TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

Hello and good morning and welcome to your Sunday Morning liveblog of however much of this endless parroting of conventional wisdom and talking points I can tolerate before I have to pour milk on a bowl of percocets and eat them like cereal. My name is Jason.

Let's begin by thanking everyone who let me leave off watching Meet The Press last week so that I could liveblog Easter Parade. No one complained, at all, which is weird! I mean, there's usually someone every week who's not clear on the concept that I can't write about something until I've written about it, so I figured that someone would send an email that read, "Easter Parade is not a NEWS SHOW!" or something. I guess maybe everyone enjoyed it? Or maybe just the people who aren't willing to experience the joy that is this liveblog have moved on to other liveblogs that, you know, take all this crap deadly seriously, and fulfill their need to "walk around American with a giant bamboo stick wedged backward up their alimentary canal." Or whatever. I'm grateful that people enjoyed it. You know, it's just high time the media holds Easter Parade accountable, for it's bullcrap, and posted random Liz Phair clips.

Okay, so today, we'll hear from Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, at some point, who are on all the shows, but we'll get to when we watch MEET THE PRESS. Also, yes: A bunch of people will natter on and on and on about the Supreme Court vacancy. Glad to get that battle cranked up again!

As always, send emails, or leave comments, or follow me on Twitter, whatever you like!


Lamar Alexander is here to talk about how he won't vote for anything amd Joe Lieberman is here to do the same, and WOW MICHELE BACHMANN IS GOING TO BE ON!

So, SCOTUS time! John Paul Stevens is retiring, and Alexander is mulling a filibuster. What sort of candidate would he possibly filibuster? Too early to say, he says. But he was so upset at the Democrats wanting to filibuster nominees that he could very well become a filibuster demon himself if Obama nominates someone who uses "their feelings." Wallace immediately throws a previous vow to never filibuster a SCOTUS nominee in his face and asks, "What changed?" If Alexander were being honest, he'd say, "Well, now I'm in the minority, and so I have a tradition of acting like a baby to uphold," but he lies and says something else instead, that doesn't make any sense.

Lieberman says that nominating a SCOTUS Justice is one of the most important duties of a President and that Obama will make a choose and leave a lasting legacy and it's like he's trying to be the dullest civics teacher ever. He goes on to say that Obama should choose someone really boring, with no record, and not be liberal ever.

Of the three frontrunners -- Elena Kagan, Merrick Garland, and Diane Wood -- Lieberman doesn't know enough about them to say what he'd do, so it's a good thing we asked this question today isn't it? He says that he's encouraged by the idea that Obama may not necessarily appoint a judge this time around. Alexander won't say whether or not he'd filibuster one of those three, saying only that he hopes Obama picks someone who won't be "on the people's side" because he'd rather they be impartial to the law. Sotomayor, he said, "rejected" the President's contention that she was "empathetic," which I don't remember her doing, but I think is just a notion that helps Alexander sleep better or get through the day or something.

Anyway, Obama can just nominate someone he feels is "on the side" of ordinary Americans and just not make any mention of it this time. Maybe when they are confirmed he can give a press conference and be like: "Ha, jerks, that justice has MAD EMPATHY, you fell for it! HAHAHA!" Or not? Who cares.

START treaty! Lieberman says that it's good to work with our old enemies and it's good to reduce the number of nukes, but we had better make "darned sure" that our nukes are modern and have laser eyes and onboard Twitter and Foursquare that sends messages to our enemies that read, "NUKEY456 is about to become the Mayor of Moscow's Ass! YEEE-HAAA!"

Alexander says the new START is a modest step, and basically wants to be able to modernize our missiles. He also doesn't like the Nuclear Posture Statement, because it's not as belligerent as it could be, and where would America be without empty belligerence.

Oh, plus they might stop using the words "Islamic extremism," which angers Lieberman. Wallace asks, why not stop alienating people, based on religion? Lieberman says that it's not honest and that it actually hurts our relationship with the Islamic world, and thinks that removing the term offends moderate Muslims. I sort of really don't care what we call our enemies. Call them PORNO FOR PYROS if you want.

Lieberman says that Obama is not on the right track with Iran and that we need to have tough sanctions that hurt the Green movement or, if that doesn't work, launch a massive attack that destroys the Green movement. (One of the things that we could learn from the Green movement, by the way? Patience!)

All right! Let's get bonkers with Michele Bachmann, for whatever reason!

Wallace asks whether or not she thinks Obama has "anti-American views" because she is the new Nostradamus, warning about how everyone in an L-shaped building near a river will DIE OF MAGIC PREDICTIONS!

Bachmann says "we've gone from 100% of the private economy being private" to now the United States "owns or effectively owns" 51% of the private economy. This is what's called, "complete bullshit." Here's the actual figure:

Wallace points out that the bank bailouts were done by Bush, but he should also point out that WE DO NOT "OWN" ANY OF THOSE BANKS. Those banks were, very explicitly, NOT NATIONALIZED.

Bachmann is also against the Value-Added tax, because it's European. Europeans love getting taxed! If someone would only tell them that they didn't have to pay so much in taxes, and all they'd have to give up were many "goods and services" their government provides. Wallace points out that the VAT is also something that the president hasn't endorsed. She's also upset by elevated levels of unemployment, but, I guess not willing to do anything that brings down those levels? I hope we get to the whole part where Tim Geithner wants to peg our economy to the dinar, soon!

How would Bachmann handle the 30 million uninsured Americans? She'd start by repealing the health care bill, giving them insurance. Then, she's "address the cost issue," by allowing them to buy insurance across state lines (ensuring that the most affordable insurance would be the sort that advertises itself with strippers, on the teevee, during daytime soaps), grant a subsidy in the form of a tax rebate (the current vision there is one that wouldn't keep up with either inflation or health care costs) and fully deduct all health care expenses (which wouldn't complicate the tax process at all!)

Also: what's wrong with charity hospitals? What's wrong with having some mud and tree bark rubbed on your gaping headwound, by medicine men?

Bachmann LOVES HER SOME MARCO RUBIO. And she also endorses both John McCain and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona. She's pretty sure that Obama willl lose re-election, but "we don't fully know who our frontrunner will be."

Why is she such a lightning rod of criticism? She says, "I use the actual statements or comments or data that Nancy Pelosi or Obama say, and they don't like hearing back what they said." The House is meant to be the "fulcrum" of government, and she has no interest in being part of the wheel or the inclined plane or the wedge.

Somehow, that interview was boring. You really have to work a little hard, to whip up all that cray-cray, I guess!

Can I get a panel, up in here? Today, Kristol, Liasson, Cheney, and Williams.

Wallace asks if Obama will invite a battle on his SCOTUS pick, or revive the empathy idea he advanced during the Sotomayor nomination. Kristol says that he hates elite law schools, and probably schools in general. Kristol says that SCOTUS nominees don't tend to factor into voter decisions, but believes voters are conservative about their SCOTUS. Kristol predicts Kagan, so you can eliminate her from contention immediately.

Liasson says that the base cares about these sorts of things. She says Merrick Garland is the most centrist and Diane Wook is the most liberal. I think Liasson should reconsider whether or not she's more to the right than she understands. See, Liz Cheney says that Kagan "respects" her, which is basically two strikes against her.

Cheney, obviously, very concerned that the SCOTUS will continue to restrict the executive branch from having all-encompassing power to pick people off the street and detain them forever and torture them.

Williams thinks Diane Wood would be a pretty reliable vote for the left, and seems to believe that Obama really cares about making the Court more leftist, even though there's no real evidence of this.

Liasson and Wallace both basically say that anyone who is nominated must and will be really cautious and tame during the nomination process and the hearings and will do what they can to say the right and most pleasing things and then once they are confirmed, they can get as freaky as they want, because what is anyone going to do about it?

Meanwhile, START. Liz Cheney thinks it's terrible! Why are we signing treaties that allow other nations to advance interests. She's upset about how our useless anti-Soviet Union missile defense system must no longer encroach on their security. (See, the Soviet Union "does not exist anymore" and the Cold War is "over.")

Williams disagrees with the idea that anyone is planning on pre-emptively disarming. Kristol says that Obama is not doing anything to stop Iran getting nukes. Liasson says that he might FAIL to do that, but it's not true to suggest that he's not doing anything. Kristol just wants Iran bombed, tout-suite.

Wallace asks Cheney if the Obama administration is really doing Iran intervention any worse than the Bush administration, and she says that the Bush administration failed at it as well.

Cheney goes on to say that diplomacy with Iran fails unless there's a credible threat that if it fails, we will bomb them into oblivion.


Same damn questions, plus we talk about the Confederacy, with Katty Kay and Dan Rather and Helene Cooper and David Ignatius.

What to do about Stevens? Will he replace a "lion with a lion?" Rather says Obama will "go for it." And then he says that "whoever he appoints will be to the right of Stevens,"'s hard to see where he's "going for it." WOO I WILL MAKE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO ANYTHING! GO FOR IT!

Helene Cooper doesn't think it's smart to do anything during an election year that will bring about a fight. Sorry, America, with all your problems. We have a "vision" to help you out, but since our vision will be opposed, we're going to just have to chill, so we can all keep our jobs. That's what you most want, right? Our continued employment? Okay, then, hope sleeping under that bridge works out for you. Now: find me a boring judge, who's never had to demonstrate any sort of intellect!

Will they appoint someone who's capable of leading the liberal wing? Ignatius says, "Wubba blah," and then answers the question he feels like answering, rambling and rambling until Rather cuts him off and says that Obama should appoint a "persuader," someone who can "pick off" a conservative vote in a few cases.

Is the President "inclined to make history or play it safe." Cooper says she doesn't know. Kay retorts that's anyone's crazy to look at the shortlist and say he's doing anything other than play it safe. Ignatius says that's wrong, that anyone will get a fight, but Kay, under his blather, clearly disagrees. The "fight" is entirely superficial, by this point. If Mitch McConnell could use his authority to block Obama from having his preferred breakfast cereal, he would.

All the panelists ensure Matthews that the resulting matter will be a big fight for the media to cover without ever once being substantive. Matthews says, "I'm reminded by Adlai Stevenson, for some reason." Yes, because you have the attention span of a mayfly.

Matthews presents a montage demonstrating that Obama, when he meets world leaders, doesn't ride around on a horse or give them backrubs or pretend that he can see into their soul.

Anyway, Matthews wants to know how awesome Obama is doing making the world a cool place. Dan Rather says, "Hard to tell...fairly early...So far the high hopes have not been A for effort, a question mark on how it's all going to turn out."

Kay says that the world has responded positively from the change of tone, but that there's some mixed messages, such as the "thumping defense" of American militarism at his Peace Prize speech.

Ignatius says that Obama's trying to shift the debate on nukes because we don't live in a world where nukes are actually keeping us safe. The overall strategic vision is to limit the possibilities of "loose nukes" and "loose nuclear materials."

As far as Afghanistan goes, Cooper points out that we're in for a penny/ in for a pound with Hamid Karzai, and he's going to probably say whatever cray-cray he wants, and we're just going to have to take it. Rather points out that the Obama administration was warned that this is how things would be with Karzai.

Kay is overall, pretty pessimistic that Obama can achieve any sort of lasting peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, saying that pessimism in the region is at an all-time high. Ignatius says that it might take two terms, but he thinks it's possible. He says that Obama will take some sort of different approach. Will he risk alienating the hawks? Ignatius says that the health care fight made him tougher, and Cooper agrees, warning that nevertheless, he'll get "slammed" by the Israel lobby and by the GOP.

Stuff Matthews doesn't know! Kay says we finally have a date for the British election, and people should take a moment to appreciate the financing differences between the two nations. Rather warns that the "explosive growth" of child prostitution in America has been "vastly underreported" -- especially in the West Coast. Cooper says that nothing will happen in the U.N. as far as Iran sanctions until summertime because Lebanon holds the presidency of the Security Council and won't permit it. Ignatius says that SECDEF Robert Gates was "persuaded" to stay in his job until the end of this year, but he wants out when the year is done. Ignatz says the name being bandied as his replacement: Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Onto the Confederate History Month! Is the GOP moving toward a Southern Strategy? Kay says that the GOP just doesn't have a strategy. Rather says that "they have a Southern strategy...they aren't just whistling Dixie." Ha, ha! Cooper agrees. Ignatius says that maybe the GOP is trying to be "isolationist" and pull back to the states, disentangling themselves from Washington. That may be the case, but it's hard to see what the Confederacy has to do with that, unless they mean to get "disentangled" in the most hardcore way possible!


Okay, so, we'll hear from Gates and Clinton today, but first, Patrick Leahy and Jeff "The Angry Leprechaun" Sessions will be in the hizzy, yammering at each other. Then I'm going to have to endure David Brooks, who's had as bad a week as any columnist in recent memory, what with his midweek contention that "Over the last 10 years, 60 percent of Americans made more than $100,000 in at least one of those years, and 40 percent had incomes that high for at least three." And then came this whole mess. Out of touch, out of touch, tsk tsk.

Also on today's panel are Harold Ford, and David Sanger, and Kathleen Parker. So a nice range of conservative columnists, conservative politicians, and people named David. If today's panel could form Voltron, Voltron would basically look like Mitt Romney.

But first, ERIN GO BLAGH with Leahy and the Leprechaun.

Leahy says that Obama will make a solid pick for the court who will "have a sense of what it's like to live in America." He says that he's personally always wished for a pick that was "outside the judicial monastery," instead maybe picking some one from one of those monasteries where they make Trappist beer? Or maybe they pick someone from the "judicial whorehouse."

Sessions says that "any judge that faithfully follows the law and the Constitution" is fine, but that it's empathy that threatens the average American, and it's terrible and must be stopped. He stops short of predicting a "big fight," saying that it's "in the President's hands." He doesn't want judicial activism, unless it's conservative judicial activism, which is okay.

Leahy underscores this by saying that the current Court is HELLA ACTIVIST: " They rewrote the law to say that so they said that women could be paid less than men. They rewrote the law to say that age discrimination laws won't apply if corporate interests don't want them to. They rewrote the law to give Exxon/Mobil a $2 billion windfall. And they rewrote the law to say that corporations could come in and meddle in elections in this country. All of those things went against their precedent and went against the laws of this country."

Gregory replies: "Senator, the question I asked is whether you think a nominee should unite the country." To which Leahy says, "Yes, I answered a more substantive question. You can take your superficial query and shove it up your capacious ass!" HA, JUST KIDDING, but that's what he should have said.

But Gregory really wants to go hard at Leahy!

DAVID GREGORY: But I just want to pin you down on this point. Because back in 2005, on this program, after Sandra Day O'Conner retired, this is what you-- this was your advice to President Bush.

LEAHY ON TAPE: That's why we're gonna meet with the President in about a week. Gonna urge they put somebody who would unite the country, not divide the country.

DAVID GREGORY: So, yes or no, does that same standard--


DAVID GREGORY: --apply to President Obama now?

SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY: Of course it does.

OH YEAH, GREGORY TOTALLY NAILED LEAHY ON HIS PRO-NOT DIVIDING AMERICA STANCE! That was some brave journalism, right there! (I guess Governor Robert McDonnell better watch out, because David Gregory will probably really go after him for wanting to celebrate the travails of people who LITERALLY TRIED TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY.)

Oh, now we spend an hour or so with David Gregory attempting to get Sessions to spill the beans as to who he'll filibuster. As you might expect, Sessions won't give an answer to this, claiming to need more time to codify a set of bullshit GOP talking points consider the matter more carefully. Gregory asks and asks, and Sessions refuses to answer and refuses to answer. Fun fact, though! Merrick Garland married David Gregory and his wife Beth. By which I mean "performed the ceremony," not, "involved himself in a non-traditional spousal arrangement, for precedent establishing sexytime."

Sessions also won't say whether he'll filibuster or not.

Still Gregory will talk about the filibuster. Mind you, he doesn't ask these questions in terms of evaluating the filibuster and its costs and whether or not the American people would benefit from some reform. He just wants to get a sense of the shiny political fight that may be in the offing.

He then asks Leahy when we'll get word of a SCOTUS nominee, apparently unaware that Leahy is not in charge of that timetable. "I'm just looking for someone to make a pointless prediction...uhm, PAT LEAHY! You are sitting closest! Tell me when we'll have a nominee."

Then, next time he's on, this will happen.

GREGORY: But, Senator Leahy, that's all well and good, but last time you were on the show, you said this:

LEAHY, ON TAPE: I think you're gonna hear a nomination very soon, because we'd like to get this wrapped up this summer.

GREGORY: But it didn't come soon. It actually took a significant amount of time.

LEAHY: Did it? I don't remember, because I never thought you'd be the sort of prick of to GOTCHA me on this.

Okay, so, now, Clinton and Gates!

Will the disarmament agreement enough to make us safer? Clinton says, "certainly." "We will always protect the United States, our partners and allies around the world, our nuclear deterrent will remain-- secure, safe, and effective in doing so. But we also think we will ultimately be safer if we can introduce-- the idea that the United States is willing to enter into arms treaties with Russia to reduce our respective nuclear arsenals, and that we're gonna stand against nonproliferation in a way that will-- perhaps deter others from acquiring nuclear weapons. And so you have to look at the entire package, Nuclear Posture Review, the New Start Treaty, and the Nuclear Security Summit."

Gregory asks if the agreement doesn't really make us less muscular. Gates says that we still have a significant stockpile and the right to modernize it. "Believe me, the chiefs and I wouldn't have wholeheartedly embraced -- not only the Nuclear Posture Review, but also the START Agreement if we didn't think at the end of the day, it made the United States stronger, not weaker."

Gates adds that he believes that we're in a stronger position, where deterrence is concerned.

Clinton says that the Cold War threat has given way to a terrorism threat, and that a structured nuclear attack threat has given way to the threat of loose nukes. For the first time, other countries are starting to see the threat in the same way we have.

Gates says that no one has drawn the conclusion yet that Iran is going to be a state with nuclear weapons. "We have-- we're probably going to get another UN Security Council resolution, and that's really-- I mean, it's terms of isolating Iran. But it's also important in terms of a legal platform for organizations like the EU and individual countries to take even more stringent actions against Iran. At the end of the day what has to happen is the Iranian government has to decide that its own security is better served by not having nuclear weapons than by having them."

Clinton says that while North Korea and Iran have not responded to engagement, the offer and the subsequent intransigence has brought diplomatic partners "off the sidelines" and on our side. She insists that the U.S. will not have to "go it alone" on sanctions.

CLINTON: Well, but you know, David...I'm a big believer in strategic patience. I mean, you know, if we could wave the magic wand and get everybody to move -- like we could, but that's never been the case in the world. You work through persuasion. You present evidence. We have been consistently doing so. And as Secretary Gates just said, the Security Council resolution will not in any way forstall us or the EU or other concerned countries from taking additional steps. But, it will send a really powerful message. The Iranians have been beating down the doors of every country in the world to try to avoid a Security Council resolution. And what we have found over the last months, because of our strategic patience, and our willingness to keep on this issue, is that countries are finally saying, "You know, I kinda get it. I get that they didn't cooperate, they're the ones who shut the door, and now we have to do something."

Gates says that in the Defense Department's judgement, Iran is "not nuclear capable" yet. But they are proceeding in that direction, albeit "slower then they anticipated."

Gregory now wants to talk about "relationships with our friends" that Americans are concerned about. But he cites Karzai, who no American should consider a "friend." That's just nuts. Naturally, you have nutlog Liz Cheney whining and crying at the way Obama is treating Karzai, and Sarah Palin, so talented at being taught what to think (she still struggles with forming the complete sentences to put those thoughts into words), saying the same thing.

Gates takes a middle course, basically excusing Karzai's statements as responses to pressure and assuring that Stanley McChrystal has the matter well in hand. Clinton says the trick is to avoid overreacting to Karzai. Gregory asks her if she didn't overreact herself. "I certainly didn't overreact," Clinton says, adding, "You know, I think, David, some of what is said is not true. And a lot of others, who make claims are -- you know -- short on evidence, and very long on rhetoric."

Next Gregory gets into the matter of Bibi Netanyahu not coming to the nuclear summit. Clinton says that Israel is going to be represented at a very high level, and that other heads of state are not coming, in many cases. The whole idea that the White House was "blindsided" by that decision seems awfully suspect to me. They should have predicted that Netanyahu wouldn't attend, for reasons that Spencer Ackerman laid out pretty well:

Can you really blame Benjamin Netanyahu from bailing on President Obama's nuclear security summit? Look at it from his point of view: you govern one of the only undeclared nuclear powers, which for decades has declared itself disinterested in joining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, here's your one indispensable global ally places nuclear nonproliferation at the centerpiece of its agenda. It calls a conference that India and Pakistan -- two of the other three non-NPT nuclear powers -- will attend. But neither India or Pakistan are likely to face the singular scorn of Arab leaders who'll want to call attention and opprobrium to their nuclear program. You're screwed here.

Notice I am not condoning either Netanyahu's behavior or Israel's nuclear weapons program, the latter of which is a Very Bad Thing. I'm just saying I understand.

This seems pretty easy to anticipate to me.

Clinton says basically, we don't agree 100% of the time with our allies, even our close ones. And Israel is no different. "I think that somehow, since we're living in a 24/7 news cycle with, you know, things popping every minute, a lot is made of a little, instead of trying to step back and see the forest instead of the trees," she says, "You just can't react to every little event that some, you know, media outlet wants to blow up. You can't do that."

Clinton was obviously very happy that health care reform passed.

OK, panel time. Brooks says that what's important to remember that Justice Stevens was once at a baseball game, but so much has changed! And now, people go to Harvard and Yale lawschools! So, hopefully maybe someone will come from another elite law school instead. Ford says, that maybe there are some other people on this list, who aren't judges, not that he can name anybody, but he's free!

Parker says that the GOP is in a bind because they are stuck as the "party of no," with a fringey base that wants more of the same, at a time when they'd like to appear reasonable and openminded. So, a fight, probably not a filibuster.

Is the president's heart in a "progressive pushback?" Come on, David Gregory. Did Dawn Johnsen get a recess appointment? Surely you can answer these questions, without David Sanger's help. (I guess he'd have to be familiar with Dawn Johnsen.)

OMGZ, there was that time Obama disagreed with a SCOTUS ruling, the first time a president ever did that. Brooks, naturally, sees only political ramifications in the opposition. Who is Obama trying to appeal to? Alternatively, maybe the ruling really is astoundingly objectionable!

Sanger: "Obama has not been able to get a U.N. resolution, yet, on Iran." If Katty Kay was here, she'd probably point out that Lebanon, being the president of the Security Council at the moment, plays a role in that.

Parker thinks engagement isn't that reliable a diplomatic tool, and that she's worried that we aren't behaving as if we believe sufficiently in "American exceptionalism." Unfortunately, other nations have interests and other people think they are exceptional as well. Sanger says the White House hasn't publicly stated where the "redline" on Iran is, maybe because he doesn't want the media to know? That sort of makes sense to me.

By now, whatever has spent the morning trying to SNEEZE IT'S WAY OUT OF MY FACEHOLES is really inhibiting my ability to pay attention to the teevee, sorry. Also, I cannot stress enough how pointless and boring this panel is. This is like a gentle form of euthanasia. This is like getting touched by one of the Weeping Angels.

Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin differ on the matter of whether the GOP should be the "party of no," or not. Brooks makes a good point that too much time is taken, paying attention to reality teevee show personalities like Gingrich and Palin (his Gingrich line, "he has a billion ideas and about six hundred of them are good" is pretty cutting), and not enough time paying attention to the Republicans who are actually governing, like Chris Christie and Mark Kirk. (Note that Virginia's McDonnell doesn't make the list this week!)

"Paul Ryan, from Wisconsin, can wonk your ear off," Brooks says. This seems like a good as opportunity as ever to point out the errors that lie at the heart of Ryan's wonkery:

Ryan needs to read some newspapers! He should also really take his newfound love of number crunching and, say, put it to work on his own budget plans! Here's Ryan's tax plan, raising taxes on basically everybody!

And here's Ryan's budget plan, failing to balance the budget. (This is not entirely surprising: Republicans aren't into balancing budgets.)

Repeat as necessary!

Parker and Ford share a knowling look that says, "GAH, YES, SARAH PALIN IS AN IDIOT." Parker signs off by saying that Republicans need to realize that they're in a real fight, and that they have a formidable foe in the President.

That's basically it. I hate to leave off with anything that isn't totally fun to do on a Sunday (DATE NIGHT is open, I think? I'm a bit too sicky-poo this morning to contemplate going myself) but this article on Business Insider, "15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America," is must-read, must-copy, must pass along, must stick on the refrigerator door. And, you know, maybe now that the media's endless hyping of the iPad is over (JOURNALISM WILL BE S(L)AVED BY ALIGNMENTS WITH SLICK CONSUMER PRODUCTS THAT ONLY OUR NATION'S FANCIEST TOFFS SHALL BE ABLE TO AFFORD!), someone might want to think about WRITING MORE ABOUT THIS.

Enjoy the week! I'm going to go pour a Neti pot into my skull!