I just want to clear the air of something that is on one hand funny, but also sadly representative of the conservative movement in this country. I’m talking about the ultra right-wing’s dissociative behavior where its members continue to prove how out of touch they are with reality. FOX “News” is leading the pack with its slander and blatant lies, but more importantly the fuel it is giving to comedians everywhere. For anyone under the age of 35 who attended university or for anyone else in this world under about 30 years old (or for that matter with half a brain), the term “tea bagging” is a familiar one. FOX “News” thinks it has something to do with protesting taxation, but they better think again. Keith Olbermann, the MSNBC commentator and former sportscaster, is certainly familiar with the term and wrapped as many euphemisms as possible into this 10 minute piece the other night (so to speak).

But first, for those of you who aren’t familiar with the definition of tea bagging, here are two options to consider thanks to UrbanDictionary.com:

First: Tea bagging

The act of lowering one’s balls onto someones face, or into their mouth while they are laying down. Kind of resembles dipping a tea bag into a hot cup of water.

Second: Tea bagging

A horribly misguided attempt by the most extreme of the American conservative right to find some basic form of party unity by lashing out against everything that the Obama administration has done since entering the White House.

“The Republican tea-bagging of the White House is a glorified waste of time and effort propagated by the Fox News Network in order to boost their TV ratings.”

“Hey Bob, did you go to yesterday’s Republican Tea Bagging Protest?”

“No I didn’t, Joe, because I have a legitimate understanding of the way the economy works.”

See also: “grasping at straws”

See also: “immature hissy-fit”

UPDATE: I’m sorry, but this has just gotten the best of me and I had to include Rachel Maddow’s discussion with Air America correspondent Ana Marie Cox (really, that’s her name):

UPDATE II: I’m just so, so sorry! I have to up the ante once again as we show how Stephen Colbert Tea Bagged the Alamo or Glenn Beck or not at all… This whole thing is starting to feel like a party that Eliot Spitzer might have hosted at this hotel (but please take note that “in and out privileges are for registered guests only.”

Why is Chris Matthews such a panty waist? I’ve asked this question many times before and yet somehow I’m still surprised when new evidence of his fresh disposal is found. Thanks to TPM for this little clip where Matthews discusses how the Justice Department has dropped the charges against Senator Ted Stevens due to prosecutorial misconduct… Well, sort of. That is why the charges were dropped, but apparently Tweety Bird thinks the charges should have never been brought! Oh, and apparently Sen. Stevens is no longer the senior Senator from Alaska BECAUSE of these now dropped charges, according to this blithering idiot.

Well, Mr. Matthews – Just to clarify a few points: Sen. Stevens was already convicted last fall for not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from an oil executive (normally we would call this a bribe, but somehow in this country the crime is just not telling anyone about the bribe, not the bribe itself). And to say that the charges should have never been brought? That is not at all what the Justice Department has said, rather that the charges held merit but that the prosecution failed to share evidence with the defense, thereby screwing up the case. On a related note though, perhaps Matthews should be more concerned with another politician whose re-election bid and political career WERE affected by prosecutorial misconduct, politicization of a trial and a whole other list of crap. Don Siegelman, the former Democratic Governor of Alabama has another appeal pending to try and have his charges dismissed, but he lost his re-election bid years ago because of this crap. Any mention from Matthews on this lately? Some of his other colleagues at MSNBC are a bit better, but so far only when it is convenient. Siegelman was interviewed by TPM regarding these comparisons and you can read that here.

I’m sorry, but is Brian Williams completely unable to find positive stories on his own? And since when does the national media, especially those on television, think that “good news” is actual news? From MSNBC:

“So he (Williams) made a plea seconds before the end of NBC’s newscast on Wednesday: We’re looking for good news. Nominate people doing good work, perhaps a random or regular act of kindness in a cruel economy, and we’ll tell some of their stories.”

Are you fricken kidding me? Go find these good stories yourself! That’s your job!!

Lesley Stahl, of 60 Minutes fame, has posted an interview she conducted earlier in the week with Rachel Maddow of Air America and MSNBC fame. I have respect for Stahl and what she has done with her career, but I often find her interviews to be a bit soft and idyllic. Rachel Maddow, on the other hand, is an intellectual tempest in sheep’s clothing. A force to be reckoned with, this former Rhodes Scholar, AIDS activist and lover of labs (read the interview) is scary smart and a joy to read, listen to and watch.

The volley for serve between these two strong personalities was an entertaining, if at times fluffy read, but there was one comment that concerned me. Stahl asked,

“What about your competition, Fox? …Everybody thinks MSNBC is moving in that direction. …That people there are trying to make you into the un-Fox network, the liberal place to go.”

Maddow’s response discussed the intent behind the creation and shaping of each network and that this intent was of more importance in shaping each network.

“Well, if you think about the way that Fox was founded, though – Fox was founded by Roger Ailes. It was created from his perspective as a political operative. His background was as a Republican activist of the highest order. There’s no equivalent on MSNBC. I think MSNBC is trying to find hit shows.”

While I agree the two networks were founded on different principles, I wish Maddow has discussed the difference between commentary and news reporting, as it relates to any perceived “network agenda”. This line has become so blurred over the last decade that even the good journalists see themselves more as commentators rather than reporters and this has a detrimental affect on how news is reported and perceived.

On the other hand, one of the better parts of the interview was when Stahl asked Maddow about what she’s called “fake balance” in news shows.

LESLEY: … What is that and are you saying that your show is real balance?

RACHEL: I’m not saying that my show is real balance. But I think that the idea of fake balance is worse than not trying to be balanced at all. And what I mean by fake balance is to take any given political or factual issue, a news issue, and to approach it as if there’s a yes and no, pro and con, left and right take on it. On the issue of global warming, for example, that is something that interest groups on one side, as a political issue, tried to make that there was a real debate about the facts. And there really wasn’t a debate about the facts there. And to have a debate about the facts was sort of, at its root, dishonest, because it’s scientific information and, you know, fighting about the interpretation of what we ought to do about it them and whether or not the science is important and all of those things, absolutely fine. Fighting about whether or not we agree with the facts is an argument that is designed to reframe, and for the benefit of one interest group.

LESLEY: … The one you raise about global warming is really interesting because I’ve had to grapple with that myself. When you have the vice president of the United States, Cheney, arguing that global warming, whatever he said – I’m not quite sure he went so far as to say it was a crock, but close. Isn’t there some kind of a newsperson’s obligation to present that view when someone at that high a level is propounding that position?

RACHEL: … But then I think the news story is – the vice president of the United States is propounding radical ideas that are disproven by the facts. And he has taken a position, in contravention of what is known about this issue, which is a radical and counterfactual position and this is something that we should be talking about, about the vice president. The fact that he, in the position that he’s in, is taking that stance, itself becomes a story.

Like I said, Maddow is scary smart and really good at what she does. The interview is enjoyable and can be read in its entirety here.

Douchebaggery, according to Urban Dictionary:

1)The philosophy held by douchebags, holding that no one other than themselves (or perhaps their close associates) matters in the least bit, and thus that other human beings can and should be treated like complete excrement for little or no reason (and often for selfish reasons).

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has never been on my favorites list of TV talking heads, so I’ve often just thrown him into the lazy, self-loathing bunch of bobble heads and not thought much of it. I think this was a mistake, because as a blogger, I’m learning, apparently it should be in my blood to hate the guy. Well, these things sometimes take time and if Matthews continues to make comments like the one he made last Thursday on his Hardball show, then I’m inclined to think Tweety (as the blogosphere calls him) really is the douchebag most bloggers make him out to be.

First, take a look at the Matthews’ bashing from exactly a year ago in relation to the New Hampshire primary and Hillary Clinton’s win there. How quickly and widely this was spread throughout the media world, both online and off, came as a surprise to many. Media Matters wrote a great synopsis of it here, but one of the interesting parts is the description of Rachel Maddow’s role in her screenmate’s downfall in the blogging world.

“…Maddow’s on-air tag-team partner that night, right-wing pundit Pat Buchanan, announced that Clinton’s strong showing in New Hampshire, despite the torrent of predictions about her demise, meant that voters had “body-slammed” the press corps. Maddow saw her opening:

MADDOW: You want to know who they’re blaming for women voters breaking for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? Who they’re blaming for this late showing in a big vote for Hillary Clinton? They’re blaming Chris Matthews. People are citing specifically Chris as a — not only for his own views — but also for as a symbol of what the mainstream media has done to Hillary Clinton.”

Now lets take a look at last Thursday. As you’ll see in the clip below, Matthews asks Liz Benjamin of the New York Daily News, for an explanation as to why Caroline Kennedy withdrew herself from consideration to the NY Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.

“Did she withdraw because of a personal problem perhaps involving her marriage to Ed Schlossberg or did she withdraw because she got word from the vetters (yes that she had a tax problem or a nanny problem? Which was it, of those two?”

Benjamin responded to Matthews’ question by stating rumor and speculation from unnamed sources inside the governor’s (Patterson) office that it could have been a tax or nanny issue, but that there were also those “affair questions” being circulated on blogs. Before she could finish her sentence, Matthews interjected and said, “let’s stick to journalism. I don’t do that here. If it’s just blogging, let’s drop it. OK? If you have anything to report that’s hard, then report it. Don’t give me blog stuff here.”

Now to be fair, you can’t tell anyone with a byline at the New York Post ‘just the facts, ma’am’, but Matthews should have known that… But why bang on the blogs? Hasn’t he learned his lesson? He asked the question about an affair issue in the first place, didn’t he? Chris Matthews (here’s his own blog) might say he doesn’t discuss blogs, but they certainly discuss him. Oh, and why would he lie about “not doing blogs here”? How many times has Matthews reported on a news story first broken by bloggers? I know of many instances where I’ve seen him discuss news stories first broken by blogs, especially considering there are just as many political blogs on the Internet as there are technology blogs. One of these days he’ll come around.