's adult daughter was recently arrested for DUI while driving from a McDonalds with her three children.

These days, the ever-expanding fringes of the virtual political landscape don't so much as bother to hide their schadenfreude when their "enemies" face any sort of hardship, family included.

While the message board crazies gleefully devised their best "hypocrisy" angle, I noted with awe Scalia has nine children. That's a lot of children. And when you have nine children there is a better than not chance at least one of them is going to be criminally irresponsible -- especially when tasty, tempting Big Macs are involved.

That got me thinking, is it a coincidence that the last two presidents have had just three children between them? You could even argue President Bush's two children were a botched attempt to have one child.

It wasn't always that way: Bush's equally presidential dad has five kids. Reagan had all sorts of children of differing mothers and biological status. Going back to the nineteen century, President John Tyler had 15 kids. In fact, they called Tyler the "accidental" president. (I'm sure if I looked into that I'd find it was for other reasons.)

But in these nasty political times, in this all-access environment of Facebook and The Smoking Gun, could it be that it's mo' children mo' problems when running for high office?

Now a childless presidential candidate wouldn't fly. And, as you can see, none of the major candidates are in that barren boat:

McCain 7 children
Romney 5 children
Edwards 3 children
Obama 2 children
Giuliani 2 children
Clinton 1 child

The early frontrunners are, of course, Clinton and Giuliani.

It should be no surprise the precisely programed Mrs. Clinton has the ideal number of child for modern political warfare -- and one that has gone through eight years of battle testing.

That Giuliani has kept himself to two is surprising, considering self-control is his perceived weakness. And no, Rudy never had any potentially compromised offspring with the second cousin he "mistakenly" made his first wife.

Remember, answering "jumping the shark has jumped the shark" is so 2002

While I was on vacation something very significant happened. On the virtual pages of Slate, Bruce Reed begged the question "Is our president French?"

He legitimizes the premise of his seemingly outrageous cyber-inquiry with a presidential summer-reading list led by Camus and something about Marie-Antoinettish tax cuts.

Clearly Reed jests -- but behind every joke is truth and behind every truth a deeper meaning.

In search of that meaning, I've drawn up a few questions of my own and arranged them into a single, multiple choice offering:

Now that a Bush-as-French line of argument is legitimate comic fodder it means:

A) Criticism of George W. Bush has "jumped the shark"
B) George W. Bush has "jumped the shark."
C) Criticism of the French have "jumped the shark."
D) The French have "jumped the shark."
E) All of the above

The answer, of course, is E.

One could argue these were all sharks jumped long ago. Still, it took Bruce Reed, writing on a lazy Friday in August, to remind us that they have been, and to draw out the undeniable relationship the jumping of these sharks share.

Europe, still the sophistication capital of the world

What happens, here in the States, is one political party or candidate will fire an over-the-top, vitriolic attack at the other party or candidate. In response, the aggrieved will express shock, shock at such unfair rhetorical excess.

It was once custom for the aggrieved to wait a certain period of time -- so as to claim moral high ground -- before launching an over-the-top vitriolic attack of their own and continuing the cycle.

Lately that "certain period of time" has been reduced to however long it takes to process the assault and formulate an equally venomous comeback. Yet, surprisingly, moral high ground is often still claimed. A wary public asks "when will it end."

I have no answer to that question, but I do have a pretty good idea as to what will come next in the battle to see what political "team" can out-slime the other.

It started in more of a geopolitical context when, a few months back, a British tabloid printed a photo of German Chancellor Angela Merkel changing out of her bathing suit. A century ago this would have triggered world war, but in the new, neutered European Union Germany could only strike back at England by printing unflattering photographs of England's soccer captain David Beckham's family.

Last week, France incorporated this development into domestic politics when French tabloids printed photographs of socialist presidential hopeful Segolene Royal sporting a bikini. Soon enough a bathing suit shot of her likely conservative opponent, Nicolas Sarkozy, surfaced. Now French papers were able to run both images and allow potential voters to compare and contrast.

All reports point to Royal and Sarkozy being in-shape and stylish. British Prime Minister Tony Blair didn't fare as well this weekend when a photograph of him vacationing on a boat in Barbados, while his countrymen camped in Heathrow Airport, prompted the headline "Bold and Defiant. Well, the Trunks Are."

In the interest of equal time the British papers also critiqued the bathing suit choices and grooming habits of Tory head David Cameron.

When exactly this new trend for flesh in politics will cross the Atlantic, I don't know. But given our current political climate it will get nasty quickly.

In light of this, I've heard Independent Joe Lieberman has hired a personal trainer and is spending as much time on his abs as he is on the campaign trail.

It's election day in Connecticut

Writing in the Wall Street Journal in support of Joe Lieberman, Ex-Clinton White House consul Lanny Davis dropped the McCarthyism bomb on the liberal blogsphere this morning. The liberal blogsphere struck back by hacking Joe Lieberman's campaign website.

I'm far from sure about the second part -- but websites don't hack themselves.

A few months ago I predicted message board content on political blogs was going to become an electoral issue. Now we have Lanny Davis reprinting, in an attempt to shame his own party and defend his friend, vicious anti-Lieberman message board entries originally posted on prominent liberal political blogs.

Davis compares the most extreme, usually anonymous voices in the liberal blogsphere to Ann Coulter and Russ Limbaugh.

He is wrong. They are not like Coulter or Limbaugh, who are somewhat reigned in by corporate responsibility and their own name, however good one thinks that might be.

In terms of "sanctimony and vitriol" there is not an equivalent voice on the right to these anti-American and increasingly anti-Semitic screeds. Or at least not one leaving foot prints on forums that log hundreds of thousand of views daily and often support specific candidates for office.

This time tomorrow these forums and the reckless rants they host could be a little more mainstream.

Caveat emptor.

Speaking of Katherine Harris ...

Today, on the always entertaining Huffington Post Blog, hot-tempered Hollywood actor Alec Baldwin unleashed this doozy on an unsuspecting, undeserving public:

Gore, who limped off of the American political stage after the 2000 election after being gang raped by Dick Cheney, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and James Baker, as well as their election-stealing goons in Washington and Florida...

"Limped." "Gang Rape." Yikes.

Sometimes a metaphor is just a metaphor, but if Gore, Cheney, O'Connor or Baker ever run into Alec Baldwin and his dirty mind it could be awkward. In fact, if any of the participants or the recipient of this supposed crime find themselves in the same room I predict averted gazes.

Of course the biggest loser here is Katherine Harris. Baldwin calls out sweet old Sandra Day, but reduces Harris to nameless goon. Girl can't catch a break.

Joe -- by the skin of his yellow country teeth

It appears the Junior Senator from Connecticut has run out of senatorial primary Joementum.

I've always liked Lieberman, largely because I find the phrase "Joementum" pleasing to speak or write. I am grateful his 36 year political ascent has added it to the lexicon. (And acknowledge it is often used sarcastically.)

Once Lieberman loses on Tuesday there will be much speculation on his next move.

Lieberman can be Machiavellian, as evidenced by his insistence on remaining on the Connecticut senate ballot while he was running for Vice-President. A decision that guaranteed Joe would have an important job come that January, but doomed his party's hope of regaining the Senate.

I'm also under the impression, despite his amiable demeanor, a cruel and unforgiving, Old-Testament-Joe lurks in Lieberman. That in mind, this is what I see going down:

After losing the primary, Lieberman enters the race as an independent, prevailing with relative ease in a three-way race. The Democrats pick up the six seats they need to capture the Senate, but Joe's decision to caucus with the GOP swings the tie-breaker to Cheney and denies the donkeys the subpoena power they are so giddy for. Lieberman further infuriates his old mates by becoming the first man to run for vice-president as a Democrat and a Republican.

The '08 election comes down to a close race in Florida. The McCain/Lieberman ticket prevails because of an unprecedented number of conservative voters in Palm Beach County -- a surge this time attributed to Lieberman's popularity there.

Once he becomes Vice President, Lieberman uses his executive privilege to force notorious Joe-hater Markos Moulitsas spend at least four years looking at himself in the mirror while reading the endless barrage of rants that appear on his popular political weblog.

On the off-chance this doesn't happen, I would recommend Lieberman spend his new free time doing something about his teeth. I think he may be under the impression his jaundiced hue camouflages his yellow teeth.

It doesn't.

Unless there is some sort of Talmudic provision against them, I suggest Crest White Strips.

Bonus video from the post title.

!!!Middle East crisis solved!!!

Damn, I'm good. As I sat here waiting for updates on Lindsey Lohan's collapse due to "dehydration," I was able to piece together an unconventional, but sure-fire, way to bring peace to the Middle East. I can only pity the "pundits," who have been getting all worked up trying to find a solution by regurgitating the same crap already responsible for that tangled mess of a web.

Besides the folks on the liberal blogs, of course, where any talk of Israel has been banned, so as not to provoke a rhetorical civil war in the wordy, if not particularly important, American Left.

None of that matters now because, with very little effort, I've solved the latest crisis and perhaps the whole situation forever. The solution came to me via a search engine query that brought a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran to this space.

The Iranian was looking for "super sexy photos." Because my site is the one-stop shop for all things Timberlake and his mission to "bring sexy back" the Iranian was directed to jsb.

So, I'm like, egads, we have the other JT, who wants to bring sexy back, and we have Iran, who wants sexy.

Let's get them together!

At the very least the good-will created by this American-brokered marriage of convenience will result in Iran calling off the dogs of Hezbollah and declaring an immediate cessation of their controversial nuclear program.

If it turns out these crazy kids really like each other, expect an ebullient Timberlake to try to "burn it up" with every man, women and child in the Islamic Republic.

Good news sure, but somewhat tempered by word (from India?!?) that Lohan will be giving up partying. Well, you win some and you lose some.

This guy would be better off blogging

'
This was the scene in front of the Israeli Consulate in New York City yesterday. It was supposed to be a protest about Israel's current bombing campaign in Lebanon.

There are plenty of other photos from the same protest that feature placards displaying more appropriate messages. And whatever you think of the overall situation, you have to have sympathy for the people of Lebanon.

But that sign claiming Islam will dominate the White House, as well as that gem about Allah destroying Israel with his magic, were front and center. For most Americans they will and should overshadow whatever else the protestors had to say.

Has there ever been a worst PR move than mixing the inflammable with the inconceivable? Did another human being ever even consider it, before the Islamic Fundamentalists adopted it as their go to move?

Hmm, let's see how many people we can piss off and make lose respect for us. Simultaneously! And a real loss of respect. Not that figure of speech kind.

Beyond that, I'm skeptical of any kind of physical presence protest in 2006. It is pretty clear they don't influence the government and it is doubtful they change minds.

Back in the day, when the lines of communication didn't run seamlessly between everyone with a modem and polling information wasn't readily available, the protest or march might have been a good way to express your feelings and prove a strength in numbers.

Now it just proves a tiny percentage of the public, who might be illiterate, feel like getting together and yelling.

If nothing else protesters need to leave their placards at home. For their own good.

A not very nice but effective tip for bloggers

People often (sometimes) ask me how I come up with topics to blog about everyday.

So far I've found the key to maintaining a blog is the conceit to believe you have the greatest blog in the entire universe. If you honestly believe that, you will feel obligated to post as often as you can. If you don't you will get distracted by things such as watching television and eating cherries, and your blog will fall by the wayside.

The only problem with this method is you will inevitably run into other writing that calls into question the inherent dominance you've been able to convince yourself of. It doesn't have to be from another blog. For me, it usually comes in the form of a well-written traditional newspaper article. When this happens I don't panic, because there is an easy remedy.

The Huffington Post.

In some respects The Huffington Post is very good. It provides useful, well-chosen headlines and links (albeit from a fanatical liberal perspective*) and has recently added an interesting media coverage section.

But the site's bread and butter is its group blog, which features a constant barrage of posts from journalists, "writers," professors, actors, activists, executives, politicians, gurus, "comedians" teenagers, sibling's of celebrities and Arianna Huffington's domestic staff. What unites this diverse collection is their inability to write clearly, logically or comedically .

That might be a bit unfair. A good percentage of the posts are anti-Bush screeds, and after six years those inclined to dislike the president and his policies have developed a fairly logical case against him. The problem arises when posters try to deviate from the established formula.

This post caught my eye today. Not because I was looking for validation of my writing skills, but because I found the author's premise -- that our founding fathers' big mistake was they didn't allow for a "king" of The United States interesting.

While I didn't really expect the traditional Royalist argument, and did surmise the whole thing had something to do with the author disliking the current president, I was still unprepared for the utter awkwardness with which the author defends his provocative tease; basically he argues a symbolic leader could stand above the political fray, and other countries do it so why shouldn't we?

Yet, the author makes no attempt to provide evidence that having a symbolic leader has served these other countries in the manner he suggests it could serve the United States, or at all. Furthermore, he has nothing clever/funny or below the surface insightful to say.

The tragedy (with a very small t) of this, is that if the author played the whole thing for laughs I could see some pretty funny directions he could go. He also has a solid point about people rallying around the president and the actual flag, simply because they think it's the patriotic thing to do.

Unfortunately the author's lack of thought organization and relevent written communication skill dull out any potential for comedy, or point he might have. Like most of the posts of Huffington, he would have been better off just typing his tags and adding a "discuss." "

In that respect the blog on Huffington Post is a microcosm for the blogesphere as a whole.

But a neatly organized one-stop microcosm that is sure to boost the esteem of any half-way decent writer/blogger.

A trick, I suspect, would also work for a sixth grader preparing a book report.

*It is worth noting the way-over-the-top liberal Huffington post is to the more established and moderately conservative Drudge Report, as the way-over-the-top conservative Fox News Network was to the moderately liberal and then more established CNN. Does that mean Huffington will soon surpass Drudge as the place more people go for their morning headlines? That remains to be seen. Although I would never bet against Matt Drudge's fascinating, one part pitch perfect, one part highly fetishized news sense.

Idle chatter

I've spent a lifetime trying to figure the humans out. The things about them I don't get today, I hope to in time.

But there some things I doubt I will ever understand.

Case in point: The woman who hit Pittsburgh Steeler Quarterback/unlicensed motorcyclist Ben Rothelisburger has begun receiving telephone threats.

For all we know these threats are the work of a single deranged individual. But it's pretty well established when there is controversy surrounding professional athletics, the citizens start issuing threats -- usually targeting the athlete. (Steve Bartman being another prominent non-athlete exception.)

It's not just athletes; all public figures are prone to receive threats. The threats vary in severity but are almost always the same in one respect -- the issuer of the threat has no intention of following through.

Beyond the obvious element of fantasy these threats contain, I used to think the reason people took the risk to actually involve others in their fantasy stemmed from a need to claim a few moments of the life of someone who society has deemed more important than themselves --thereby justifying their own existence.

In the other words these type of threats are the autograph's nasty cousin.

But I'm not so sure about that anymore.

If you enter any online forum of discussion and wait long enough there is a good chance someone will threaten someone else. The discussion doesn't even have to be about a controversial subject. Last night, when I went on Youtube to retrieve the Nowitzki "tirade" video I posted, I noticed Youtube had a discussion forum for the video. So I checked out what was being said about Dirk. Not much, but it only took a few mildly insulting comments for a threat to be issued one commentator to another.

When you threaten someone you don't know, have no chance of ever meeting and is doing exactly the same thing you are at the moment, what can be the point beyond the joy of seeing your own threatening words on the computer screen?

I can appreciate receiving satisfaction from something you wrote, and I have seen some well-penned threats in my chatroom, comment section stalking career, but every single one of them, first and foremost, exposes the issuer as fraud.

I've known people to own up to all sorts of maladies -- often with more than a twinge of pride-- but admitting to being a fraud would rival child molester for infrequency of genuine public confession.

I suppose those who issue these types of threats against public figures or anonymous internet nicknames wouldn't see it that way. But since these threats are almost always in response to something that has angered them, and becoming angry, making a threat and then following through with the threat actually happens all the time (if not we wouldn't need so many prisons) I don't see how they could, deep down inside, view themselves any other way.

If anyone has any idea what the thrill of the anonymous, idle threat is, free feel to chime in.

Threats are also welcome, as long as they remain anonymous and idle.