Goldberg and Guthrie

I saw Saved today. It's pretty good. Basically, it's just your basic teen movie, but with the twist that it takes place at a Christian school and the "cool kids" - whom everyone wants to fit in with - are very religious. It's not that deep, but it does appropriately ridicule those who want to make gay people straight, and has a positive message about love and what Jesus would actually think were he around today.

But that's neither here nor there. I have a question. Why is it that in teen movies, our heroes are always given unfettered access to the stage and microphone during their senior prom? Why does the school administration feel it is appropriate to allow a select few students to use the night to work out some personal problems? And why is it that none of the other students ever seem to have a problem with this?

Discuss.

It's going to take a long time - a long time - before I can fully digest the magnitude of the hilarity/sadness involving the Bill O'Reilly law suit that was filed today. (Read here. In the name of God, read there.)

I will therefore only point out that, today, in a court of law, the following statement was included in a complaint:

During the course of Defendant Bill O'Reilly's sexual rant, it became clear that he was using a vibrator upon himself, and that he ejaculated. Plaintiff was repulsed.

For the record, I don't think I believe this - but it sounds like some of the conversations may have been taped. I take it back, this proves that there almost certainly is a just, loving God.

Over at The Corner, they don't see how you could score this debate any other way than a Bush win. That's insane. The only one of the four debates that "obviously" went one way was the first one - mostly because Bush was barely able to form complete thoughts.

However, they are all (and, coincidentally, all conservatives on television) saying sort of the same thing: isn't it amazing that Kerry won the foreign policy debate and Bush won on domestic issues. Well, given that the Corner and conservatives in general have spent three years trying to convince us that we're in the middle of World War III, I'd say that makes a pretty convincing case for a Kerry Presidency, wouldn't you?

If you want to understand media bias, this (from a Tim Graham article on The National Review) says it all.

Shortly before the debate began, Newsweek national editor Jon Meacham suggested on MSNBC that journalists are tired of Bush being in the lead, and so will try to narrow the race. Meacham foresaw "the possibility that President Bush has peaked about a month too early. Because we all need a narrative to change." Chris Matthews asked: "Is that your prediction?" Meacham replied: "I think it's possible that we're gonna be sitting around saying, 'Well you know Kerry really surprised us.' Because in a way the imperative is to change the story."

They're not pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. The media is pro-media, and the media wants a story to tell. It sells papers and increases ratings. This is a horrifying admission from a Newsweek editor; and it was exactly this mentality that led to Bush's improbable win in 2000.

UPDATE: Of course, Graham follows up with this absurd argument:

But remember, journalists aren't in favor of changing the story because it makes good copy. They're in favor of changing it because it gives their candidate a better chance of winning.

If you can't see that the media favored Bush in 2000, then I feel sorry for you.

This is possibly the worst excuse I have ever heard:

Bush inner circle suggests Bush visit with Hurricane victims earlier in day was emotionally draining, contributed to "tired" appearance in debate...

What is responsible for the consistent inability to phrase a coherent thought that he has displayed for five years?

UPDATE: From The Note:

White House communications director Dan Bartlett called "ridiculous" a Drudge Report item attributed to Bush's "inner circle" which suggested that Bush's visit earlier in the day with Hurricane victims was "emotionally draining" and that it contributed to Bush's "tired" appearance during debate.

Over at The Corner, Rich Lowry says maybe the stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life.

One Democratic spin that I don't think will work is the `Al Gore’ attack. The annoying aspect of Gore's sighs and expressions of exasperation was that they seemed so incongruous with his tree-like personality...almost as if he had spent time in front of the mirror practicing his "irritated loook (sic)" thinking that it might make him appear to be the alpha male he so wanted to be.

But Bush last night, on the other hand, seemed genuinly (sic) annoyed, as if he didn't give a hoot whether there were cameras on him or not he was downright perturbed. In that sense his irritation, I think, will be percieved (sic) as Millerish (as in Zell) rather than Gorish (as in Al).”

Someone forgot to turn on their spell check! (As a terrible speller, I refuse to pass judgment. It's the stupidity of the thought that caught my eye.)

On the other hand, Jonah Goldberg points out the absurdity of the mystical summit that John Kerry seems to think will end all of our problems in Iraq:

Oh how our troops must be hoping against hope that we get a change in Washington and get that summit! I'm sure today in mess halls and fox holes from Basra to Baghdad the men are a-chatter about how the guy who voted against sending them body armor is -- if elected, fingers crossed -- going to hold a summit.

I have no idea when this summit will take place, who will be there or what will be said.