The rise and fall of political posting on Facebook

For a while, it really appeared that Facebook was going to make this blog obsolete. It was so much easier and quicker to just put something up on Facebook. And it got immediate reaction, which was often quite, uh, lively.

But the "lively" discussion was a little too much so at times. There was more than one discussion that crossed a line or three, and after a while I found myself just not wanting to respond to FB friends' political posts; they knew where I stood, I knew where they stood, it was just becoming an exercise in bickering.

And guess what--that feeling seems to have become pretty common. A lot of my very conservative friends have, like me, cut way back on the political posts. In my case, I still do post occasionally on health care or some other topic, but I try not to provoke anyone with snide comments or pointed rhetoric. Facebook is a place for friends, after all.

So here I am, back at the old Mod Lang, wiping the dust off the shelf, cleaning out the old milk cartons from the fridge, uh, extending metaphors far past their usefulness...

And it gives me an excuse to post (again) the latest Auto tune the news; not as good as some of their stuff, but any lowbrow political satire that namedrops Gilgamesh is still worth seeing, in my book.

Wait, um, the pundits were WRONG about something???

It's too early for either side to gloat about the public option. The version that the Senate is considering is pretty weak tea: only a small percentage of Americans will be eligible, and of course states can opt out.

The House version will be a bit stronger; but I expect to see a pretty watered-down version in the end.

Still, it's pretty funny to see how many times the pundits declared the public option dead-dead-dead, and how sure they were it would not be in the final Senate bill. The fact is, it was a popular idea, and even with the barrage of mud thrown at it, still is.

Are NOT fair and balanced! Are SO! Are NOT! Are SO!

The clash between Fox News and the White House has been interesting. Although I am a big critic of Fox, I admit not being real comfortable with a president declaring what is and what is not a news organization. Shouldn't be up to politicians to decide that. However, having said that, I think the Obama Admin. is entirely correct when they say that Fox is the "opposition press" or an arm of the Republican Party.

It's a totally partisan news channel. The attacks against Obama are nonstop, even during news programming (as opposed to their "opinion" shows--which curiously seem to set the agenda for their "news" shows.) When a Fox VP said the White House couldn't tell the difference between Fox' news and opinion programming, all I could say was "Neither can I!"

If Fox admitted to being a partisan media source they'd lose credibility to some degree. That's why they fight the notion so strongly. But I think most people see through the charade. And in the end, I don't think Fox' audience *cares* about that issue. They *want* a news channel that reinforces their politics. Fox is there to serve them. But it's a media form that dare not speak its name.



I also note: regardless of whether it's an "opinion" or "news" show, the "Fox News" symbol is rotating in the lower left corner at all times. Shouldn't they label the opinion programs as such?