Consider this comment regarding Barack Obama by Joan Walsh of Salon.com: The only downside I can see right now is Obama being depicted as enjoying the adulation a little too much. After the speech, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that he spoke with Obama this morning, and that…
I’ve been following the reviews of the Ben Stein “Expelled” movie since it was first shown. Many of them properly criticize it for its many inherent cinematic flaws. Others angrily take it to task for its clear violations of sense or sensibility. There is also ExpelledExposed.com, the not-mentioning of which I get chided for every time I post about this movie.
Then there are some who applaud it for “speaking the truth” and “opening conversations”. On my second post about this movie, I asked people to send me links to any non-negative review coming from sources outside of the Discovery Institute (Answers in Genesis, EvolutionNews.org, etc). I suspect that there is now an effort afoot to produce as many positive reviews as there are negative ones, in order to keep things “fair and balanced” online.
After the initial spate of bad reviews by reputable critics, various Christian columnists have been lauding it for exposing the religious suppression of the “Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design” and especially the efforts of reviewers (and scientists, and “W” appointed conservative judges) to associate this “scientific theory” with the openly religious (and mostly equivalent) ideas of Creationism. Bad intellectuals, bad experts.
But, what is this Scientific Theory? Well, an idea has to have 3 elements to qualify as a scientific theory :
The new Ben Stein movie, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" opens today. It is only showing in Wehrenberg Theaters farther out from the city. (Movies.com link). Before today, it has only been seen by fundamentalist congregations, hand-picked audiences, and selected legislatures. If you've read my earlier post and long comment thread…
It must be very important that “LiLo” is going to “lose her clothes,” in an upcoming movie, because this story about her nakedness is one of the top headlines on today’s homepage of MSNBC. Here’s the essence of this important “news”:
Set to play a “nymphomaniac waitress” in “Florence,” Lindsay purportedly countered the producers’ request for a topless sex scene with a “full frontal” offer. “She is fully aware of the potential of her body,” a Tinseltown pal insisted. “Lindsay wants to build up an image as a mature, responsible actress.”
Why is Lohan’s nudity so worthy of this prominent headline? Is it because she is pretty? MSNBC includes this photo in case you need to see her to comprehend the story: 
Yeah, she’s pretty, but pretty women can be found in many places and most of those sightings are not newsworthy. Is all of this media attention occurring because Lohan is a woman who will be appearing naked? No, seeing a naked woman is cheap and easy (for instance, I’ve heard that one can Google “naked women” and find lots of photos and videos of naked women on the Internet. Caveat: In no way am I suggesting that all of the naked women you might find on the Internet are also pretty).
I think this media attention regarding Lohan is because a lot of people will be “getting what they covet” when they see Lindsay Lohan naked. I’m reminded of being in high school, where one of …