Like a phoenix from the ashes, teal monorail to rise from retired pink and purple.

Three months after the only fatal monorail accident in Walt Disney World history, in which 21-year-old monorail pilot Austin Wuennenberg lost his life, the company has announced plans to build a new train from the unscathed remains of the two trains involved in the collision. The new train will receive a teal stripe, while the original colors of pink and purple will be permanently retired.

I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to discover that Meghan McCain has breasts!

Count me as a liberal who actually kinda likes Meghan McCain. Her early media personality was a little obnoxious, but since her father lost the election, she's come into her own as a blogger for the Daily Beast, calling out the Young Republicans for electing a bigot as their leader, taking a bold stance in favor of marriage equality for gays and lesbians, and generally holding healthy, rational views toward sexuality. It may not hurt that she's cute as a button (what red-blooded blue-stater doesn't have at least a slight cute Republican fetish?), but mostly I admire the way she's used her celebrity as a political super-child to shape the ideological direction of her party in a way that makes her a walking target for the GOP establishment.

How fitting, then, that poor Meghan has most recently come under attack from her fellow conservatives for having boobs -- specifically, big ones. That's right, the internet is apparently up-in-arms over a picture Meghan posted on her Twitter feed that happened to accentuate her ample cleavage. See exhibit A:



I'm not exactly sure what's offensive or shocking about this photo. Meghan is a beauty, but she's not petite. Surely her cup-size comes as no particular surprise to those who follow her. Likewise, the photo is not lascivious. I regularly see more skin in the Cinema Survey class I teach. This isn't Miley Cyrus on a stripper pole. Meghan's just a young woman slumming around at home in a tank-top who took the same kind of awkward, casual self-portrait posted daily by the thousands in the Twitterverse. They're boobs! Get over it! But the backlash was enough to rank a story on CNN and an apology from Meghan herself:

"I do want to apologize to anyone that was offended by my twitpic," McCain wrote Wednesday about the photo that has been viewed 103,911 and counting. "I have clearly made a huge mistake and am sorry 2 those that are offended."

I'm more offended by her use of "2" in place of "to" than by the "two" that caused such an uproar. Look, it's one thing if everyone was up in arms over a photoshopped magazine cover meant to accentuate Meghan's breasts to objectify her, but this isn't a girl being objectified. This is just a girl. The minute we start going crazy over the very presence of women's bodies in our lives, we've lost all perspective. Meghan owes no one an apology, but a whole lot of people owe her an apology for reducing her body to a sexual totem. Get over your hang-ups and leave the girl alone!

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Meghan McCain
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Workin' on my night cheese: 30 ROCK returns tonight!

30 Rock has a lot to live up to when its 4th season premieres tonight on NBC. Still an award-winning critical darling and heir to Arrested Development's you're-just-not-clever-enough-to-get-us audience, the ratings-challenged show returns to a beleaguered network that recently canceled a critically acclaimed series to make room for five nights of Jay Leno. As Tina Fey put it in her Emmy acceptance speech this year: "We want to thank our friends at NBC for keeping us on the air even though we are so much more expensive than a talk show."

"Tweaking the network that carries it is one of the many pleasures of 30 Rock,” writes Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times, "and right now pointed jabs at corporate blunders and executive misdoings are all the more apt and amusing."

Indeed, 30 Rock is at its best when it digs its teeth in and focuses on smart corporate satire and character development. Last season was admittedly a little uneven, relying far too heavily on stunt casting while ignoring many of its extremely talented regulars. NPR's Linda Holmes offers some spot-on advice for how season four can steer clear of those pratfalls. If such advice is heeded, we could easily be looking at a fourth Emmy for Best Comedy Series in 2010. I can't speak for everyone, but I want to go to there.

GOP has 7% approval among voters 18-29.

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a Research 2000 tracking poll showing troubling trends for certain Congressional Republicans. The latest version of the poll shows things getting worse for the party as a whole. If you really examine the data, you get a bleak picture of a shrinking regional party that appeals to a small subset of the population.

The highest approval ratings for the GOP come from Southerners (49%), Whites (29%), Men (31%), and the 30-44 year-old age group (36%). These are their best numbers!

Their worst approval ratings come from everywhere else in the country (NE=7%, MW=11%, West=13%), Blacks (4%), Latinos (6%), Independents (10%), Women (13%), and the 18-29 age group (7%).

I'm not a Republican, but if I were one, I'd have to ask: "Why do the majority of a people younger than me or with a different sex, race, or region think I'm wrong?" I say this as a progressive liberal who believes that some form of coherent conservative opposition is important for the political process. We need two parties (and perhaps more wouldn't hurt), but the current GOP identity is hopelessly out-of-step with the country as a whole. I have a feeling the future of the conservative movement lies in the hands of the libertarians, but the question remains whether the Republican Party is prepared to risk alienating the Christian Right in order to evolve and survive.

Democratic approvals in the same categories:

South 20%
NE 50%
MW 36%
West 35%
Men 27%
Women 41%
Independents 18%
Whites 25%
Blacks 65%
Latinos 49%
18-29 51%
30-44 24%

InterVarsity to publish pro-evolution book.

I really enjoyed this article from Inside Higher Ed that covers what the folks at the BioLogos Foundation are doing to fight back against Kirk Cameron's anti-Darwin campus hit squads. Cameron, if you haven't heard, is visiting secular colleges to give away a "special edition" of Origin of the Species, complete with an introduction that smears Darwin and uses pseudoscience to dismiss the impact of Darwin's discoveries. The folks BioLogos, meanwhile, are creating a series of pro-Darwinian workshops and science curricula for Christian colleges.

Most interesting to me was that BioLogos has signed a publishing deal for its defense of Darwin books with InterVarsity Press, a move that is sure to give critics pause. There are few organizations with better "Christian" credentials than IV. If they're willing to explore an alternate view of the science/faith debate, perhaps others will open their ears as well.

NBC renews its commitment to killing television.

I've wanted to blog about Southland's cancellation for days, but it's been a busy week. In the meantime, NPR's Monkey See blog already captured my complete sentiments better than I ever could: "With 'Southland' Axed, NBC's Depressing Surrender Is Almost Complete."

Easily one of the best mid-season replacements of the spring, Southland was the first primetime drama on NBC since West Wing worth more than a passing glance (I count the promising-but-flawed first season of Heroes as just such a "glance") and almost made up for the Boomtown fiasco. I was wary to commit to Southland at first, but when NBC announced that it was picking up the show for the fall, I breathed a sigh of relief.

The problem, however, is that NBC simultaneously gave up on the 10pm time-slot by programming five hours of Leno per week. After producing just six episodes of the new season, NBC decided the show was too gritty for 9pm and summarily canceled the show before those six episodes even had an opportunity to air.

This all boils down to a fact most of us have known for some time: Jay Leno is bad for the production industry. Bad for writers, bad for crews, and bad for creatives across the board. Meanwhile, Leno continues to laugh his way to the bottom of the ratings.

Please put Twain on my money!

Caught the Dollar ReDe$ign Project via Slate's The Big Money blog, and I particularly loved the entries above from artist Dean Potter.

"We're a culture, not just a government," writes Potter, so why not honor our cultural treasures in our currency? Sounds like a fantastic idea to me.

The goal of the Project is to "rebrand the US Dollar, rebuild financial confidence and revive our failing economy." Visit the website to checkout the other cool entries from artists all over the country.

More Nobel Thoughts

When I wrote my last entry on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, I did not expect a backlash. Friday morning, my wife and I -- both hardcore Democrats (I've taken the test to prove it) -- were completely shocked at Obama's award. A quick perusal of the early media and pundit responses suggested that most of the world, including a majority of progressives, agreed with me. However, the blog inspired quick condemnation on my Facebook page, and several fellow progressives hit me with personal messages expressing dismay at my blog post.

This reaction has lead me to re-evaluate my initial views. What follows is the thinking process that resulted:

1. Did Obama deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

No. Not in my opinion. I've listened carefully to the arguments on all sides, from all sorts of sources (most of them liberal), but my initial evaluation has not been swayed. Is Obama a strong world leader in the global pursuit of peace? Yes. Has he accomplished a record of peacemaking worthy of the world's most prestigious honor in that pursuit? Not yet, though I am hopeful he will.

Perhaps the most interesting and persuasive argument made to the contrary came from a friend and mentor of mine. In critiquing my previous post, he compared Obama's win to Martin Luther King's, arguing that King's award was also aspirational in nature, as King admitted in his own powerful acceptance speech. While this argument was emotionally persuasive, it struck me as a case of false analogy.

Besides both men being African American and powerful speakers, I see little in common between President Obama and Martin Luther King and their awards. Martin Luther King was a modest black minister who stood up from a position of absolute powerlessness and -- at great risk to his own life and well-being -- spoke out in non-violent resistance against an incredible injustice perpetrated by the American status quo. By the time of his award, King had already led the unprecedented march on Washington and given his "I have a dream speech." By comparison, Barack Obama is the leader of the free world and commander of history's most powerful military force. While he has done much to reverse the travesties of the Bush years, he is still conducting two wars and has defended the status quo in some areas of concern for true blue liberals like myself. Whatever each man's relative intentions and accomplishments at the time each was honored with a Nobel, I have to hold the world's most powerful man to a higher standard than the peaceable minister who refused to be subjugated.

2. Was my response to the Obama win unnecessarily callous in tone?

Yes. When I wrote, "WTF?" my intention was a response of surprise, not disdain, but it clearly shaped the tone of my overall response into one of cynical dismissal. I regret that my initial response was seen by some as scornful of Obama or distrustful of the power of words to accomplish great ends. Neither was my intention.

In truth, I believe the award was premature (in that he was nominated for the prize only 12 days after taking the oath of office), dangerous (in that it gives unnecessary fuel to the fire of Obama's political adversaries and harshest critics), and a little too aspirational for my taste (in that Obama clearly has great intentions, but has yet to follow-through on some important shifts away from his predecessor). However, those are critiques of the Nobel Prize committee who gave Obama the award, not of Obama himself (he didn't ask for the award), and none of it erases the real and palpable accomplishments of the President on behalf of an America weary from eight years of being hated by the world. Thanks to Obama, the world loves us again, and that is truly something for all Americans to be proud of. He has changed the tone of global diplomacy and set the table for serious peacemaking, and I have faith that serious results will indeed be born from those aspirations.

3. Can good come from Obama's win?

Yes. As friend Diego Kontarovsky wrote to me, "If you ask me, a committee using an award like this to provide attention and momentum to a cause (or man) they believe in at, let's face it, a critical stage, is perhaps the most useful thing I've ever seen an award do." He makes a great point. While I was drawn to the danger of the award as ammo for the president's detractors, surely we who support his peacemaking efforts can use the same bullets to different ends. "Look," we can say, "Obama's moves have restored America to a place of world leadership. We have influence again, and not only through our weapons!" As Nicholas Sarkozy put it, "The award marks America's return to the heart of the people of the world."

4. Can good come from criticizing the award?

Not really, as I'm quickly discovering. Someone asked me if I want to find myself on the wrong side of history for criticizing Obama's Nobel. While the question strikes me as absurdly over-dramatic, many of the loudest criticisms of the award have struck me as so off the mark I shudder to be associated with them. For instance, here are two online posts from Republican friends of mine:

• A conservative religious party leader in Pakistan referred to [Obama's Nobel Prize] an embarrassing "joke" while an Hamas official in Palestine said, "Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a... reward. Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace."

• What does it mean when a former communist dictator (Fidel Castro) agrees with the decision about Obama receiving the Nobel Peace prize? Who's next...Hugo Chavez?

The argument for the first post amounts to: "Even our enemies don't think Obama deserves this award! Clearly, this award is a sign of bad things to come." Meanwhile, the second argues: "Our enemies support Obama's award! Clearly, this award is a sign of bad things to come!" It's hilarious and sad. If we are picking teams for history, this is not the team I want to be on.

Meanwhile, John McCain has graciously congratulated the President, stating that the American people are proud to have their leader recognized in such a fashion, appreciating perhaps that no good can come from hand-wringing over a prize for peace.



5. So what, then, is the most productive response to this award?

I think Michael Moore said it best: "Congratulations President Obama on the Nobel Peace Prize -- Now Please Earn it!" We've all had our say on the Nobel, now let us join together in supporting our president in his pursuit of peace. Here, again, we can affirm the power of words as we apply ourselves to putting these words into action:

"But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century."

Nothing like an unearned Nobel to bring us all together.

President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples," and most reasonable Americans said "WTF?" Was it not only days ago we were all debating the Saturday Night Live sketch that blasted the president for accomplishing nothing?

Don't get me wrong. I genuinely like President Obama. I voted for him. I canvased and campaigned for him. I generally approve of his overall leadership and still believe he could end up being one of the truly great presidents. He's certainly a huge improvement over George W. Bush, who was in my view the worst president this country's ever seen. However, nine months into his first term, Obama's yet to contribute any kind of lasting foreign accomplishment, so this Peace Prize makes a mockery both of Nobel and the man who may one day deserve such an honor.

Insert Kanye/Beyonce joke here.

It's a rare thing when liberals and conservatives can join together in criticizing the accomplishments of a good man, but that's the impact of this award. Salon's lefty Glenn Greenwald wrote: "I had the same immediate reaction which I'm certain many others had: this was some kind of bizarre Onion gag that got accidentally transposed onto the wrong website, that it was just some sort of strange joke someone was playing. Upon further reflection, that isn't all that far from the reaction I still have." Conservatives have been a little more direct.

Some very smart people have urged Obama to turn down the honor, and I wish he had. Obama, unfortunately, did not go that far. He did, however, put the win in perspective:

"Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace."

Good words, and apparently good words were enough to win a Nobel Prize. It remains to be seen, however, whether good words will be enough to ease the discomfort of a nation embarrassed by the global effect of its leader's out-sized celebrity.




Watch CBS News Videos Online

Giant dog drinks out of sink.

Meet Boomer, the world's largest living dog.

Everybody has a dream.

"Some people want world peace," says Reed Fish. "Others want to photograph every Sizzler in the USA.

Not even sure how I stumbled upon the bizarre passion of Reed & Liz Fish -- an American couple who are using internet donations to fund their project of visiting and photographing every Sizzler restaurant in the country -- but I found it oddly compelling.

Amazing Video of Elephant Giving Birth

Caught this via BoingBoing:

Frank and moving account of one young woman's struggle with sex after losing her breast to cancer.

I found this story to be really sweet, painful, and profound. Tracey Carpenter was only 24 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and she's written an incredibly honest and beautiful account of her journey into rediscovering her sexuality after losing one of her breasts. Her story is extremely insightful, not only of her own state of mind, but of how her situation impacted the man in her life and how he responded. Really, it's a great love story, and a must-read for both men and women.

Illegal deforestation threatens imminent harm to uncontacted tribe in Paraguay.

Thanks to my friend Carrie for bringing this one to my attention:

The Ayoreo-Totobiegosode people (South America's only uncontacted tribe outside of the Amazon) are being threatened by illegal bulldozing as ranchers clear land for cattle. Apparently, the government of Paraguay is doing nothing to enforce its laws.

From Survival International:

"Uncontacted tribes are exceedingly vulnerable to any kind of contact because of their lack of immunity to outsiders’ diseases. In an emergency report to the UN last year, Survival described the threat to the Totobiegosode as ‘the most serious threat to tribal peoples anywhere in the world.’"

On the bright side, once all their land's destroyed, the survivors should be ripe for Christianity.

Democrats find a way to insure 29 million Americans while reducing the deficit; Republicans still against the bill, will let us know why later.

Is it the change I think our country really needs? No, but it's a start. This bill is a real step in the right direction and addresses all the cost concerns of the our noble Republican brethren. The non-partisan CBO (same office Republicans have been citing for weeks in their ads) now estimates that the bill will reduce our deficit by $81 billion over the next decade.

Even Bob Dole has endorsed this bill, even calling out Mitch McConnell for prioritizing politics over serving the American public. So tell me, Republican friends, why do you continue to fight a bill that will help uninsured Americans and reduce our deficit? Could it be that you'll do anything to obstruct a success for President Obama?

Largest Ever Dinosaur Print Found

Amateur fossil hunters have discovered the world's largest dinosaur footprint, ruining amateur fossil hunting for the rest of us.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

In an extraordinary case of nature doing its thing, Australian dust storms spark an explosion of life.

You probably saw the stories of the massive, End-of-Days-esque dust storms in Australia two weeks ago, but this report from the Discovery Channel reveals that the storms were also tremendous givers of life:

"The red dust storm that dumped thousands of tons of soil across eastern Australia two weeks ago has caused an explosion in microscopic life in Sydney Harbor and beyond. [. . .] Jones said phytoplankton needs nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphate to grow, nutrients that are scarce in what he calls Australia's "desert" ocean waters, but were abundant in the topsoil that blew across the country."

There's hope that the increase in microscopic life will lead to expanded fish stocks "to feed some of the world's poorest people."

Apple sues Woolworth's for ripping off their ripped-off logo.

This story was so much cooler when I thought the Woolworth's in question was the now-defunct F.W. Woolworth 5-and-dime company (Woolworth's makes a comeback, only to be quashed by Apple), but it turns out the Apple is suing an Australian supermarket with the same name.

I'm an Apple fan, but I can't deny that the Mac-maker's basis for the suit -- that "consumers may not be able to differentiate between the two brands" -- seems silly:

"The supermarket points out that it has absolutely no plans to launch a phone that doesn’t work properly and that its logo is clearly a stylized letter W rather than a rip-off of the Beatles Apple Corps logo – sorry, iPhone maker’s logo."

Conservapedia: Saving the Bible from itself!

I have to thank my dear friend Cathie for throwing this story my way, though I would have eventually found it on Salon, anyway. Seems the folks at Conservapedia ("No other encyclopedic resource on the internet is free of corruption by liberal untruths.") have engaged in an epic undertaking to re-translate the Bible, free from the liberal biases of King James, a century of scribes, the Gospel writers themselves, and . . . you know . . . Jesus.

They list 10 guidelines necessary for a faithful, conservative translation of God's Word:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop; defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Also, they forgot the mistranslation in Revelation, in which past scholars have used the word "antichrist," where clearly "Barack Obama" was intended. I guess they'll save that for the New Revised Conservapedia Bible.

Check out "Darwin's Darkest Hour" on PBS! (plus the art of Darwin @ the Fitzwilliam Museum)

I'm excited about the new season of Nova, which is focusing on evolution. Last night the season kicked off with something new for the Nova series: Darwin's Darkest Hour, an excellent two-hour scripted drama starring Ian Henry Cusick (Desmond from Lost) as Charles Darwin. The movie depicts some of the same situations covered in the controversial Creation (starring Paul Bettany), so it'll be interesting to see which film better captures the Darwin story. I'm kinda rooting for the Nova special. In any case, you can watch it online at PBS.

In bonus Darwin news, I'd trade my pinky toe to visit the Endless Forms: Charles Darwin art exhibit at Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge University, which examines the impact of evolutionary science on the world of visual expression. Fortunately, the museum has put together a fantastic-looking collection of podcasts I hope to work through over the next few days. Topics include "The Predatory Ape: Sex, Simians and Society in Nineteenth-Century Europe" and "Darwin, Design and Christianity." Excited!