Ever Heard The Phrase, "Don't Call Us - We'll Call You?"

Ask him if his resume now reads "Getting caught hurts,..."

Or Is It The "Hunter S. Thompson Syndrome"?

Jesus, these people are stupid.

Here are three important folks - a journalist/media personality, a former prosecutor/media personality, and a Pulitzer Prize winner/media personality - and, though they can each summon a fog of words, not one of them is capable of seeing the obvious and stating it as a jumping off point for an interesting and honest discussion. For instance, not once in this conversation probing media bias, during this clip at least, do they give context by mentioning the John Edwards blackout. Was anyone even considering how bad the media bias was until the public noticed not one outlet, but The National Enquirer, was reporting Obama's potential vice-presidential nominee/attorney general had fallen for a moonbeam?

And while Dan Abrams admits the media fell in love with Barack Obama, and that love (betrayal?) hurt Hillary Clinton - which, in our book, is also a major no-no: they're just supposed to report the news, not make or determine it - Abrams fails to mention their actions also hurt the media, because it further signaled the public couldn't rely on what they were saying. And, yes, Kathleen Parker is just oblivious to her own role in the Sarah Palin story - so who's the airhead now?

And has anybody ever explained why "all of them" isn't a good enough answer to the question "What magazines have you read?" If so, we haven't seen it. Has anyone ever explained what it is about Katie Couric that makes other media types consider her intelligent - though that's an opinion the general public doesn't seem to share?

It's no wonder we find the internet more informative, and fascinating, than anything these bozos can conjure up, because engaging with these people - with nothing more than a television screen between us - is too much of a temptation for us to want to pull an Elvis and just blast the damned thing to smithereens.

Dim-Rod Awkwardly Practices Clapping After Learning How By Watching Children On Bozo Reruns

Dim-Rod, having tanked his season, tanked his wife, tanked his children, tanked his teammates and fans with his steroid use and lies, has now been found to have been addicted to a whore (other than Minge).

If you ever wanted to know what a special kind of stupid looks like, here it is:

Yankee slugger Alex Rodriguez was more than a customer of Kristin Davis' high-priced prostitution ring -- he dated the former Manhattan madam too, according to an explosive report.

In June 2006, Rodriguez allegedly became a regular of one of Davis' agencies soon after meeting her a gym, two former call girls told the New York Daily News.

A-Rod, then-married, had asked Davis "what she was doing" the first time they met, the anonymous sources said.

Davis, who has claimed Eliot Spitzer as a client, was about to go out with a boyfriend. She gave Rodriguez a card that he later used to book a two-hour "date" with a prostitute, The News reported.

But Rodriguez really pined for Davis and would court her with flowers and jewelery, the sources said. On one email he wrote that he was "addicted" to her, they said.

Eventually, Davis relented and the two briefly dated -- free of charge, according to the sources…

DANIEL MACHT, NBC

When pressed further about his steroid use, Dim-Rod claimed he got the idea from Minge:

“Minge injects steroids into her labia, and she can pick me up like a quarter, so I thought…”

Dim-Rod then wandered off to his habit of walking the streets asking random women “Are you my mommy?”

It's The Adulterers Themselves Who Are Ugly

"I still like to believe monogamy exists."

-- Kristin Davis, disgraced former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's "Madam Butterfly," in The New York Daily News.

Puh-Leaze: The WHORE Speaks

Hat Tip: Hot Air

How Many People Work At That Paper?

“I was really just reminding the bloggers that they write for the LA Times and they happen to be using blogging as a publishing platform. This isn’t something you would normally see in a newspaper more than once. We already wrote the one post quoting the National Enquirer and I don’t think you’d see more than that if there were no blogs and this was just a newspaper. That’s what I was just saying to them, that until we have a better source, let’s hold off on being part of the speculation.”

-- Tony Pierce, Los Angeles Times blog editor, explaining his email that directed the paper's bloggers not to write about the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter NewAge affair, on Simon Owens's Bloggasm.

"This isn’t something you would normally see in a newspaper more than once"? Really? Like Bill Clinton or Larry Craig or Elliott Spitzer? Over the last ten months this story has been vetted in a number of ways and Rielle Hunter claims the baby is Andrew Young's kid. Others were forced to cover, or lie, because of the videos. Don't try to tell me there aren't stories here. These are politicians.

And what's up with the LA Times's environmentalist blogger, Seil - who gleefully roots for punishing citizens over recycling - or even the media's editorial position that we should participate in it, when even The New York Times has said:

"Believing that there was no more room in landfills, Americans concluded that recycling was their only option. Their intentions were good and their conclusions seemed plausible. Recycling does sometimes makes sense -- for some materials in some places at some times. But the simplest and cheapest option is usually to bury garbage in an environmentally safe landfill. And since there's no shortage of landfill space (the crisis of 1987 was a false alarm), there's no reason to make recycling a legal or moral imperative. Mandatory recycling programs aren't good for posterity. They offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups -- politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations, waste-handling corporations -- while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America: a waste of time and money, a waste of human and natural resources."

Am I stupid or don't I see a bunch of 900lb. gorilla-type nanny state stories here? Why are we, as a society, doing this to ourselves? We're unnecessarily digging through our garbage and paying for the privilege. Why - and how much has it cost us?

Why are people, like Seil, so happy to punish those who won't go along? What stops them from listening to others - or studying the issue? And don't the American people have a right to a serious discussion about where a wrong-headed movement ended and mass hysteria or cultish thinking began?

The mind reels from all the stories.

Which, now that I think about it, is about the saddest statement that could be made on the state of newspapers and journalism today.

David Letterman: Number One With A Bullet

If Looks Could Kill

"[Elliott Spitzer] coulda been a contender. Now he's just more damaged goods; see [Los Angeles Mayor] Villaraigosa, Tony, and [San Francisco Mayor] Newsom, Gavin for more examples."

"Luke", contributing to the L.A. Times' Top Of The Ticket blog.

Victimless Crimes: When It's Not About You

"When the story of Bill Clinton’s liaison with Monica Lewinsky became public, there was plenty of condemnation, but almost nobody talked about hypocrisy: lying, yes; moral turpitude, by all means; but not hypocrisy. That is because hypocrisy is essentially an aristocratic failing. It extols “the best” even if the best is generally unattainable.

This indeed is one reason that hypocrisy, among all the vices, is regarded with particular disdain and horror by egalitarians. A hypocrite publicly upholds noble values and standards of behavior even though he knows he may sometimes fall short of the conduct they require. He does this because he recognizes that those values are worthy of support and commendation even if he cannot always embody them."

- Roger Kimball, judging Elliot Spitzer (negatively) while writing for Pajamas Media

"This is the problem these guys get into: they're so morally rigid and puritanical in real life (and on some level, so responsible for this priggish world we now live in) that when they get caught committing victimless crimes, everyone thinks they should be punished for sheer hypocrisy."

-Feminist writer, Nora Ephron, defending Elliott Spitzer (naturally) in The Huffington Post (naturally)

I always like the "victimless crime" line - I wonder if anyone's used it on Spitzer's wife and three teenage daughters yet? (Just "trying to help") Or the people he busted,...for prostitution? Or the people that voted for him, based on his law-and-order approach, and upright manner?

And - just asking - why isn't Nora Ephron still married to Carl Bernstein any longer? Wasn't there some talk of an affair, back there, somewhere? My, how soon we forget,...or how convenient:

"Situational ethics is individualistic,...The problem is that it gives people an excuse for not obeying the rules when it suits them. If someone wants to do something badly enough, they are likely to be able to justify it to themselves,...whereas humanity is a practical species full of selfishness and other flaws."

Politics: It serves a purpose, people.

TMR File Dump, Part II

Lordy, Lordy - how am I supposed to do a file dump when the file keeps getting bigger? The busting of Eliot Spitzer just opened up a whole can of worms that I'm gonna have to ignore if I'm to make any headway. (Is Hillary going to start a war room to defend Spitzer? Is she going to give Spitzer's wife her feminist declaration, "There are worse things than adultery", now that another of her guys has been busted? Is Spitzer indicating how much credibility he has left, or what, in the photo above?) All I'll say, definitively, is I liked Spitzer and this sad day is shared by many. Especially his wife. Asshole.

Another smart guy who seems to have taken a fall is Ben Stein. He's got this silly new documentary, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which is about (stupid) alternatives to the theory of evolution. I can't believe he did it, since he's always struck me as brilliant, but there it is. My favorite two paragraphs in the article I found were these two that specify religion:

" Paul Lauer, head of Motive Marketing, which is handling publicity for the film, said that critics were not invited mostly because the film was not polished enough for professional scrutiny. He said that his company, which also marketed the 2004 film, 'The Passion of the Christ,' is reaching out to conservative leaders.

For example, Mr. Lauer said, Mr. Stein personally showed 'Expelled' to James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, which has a big following among right-wing Christians. (Mr. Dobson gave the film a thumbs-up.)"

Why do I like that part so much? Because it shows that, when you're dealing with religious types, whatever you're selling doesn't have to be "polished enough for professional scrutiny." Any ol' bullshit will do, as long as you spell Jesus' (or Buddha's) name right. (People like me, on the other hand, demand more.) And, while this ain't Pick On Religion Day, (everyday is Pick On Religion Day) I do want to abandon these articles now that they can be appropriately linked by subject matter:

"A 'modern-day Moses' who fleeced churchgoers out of more than £3.2million faces jail today."

And:

"At least 50 people in [India] have reportedly lost their vision after gazing at the sun looking for an image of Virgin Mary."

And:

"NEW YORK (AP) -- In a major shift, a group of Southern Baptist leaders said their denomination has been 'too timid' on environmental issues and has a biblical duty to stop global warming."

And - this one's the capper:

"Recycle or go to Hell, warns Vatican"

To which I reply, "This is Hell, Ratzinger!" Sorry. You don't have to actually read those articles. Let's just collectively shake our heads and (as the NewAgers say) "move on" before their influence swallows us whole.

*Oh - and a special message to Erik In Seattle: Dude, if you don't speak to me when I play there, I'ma kill Bill Gates!