Some have come to White’s defense but at least one has quickly retreated from that position: Roger Ebert. Ebert stands by his decision to support White’s review of District 9 but conceded, upon further review, that “White is, as charged, a troll.” Then he says something strange. Ebert reiterates, by virtue of posting his original blog post, his support for the “ideal” that is Armond White. You see, Armond White has a TomatoMeter of exactly 50%. Though he tempers his endorsement of such a metric, Ebert nonetheless concludes that White to be the “epitome of the ideal critic, positioned smack dab in the middle of the scale.” David Engber of Slate follows the same argument saying “White votes with the mainstream exactly half the time: He’s neither conformist nor contrarian.” Engber even goes as far as to compile this gee-whiz graph

Without permission from Slate.com

showing that White indeed falls right at the center of agreement and disagreement with his peers. And while he astutely observes that the other critics “happen to be bunched up at around 75 percent on the scale” he cluelessly insinuates that it is the conformity of the general movie critic community that skews White to be depicted as a contrarian.

Despite what I, and hundreds of Rotten Tomato readers, believe to be overwhelming evidence that White is indeed a contrarian, there is an important philosophical and mathematical point to be made here: professional movie critics tend to agree with each other. As an example, let’s consider the sport everyone loves to hate: figure skating. Tonya Harding triumphantly returns to the oval and skates the night of her life. The five judges raise their score cards: 0.5, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 10. Now, you don’t have to be a statistician to suspect that something is awry. How could one person, from a panel of equally distinguished and impartial judges (i.e. rational), upon seeing the exact same performance, deviate in opinion so greatly from his peers? In the context of our example, most viewers would quickly divine that the 5th judge is in fact Shawn Eckhardt. But in general, assuming that judges, or in our case movie critics, are professional purveyors of their respective crafts, one can conclude that the 5th judge is irrational; that is, contrary to normal behavior. Let me try to make this point more formally.

Even without a rigorous statistical study of Engber’s dataset, it is clear from the graph that the judges are, as Engber observed, bunched together. Mathematically, this means that the dataset’s variance is small. In an experimental setting, Armond White’s dot represents an experiment gone wrong. The field of statistics says that, according to the data, the experiment may indeed deviate in such a manner but is mathematically unlikely. For real scientific experiments, the variance of our experimental measurement is due to randomness present in each test; perfectly controlled operating conditions are rare. In our case, the experiment is reviewing movies. More specifically, it is reviewing critics reviewing movies. Let’s bring a large group of professional critics together and have them watch a ton of movies and rate them. In the case of movie reviews, randomness surely exists (i.e. a bad day, a boost of caffeine) but for the most part, critics watch the movies under the same conditions. Intuitively, we understand that a rating, alternatively described as a statistic, aggregated from 50 critics is more telling than one aggregated from 2 critics; averaging over a large set of movie ratings, that is, statistics on statistics, this is even more true. Engber’s data say that when we have critics rate movies they tend to agree, which is why people use movie reviews to adjudicate the quality of a movie. What you see in the chart is not conformity, but rather consistency. In fact, the data is a testament to the integrity of movie criticism as a field. Mathematically speaking, dissenting from your peers for a few movies is understandable and not unlikely. This kind of behavior will not markedly change your place on the chart. Repeated dissension means something else altogether. Armond White is an outlier. And I’m not talking about the Malcolm-Gladwell-just-wrote-a-book-about-me-I’m-special kinda outlier.  Rather, if we are to believe the other 19 critics to be impartial, well trained, adroit movie critics, the data set can be interpreted in two ways: 1. White is incompetent; 2. White acts in a deliberately irrational manner. Ruling out 1. by his credentials and Ebert’s quasi-support for him, one can safely conclude that Armond White is indeed a contrarian.

But the current state of the nation is a dire one. Emerging economies are growing rapidly at double digit rates buttressed by billion strong workforces. Our perennially poor performing public education system has increased the reliance on international talent to spur innovation and investment. But as the rest of the world catches up to the American standard, our appeal to the best and brightest slowly diminishes. And while the most ambitious and fortuitous American’s may be able to stay above the fray, those less so will no longer be able to succeed simply on the ethos of hard work, a long standing tenet of realizing the American dream. Without intervention, there is no reason to believe that America’s dominance can sustain into the distant future. 

The most fundamental purpose of government is to protect and defend its citizens. Although many adhere strictly to the original drafters’ explicit definition of defense, I believe it carries a much broader interpretation. Our founding fathers did not consider the economic threat to American workers from low income Chinese laborers. They were not aware that a financial collapse could threaten the future of America. They did not imagine citizens could be denied the right to healthcare. Simply said, they could not envision the importance the government’s role to the continued well being of our nation.

Healthcare

The foremost definition of protection comes in the form of the healthcare. We cannot demand the best from our workers when they are burdened by the uncertainty of survival. For many, this means the inability to pay for past medical treatments; for others, postponement of necessary treatment altogether. While the government cannot and should not be the answer to every problem, neither is the free market. Though it is convenient to criticize the market in today’s economic climate, there are many instances in which the market seems to lack the requisite mechanisms to be the sole solution. One such instance is healthcare. It is my belief that healthcare is a right of every human being and that there is something fundamentally wrong about the intersection of profits and and an individual’s health. The corporations will always find a way to maximize the bottom line and in this industry, it is at the direct expense of the patient. It seems unconscionable that one could be deprived of care or excessively charged because of pre-existing conditions. Yet the market has no provision, no obligation to serve everyone in the market. Consequently, we need government intervention to ensures the right of access, just as the Department of Agriculture ensures the right to safe food. Still, for some the current, unreformed system remains financially out of reach. Many scoff at the idea of government subsidization of healthcare, but if the core purpose of government is to protect the people I can imagine no more appropriate use of taxpayer money than to preserve the right to health.

Investment in Education and Industry

Globalization has proved itself a harsh mistress. She pays no heed to the well being of one country over another nor gives any consideration to legacy performers. And during periods of peril, it is the job of a nation’s government to preserve and ensure the continued well being of its citizens. While there is only so much a government should do and will be allowed to do (by other nations) to economically shield its citizens from periods of transition, it can initiate public projects to promote domestic job growth by investing in new technologies. The precedence has been set by FDR in the New Deal, which led to one of the greatest economic expansions in US history and effectively created what we recognize as today’s middle class. Some may criticize this as unnecessarily meddlesome, but export controls, trade agreements and subsidies have long been instruments of the global economic tableaux. A federally funded “Manhattan Project” for alternative energy will simultaneously create thousands of jobs, staunch the flow of money to the petrol-dictatorships and sponsors of terrorism, and possibly reverse the sobering effects of global climate change. Furthermore, it will situate America as the leader of world’s next breakthrough technology. 

But just as the automobile, personal computer, and internet revolution drove 20th century America, we will need a similar stream of innovation to propel America into the 21st century and beyond. But to continue the age of American exceptionalism, the government must do more to prepare its citizens to compete with their foreign counterparts in an increasingly fierce job market. Today, our secondary education system ranks near the bottom when compared against other industrialized nations. It is disingenuous to believe we can maintain our status when we leave posterity behind. History has proven that change will not come from the state level. The majority of public school funding comes from the revenue generated by local property taxes. Under this system, it is not hard to see why students from low income neighborhoods fail to close the achievement gap between themselves and their peers from more affluent households. Vouchers gained prominence in the Reagan era and their failures have relegated the idea to nothing more than a relic today. Though students may shift from one school to another, it fails to address the scarce supply of skilled teachers. Under the current system, public schools lack the leverage to attract the brightest to teach our children. The government must provide incentives for our gifted students to enter programs like Teach for America and provide funds to attract qualified graduates to teaching positions. Only with a strong educational foundation can we ensure generational success of this country.

How We’ll Do It

At this point, I hope I have made the case that the continued prosperity of America will rely on the increased involvement of the federal government. But it would be irresponsible and duplicitous to advocate these changes without acknowledging the source of revenue: taxes. While no member of society should be exempt from paying taxes, I do believe that people who benefit greatly from our system should be expected to contribute more than those who do not.

It is a truism that the individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own destiny, but I do not believe that the system is equally favorable to every individual.  Economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman famously said, ”There is no excuse for an economic system that treats people like objects, except that, as Churchill said of democracy, capitalism is the worst system known except all those others that have been tried from time to time.” The current economic crisis is an excellent example of the inherent inequities of this system. A worker who contributes to his pension for his entire career can lose that money because of an fund manager’s greed and poor decision making. Yet, as evidenced by the $700 billion bail out plan, the rich can utilize society to share a disproportionate amount of risk to amass windfall profits. Economist Nouriel Roubini best summed it up with the statement, “We’re essentially continuing a system where profits are privatized and…losses socialized.” Accepting that this is the system that we have used, currently use, and will continue to use, why is it so reprehensible to expect greater contributions from these members of society?

Some may make the argument that taxation is not limited to the CEOs and executives; that the small business owners will also be asked to contribute more of their earnings. Extrapolate that further and it prompts the most salient question of all is “Why should anyone forfeit any of his or her hard earned dollars to these programs?” This is a difficult question to answer and fundamentally divides the two major political parties. I find that war, especially given recent events, to be the most appropriate analogy. Many consider the War on Terror to be a necessary expenditure to preserve the well being of this nation. Could the same claim be made about our education system? Thomas Jefferson is often quoted saying “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Few would argue there is a nobler sacrifice than to send our sons and daughter in defense of our nation. Yet apportioning a part one’s income to protect and serve the welfare of the public is often criticized as unpatriotic or Un-American. 

Nevertheless a fatal flaw in the argument remains. It assumes that government will actually produce the results as intended. This is the part where I ask for a leap of faith. Inherent in this leap of faith is the belief that I am no longer the sole benefactor of my labors; that my neighbor’s well being affects my well being; that my support of these programs is an implicit referendum on my fellow Americans. This is a crucial and necessary step to rebuilding our country. Its challenges will not be solved by funding alone. They require by a fundamental shift in the way Americans view one another. “United we stand, divided we fall.” Never has this aphorism rang truer.

The O’Reilly Factor is showing an interiew Bill O’Reilly had with Senator Obama in a four part series starting today and ending on Wednesday. I will comb through some of the finer points and add some much needed rationale and perspective.

0:28 Both are aware of what’s about to go down and Obama is all smiles. Take your best shot.

1:07 First attempt to knock Obama off his horse by tieing Iran with Al Qaeda. Obama knows better to commit the same foible as his opponent and makes a point of demarkating Iran as a Shia state and Al Qaeda as a Sunni stronghold.

1:31 And it doesn’t take long for O’Reilly to rudely interrupt his guest, who is making his point. And you wonder why it took so long for Obama to agree to an interview? The fact that this man is on the air is an insult to the intelligence of Americans.

2:30 O’Reilly asks Obama if he considers Iran to be a real threat and whether he would “prepare for a [military option],” reinforcing with “that is the real question though Senator. Anybody can say option, would you prepare for it?” What the fuck is preparing for a military option? Mobilizing our already overstretched armed forces? Deploying battleships and carriers? Let us not forget that our actions in the region are carefully monitored by the increasingly hostile, Iran-friendly Russians. An unprovoked, and disproportionate show of force would be incredibly dangerous. Obama answers by saying “it is sufficient to say that I would not take the military option off the table,” which is the perfect answer. Sabre-rattling has always been the modus operandi of the Republican party and while they strike down Democrats for being weak on defense, they readily risk the lives of tens of thousands of American soliders to sort out their geopolitical pissing contest. 

3:31 True to form, O’Reilly’s douchebaggery comes out in full force as he shoehorns his last word into the discussion and ends the conversation.

3:43 O’Reilly had to dig deep into this thesaurus, calling Obama’s prescience to the difficulties of the Iraqi War “perspicacious,” to demonstrate the “fair and balanced” nature of his judgement. Obama smirks. He’s thinking the same thing . But on this show, no compliment is left unpaired without harsh disapproval calling him “desperately wrong” on the surge. Obama defends himself as having made a well measured decision given five years of seemlingly no progress and general mismangement of the war.

“It worked, c’mon!” O’Reilly goads. There is so much false reasoning its ridiculous. It’s like saying, let’s burn a trillion dollars to appease the war fairies, and if “successful”, claim the decision to burn a trillion dollars correct. How do viewers stand for this?

6:38 O’Reilly attacks with allusions to confrontational, controversial remarks Obama made about Pakistan a few months back and when the Senator offers a substantial rebuttal, he completely switches gears and asks “so you’re going to allow the Islamic fundamentalist take over?” Talks about extremes. You’re right Bill, people only operate in a binary fashion. And that whole ‘let’s appease Pakistan’ thing went up in flames when Musharref was basically thrown out of office last week. Man I’m glad we had his support!

Good god, this is only a seven minute interview and I’m already all worked up.

1:10 President Bill Clinton gets the longest ovation of any speaker yet. Its so out of control he’s actually urging people to stop. “Y’all sit down, we gotta get on with the show here!”

4:42 “In the end, my candidate didn’t win.” Oh yeah, great job Bill, that’ll unite them. Really helping your cause here.

5:52 Finally indicates he’s supporting Obama and makes a half-hearted plea to persuade her supporters.

7:20 Bill really does do that ‘bite the upper lip thing,’ which made Darrell Hammond famous on SNL.

8:41 Explicitly refutes his previous claim that Obama was perhaps not ready to be president. This is something Hillary was expected to do, but ultimately did not (Hi, I’m 3 a.m. attack ad, please address me).

10:56 “Barack Obama is ready to lead and restore American leadership in the world. … Barack Obama is ready to be President of the United States.” Highlights the ills he expects Obama to remedy; sounds like a enumeration of the policies he addressed in his presidency.

13:18 “When he cannot convert our adversaries into partners, he will stand up to them.”

14:30 Best quote of the night. “People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than the example of our power.” Beeeeeeaautiful.

15:56 “I will never forget the parents of children with autism and other serious conditions, who told me on the campaign trail, that they couldn’t afford healthcare and couldn’t qualify their children on medicaid unless they quit their job and starve or got a divorce. Are these the family values the Republicans are so proud of?” Oh god, FINALLY. The Dems have a much more favorable public opinion than the Republicans. Why have they shied away from that? They have to continue to reinforce the differences between the two parties.

17:40 Platitudes for McCain’s military service. 

18:40 More Republican p0wnage. Oh yes. “Its [the Republican] philosophy the American people never actually had a chance to see, in action, fully, until 2001 when the Republicans finally gained control of both the White House and the Congress. Then we saw what would happen to America. If the policies they had talked for decades actually were implemented. And look what happened.”

20:09 “They actually want us to reward them for the last eight years by giving them four more. … Thanks but no thanks.” These are the type of comments that will hit Americans hard. Interpret and verbalize what their actions would mean if they voted, once again, for a Republican. Outstanding.

23:45 This truly lived up to its billing. The strength of the speech is surely going to help Barack along way, much more than Hillary’s could have. Extremely well measured delineations of the two parties and their legacies.

Remember when Dems couldnt shut Kerry up fast enough? Lets see if he can redeem himself.

1:10 Like fiftieth “Freudian” slip of the tongue when referring to John McCain as “Bush.” Really reflects their strategy to call a McCain presidency a “third-Bush presidency.”

3:14 “We must listen and lead by example. Because even a country as powerful as the united states needs some friends in this world.” First time someone has included this in their speech. Thank you.

4:14 Everyone is a friend of McCain. Really? “For those who still believe in a myth of a maverick instead of a reality of a politician, I say lets compare Senator McCain to Candidate McCain.” Oh yeah, here we fucking go. I’ve always said I liked McCain when he was just the Senator of Arizona. Campaign reform, reduced pork barreling, amnesty for illegal immigrants. He once had scruples but gave them up to the Republican party. Remember, he was LOATHED by conservatives even once he had become the presumptive Republican nominee; there is a reason.

4:22 Outlines the shifts in position on: war-time tax cuts (once calling them “irresponsible”), climate change, immigration. “Talk about being for it, before you’re against it. … Before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself.” Zing!

5:32 Cites the Rove tactics of smear and fear, once repudiated by McCain during the 2000 primary elections against Bush, are now embraced by Candidate McCain. Kerry is now the new master flip flop caller-outer.

Biden’s formal nomination is spear-headed by a video from Steven Spielberg and narrated by Tom Hanks. Really well done – how predictable.

0:00 Introduced by Biden’s son Beau. He’s the Attorney General in Delaware, who is going to Iraq because he’s also a captain in the U.S. National Reserve. Senator Biden actually grew up with a speech impediment; you never would have known.

6:02 This is a speech to introduce himself to the American public. A middle class grinder. “When I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, and this is the God’s truth, she sent me back out and said ‘Bloody their noses so you can walk down the street the next day.” Biden: violent adolescence, mother approved.

8:20 Reiterates the ills of middle-class America with problems “as ordinary as they are profound.”

9:38 Another Bush-McCain “Freudian slip.” How about “I didn’t rehearse my lines.”

12:59 “I’ve seen Barack touch people.” Uh huh… ahem… probably a poor choice of words.

16:11 FINALLY, someone said it and stopped letting McCain rest on his laurels. “These times require more than a good solider, they require a wise leader.”

23:52 Not bad, but not a whole lot either.

25:16 Barack cameo! Oh wow, almost tongued Jill Biden. Nothing wrong with that .

And in accordance with my pledge-to-myself-that-I-can-choose-to-rescind-anytime to be tough on the Democrats and liberals, let me just say liberal, political pundit darling Rachel Maddow is a psycho woman. This is why mainstream media, be it liberal (MSNBC) or retarded (FOX News), is maddening to watch.

Upon hearing that the McCain campaign is going to ‘leak’ his nomination for VP, she was stunted with befuddlement and nonsensically asked “imagine picking the man who was governor of Minnesota during the Minneapolis bridge collapse on the date that is the anniversary of Katrina making landfall… you gotta acknowledge the symbolic power of that date, that setting, and that guy.” Pat Buchanan, that crickity, out of place, and reliably crazy curmudgeon called upon the seldom used power of reason to refute it as “cooky.” Reminds me of:

Oh my god, watching that again just made me want to hurt something. Please folks, for your own sake, stick to your local PBS station.

Update: In covering Biden’s speech, I forgot to add some additional thoughts about John Kerry’s speech. Much to my chagrin, Michael Cohen has already highlighted the most salient moments in today’s New York Times. Particularly, this quote:

How insulting to suggest that those who question the mission, question the troops. How pathetic to suggest that those who question a failed policy, doubt America itself. How desperate to tell the son of a single mother who chose community service over money and privilege that he doesn’t put America first.

For me, it was like expelling a cancer that grew and festered with every Fox News telecast. That single quote should remind us all of the repugnance of spin and its incongruence to the selection of our leaders.

She faces an uphill battle to unite the party against the most fervent supporters of her also-ran campaign, who are absolutely inconsolable after what they perceived to be gender bias from the mainstream media during the Democratic Primaries. These women (example below) are unabashed in their attempt to destroy what ground the Democrats have made over the Republicans in the past four years. They’ve gone as far as proclaiming themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) and are proving to be an annoyingly, unstoppable force metastasizing quickly over Web 2.0.

President of PUMA PAC

Upon discovering http://blog.pumapac.org, I had the right mind to endorse the repeal of women suffrage. But the campaign moving forward is indeed about unity so I will leave my most strident comments out of the blogosphere.

While most recognize that she cannot deliver her followers to the Obama camp, anything short of a full effort will surely hurt her chance for the presidency in the future.

And here we go…

2:30:10 Video introduction to Senator Clinton narrated by Chelsea.

2:30:40 Clips from the primary played with Van Halen’s “Girl You Got Me Now” as a backdrop.

2:31:24 The caption for Bill Clinton is “Hillary’s Husband.” Cute.

2:32:20 Video now takes on a more of an anthropomorphous perspective, as it touches on the more humanoid features of her personality.

2:34:04 Uh oh, a Hillary quote used to describe herself as someone who has been “counted out but refused to be knocked out” is played over a picture of Barack. PUMAs are seething; can be seen feasting on a young virgin boy.

2:36:07 Bill has had a terribly forced smile plastered on his face all night. Talk about knowing when the camera’s on you. Can be seen mouthing “I love you, I love you” incessantly, which is no doubt a mystic chant to ensure she keeps her human form for the duration of the speech. Bill, give me a fucking break.

2:39:36 Barack’s name is finally mentioned. Says the time is now to “unite as a single party with a single purpose.”

2:41:69 “No way, no how, no McCain.” How droll. Crowd goes wild. Bill laughs uncontrollably.

2:45:52 This is starting to sound like a farewell speech. Why now? Ugh. She did say there was a need for a catharsis in the Democratic Party. Yeah, in the same way I need to be implanted with a catheter.

2:49:00 Not sure how a politician who went to Wellesley and Yale Law can sound like a champion of the blue collared but pulls it off.

2:50:38 Potentially the best possible attempt to sway the ice queens: “I want you to ask yourselves, ‘Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for the young marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer trying to raise her kids… [or] were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible.” Incredibly well framed, bravo. Plea to put a Democrat back in the White House.

2:53:31 Reference to the historically successful Clinton administration to restore her husband’s tattered image. Bill slides back into his seat, absolutely gushing. He is so enthralled, he just might give up his turn to be the man this week.

2:54:44 Shout out to Michelle Obama.

2:57:55 John McCain doesn’t support equal pay for women? Oh that’s right.

2:59:15 Channels Harriet Tubman. “Keep going! But before we keep going, we have to get going by electing Barack Obama the next President of the United States.”

3:01:26 Great speech, well crafted and well delivered. Probably would have been VP had the primaries not gone awry. Harridan moniker less deserved after tonight. C’mon PUMA freaks, let not perfection be the enemy of good.

0:01 Looks like they are starting with the town hall session first instead of Pelosi’s speech.

1:03 Who the hell is this guy and why do I care about his Wisconsin upbringing-thank god Jim Lehrer cuts away.

4:30 Notable Obama critic, David Brooks, is on this analysis panel? What the hell. Remember him and the Applebees fiasco? Ugh. Claims Obama has skirted around Obama supporter, Senator Sherrod Brown’s, denunciation of NAFTA and globalization in general. Oh Midwest America, please stop voting so we can stop pandering to you.

8:33 Pelosi introduced via corny video. “Military promises to leave no solider behind; democrats promise to leave no veterans behind.”

12:54 Pelosi give shout out to the gremlins still habituating the Hillary camp.

14:09 Needlessly pounds the gavel. Wow. Did she rehearse her speech at all? This is awful.

17:25 “Same failed policies.” Beating that phrase into our skulls.

18:30 She coerces the audience to join her in repeating “Barack Obama is right; John McCain is wrong.” This is insufferably hackneyed. Sincerity is not her strong point.

24:23 Its over. Finally. David Brooks calls it “cliche” and “generic.” For once, we can agree. Pelosi as first speaker: mistake.

29:23 Jimmy Carter tribute features Katrina victims; paints a vivid picture of the current administrations inability to take care of its own citizens.

36:38 Obama’s sister is speaking. Decent … I suppose. I am way too critical of the speakers.

42:08 Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is speaking vis a vis Obama speaking at the DNC 2004???? Nah, not charasmatic enough. But a strong, powerful speech nonetheless. Theme of unity.

1:15:42 Caroline Kennedy is on the podium. ‘I’ve never had someone inspire me the way people tell me my father inspired them … but I do now! Barack Obama!’

1:21:02 Video tribute to Ted Kennedy video. Very well done, fit for a Kennedy.

1:30:08 Warm reception to Ted Kennedy’s from the Obama faithful. Healthcare, Iraq, and American goals are talking points.

2:03:36 Token Republican at DNC, former Congressman Jim Leach of Iowa; also works as Dick Cheney’s stunt double. Highlights the historical precedence for bipartisanship.

2:10:44 JFK name dropping!

2:11:05 Repeated quote of the night: “Little is riskier to the national interest than more of the same.”

2:14:57 A very vibrant Senator Claire McCaskill from Missouri at the podium.

2:15:40 “… the people of Missouri. Good hardworking, god loving, family centered, blessed with an abundance of common sense and a tough streak of Harry Truman style independence.” Are you trying to convince us or yourself… The campaign is trying hard to erase that “bitter” comment from the minds of gun totin’ evangelicals.

2:20:25 “There is only one candidate in this race who has supported equal pay for equal work by America’s women and candidate is Barack Obama!” McCaskill is really reaching out to those who have believe they have been slighted by Obama.

2:22:46 Best speech of the night, so far. But Michelle Obama is on deck and here comes a video intro.

2:25:22 Oh my my, there is more than meets the eye. The video also includes anecdotes from the first time Michelle met Barack. Thats schoo schweeet.

2:29:19 Outstanding video, but Michelle’s story needs no gilding. Remarkable.

2:32:10 Michelle’s brother gives a very heartfelt introduction to his sister. As Oregon State basketball coach, he said “Go Beavers!” Beavers.

2:36:47 HUGE ovation for Michelle.

2:37:39 An absolute natural at public speaking. An impassioned speech about hard work, hope, and charity. Smart, chic, attractive, and philanthropic: coolest couple on the planet.

2:53:53 Impeccable. You really wonder what Cindy McCain is thinking when she see’s Michelle operate. Better get a double on this month’s Botox injection.

2:54:52 Jim Lehrer hints at a “special event … through the magic of electronics.” Oooooh!!!! I hope I hope its a giant cyborg Obama wreaking havoc … aww just a video feed from Kansas 

2:56:44 Obama introduces a family he is visiting along the campaign trail, the Gerrado family. Camera fixates on Barack. You cant see any of them. Expect Stewart and Colbert to go after this one.

Aaaaaand CUT. Wow. Note to self: do not live blog the first night of the DNC or the first night of ANY weeklong event for that matter, ever.

A pig thats afraid of mud. Thats right, you read that correctly. Mysophobia. Fear of dirt. How the hell they managed to confirm the pig actually has the condition is unbeknownst to me.

And instead of righting the ship and putting this little guy on a one way flight to the breakfast table, they gave him boots. Boots. On a fucking piglet. Look folks, enough with the sus domesticus coddling. No point letting the pig grow up on a silver spoon. There’s one reason and one reason only that pig was born. And whats with that color pattern! He looks like a naked pig wearing some sort of wierd pig tuxedo. With no top. And a mask.

Also, kudos to the BBC for that informative video. I’ll spare you a minute of your life and just say that after a 30 second HSBC commercial, you get about 15 seconds of this pig walking. No reporting. No story. Pig walking. I remember some Brit complaining about American media the other day…

Full Article Here

Make note of these guys’ uncanny ability to turn a phrase. For example at 1:30, Bret’s rap lyrics are a cornucopia of fruits and obscenities and ends it by ‘pop-an-apple in his ass’ with a delivery that makes it sound like the word pineapple. GENIUS!

And my two fav songs:

why  we still paying so much for sneakers when you got them made by little slave kids…what are your overheads?!

lets get in a cab, I’ll buy you a kebab…I cant believe that I’m sharing kebab with the most beautiful girl I have ever seen with a kebab…