Steve Green:  “If there really was a Party Of No, I would so join.”

Indeed.

via Glenn Reynolds

Television executives have figured out that people watching their shows via TiVo-delay is a good thing.

Against almost every expectation, nearly half of all people watching delayed shows are still slouching on their couches watching messages about movies, cars and beer. According to Nielsen, 46 percent of viewers 18 to 49 years old for all four networks taken together are watching the commercials during playback, up slightly from last year. Why would people pass on the opportunity to skip through to the next chunk of program content?

The most basic reason, according to Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media, a media buying firm, is that the behavior that has underpinned television since its invention still persists to a larger degree than expected. “It’s still a passive activity,” he said. And those passive viewers are watching in numbers big enough to turn some hits (“House” on Fox) into even bigger moneymakers, some middling successes (“How I Met Your Mother” on CBS) into healthier profit centers, and some seemingly endangered shows (“Heroes” on NBC) into possible survivors.

Two years ago, in a seismic change from past practice, Nielsen started measuring television consumption by the so-called commercial-plus-three ratings, which measure viewing for the commercials in shows that are watched either live or played back on digital video recorders within three days. This replaced the use of program ratings.

At the time, network executives fiercely resisted the change, fearing that they would never get credit for recorded shows because viewers would skip through all the commercials. But the figures show otherwise. “It’s completely counterintuitive,” said Alan Wurtzel, the president of research for NBC. “But when the facts come in, there they are.”

Almost across the board, the gains for playback are growing. The best preseason estimate for the current season, said David F. Poltrack, the chief research officer for CBS, was about a 1 percent increase from playback over the live program for the networks combined. Instead, many are in the range of 7 to 12 percent, with some shows having increases of more than 20 percent when DVR ratings are added. The four networks together are averaging a 10 percent increase.

There are two major reasons for DVRing a program:  Time shifting and commercial skipping.  Almost all of us do the former whereas not all of us do the latter.  So it’s only logical that the addition of DVR viewers who don’t fast forward through commercials to the live viewers would be a good thing for the networks.

I’m a pretty aggressive commercial skipper.  For that matter, I’ll fast forward through boring segments of shows (notably, non-political segments of “Saturday Night Live” and the non-roundtable portion of “This Week”).  But even I’ll occasionally forget to grab the remote and accidentally sit through a commercial.   Beyond that, I’ll intentionally watch commercials that may be of interest:  promos for movies that look interesting, funny commercials that I haven’t seen, or products that I’m thinking of buying.

Moreover, with the DVR, I watch far more television than I otherwise would.   I record numerous shows that wouldn’t be appointment viewing “just in case” I have time to watch them.  I also record several shows that are on during hours when my schedule doesn’t allow me to watch television.  And, of course, skipping commercials for products I wasn’t going to buy anyway allows me to view more shows because it’s easier to find a 40-minute window than a 60-minute window.

Individual shows have gained substantially. “House,” second among all shows in its live program rating (to “Grey’s Anatomy” on ABC), became the top show in terms of commercials viewed within three days with a 5.68 rating (about 6.53 million), gaining almost 18 percent. NBC’s comedy “The Office” had one of the single biggest gains — 26 percent from its live program rating — to 3.92 (4.5 million) for its rating including playbacks. The supposedly struggling NBC drama “Heroes” jumped 22 percent, as did another apparently flagging drama, “Fringe” on Fox. And a new ABC drama, the appropriately named “Flash Forward,” looks even more like a hit than it did with its original rating because its rating increased 14 percent with playbacks.

Many serial shows like “Lost” and “Heroes” would be unwatchable as a live show because of annoying and complicated plot twists and an erratic schedule.  But the DVR allows me to get several episodes queued up and watch them in bunches.  (Of course, that doesn’t fit into the 3-day window for the ratings companies.)

One other obvious reason why some shows do better on DVR than live is that the networks often idiotically run their most popular shows against other networks’ most popular shows, forcing live viewers to chose.  DVR viewers can either watch one live and record the other or record both and watch when convenient.

Megan McArdle points me to this amusing video about which  Gizmodo’s John Herrmann gushes, “I’ve read the articles, watched the instructional videos, and gotten an invite, but nothing—nothing—has done more to explain to me how this mind-melting Internet Thing works than Pulp Fiction, spectacularly adapted for Google Wave. (Warning: Tarantino language ahead)”

It’s an entertaining illustration but, frankly, not one that makes me pine for an invite.  Yes, Wave would seem to combine several existing tools in a streamlined way.  And it might be extraordinarily useful way of doing certain kinds of collaborative work.  Mostly, though, it looks like a big time-waster.

Glenn Beck continues to impress in his ability to top himself with zaniness.  Today, he explained how “they” have all manner of plans to destroy America and make it more like Cuba.  And “they” may be getting away with it because “they” are so far ahead of us.

For those who can’t view the video or hear the audio, MediaMatters provides the transcription:

If I could just — if we could just be like Cuba. Let me give you the last piece of evidence that there is a revolution going on, and it is coming. It is — there is a revolution, and they think they can get away with it quietly.

They think they — and they — they — you know what? At this point, gang, I’m not sure, they may be able to because they are so far ahead of us. They know what they’re dealing against; most of America does not yet. Most of America doesn’t have a clue as to what’s going on. There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the way it is done, it has been done through the — the guise of an election, but they lied to us the entire time.

Some of us knew! Some of us we’re shouting out, you were: “this guy’s a Marxist!” “No, no, no, no, no, no.” And they’re gonna say, “we did it democratically,” and they are going to grab power every way they can. And God help us in an emergency.

I’m not sure who “They” are but I’m scared of them.

Seriously, to borrow from George Will, no serious person nowadays takes Glenn Beck seriously anymore.  While I was lamenting Barack Obama’s skill at running a presidential campaign without actually saying anything two years or more ago, it’s hard to argue that he didn’t make it clear that he wanted a government-run health care program.  (Although he’s likely to settle for something much, much less than that out of political necessity.) What, precisely, is it that “they” are doing — through the guise of an election — that was hidden from us?

For that matter, even aside from the Cuba hyperbole, it looks as if the Republican minority, through a combination of the hesitancy of the Blue Dog Democrats to go along with their party’s leadership and having successfully mobilized public fear of the the Democrats’ plans, will prevail in stemming the worst of it.  So what is it that Beck’s talking about?

Hillary Clinton chewed out a Congolese student for asking what “Mr. Clinton” thought about a public policy issue:

ABC’s Kirit Radia:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what “Mr. Clinton” thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

“You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill’s spokeswoman. “My husband is not secretary of state, I am,” she replied. “If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.

Regardless of the error, the notion of Secretary Clinton’s deference to her husband clearly touched a nerve with America’s top diplomat. Just a week ago the former President stole his wife’s thunder when he appeared in North Korea to rescue two American journalists detained there. His trip came just as Secretary Clinton embarked on a swing through Africa she hoped would shine light on the plight of the continent.

What’s odd, unless there are two translators involved somehow, the video clearly shows the questioner speaking in English and saying “Mr. Clinton” and then the lady at the podium repeating the question — again in English — to Mrs. Clinton.

Regardless, her indignant response seems rather over-the-top for America’s chief diplomat. She could have asked for clarification before going off. (My guess would have been that the student meant “Mrs. Clinton” and it got garbled in translation to English.) Or she could have joked, “Well, you’ll have to ask him next time he’s in Kinshasha” and added “but here’s what I think.”

“Diplomacy in action,” indeed.

Jules Crittenden, Doug Mataconis and John Hinderaker all share my take, more or less, of the reaction.

All of the women commenting on this one thus far, however, stick up for Hil.

Pamela Leavey:  “As a woman who blazes her own path, I think Hillary’s response was natural.”

myiq2xu (Not a common name, so hard to guess gender other than that it’s on a blog with riverdaughter as the username A man, but one writing on a group blog with “riverdaughter” as its domain name):

This appears to be the new CDS meme – “Hillary is a mad b**ch.” They used to say she was “cold and calculating” but now she’s out of control. Exactly how do they think she should have responded to the “What does your husband thnk?” question coming from the translator?

Taylor Marsh:

As you can see in the video, Clinton was ticked off at being asked what a male leader thought, especially when her purpose in this region is to draw a bull’s eye on the rape and torture of women in the Congo.

The United States Secretary of State obviously didn’t appreciate the misogyny, which is rampant in the Congo and other African nations, born out by the questioner expecting her to “channel” a male. Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley responded.

“The Secretary of State is going to Goma Tuesday, to draw attention to the plight of women who are victims of rape as a weapon of war” in Congo, he said. “She did react to what she heard,” Crowley explained. Even if the interpreter mixed up the translation, he said, “you can’t separate the question from the setting.”

As the Washington Post story quoted at the top reports, Congolese President Joseph Kabila has declared “zero tolerance” regarding sexual assaults and violence against women, but so far it’s just words.

There can be no doubt that Clinton came off harsh in this setting. A little righteous indignation from the most powerful female persona on the planet was in order, especially considering women in the Congo are in danger most of the hours of their waking and sleeping lives.

CNN reports that after the event Clinton and the questioner “seemed to have reached an understanding,” according to Crowley.

But seriously, you cannot bring basic human rights to women in places like the Congo if the men there don’t wake up to the respect women deserve, highlighting how far we have to go if not even the U.S. secretary of state is treated with respect.

But she was treated respectfully. A packed house had come to hear her and some nervous student whose native language isn’t English said “Clinton” when he meant “Obama.”

That said, Crowley’s point is a fair one:  “you can’t separate the question from the setting.”  It’s hardly inconceivable that she had gotten the impression during her visit thus far that she was not being treated seriously because of her sex and reacted to the question with that in mind.

Jeff Jarvis notes that there has been some controversy over Google’s Streetview, which allows people to see videos of what’s going on in the streets, including residential neighborhoods, in an ever-expanding number of locations.

In a few countries around the world, we’ve seen a backlash against Google’s Streetview as somehow an invasion of privacy, even though what Google captures is the very definition of public: what can be seen in the open.

I wish that journalists would defend Google and its definition of public, for it matters to journalism.

I don’t have strong feelings on Streetview, although I do find it mildly creepy that it’s displaying things going on in residential neighborhoods.  I strikes me that the good purposes to which this could be applied are few and the nefarious purposes are many.

What interests me about Jeff’s post, though, is how far he takes the argument.

No, public is public. We need that to be the case, for journalism and for society. We must protect the idea of public.

He contends, for example, that politicians caught in Amsterdam’s Red Light district, cracks in bridges, and the protests on the streets of Iran are public activities and those wishing to hide these things from the public shouldn’t be allowed to do so on some notion of “privacy.”  I’ve got no problem with any of that, although I do think there ought to be some sense of privacy even out in public.  Journalists and television cameras camped out on the sidewalks in front of some person’s house tend to go too far and, certainly, the scummy paparazzi that chase celebrities around hoping to get photographs to sell to the tabloids do.  Where precisely one draws that line, though, I don’t know.

Indeed, I’d say this doctrine should stretch to saying that everything a public official does is public – everything except matters of security. Thus Britain’s MPs would not be allowed to black out their spending of taxpayers’ money. Thus the default in American government would be transparency, making any official’s actions and information open and searchable. Thus anyone in Ft. Greene could scour Streetview to look for unsafe buildings.

This seems to mix apples and oranges.  I fully agree that how politicians spend our money ought to be absolutely transparent with, as Jeff says, some exceptions on matters of security.  But, surely, everything a Member of Congress or other public official does shouldn’t be “open and searchable”?  Their Netflix queues?  Their bank records?  Their kids’ report cards?  Where do we draw the line? Even public officials are entitled to have private lives.

Photo: Bad Control

The gang at JibJab have another video out. This one debuted at the #nerdprom (aka, the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association Dinner):

Meh.

Not one of his better efforts, frankly, but I haven’t seen anything from Weird Al Yankovich in years:

Jack Humphrey jokes, “Craigslist has truly arrived.  When Weird Al makes a Doors-inspired melody about your site, there’s really nothing left to do but cash checks and wait for Google to buy.”  Indeed. That seems to be the business model for quite a number of sites.

via @JayCaruso

Over at New Atlanticist, I’ve published my thoughts on this weekend’s Iranian election mess in two separate posts: Iran’s Elections: What We Know (And What We Don’t) and Iran’s Elections: What Now?

The short answers:  “Not a whole hell of a lot” and “The same thing we do every day, Pinky.”

I’m reasonably sure that the elections were stolen. Indeed, I’m not convinced that the regime even bothered to count the vote. But, like my colleague Dave Schuler, I considered the elections a sham from the get-go.  For that matter, I thought Iran’s elections were a sham four years ago.

I feel for those poor kids in all the photos, videos, and Tweets Andrew Sullivan has posted over the last three days.  At the end of the day, though, Joe Biden is right: “Talks with Iran are not a reward for good behavior.  Our interests are the same before the election as after … and that is we want them to cease and desist from seeking a nuclear weapon and having one in its possession and secondly to stop supporting terror.”

Our interests in the region are unchanged.  So, for that matter, are the Iranian regime’s. All that’s different now is that any Western notions that they’re dealing with a democratic regime have been dashed. To the extent that our negotiators harbored such illusions, this weekend’s rude awakening is a necessary dose of reality.

Much more at the links.

Photo: Reuters Pictures.

A month ago, we debated whether rock music died in 1980.  While we decided that it did not, we concluded that it has changed quite a bit since then.  Writing at Slate, music critic Simon Reynolds writes of “Grunge’s Long Shadow” and “In praise of in-between periods in pop history” as periods of transition in the dominant styles.

Regular commenter anjin-san recommended “making music/audio a more hefty part” of the repertoire here as a chance to “have a friendly discussion with guys you are typically trading gunfire with.” In that spirit, it strikes me that it could be fun and informative to discuss and come up with a list of the best rock songs of every year.  If the discussion goes as expected, it’ll create quite a bit of debate as well as introducing both myself and my readers to songs they hadn’t heard before or had forgotten about.

We’ll start with 2008, the most recent finished year and work our way back until either the idea fizzles out or we hit 1954 or so.

Here’s how it’ll go:    Readers will suggest songs in the comments below, preferably linking a YouTube or GoogleVideo or other place where others can hear the songs for free.    Songs should be confined to the broad rock genre, meaning no rap or hip-hop or country.  (I despise the first two and the last is a different category, albeit one I’d consider doing a similar feature with at some point if this goes well.) Think: guys with electric guitars.

Over the course of a week or so, I’ll update this post with my choices, probably ending up with a Top 10 list.  Songs may move down or even off the list as new suggestions come in.

Judging will be entirely subjective based on my musical tastes, which were formed circa 1979-1989.  A song may have held down the top spot on every Billboard chart for all 52 weeks of the year, won 17 Grammys and a Nobel Prize and not make my top 10.

UPDATE:   Thus far, “The ‘59 Sound” by Gaslight Anthem and “3 Dimes Down” by Drive-by Truckers, neither of which I particularly like, are in the lead by the virtue of being not so awful that I managed to get past the first minute.  Any sings that don’t include singing are hereby ruled ineligible.  Apocalyptica’s “I Don’t Care” had possibilities but they seem not to have mastered recording technology; the song sounds like it was surreptitiously captured with an incredibly crude device.

So far, it’s looking like rock and roll might have died by 2007 . . . .

UPDATE: Ray LaMontagne’s “Let It Be Me” is thus far the best of the nominees.  It’s got a Joe Cocker meets MoTown vibe.  I also don’t hate Dodd’s submission, “Check Yes Juliet” by We The Kings.  Sum 41’s “With Me” doesn’t totally suck, either.  Gomez’ “Get Miles” has a Jim Morrison vibe. Haven’t decided if that’s a good thing.

Also, several submissions were from 2007 or 2009 and were summarily dismissed from consideration.

UPDATE: Both About.comand Rolling Stone have “Best Rock Songs of 2008″ compilations. There’s some overlap between songs suggested below but quite a number that haven’t been mentioned.

UPDATE: Incubus’ “Love Hurts” doesn’t suck, although I far prefer the unrelated Nazareth song of the same name.

Photo by Flickr user Stephen Poff under Creative Commons license.  Originally posted  29 May.

UCSB political scientist Aaron Belkins‘ HuffPo piece “Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist” has drawn quite a bit of blogospheric attention.

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

[...]

I spent a day with Dan Choi last month, and he is not someone we want to fire from the military. He loves the armed forces. He served bravely under tough combat conditions in Iraq. His Arabic is excellent, and he used his language skills to diffuse many tough situations and to save lives, both Iraqi and American. All of his unit mates know he is gay, and they have been very supportive of him. But he doesn’t want to live a lie.

Belkins anticipates my rejoinder:

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama’s fault.

He responds:

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can simply order the military to stop investigating service members’ sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.

I know a little something about military law but am by no means an expert.  But homosexual conduct by members of the Armed Services is manifestly proscribed by federal law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The procedures are clear.  It’s true that the current implementation, the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, was implemented under Bill Clinton. It is not, however, a mere executive order — and thus subject to the whim of his successors — but rather black letter statutory law (Pub.L. 103-160 [10 U.S.C. § 654].).
By announcing that he’s gay on national television, Choi gave his commanders little choice but to investigate.  (Simply “being” gay isn’t a violation of UCMJ; it has to manifest by “conduct.”)

Regardless, it’s absurd to claim that Obama “fired” Choi.  That’s a decision made echelons down the chain of command and, again, one that was a fait accompli once Choi made his announcement. Further, for Obama to order the military to stop following black letter law might take “guts” but it would create a minor Constitutional crisis. Failing to break the law isn’t “cowardly.”

It is, however, perfectly fair to blame Obama for not having taken action to overturn existing law, as Matt Corley, GayPatriotWest, and Andrew Sullivan do.  But that’s what he needs to do:  Burn political capital and use his extraordinary popularity and huge Democratic margins in Congress to change the law rather than flouting it.  Is my memory faulty or were Democrats recently opposed to presidents ignoring laws they found inconvenient?

Obama, reasonably enough, wants to avoid Clinton’s mistake of dealing with this issue right out of the gate.  It’s politically charged, will generate tremendous opposition from retired generals and other veterans, and will be a distraction from more pressing issues.   Then again, as Matt Yglesias points out, “The fact of the matter is that on any given week, it’ll be more convenient to deal with this issue next week. But that just means you never get around to dealing with it.”

UPDATE: Upon re-reading the law, there may be a workaround more in keeping with Congress’ intent than simply ordering a suspension of investigations.  Again, IANAL, but the only loophole I see in the law is (e)(2), which provides that “Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that . . . separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.“  The only problem with this, really, is that adopting a broad policy of “the law is silly, so we’ll deem all enforcement to be against the best interests of the armed forces” is that it would be in clear contravention of the “Findings” that serve as the law’s preamble.

UPDATE II:  Glenn Reynolds quips, “You know, if someone asked me to go hire a a gay Arabic linguist, I wouldn’t know where to start. But the federal government seems to be firing them every time I turn around.”  A clever entrepreneur could likely put 2 and 2 together and start a service.

UPDATE III (Dodd): It’s true that we cannot countenance “a broad policy of ‘the law is silly, so we’ll deem all enforcement to be against the best interests of the armed forces’”. But what we can — and I think should — do is implement a policy that, all other things being equal, it is not “in the best interest of the armed forces” to summarily discharge service members with crucial skills (like, just to take an example totally at random, Arabic language skills) merely because they are gay. A review process that weighs the individual’s value to the overall mission would be in keeping with (e)(2).

Video via AllahPundit.

I’m amused by Nico Pitney’s headline, “Shepard Smith Uncensored: “We Are America, We Do Not F**king Torture!” (VIDEO).”  Mostly because it censors Shepard Smith.

But the Left’s sudden embrace of Smith is interesting, too. It may have begun with this recent Esquire profile.

He has always managed to be a part of Fox and apart from it at the same time, and in 2008 he distinguished himself by treating Republicans as aggressively as Fox News normally treats Democrats — by seeming fed up with Republicans, and maybe with the strictures of Fox News itself. Now, in 2009, people are asking what’s up with Shep Smith as a way of asking what’s up with Fox — as way of asking how Fox is going to cover the news as it goes back to its oppositional role in the age of Obama.

“There has to be news at a place called Fox News,” he says, and he’s not the only one. It’s the mantra of the network, the fallback equation that — until the recent entrance of Glenn Beck, anyway — has enabled its employees to distinguish between the programming that takes place between nine in the morning and eight at night, which is called News, and the programming that takes over thereafter, which is called Opinion. “I think we do a pretty good job of labeling it for the viewer,” Shep says. “But we are under intense scrutiny because of our opinion shows. Are there people who want the news done a certain way? You bet there are, and some are in this building. But they don’t affect what I do. The inner pressure and outer pressure that everyone thinks exists doesn’t. When I hear people say that Fox News is right wing, I know that’s not true, because I’m the one doing the news. It’s my show, and there’s no place for opinion on my show. It’s uninteresting to me. I don’t care what Sean Hannity thinks and I don’t care what Alan Colmes thinks and I guarantee they don’t care what I think and they don’t know, either. You know what’s interesting to me? What’s interesting to me is that the thing people want to know about is the part on which I spend absolutely no time.”

My exposure to Smith was in the promos that came on during Brit Hume’s “Special Report,” which aired immediately prior to his show.  His bombastic style always struck me as clownish and I could therefore never take him seriously as a newsman.  Further, he came across as a huckster, so I always presumed that he’d deliver a Drudge-esque slant on the news.

Townhall’s Greg Hengler seems pleased to have caught Vice President Biden in a contradiction of the Obama administration’s new verbal policy eschewing the phrase “Global War on Terror.”  Hengler quips, “Maybe Biden just forgot the phrase ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

Others reacting to this and aggregated at memeorandum seem to have watched said video and come away with the same conclusion.  Ed Morrissey, for example, writes, “CNN tried getting VP Biden to explain this, and while not accusing CNN of making it up, clearly he couldn’t believe anyone would be this stupid.”

It’s pretty clear to me that what Biden’s saying is that “Global War on Terror” was problematic because it treated a series of discrete problems as if they were one and the same — implying that the same tactics should be used to address all of them — and that the new team wanted to signal a clean break in policy. Now, I don’t happen to believe that the Obama policy is much of a change from the Bush policy; rather, it’s a break from the Bush policy circa 2004 and its subsequent caricaturization. But I sympathize with the desire to shed whatever baggage the old phrase carries.

I don’t, however, think “overseas contingency operations” will supplant “war on terror” in the popular lexicon.  We’re likely stuck with the phrase in that the media and academics need some sort of unifying phrase to describe a series of problems that, while different, are part of one larger fight.  Just as “post-Cold War era” stuck with us far longer than was useful because we didn’t have anything else to call it, we’ll likely have a “Global War on Terror” whether Team Obama wants it or not.

Barack Obama doesn’t know what the word for “wheeling and dealing” is in “Austrian.”

Naturally, this verbal faux pax is generating some good natured ribbing from Glenn Reynolds, Ed Morrissey, and others.  Kate McMillan awards Quote of the Week honors to Mark Steyn for “We now know that Barack Obama, who urged us all to learn a second language, does not speak Austrian.”

Morrissey observes that, “George Bush’s critics rightly roasted him for his tortured syntax and waterboarded grammar, and used it to make the claim that the graduate of both Harvard and Yale was an idiot.”  He’s responded by creating an “Obamateurism of the Day” segment.

While this sort of thing is mildly amusing, people — even smart people — make verbal gaffes quite often.  Public officials who make speeches several times a day, naturally, will make a lot of them.  Since these speeches are often videotaped and almost always attended by reporters, each of these slip-ups will be recorded for posterity.

They prove very little about much of anything but they’re nonetheless constantly seized upon by opponents as signs of, well, something.

This is classic: Bob Knight, Rick Pitino, Roy Williams, and Mike Krzyzewski do their take on the “Risky Business” scene in a commercial for “Guitar Hero,” much to the chagrin of Metallica.

I know the joke’s supposed to be Knight’s spoof of his famous tantrums but I especially like the way he delivers the line, “We’re playing the Guitar He-ro.”

Via PTI