President Obama appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show Wednesday night. The show's website says video will be up shortly. But HuffPo already has it, in three parts, here.

WaPo's Dana Milbank has all the details and lots of quotes. Stewart actually called Obama "Dude."

The Daily Show host was giving Obama a tough time about hiring the conventional and Clintonian Larry Summers as his top economic advisor. "In fairness," the president replied defensively, "Larry Summers did a heckuva job."

"You don't want to use that phrase, dude," Stewart recommended with a laugh.

Milbank says Obama was "serious and defensive", even pointing his finger at Stewart when he said something he disagreed with. The LA Times report on the interview is here.

Did Charlie Sheen violate his probation last night when taken from his hotel room to the hospital? TMZ has more. The New York Post says he was on a cocaine-fueled rampage.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said no complaints were made and there was no arrest. Sheen was not expected to face any criminal charges.

Sheen got 90 days of unsupervised probation. The judgement is here. Probation ends on November 2, 2010, if there are no violations. It also states he may not use alcohol in excess or drugs except for prescription medication. He also could not violate criminal laws or ordinances except traffic infractions.

Charlie's rep says:

"What we are able to determine is that Charlie had an adverse allergic reaction to some medication and was taken to the hospital, where is expected to be released tomorrow."

Even if the DA filed a petition to revoke his probation, and he was found to have violated the terms, the judge might or might not revoke his probation. He could also continue it or extend it.

The DA's office isn't planning on commenting on the case.

Reason magazine:

These standoffs never end with public broadcasting getting defunded. The point of the exercise isn't to cut NPR loose; it's to use the threat of cutting NPR loose to whip the network into line.

(Emphasis supplied.) In case anyone actually cares about the First Amendment, this is what it is supposed to prohibit. It's not about determining what is on Fox or what it is on NPR. It is about preventing the government from determining what is on Fox and NPR. And that's why I join the Extreme Right in seeking the removal of government funds from NPR. NPR will be the better for it:

NPR can certainly survive without the [government] subsidies. It gets very little direct money from the CPB—less than 2 percent of its budget. [T]he network has been picking up other sources of support, just this month receiving a $1.8 million grant from George Soros' Open Society Foundations—already more than half the amount it got directly this year from the feds. As for the affiliates, nothing quite boosts a public radio station's pledge week like the possibility that those Republican meanies might pump CS gas into the Morning Edition compound and set the place on fire.

Precisely. Members of NPR can have a stronger say in what NPR's mission is. Not the government hacks. This could be a great thing for NPR.

Speaking for me only

LATimes media critic:

To assure its listeners that this is something more than a careless one-off or the political act its adversaries claim, NPR has two choices: Apply the "Williams standard" across the board and force all its commentators off of opinion-laden cable TV or rewrite its ethics guidelines to recognize the new media landscape where opinion-making is the coin of the land.

Can Mara Liasson, a full-time NPR employee and chief political reporter for the network, continue as a Fox News contributor? Earlier this month she seemed to be offering an opinion when she suggested to news anchor Bret Baier that President Obama needs to be careful to put "the economy No. 1 at all times."

(Emphasis supplied.) Let me get this straight, to "fix this problem," NPR has to sack Mara Liasson, Cokie Roberts, David Brooks, et al. (sorry to see E.J.Dionne go, but what the heck)? Talk about getting thrown in the briar patch. NPR's fundraising would skyrocket and significantly improve the quality of its programming. All in the name of "doing penance" for canning Juan Williams. A win-win. Though Mara Liasson would be pissed - no $2 million "protection" for you, Mara!

Speaking for me only

LATimes:

Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes handed Williams a new three-year contract Thursday morning, in a deal that amounts to nearly $2 million, a considerable bump up from his previous salary, the Tribune Washington Bureau has learned. "Juan has been a staunch defender of liberal viewpoints since his tenure began at Fox News in 1997," Ailes said in a statement, adding a jab at NPR: “He’s an honest man whose freedom of speech is protected by Fox News on a daily basis.”

Heh. Maybe Fox News can "protect" me too. What does it take to get that kind of protection? Who do I have to offend?

Speaking for me only

Jeralyn details the Juan Williams firing by NPR. Glenn Greenwald comments:

I'm not someone who believes that journalists should lose their jobs over controversial remarks, especially isolated, one-time comments. But if that's going to be the prevailing standard, then I want to see it applied equally. Those who cheered on the firing of Octavia Nasr, Helen Thomas and Rick Sanchez -- and that will include many, probably most, of the right-wing polemicists predictably rushing to transform Juan Williams into some sort of free speech martyr sacrificed on the altar of sharia censorship -- have no ground for complaining here. Those who endorse speech-based punishments invariably end up watching as the list of Prohibited Ideas expands far beyond the initial or desired scope, often subsuming their own beliefs. That's a good reason to oppose all forms of speech-based punishment in the first place. There's obviously a fundamental difference between (a) being punished by the state for expressing Prohibited Ideas (which is isn't what happened here) and (b) losing a job for doing so, but the dynamic is similar: those who endorse this framework almost always lose control over how it is applied. And that's how it should be.

I think Glenn's formulation misses the point - people have a right to complain about speech that offends them. What media entities do about these complaints is entirely up to them. Everyone has the right to complain. Attempts to chill this right are not only ineffective, they are wrong. Juan Williams won't be heard on NPR now, but he will be heard on Fox and almost anywhere else Williams wishes to speak. He won't lack for a platform. Just because someone complains does not mean a media entity must act. It's their choice. Fox of course will not only not drop commenters who engage in bigotry, such commenters become Fox All Stars. That's part of the Fox model. NPR obviously has a different model. As does CNN, etc. The myth that all viewpoints and expressions are accepted and aired is simply that, a myth. One person's "decency" is another person's "political correctness."

Speaking for me only

NPR commentator Juan Williams got the axe last night for comments he made Monday on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show. The context:

O'Reilly has been looking for support for his own remarks on a recent episode of ABC's "The View," in which he directly blamed Muslims for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Williams' comments:

"Look, Bill, I'm not a bigot. You know the kind of books I've written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Williams also warned O'Reilly against blaming all Muslims for "extremists," saying Christians shouldn't be blamed for Tim McVeigh.

In announcing the firing, NPR said: [More..]

At the request of the Obama Administration, the 9th Circuit has reinstated DADT discharges for now.

There's a new catfight between Gloria Allred and Meg Whitman.

Al Gore is urging Californians to vote no on the climate initiative.

What's on TV tonight: Survivor, America's Next Top Model and The Defenders. Now, if I only knew what's for dinner....

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

I'm not invested in Jack Conway's run for Senate from Kentucky. Would he be better than Rand Paul? Obviously. But he'll just be a Blue Dog Dem. Russ Feingold's race is the one that matters most to me.

But I was amused by the Beltway Blogger storm over Conway's "disgraceful" Aqua Buddha ad. I think the ad is ineffective, but the idea that it was disgraceful is just plain funny. What world do these Beltway Bloggers live in? But I especially like the outrage ringleader's defense of his outrage:

[T]here's a difference between the role of the journalist and the role of the politician. [. . .] So even if Conway is right to kick Rand Paul in the groin, I'm also right for pointing out that's what he's doing.

But "the Left" is wrong to do it about Obama's policies and are idiots for doing so according to Chait. He's a "journalist" you see. What a clown.

Speaking for me only

Dean Baker fisks this WaPo "news" article:

The Washington Post appears to have outdone itself in a discussion of the politics surrounding the foreclosure crisis. For beginners, it told readers that:

[. . . T]he White House, which is looking past the midterm elections, has been restrained. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan wrote over the weekend that 'a national, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good, hurting homeowners and home buyers alike.'"

Okay, it's fun with logic time. Secretary Donovan wants more foreclosures, presumably to further depress prices. [. . .] If Donovan thinks it is good to speed up the foreclosure process then why is the administration pushing HAMP? [. . .] That may make sense to the Washington Post, but probably not to anyone else. [. . .] The article then gives us a quote from a Democratic consultant without a name: "But shutting down foreclosures has the potential of shutting down the whole housing market, which isn't helpful to anybody."

Let's see, we have how many hundreds of thousands of homes that non-foreclosed sellers are putting on the market each month, plus a backlog of several hundred thousand foreclosed homes already in the banks' possession. How exactly does a moratorium on foreclosures shut down the whole housing market?

Of course it doesn't. But the cloud on titles to homes does. The Obama Administration wants to sweep reality under the rug. Baker does not mention one WaPo "fact" that astounded me:

Bristol Palin came in at the bottom of the leaderboard tonight. It wasn't the monkey suit, but that she forgot most of the moves. The Baltimore Sun critic says:

“It’s like kid-forgets-the-words-during-the-talent-show painful, except on national television.”

She's still getting "polite" criticism from the judges, all of whom called her out on forgetting the moves. Will tea partiers text in to save her? I wouldn't be surprised. Right above her: Kyle and Lacey. Kyle was much better than Bristol, plus he's entertaining to watch, but I won't be suprised if he doesn't get as many viewer votes and ends up going home.

Via Steve Benen, Ezra Klein writes:

This isn't a very popular statement, but there is a role for elites in public life.

Does Ezra mean like this?

Where do we go to order a new "elite?" I think the last 10 years have demonstrated that the American elite is harmful, not helpful. I distrust Ezra's appeal for respect for "the elite."

Speaking for me only