I have no idea if Loughner saw Palin's crosshairs, or heard any other politician, pundit, blogger, or private citizens "violent imagery". I am also very hesitant to write off his actions, which he should be held responsible for whether he was insane or not, as simply being the result of him being "crazy".

That being said, I think that this is a good time to consider that there may be people out there that take what we say to heart, even if they misinterpret what it was that we exactly meant. Bill Clinton's statement, and Olberman's expansion upon it here, are quite valid. I think that there is honor in striving to achieve a higher standard, where the objections that we pose towards those that don't share our opinions are as objective as possible, as well as in being willing to stand and accept responsibility for when we fall short of those higher standards.

You make good points. However if you made heroes (female and male) plain looking they would no longer seem special. Superheroes are basically modern gods and goddesses. And just like the Greeks and Romans, we make our gods hypermasculine (heavily muscled) and our goddesses hyperfeminine (beautiful, with hourglass figures).

However, American superheroes aren't the only ones portrayed this way. Britain's Judge Dredd is pretty big. So is MarvelMan, aka MiracleMan. Doctor Manhattan is also pretty big. (Insert big blue penis joke here.) And let's not forget Japan's Goku and Gohan, among others.

I'll concede that American superheroes are probably the most pronounced in this regard, and sometimes it's downright awful. But if the artist is good then extremes are generally avoided, and combined with good writing you get a comic book that stands shoulder to shoulder with others in the medium, at least in my opinion.



>> ^rebuilder:

What I mean is the female characters are ludicrously over-sexed and often portrayed in poses and clothing whose sole purpose is to maximize the amount of tits and ass shown. It just seems like a cheap way to market to a target audience of young boys. Of course there's also a stereotypical male figure, which has been getting more and more outlandish as well. My main issue with that is that it seems there's a certain standard way to draw comics in the US, designed more for saleability and a kind of industrial production method than for artistic purposes.
Most of the time you can tell the crap from the interesting stuff just by looking at the drawing style, but sometimes you find a very good story illustrated by a technically accomplished artist who has, to my eye, been corrupted by lifelong exposure to what they probably think is "the way" to draw comics. That I find sad.
I just find it hard to take any character seriously when their body language come straight out of a Playboy shoot.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

What I mean is the female characters are ludicrously over-sexed and often portrayed in poses and clothing whose sole purpose is to maximize the amount of tits and ass shown. It just seems like a cheap way to market to a target audience of young boys. Of course there's also a stereotypical male figure, which has been getting more and more outlandish as well. My main issue with that is that it seems there's a certain standard way to draw comics in the US, designed more for saleability and a kind of industrial production method than for artistic purposes.

Most of the time you can tell the crap from the interesting stuff just by looking at the drawing style, but sometimes you find a very good story illustrated by a technically accomplished artist who has, to my eye, been corrupted by lifelong exposure to what they probably think is "the way" to draw comics. That I find sad.

I just find it hard to take any character seriously when their body language come straight out of a Playboy shoot.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

Superhero comics are pretty much where US comics started (the Golden Age). In the superhero genre I like Wonder Woman, but I'll be the first to admit that story quality has varied wildly over the years. That's what happens when you have a character who's almost 70 years old: You get good writers, and you get bad writers. Same goes for the artists. Maybe the whole superhero-type mythology ain't your bag, but that's cool. To each his own.

I don't see the softcore porn aspect that you mention, at least not in the superhero comics I've read, and I've read a lot of Wonder Woman, and a little Batman, Superman, and Green Lantern. (I stick to the DC universe. It's hard to keep up with just one universe of superheroes. Learning the Marvel characters would be too much for my poor brain.) You'll see some ample cleavage with some of the ladies (Wonder Woman and Power Girl, I'm looking at you), but never more than that, and no sexual body parts of either sex are ever grabbed or fondled. That's what I think of when you say "softcore."

I like other types of comics and graphic novels too, but I think I've established my nerd credentials by now. >> ^rebuilder:

Call me a cranky heretic, but the superhero comic is the worst thing that ever happened to US comics... There's good stuff coming out all the time, but so much of the comic output seems to basically be softcore porn with outlandish, paper-thin action plots it's not even funny. At least in Europe, when they want to make porn, they make straight up porn - and the plot still beats the shit out of the usual Marvel fare.

I'm so tired of people assuming Bloggers are journalists...geez. Get your info from somewhere credible, what ever happened to journalism in the US?

Note: That's for all the agencies, MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc. etc. It's all pretty bad!

mildly amusing, but i give her credit for not having cuts every 5 seconds like most youtube blogger types.

that shit is a pet peeve of mine.

Here's another angle on the event...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiLeud-sxrM&feature=player_embedded

Now - when an unidentified, unauthorized person makes a mad dash with an object in their hands at a political figure in a vehicle then you sort of have to expect a bit of manhandling. Imagine if some random Bush supporter had made a similar dash at President Obama, for example. You think just maybe that security & aides would dogpile the breach until "the package" was confirmed safe? I'm surprised this nutcase got off as easy as she did.

Also consider the source. This is a MoveOn.org neolib flake with a documented history of radical behavior. As a publicity stunt this loser runs up with a trophy. Whatever. But when that objective fails she runs whining to favorable left-wing media outlets like MSN to peddler her non-story as a "woe is me" tale of Rand Paul violence. And look how freaking HAPPY she is to be on MSN hawking her balony. She's not upset. She's happy as a clam. This went better than she hoped. So boo-hoo cry me a river, toots.

Show me the video of Democrat volunteers wrestling down Republican protesters? Show me the video of Democrat candidates not condemning violence started by one of their own ... one party has a clear propensity for violence, the other does not.

You mean the Democrat party, right? Because they're the main offenders for voter intimidation, violence, and shenanigans. Democrat union thugs intimidate voters at the ballots, and even target them at their homes. Democrat supporters beat up poor black guys at rallies. Rather than condemn the sleaze, Democrat politicians act as apologists for this behavior. And hey - how about that great Etheredge vid where he manhandles a blogger? "Who are you?!?" indeed.

Examples you say?

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/09/29/violence-hatred-and-thuggery-by-liberal-extremists-against-conserva
tives-so-wheres-the-media-video/

And please no whining about the source. Yeah it's a conservative blog, but all its doing is linking youtube videos. Sorry man - but if you imagined up a world where only Repblicans are mean jackholes then you had to do it by ignoring documented fact.

Dude, regardless of how you feel about Ron Paul, in two years from today he will be 76 years old, and 77 years old on Election Day, November of 2012. Ronald Reagan was 77 in his last year of his 8 yrs in office. If Ron Paul won, he would be 81 at the end of just his first term. Ronald Reagan was 83 when he was officially diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.

Is it wise to elect someone who is that old? I don't think so. It's one of the most stressful jobs on earth. That can't be easy on an old man. And remember, age was one of the many reasons why McCain lost. One could argue that Ron Paul would select a good running mate to carry on his legacy if he died while in office. However, wouldn't it just be better to have the running mate run for president himself?

And his views on vaccination alone should disqualify him for office. I don't want someone like him in charge if a major pandemic broke out.

(And in case anyone is wondering, the editors of Effect Measure are well-respected public health scientists and health practitioners. They don't allow quacks and charlatans to have blogs on ScienceBlogs. You have to fill out an application, and then they'll let you know if you've been accepted or rejected. They've been around for 4.5 years, and they only have 80+ blogs total. It ain't no Blogger.com)

Oh, I see…

Well, since some of you seem to have attended the Fred Rogers school of comedy, I’ll try to put it in a more friendly, less sarcastic light:

Although pre-grated cheese is widely popular with the discerning American public(I’m not sure about other countries), I think the general consensus among food bloggers and websites is that pre-grated cheese loses a lot of flavor. Not to mention the fact that buying it whole is more economical, and whole cheeses don’t contain the usual anti-caking ingredients or extra preservatives of most grated varieties.

http://www.thenibble.com/reviews/main/cheese/cheese2/whey/grating-cheeses2.asp
http://www.beforeourtime.com/2009/04/cheese-that-grates-on-me.html
http://cheaphealthygood.blogspot.com/2009/08/save-money-on-food-buy-it-whole-rather.html

Now, call me old fashioned, but I’m a person who likes to save money. I wouldn’t pay twice the price for gas just to have someone pump it for me. Nor would I pay a home nurse to wash me just because I find it difficult to bathe myself. Even though it can be hard, I still have full use of my arms and brain, so I find I can do pretty well on my own with a washrag or lather sponge.

That said, there are some occasions where I do consider buying pre-grated cheese. For instance, many brands offer the “Mexican Four Cheese Blend” variety. And I find myself thinking, “That’s great! I can’t possibly use four different, whole blocks of cheese on one Mex-a-roni casserole. And if I just overlook the fact that most of these cheeses like ‘Monterey Jack‘, ‘Pepper Jack‘, and ‘Cheddar’ aren’t actually served anywhere in Mexico, I can create quite the tasty impression of a suburban, chipotle abortion in no time. And to make it even easier, Taco Bell now sells mild sauce IN-THE-STORE! Just one aisle over!!!”

Also, I’m willing to accept the idea that some people just have a hard time grating cheese themselves. I started doing it when I was four, to help my mother out in the kitchen, so sometimes I overlook the fact that some people just might not know how. That’s why I’ve included the links below.

http://www.bonappetit.com/tipstools/tips/2008/04/how_to_grate_cheese
http://www.wikihow.com/Grate-Cheese

Now, these might not get you all the way there. So a few tips of my own are:

1. Try to grate the cheese in one direction only. Against the teeth. This will prevent the unnecessary action of sliding the cheese up the grater the wrong way.

2. Always wash the grater immediately. Unlike mayonnaise, Velveeta and French-fry grease, cheese will start to harden-up after a short period of time and become difficult to wash off.

Give it a shot. With a little hard work you’ll be grating cheese in no time flat. I don’t know about you, but I’ll be saving the extra money to go see the American version of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” at the IMAX.

This book has been on my reading list for a while. Probably time to bump it up a little higher.

His book got on my list for two reasons -- he sounded interesting when he was on Colbert, and because one of my favorite liberal bloggers gave it a glowing review.

I'm curious what his appeal is to you though, he sounds very much like a liberal who's anti-market, anti-capitalism, and espouses what sounds like collectivist moral philosophy and advocates a return to a more communal treatment of property.

It's amazing to me how ensconsed in the bubble the right is these days.

Let's break it down:

1. Ideological subversion propagation - Radical conservatives begin pushing their ideology to all members of society through churches, schools, and supposedly independent policy research "think tanks". This begins in the early 30's, and is a systematic campaign aimed at chipping away at the credibility of embedded liberalism, America's original ideology. The "threat of communism" is conflated with traditional American values like empathy, solidarity, and equality.
   
   
2. Destabilization - The 1960's reads literally like a textbook example of a country in crisis. A presidential assassination, two proxy wars, a mexican standoff with nuclear weapons, a counterculture protest movement, race relations getting strained with protests and violence, and the then-dominant Democratic party coming apart at its seams over disagreements about the war and civil rights.
   
   
3. Crisis - This one is clear. The oil crisis of the 1970's was our key takeover crisis moment. It basically ushered in an end to embedded liberalism as the American way of life. So many aspects of our political life and the way our economy was run was radically changed in the aftermath of that crisis, even though it was a walk in the park compared to today's economic problems.
   
   
4. Normalization - Conservative Republicans won 3 terms in a row, from 1980 until 1992, followed by a conservative, Southern Democrat who won in part because a third party candidate split Republican support. Party-line economists have treated the works of John Maynard Keynes the way their forebears treated the work of Karl Heinrich Marx -- they pretended it had nothing worthwhile to say, and tried their best to erase it from academic discourse. The Democrats of today consider reforms Republicans proposed in 1992 massive ideological win for the left.
   

Take the bananas out of your ears, morons.

Anyways, this is actually a pretty astute observation about how radical political and economic change happens. It's not necessarily planned like our conservative takeover was, but the framework for all ideological revolutions start with an ideology becoming commonly known, then during a period of destabilization and crisis, people may turn to the new ideology.

This is literally what more than a few libertarian bloggers say is their raison d'etre -- to make sure the ideology is lying around for when a crisis hits.

However, anyone who thinks some Russian-led infiltration of "Marxist-Lenninist" ideology happened or is happening is fucking deluded. It would've been a real trick considering your average American doesn't have a fucking clue what Marxism is...because the right stigmatized knowledge of it!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm reading a few stories from prominent bloggers who were initially dismissive of the iPad but have now embraced it.

Say what you will about the closed nature of the OS, lack of ports (people said the same when Apple removed the floppy) or camera - Apple has once again changed the paradigm of how we use computers.

And for all the squealing about Jobs' choke-hold on the platform - it's good to remember that Apple has empowered a whole generation of "little guy" developers to make good money from the app ecosystem - wresting power from the established game behemoths like EA. Good luck making a little game on other platforms - AND actually making dosh from it. The same kind of disruption-- upsetting the applecart of the big publishing companies-- appears to be in the works for self-published authors.

Sorry, but just because the father, who has blogged about beating and starving his own child in order to deal with her behavior, says that his diagnosis is the right one doesn't make it so.


Again, if you had read my post, you'd see that I'm not saying that this is absolutely Munchausen, I'm just saying that these people are a BIT too media-hungry... Oprah, LATimes, etc... they seem like attention whores and frankly I think it is a good idea to question ANYONE who is more concerned about getting media coverage than anything else.

Is the blog I posted a bit whacky in general? Sure. Is it possible they are right? Are there a BUNCH more people who seemed to have the same idea? Yup.

Just because you find a doctor who is willing to go along with Munchausen by proxy doesn't make the diagnosis correct. I'd say by the very comments here in the sift that there is a lot of debate as to what exactly is going on with this girl and to dismiss the idea that the parents might be a bit nuts themselves is very dangerous.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

From what I can tell it has come under a lot of scrutiny and criticism from people who have no idea what they're talking about. The father refers to them, in his blog, as people "prepared to make (or refute) a diagnosis based on 44 minutes of television, newspaper articles, or even what I have written on this blog" and it seems pretty accurate.
He is completely up front about the accusations of abuse in his blog and has been investigated several times.
If you look at the rest of the blog you link to, it's a blog about how medication is bad, doctors are evil and everything is a conspiracy. I also looked around to see if the blogger listed any sort of relevant qualifications, but I'm not seeing any.
>> ^ponceleon:
Just FYI, while schizophrenia is a real and horrible thing, this case in particular has come under a lot of scrutiny as being possible a case of Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy. To be short with it, this is the parents either consciously or unconsciously projecting the illness on their child in order to seek attention.
I'm not trying to minimize the disease where it is real, but there was something quite exhibitionist and attention-getting about the way the parents were parading her around in the video that made me suspicious and when I googled it, there were a lot of claims that this wasn't quite passing the legitimacy sniff test.
Something isn't right here, but it might not be schizophrenia...
Have a look at this:
http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnar
ritive.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-year-old-jani-schofield-schizophrenic.html

From what I can tell it has come under a lot of scrutiny and criticism from people who have no idea what they're talking about. The father refers to them, in his blog, as people "prepared to make (or refute) a diagnosis based on 44 minutes of television, newspaper articles, or even what I have written on this blog" and it seems pretty accurate.

He is completely up front about the accusations of abuse in his blog and has been investigated several times.

If you look at the rest of the blog you link to, it's a blog about how medication is bad, doctors are evil and everything is a conspiracy. I also looked around to see if the blogger listed any sort of relevant qualifications, but I'm not seeing any.

>> ^ponceleon:

Just FYI, while schizophrenia is a real and horrible thing, this case in particular has come under a lot of scrutiny as being possible a case of Munchhausen Syndrome by proxy. To be short with it, this is the parents either consciously or unconsciously projecting the illness on their child in order to seek attention.
I'm not trying to minimize the disease where it is real, but there was something quite exhibitionist and attention-getting about the way the parents were parading her around in the video that made me suspicious and when I googled it, there were a lot of claims that this wasn't quite passing the legitimacy sniff test.
Something isn't right here, but it might not be schizophrenia...
Have a look at this:
http://bipolar-stanscroniclesandnar
ritive.blogspot.com/2009/07/6-year-old-jani-schofield-schizophrenic.html

Since this video was made, the navigation bar is now a transparent tint of the background.

Blogger in Draft
http://bloggerindraft.blogspot.com/