There is a story on ABC.com right now about how the Pentagon spends a good deal of money on research, some of it very wacky research at that. Gay bomb & psychic teleportation wacky.

Now granted the idea of creating a ‘gay bomb’ sounds pretty crazy. Well it is pretty crazy too. With that said, this is science. Not long ago funding billion dollar research to split a microscopic atom in order to blow up cities probably sounded pretty darn wacky too. I am not going to lie, a good chunk of this research will end up never leading to anything substantive. Because of that plenty of politicians and political watchers will use it in a stump speech to talk about the waste of government. The reality is you never know where good science will come from. Did anyone think mold could be used to cure disease? Probably not.

With that said THE LAST group of people who should be talking about funding stupid things is the media. At the same time this story is running another story is out purporting that NBC is paying Paris Hilton $1 million for her first post-jail interview. I guarantee the country and the media would get more out of that $1 million searching for psychic teleportation then they will spending it on Paris Hilton. Which is to say, what can you get for less then nothing?

“Probably there should be a rule against it,” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. “But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. I only feel good, as a citizen, about getting rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”

An interesting article on MSNBC which stated “MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.”

The article is chock full of good quotes that will make your head roll:

“I don’t make campaign contributions,” said Jean A. Briggs, who gave a total of $2,000 to the Republican Party and Republican candidates, most recently this March. “I’m the assistant managing editor of Forbes magazine.”

When asked about the Republican National Committee donations, she replied, “You call that a campaign contribution? It’s not putting money into anyone’s campaign.”

(For the record: The RNC gave $25 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004.)

I actually think Klein is hitting on something bigger and I am actually currently writing about it and will have posted either here or somewhere else soon. The Internet has given a huge voice to those who have surrounded themselves around a cause. At the same time it has turned those around these causes very nasty and very radicalized and not prone to allowing others into their domain. (I use the McLuhan idea of retribalism, ok enough, more on that in the future).

Cindy Sheehan became a very big example of this to me and right now it seems to be hitting its height in the “liberal” side of the Internet in the same way it took in the conservative talk radio/attack book side of the media in the 90’s. Basically these organizations have formed a “you are with us or against us” attitude.

Both sides right now are playing to their bases, it’s primary season, but the left base seems really intent on attacking their own. I understand they felt snubbed after 2000 & 2004 but its definitely overcompensation time now.

Anyone who even hints at having an agenda slightly different then these groups is attacked and ripped to shreds. There are examples, such as immigration on the other side, but its a loose confederation as opposed to the highly Internet organized left.

The reality is governing demands moderation & compromise. These groups increasingly take any compromise as a sign of weakness and turning on the base. Those two things run counter to one another and should make for a messy future. Which to be honest as an outside observer, I kind of like.

Right now if you visit the Huffington Post you will see the following:

Clinton is maxed out on big donations, cannot keep up with small donations, a supposed insider reports.

MEANWHILE

If you goto Drudge you find this:

Clinton is scoring big with lobbyists and individual campaign donations according to a “secret spreadsheet” smuggled out of the campaign.

So which one is it?

Read the rest of this entry »

… doesn’t mean you have to use it. Sorry but I felt like tossing out my opinion for a moment.

As you know MSNBC hosted the Don Imus program up until the I-Man went a little nutty and got himself thrown off. The channel quickly replaced the program with an innovative and completely different morning idea. They ran the news. Yeap, sounds crazy but a news network ran news.

The problem is, they spent all this money on a studio. You just can’t pack a couple of neon desks and microphones up, that would be crazy. Thus Gregory Live starring David Gregory was born.

Read the rest of this entry »