quick bs

I was thinking about buying this t-shirt for the Fourth of July,

Here's a close-up of the label. 

...


Speaking of China, here's a disturbing Vanity Fair article about Chinese state sponsored hacking.

I like Vanity Fair, but one thing that kind of rubbed me the wrong way---something Aaron considers a barometer for publications---was the depth of their Royal family coverage.

Although, I must admit, I've developed a weird interest in the Royal Family because I feel like it would be a pain in the ass to be Prince William. Every time I see pictures of him he's constantly being shuffled from ceremony to ceremony. He's always got a straight face, or maybe a forced smile. He probably has to cheese-dick more than anyone on Earth. Imagine how jealous he must be of his prep school friends who live comparable lives in terms of wealth, but can go out and get drunk without worrying about paparazzi.

And how about this picture of his wife and the Canadian Prime Minister?

The motherfucker looks like he wants to lean in for a kiss.

And then tack on this picture?

Maybe William should keep an eye on the old man---he didn't become Prime Minister of Canada by not being charming.

...


Speaking of stuff I recently read, here is something I wrote three years ago:

It's funny how conservative economic policy is much more rooted in Social Darwinism than that of liberals. And yet I'd bet a testicle that a vast majority of those who don't believe in evolution also consider themselves Conservative.

And here is Ryan Lizza's plagiarism of that line from his article on Michele Bachmann in week's New Yorker:

It is a peculiarity of the current political moment that a politician with a history of pushing sectarian religious beliefs in government has become a hero to a libertarian movement.

Ok, maybe he didn't consciously plagiarize---after all it's been three years since he read my line. (His version is funnier. But in my defense, mine was originally just a comment I left on someone else's blog cut and pasted onto mine because it was so fucking profound.)

I feel like New Yorker profiles on Republican politicians are all similar: they're either negative or---at best---only slightly negative. But for some reason---by some miracle of Republican stupidity---New Yorker reporters always get intimate access to the politicians. In this case Lizza was one of six reporters allowed to fly with Bachmann on her private jet.

How does that happen? What do Bachmann's people imagine the end result to be?? (are they hoping that negative coverage from the New Yorker legitimizes her?)

Here's the basic formula for every Republican profile in the New Yorker:

1) anecdote about reporter meeting the politician
2) short background on parents and childhood
3) short descriptions of moderate right wing influences in adolescent years
4) description of entry into politics
5) detailed descriptions of extreme right wing influences in early adult years
6) random inconsistent / crazy / stupid things they've said
7) explanation of politician's current take on past extreme right wing influences
8) short description of one good thing the politician has done
9) descriptions of the terrible things they're likely to do if elected
10) back to the original anecdote

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE these articles. I read the Boehner article twice (and I thought they actually took a somewhat neutral stance on him---if I had to sum it up in one sentence, it would be, "Look, he's a pro-business Republican and he's got more hands in his pockets than an American wearing cargo pants on a Roman subway, but he's not necessarily a terrible person.")

But that's the best case scenario. Worst case is something like this Bachmann article that pretty much says she's a dumb fanatical liar who might actually be crazy enough to believe she can win a Presidential election by looking as pretty as she can while never straying from the most generic Tea Party rhetoric---which is a fusion of libertarian/borderline-anarchic economics and conservative Christian social policy---and she's only made it this far because no one has taken her seriously.

...


Speaking of Bachmann. There is controversy over this picture of her on the cover of Newsweek because it makes her look crazy.

The headline "The Queen of Rage" probably doesn't help.

Great picture though. I'd love to hear the photographer's story about discovering it.

...

But media is just slanted on the right. The Wall Street Journal is no stranger to extreme and poorly written op-ed pieces; this one from yesterday might be the dumbest op-ed I've ever read.

And not only did that pile of shit somehow find a way to get itself published in the Journal, but it's actually the most read and e-mailed article on their website. I guess that says something about the state of our fucking political discourse.