We never left the Chandra Levy (really, the JonBenet Ramsey) Era. Before this, the media squeezed more than a year's worth of coverage out of a teenager who disappeared while on vacation in Aruba. At least Smith's a celebrity, and her death has that bizarre custody battle aspect that was bound to keep her story around for several news cycles longer than anyone could justify.

But the American public fixates on these kind of idiot stories because they're easier for us to process than Iraq or health care or social security reform. Somehow, it seems we feel a greater emotional connection to a moderately attractive blonde (any moderately attractive blonde, regardless of how bad her dye job is) than we do to the thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died in the war.

As for Britney...no Prince songs for her. The saddest thing about her meltdown is that (unlike Sinead O'Connor) she obviously didn't have the kind of head that looks good shaved. Now she looks like a Peanuts character.

Not impressed.

I don't begruge ET and their ilk their ratings; people want to see that, so be it. (And then they voted.) What irks me is supposedly hard news programs covering this as lead or near-lead material.

* Value Over Replacement Train Wreck

6 nope. Not much of a fan of hers either. SNL aside (and that was okay because it had the longest dead-air moment in history until Ashlee breakdanced stage-right and out of camera shot) I'm otherwise indifferent. But at least Sinead... well, never mind, I can't think of anything.

So despite that 99% of males and 50% of females could care less...being able to draw in an audience of 25% the population about this trash is just too much for the news business to pass up.

Just throwing ideas out, here. I really don't know the answer.

The common theme among these women....Someone who looks at life with a micro view. Bigger world issues, not for me.

But we haven't discussed it since.

The common theme among these women....Someone who looks at life with a micro view. Bigger world issues, not for me.
What's the male equivalent? Readers of, say, FHM and Maxim?

How about guys who think that Saddam Hussien was responsible for 9/11?

In other words, I don't know how to answer your question, Scott. I cannot explain why her death is a big deal so many days after the fact.

"Illinois, we're not just for flying over anymore."

The surge of 50,000 troops hasn't happened yet, so whether or not it will be successful is kind of up in the air, but naturally facts won't stop the GOP.

Destroying Social security doesn't count as reforming it.

Big Picture?? Gay dudes that can't now commit to each other is Big Picture??

The deficit is a complete creation of the ridiculous war in Iraq...our debt (to China BTW) is a total result of a mendacious exercise in Mesopotamia.

Night is Day, Up is Down in 2007.

I will give you the part about the Republicans being in the right on social security....but that was back in 1995, when as part of the Gingrich revolution, they tried to raise the age limits.

I'm a big fan of Bill Clinton, but he shamelessly manipulated this issue with the rest of his party, to gain back some momentum. (the advisor who told him that he should do this was one of the biggest douchebag in politics, Dick Morris. the same morris who now spends all of his waking hours trying to slam hilary clinton)

Considering that Karl Rove has made a career of taking issues like this which are bad for the country, but exploiting them for political gain, it's hard for me to feel really bothered by it. Plus, Clinton did enough good as Prez to make up for this big mistake, despite the Right-wing attack machine trying to do everything they could to derail him.

Bush's plan for private accounts I think is too risky, as the majority of americans have no idea what the market is all about. Of course, it would have been a boon for the large Financial corporations, just like the lowering of the capital gains tax was.

In regards to the escalation of the war, it might have been a good idea 3 years ago, when McCain, Hagel, and Powell were for it, but it seems now like a case of way too late. The Baker/Hamilton plan makes a lot more sense, but is being ignored by Dubya and Cheney, because they know it is such a reversal in the way they have conducted the war so far. Success with it would just point to how much blood and treasure has been senselessly lost by this administration.

Have you met any soldiers that have spent most of their past 4 years in Iraq? I have and it is not a pretty story. We have severely damaged the American Military, as it was never designed to be used like this for as long as it has. Families of soldiers are being destroyed, as the Bush administration continues to have no exit strategy. Of course, Dumbass Rumsfeld thought we would only need about 20,000 troops in Iraq after the first year, ignoring what most actual military experts had told him and firing the ones who spoke up about it in public.

I'm not a partisan like you. I can admit when one party is right about something. Sadly since 9/11, the Bush administration has been wrong on almost everything,, while the Democrats for the most part have been afraid or just mentally deficient in offering up anything of substance to counterbalance their stupidity.

I'm not above mentioning when I'm wrong about something, but I don't see where this would be the case.
*

Let me mention that I'm not saying men are smarter than women over this whole Anna Nicole deal. Bullshit celebrity news for many women is like their version of sports. While I get caught up in the drama of sports, it really is not much more than escapist entertainment from life's problems, as much as I might want to justify it as more. Anna Nicole is like the Barry Bonds or Terrell Owens of the entertainment world.

It's a matter of priorities I suppose and the peace dividend needed to get into the 'right' pockets like it has been since 1945.

Scott, I find your indictment of Bush's plan of private accounts puzzling. First, it's a wonderful commentary on public education in this country (sorry, couldn't resist). Secondly, whatever the level of knowledge about the market, a plan could be designed so that each person chooses from a limited set of options about where to invest some of his payroll taxes. It's not like the expectation is for people to start buying individual stocks.

If it isn't obvious, I'm in favor of a private plan option. There are numerous benefits, including better returns, ownership (wealth creation), and inheritability. Maybe the financial corporations benefit, too-whatever. I just know that I'll be better off, and I suspect 99% of people under 50 will be as well.

And, no, I'm not proposing that Social Security be done away with here. People 50 and over have paid into the system for years and are owed money. There are ways a plan can be drawn up to make sure those obligations are met as well.

I used to be worried about Social Security insolvency, but I'm not any longer. When Bush and Congress passed the Medicare prescription entitlement, they created a much bigger problem that will need to be addressed much sooner.

Destroying Social Security has never been proposed by either party, the issue is the private accounts that Todd mentions in 23, and which party has attempted to address that problem and which, as Scott to his great credit notes, "have been afraid or just mentally deficient in offering up anything of substance" to address these soon-to-be-crises.

21 - Scott, a few questions.

1. Does "Clinton did enough good as Prez to make up for this big mistake" on Social Security include slashing the defense budget so deep it is STILL relatively (% of GDP, if I remember my sources right, and will try to dig that one up) underfunded and undermanned compared with mid-1980s levels?

This is actually one point I agree with you on, as I think the recently announced expansion of the Army by some 90,000 soldiers over three years should have begun on, say, September 12th 2001.

2. What constitutes "too much blood and treasure" to successfully prosecute this war Scott? Our economy has never been stronger, and while the sacrifices of 3,000 brave soldiers should never be forgotten, it pales in comparison with the 40,000+ Americans of draft age who are killed in auto accidents alone every year.

From Wikipedia, 2007 US government expenditures:
"$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security
$466.0 billion (+4.0%) - Defense
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2007

Of course I have met soldiers who have spent time in Iraq. While individual opinions differ, like with any group of people, they all believe in the validity of their mission and understand the "exit strategy" is a free, democratic, and secure Iraq that is an ally in the War on Terror, just as has been said since 2002.

I will be the first to admit that no party has all of the answers for any of the challenges that we face these days, but which do you think is trying to constructively address them, and which is trying to relive their glory days of the (thankfully) long-gone 1960s and 70s? This includes, mind you, all of the useless comparisons between ANS and Marilyn Monroe, etc etc...your sports analogy is a good one, but the real trouble comes when the entertainment IS the news, and the big questions are subsequently not addressed.

THAT is what my generation will have to fix.

22 - See my numbers cited above, then see 23. If possible, please elaborate on your last sentence, as I am unsure whose you believe are "the right pockets".

23 - Agreed. Yet still, every year these issues are not addressed means it will be that much more difficult when the political will is finally there. One party, as Scott has pointed out, has tried to address this problem in 1995 and in 2005. The other has shouted "Destroying social security!!".

Sorry for the monster post...can we all at least agree that the biggest douchebag in politics is Jimmy Carter? ;)

My point with the broken military is that many of these soldiers have spent most of the last 4 years in Iraq. Some of these people are are just part-time soldiers. Now how can we expect to send 20-50 thousand more of these people over there to spend another year (or 10) to try to solve this. What about there family lives and jobs they are trying to hold?

Sure there has been a retreat, but most experts believe that we will go in to "root out" the insurgents, only to find they are in hiding somewhere else, just waiting for when we leave. The staggering amount of mistakes this administration has made just doesn't give me much hope they will do this one right. I like the new General in charge, but he's about 3 years too late. Gates is an improvement over Rumsfeld, but as long as Cheney has power, this is going to continue to be one big neo-con f-up.

Put me in the corner of Republicans like Warner, Hagel, and Brownback on this issue.
I'm thinking that Biden's plan to split up the country into 3 sections, while wrought with problems just might be the best of a bad set of choices.

Back to the Clinton slashing of the military. Rumsfeld went into the job with an even bigger concept of cutting the grunt force, being more focused on spending money on new weapon systems. I'm not sure this wasn't a good idea, except that Rummy and Cheney got us into this Iraq war basically by ourselves and has created a serious issue of stretching our military troops way too thin.

While you are touting how Al Sadr is on the run, questionable regimes in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and some African nations have been emboldened since they know our dance card is being filled in Iraq. Oh and by the way, Afghanistan has been taken over by militias except in the major cities---with Al Qaeda making a scary resurgence.

Anna Nicole Smith---Caminiti comparison decent, with the drug issues and lack of responsibility. Caminiti was above a replacement level talent, though, while Smith wasn't.

Finally, let me say offer that I would like to have private accounts for myself, as well. I just don't think most have any clue on how to run their stocks. Oh and by the way, I bet Henry Blodgett had a private education, but he wiped out many other "private school" grads life savings, chasing the dragon which was internet tulip mania.

I want to mention that if we rip each other or not here, I appreciate the lively debate.

Regarding the budget...yeah those are close to the official numbers, but they do not include the half-year supplemental defense budget:

From the Washington Post:

"President Bush's defense budget request of $481.4 billion -- an 11 percent boost over last year -- pushes U.S. defense spending to levels not seen since the Reagan-era buildup of the 1980s.

In addition, the president is seeking a projected $141.7 billion in emergency supplemental funding for 2008 for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for broader anti-terrorism efforts -- bringing the total spent in those arenas since 2001 to $661 billion, eclipsing in real terms the cost of the Vietnam War."

My public school math shows that as 622 billion on defense...for now...those figures don't even count the famed 'surge':

"Pentagon officials noted that the 2008 supplemental request does not include additional funding for Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. The most recent 2007 supplemental request of $93 billion includes $5.6 billion to add five Army brigades and 4,000 Marines to the force in Iraq."

Of course we all know that 21,500 troops mean combat troops, the total number of troops will be closer to 50,000 when support staff is considered---and naturally they aren't funded either.

So we've pissed away 661 billion that we don't have (thanks for the loan, Beijing!!) on a war that we can't end against a foe that can't be defeated by military means. We've spent 661 billion trying to fight the end products of a world that creates terrorists and nothing on trying to change the conditions that create them in the first place. I fail to see how killing a good chunk of a populace will make the survivors see things our way.

Now, I'm a harsh critic of religion and its prime role in much of the insanity that passes for policy and behavior throughout the east and west, but religion isn't the sole motivator of those who have aligned against us. We have been engaged in a pattern of interference and intervention in the mideast for a century that has helped to create the quagmire that we find ourselves in now. Any solution to our 'terrorist problem' must address our interventionist policies to have any chance of success and neither party seems to be willing to ackhowledge this.

The 'right' pockets...??? I figured my 1945 reference would have sufficed....oh well...noted Republican Dwight Eisenhower warned us against the military industrial complex and it's corrosive hold upon our government. Let me simply state that there are those that have much to gain by the continued funding of a complete failure of a military program (say an anti-missle missle program to the tune of 10 billion per) rather than the complete funding of a certain president's 'leave the kids behind' initiative that costs half as much (which is still underfunded five years later).

Biggest Douchebag??? Dick Cheney is the Babe Ruth of political douchebags.

Do you like Ann Coulter as a frontman?? (I do mean 'man' here).

Ann C could probably fill several Scott "Please Explain"s all by herself :)

And Chris, if you really want to learn how to think differently about the WoT (and Iraq which is most certainly an integral front in it), check out this book: http://tinyurl.com/2zqwrf