Why Fred Thompson won’t get the GOP nod:

1) He really is lazy

2) His press staff is mediocre

The Politico’s Roger Simon attended Thompson’s attempt at “retail politics” in Waverly, Iowa today, where the candidate had a reportedly dull editorial board meeting, made an awkward trip to a firehouse, and canceled a walk down mainstreet because of “unsafe” conditions.

I can only imagine how many vacation days President Thompson would take.

No matter what their PR folks say, it’s basically impossible for an oil company to “go green”. Oil companies have jumped on the green bandwagon along with seemingly everyone else this past year, promoting their investments in renewable energy and claiming that they are really at the forefront of next-generation energy technology.

According to The Guardian’s Terry Macalister:

“Shell and BP are among the biggest producers of greenhouse gases in the world, but both have been keen to paint themselves green through a series of clean fuel initiatives.

BP, under its former chief executive, John Browne, promised to go “beyond petroleum” while Shell has spent millions advertising its serious interest in the future of the environment.”

I actually remember someone once saying to me, “But isn’t BP more environmentally friendly than the other oil companies?”

This would be a fair assumption from anyone viewing BP’s marketing materials. It would be easy to mistake the official BP Web site for an environmental non-profit. The color scheme is green and yellow and there is a whole section called “environment and society.”
More from Macalister:

“BP has been accused by Greenpeace Canada of lining itself up to help commit ‘the biggest environmental crime in history’. This follows its decision to swap assets with Husky Oil, giving it an entrance ticket to the Alberta tar sands, which are said to be five times more energy-intensive to extract compared to traditional oil.”

That sounds less like “beyond petroleum” and more like “big pollution”.

On a related note, George Monbiot argues for why we need to stop using fossil fuels instead of only relying on the development of renewable energy.

Have you been going through Tommy Thompson withdrawal since he bowed out of the presidential race after the Iowa straw poll?  Of course you are, no one gaffes better that TGT.   You’re in luck, because HotlineTV has a recap of the greatest moments from Tommy’s historic run for the leader of the free world.

HotlineTV - A Tommy Thompson Send Off 

When someone makes a decision in politics or government that makes absolutely no sense, it can usually be attributed to “politics”. Roger Simon of The Politico tries to make sense of our sometimes senseless political system today in a column written as if he were explaining our political system to a Martian. Hilarity ensues.

A quick excerpt:

Q We could not help but notice that all the Republican debaters in Simi Valley were white males. Are all Republicans white males?

Yes.

Q Then how do they create more Republicans?

Ah, you have been studying our ways! I was kidding. There are Republicans who are not white and not male. But they are not allowed to run for president.

In a very different, but somewhat related piece, John Moe takes a look at “The Pros and Cons of the Top 20 Presidential Candidates” at McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. Worth a look if you’ve got a couple minutes to kill.

On May 17^th, I’ll be at the regional Online News Association Conference in Madison participating in a panel discussion on how to prepare reporters and students for a changing media landscape.  Among the things we’ll be talking about are how to adapt news rooms to produce a constantly updated, online product and what skills journalists need to develop to produce dynamic material that can reach audiences through a variety of platforms.

I’ll try and get a post up right after the conference with a summary of the discussion and reactions to the other presentations.

Also at the conference will be The Politico’s Ben Smith, CNN producer Scott Anderson, and Democratic consultant Joe Trippi.  For more information, see the press release on the event at wispolitics.com.

There have been tons of articles over the last year written about how politicians are using Facebook, but it has yet to be determined whether the social networking site is an effective tool for political communication or just another way for college kids to find out about this weekend’s kegger. There are tons of questions that have yet to be answered, including:

• Do Facebook members really engage in politics or are they just putting the equivalent of cyberspace bumper stickers on their profiles?
• Will Barack Obama’s superstar status on the Internet translating into real grassroots support?
• Does Mitt Romney even know that he has a Facebook profile?

The paper, “Expanding the Public Sphere: The Impact of Facebook on Political Communication,” examines these questions and focuses on the ability of Facebook to facilitate political communication between members and extend the messages of political campaigns to a younger audience.

Below is an excerpt from the analysis. Read the full paper here.

Beneva Schulte, a spokesperson for Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd’s Democratic presidential campaign, said, “We’re not waiting for them to come to us; we’re finding them where they live. College students, unless they’re overtly political, don’t go to political Web sites and attend political rallies, so we’re meeting them on college campuses at Harvard and Howard — on Facebook and YouTube.” Facebook’s ability to integrate political communication into a broader social network is what separates it from a campaign web site or Howard Dean’s online organizing efforts. If a candidate’s Web site is like a campaign rally that college students can drive to, then a candidate’s Facebook page is like a campaign rally held right in the middle of campus. The campaigns are bringing their message to where college students live and an increasing portion of the general population is already interacting online.

Even if millions of young Americans are identifying themselves with political groups and taking their political discussions online, none of it matters if they do not take the next step and participate in the real world. Real world political participation can include making financial contributions, participating in political rallies, and, most importantly, voting. Historically, young Americans are the least likely to vote. In 2004, only 46.7 percent of eligible voters ages 18-24 cast ballots, compared with 63.8 percent of all eligible voters. [1] Whether increased political communication on Facebook will actually increase voting rates among younger demographics remains to be seen.

---

[1] Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, November 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf.

With more polling data coming out on the 2008 campaign coming out every day, I though it’d be useful to post summary of what it takes to accurately report on poll results:

A news report about a public opinion poll needs to have several qualities in order to serve both the public interest and that of the news organization.[1]

The report must be interesting enough to attract general readers and simple enough for general readers to understand. Polls make attractive topics for journalists because the most common results show either 1) a fairly clear winner and loser or 2) a close race. Both make for interesting, easy to write stories. It is rarer to see a journalist tackle in-depth analysis of a poll that takes on multiple aspects of an issue, such as the recent poll of Iraqis done by ABC News, USA Today, the BBC and ARD[2]. If a journalist were to write a story on that poll, he would likely pick out one or two poll questions to focus on.

This simplification is not necessarily a problem. In fact, it can be desirable. If a journalist were to include details on every question in a lengthy poll with careful attention to potential wording bias, sampling size, and methodology, few people would ever read the story. When writing for a general audience, it is better for a journalist to glean the most important facts and relay them with enough detail to assure readers that the poll is credible. While their job is to simplify complex data, it is essential that journalists be educated in statistics and polling methodology. With knowledge of how polling works, a journalist can determine whether the results are valid and whether the story should be on polling results alone or, in rare cases, the motives or shoddy practices of those conducting the poll.

Beyond being straightforward, the report should provide enough detail about the polling methodology for the reader to assess the validity of the results. There are several technical questions that the article should answer:

1) What is the margin of error and confidence interval?

2) What is the sample size?

3) Who is the population being sampled?

4) During what time span was the poll conducted?

Continue reading How to report poll results…

I was just skimming the New York Times Web site and they’ve changed their policy so that anyone with a .edu e-mail account can gain free access to their subscriber-only content online.

Sign up here

There’s some extra incentive to go to grad school right there.

Cross-posted at The Proving Ground

A recent Associated Press article questions recent predictions by ethanol advocates that the biofuel is a miracle cure for eliminating America’s dependence on foreign oil and reducing carbon emissions.

This Q&A-style article lays out the basics of ethanol and questions the perfect-fuel scenario being put forth by ethanol advocates. Right now, most of the media’s focus is on the potential advantages of ethanol, but there isn’t much discussion of the realities behind its creation.

The article has answers that may surprise people. For example:

But aren’t there environmental benefits to ethanol?

If you make ethanol from corn, the environmental benefits are limited. When you consider the greenhouse gases that are released in the growing and refining process, corn-based ethanol is only slightly better with regard to global warming than gasoline. Growing corn also requires the use of pesticides and fertilizers that cause soil and water pollution.

The environmental benefit of corn-based ethanol is felt mostly around the tailpipe. When blended into gasoline in small amounts, ethanol causes the fuel to generate less smog-producing carbon monoxide. That has made it popular in smoggy cities like Los Angeles.

Paul Peterson, a field supervisor for the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation wrote a letter to the La Crosse Tribune last week promoting the use of ethanol. He claims that, “if every car in America would burn 10 percent ethanol, it could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.” This statement immediately prompts a few questions like, “where would we get the other 90% of our auto fuel” and “where would we get all of the ethanol from”? Just the title of his letter (which may have been given by the Tribune), is just plain wrong.

I realize that there is a strong contingent in this country who would love it if the demand for corn kept increasing, but they shouldn’t be bending the truth to fit their economic agenda.

To restate an observation that’s been made on this blog before, further development in ethanol, especially with crops that have a higher energy efficiency, like sugar cane, can be a part of the renewable energy equation, but it most certainly isn’t, “the answer.”

This “Get Fuzzy” strip from November 2005 has taken on a whole new meaning:

Sustainable energy isn’t going to become the standard until it makes economic sense for people to turn from fossil fuels to renewable sources. One way to bring down costs is to use economies of scale to produce energy from renewable sources in large proportions.

The idea is similar to the way we produce energy from fossil fuels right now. People don’t have coal-burning generators behind their homes; they are connected by wires to a power plant. There are definitely more opportunities to capture clean energy in small batches via solar panels, but there’s no reason that communities can’t take advantage of large-scale energy production projects. The costs of individual solar panels or a wind turbine are still prohibitively expensive and geographically unfeasible for most people. A central source of renewable energy makes sense can make sense for individuals, communities, businesses, and institutions.

In today’s New York Times, Matthew Wald takes a look at large-scale alternative energy projects.

It’s all about the economics.

First posted at The Proving Ground

I just received this update on Milwaukee’s sustainability efforts from One Wisconsin Now, a progressive public policy institute based in Milwaukee:

Are Milwaukee’s Leaders Ready to Go Green?
Recently the top scientists from around the world published a report stating what most people have come to already accept, climate change is real and human activity is making the matter much worse. Last week we published an Echo Chamber piece by James Rowen that stated, “Climate Change Report Should Spur Local Action.” It appears that this advice was not lost on some public officials, namely Milwaukee County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Supervisor Dimitrijevic proposed that Milwaukee County adopt higher environmental and conservation standards. In a press release she said, “Higher energy costs have put a major strain on departmental budgets within the County, which owns more than 800 buildings. Many of them have not been updated in decades. Modernizing the way we operate will pay dividends to our community over the long-term.” Supervisor Dimitrijevic’s plan includes the following items:

• Create a Director of Sustainability position to oversee current and future energy efficiency and eco-friendly initiatives and help County departments comply with the Green Print.
• Retrofit County buildings with high-performance, energy efficient technology.
• Require all departments to perform an internal audit of ways to improve energy efficiency.
• Direct the Public Works Director to purchase hybrid and alternative fuel powered vehicles.
• Turn unused parkland back into native grassland and prairie reserve areas, which would require no maintenance or the burning of fossil fuels.
• Manage storm runoff from County facilities and place recycling containers in all parks.
• Examine the potential use of “gray water” where treated water may not be needed.
• Require that all county supported construction projects meet Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) standards by 2008.
• Examine the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar energy to power County buildings.

Earlier this week Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett gave his state of the city address in which he highlighted various green programs in the city. He touted the new office of Sustainability, and plans to reduce energy costs at City Hall by $35,000. He also committed to reduce total energy usage by 15 percent by 2012 in addition to pledging action on various other environmentally friendly initiatives.

To make a global impact on our climate change crisis, we need more actions taken by leaders locally. It was just on Sunday when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Wisconsin’s carbon dioxide emissions levels have grown faster over the last 25 years than they have nationally. These newly energized efforts in Wisconsin’s largest city is a major step in the right direction. Hopefully these things will be greeted with enthusiasm and support by other local leaders and officials throughout the state.

These are all great ideas to both save money for taxpayers and reduce Milwaukee’s environmental footprint. Nothing in Supervisor Dimitrijevic’s plan is revolutionary or especially expensive… it all takes advantage of existing technology and construction guidelines. The way to gain support for sustainability is to highlight the economic benefits and it looks like Milwaukee is taking the right approach.

First posted at The Proving Ground

Is ethanol the answer?

As for the debate over ethanol, I agree with Brett on most points. Ethanol is no silver bullet. To extend the analogy, it may be more of a rubber bullet. We really haven’t seen conclusive evidence that ethanol will produce a significantly greater amount of energy than the fossil fuels required to create it. All of the hype is coming from corn-producers and the governments (state and federal) that subsidize them.

If we are to use ethanol as a means of alternative energy, it would be best to use the most efficient types of biomass to produce it. This means using sugarcane instead of corn, as ethanol derived from sugarcane is more efficient. Brazil is currently the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, but the U.S. is currently imposing trade restrictions on its sale in the state to bolster domestic production of ethanol. (I hate to source Wikipedia here… but it’s the most comprehensive source I could find right now)

Oddly enough, it is several Senate Democrats including Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) are urging President Bush to maintain the current trade restrictions in an effort to support corn ethanol producers. Read their letter to President Bush. Democrats including Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Barack Obama (D-IL). It seems that serving their already-heavily-subsidized corn-producing constituents is more important than finding the most efficient fuel source for Americans.

Even with sugarcane ethanol, there’s the issue of the fuel costs to transport it to the U.S.

The solution to decreasing atmospheric pollution, slowing global warming, protecting ourselves from the exhaustion of fossil fuels, or whatever other energy-related problems you may think we have begins with investment in a “diverse portfolio” of renewable energy solutions.

Ethanol isn’t the end-all-be-all of fuel sources. There is no one answer, despite what our politicians might be telling us. In areas where there is lots of sunlight, install solar panels. In areas with lots of wind, install wind turbines. And so forth.

Moving energy only wastes energy. The farther you have to move fuel or the longer your electrical lines are, the less benefit there is.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, global warming is being used by anti-environmentalists and oil company cronies as an easy target. The media is displaying the question as being about whether or not there is global warming. The issue really should be boiled down into two facts: 1) Pollution harms human health and the environment 2) Fossil fuels won’t last forever.

Brett’s completely right that it would be careless to waste taxpayer dollars on research that is unnecessary and unlikely to produce real results. But, energy and sustainability research is absolutely necessary and has already produced results. The longer we wait to combat our energy problems, the tougher they’re going to be. In the end, I’m confident that the time, energy, and resources spent limiting our contribution to air pollution and lowering our dependence on fossil fuels will most not have been wasted.

As Brett noted, only 1% of the U.S. budget is spent on science and technology. I can only assume that major portions of that 1% go to medical and military research. And even the money we’re using for energy development is being spent on the wrong thing. According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy, “our economic health depends on the continued availability of reliable and affordable fossil fuels”. They are still pouring money into, “research and development of future fossil energy technologies”.

It’s about time we stop living in the industrial revolution and start working towards a sustainable future.

First posted at The Proving Ground 

In the last few years, it has become a widely acknowledged scientific fact that global warming is a dire and urgent issue facing the human race. However, there are some who still deny its existence or downplay its significance.

To them, I say: global warming doesn’t matter.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that global warming won’t cause the ice caps and glaciers to melt. Let’s assume that the oceans won’t rise to drive millions from their homes and the weather won’t change in unpredictable and dangerous ways.

The main rationale of those who deny global warming is that human action isn’t the cause for global climate change. Even if this were a logical argument, it is impossible to argue that human action has no effect on the environment.

Whether or not it heats up the earth, air pollution is harmful

Regardless of its effect on climate change, air pollution is extremely dangerous to both humans and the environment.

According to CBS News:

“Air pollution threatens the health of human beings and other living things on our planet. While often invisible, pollutants in the air create smog and acid rain, cause cancer or other serious health effects, and diminish the protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere…”

Pardon the double negative, but you can’t argue that air pollution is not bad… no matter how much the oil companies pay you.

It’s so easy to ignore or hide facts that, if accepted, would demand a change in the western life of convenience and, to be honest, excess, that we in the U.S. have come to accept and embrace. I understand that it’s tough for any politician to get re-elected by telling voters that they shouldn’t use as much electricity and shouldn’t drive as much. In fact, politicians are trying to promote renewable resources right now as a means of continuing our current lifestyles. They argue that average citizens shouldn’t have to pay more for gasoline and energy. Very few of our representatives make the argument for conservation and efficiency.

Many of those who actually deny global warming due so in an effort to support the unbridled right of humans to consume as much energy and fuel as they please. Most of these so-called experts also happen to be paid by oil companies. One example is Chris Horner, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (more like the “Idiot’s Guide) and counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has received over $1.3 from ExxonMobil.

Even if oil companies stand to make billions from the sale of fossil fuels, it is impossible to argue that fossil fuels will last forever.

Fossil fuels, by definition, are non-renewable. We can’t create more fossil fuel, at least not without burying tons of biomass far beneath the earth’s crust and waiting around for hundreds of millions of years.

The undeniable fact is that fossil fuels will run out. And, if we keep gobbling them up like Takeru Kobayashi, we’re going to face a world-wide energy shortage all too soon.

To be continued…

Cross-posted at The Proving Ground 

Politicians in America keep saying that we need to turn ideas into action if we want to keep this country great.  They say we need to beef up security if we want to keep our families safe.  According to them, Liberals think that money grows on trees in the yards of taxpayers.

Well, it’s possible that the taxpayer dollars used to pay for the Iraq War, estimated to be over $1 trillion dollars, could have really made an impact if they were put to a different use.

Per John Allen Paulos, a professor of mathematics at Temple University and graduate of the University of Wisconsin, $1 trillion could easily allow the EPA to clean up every environmental superfund site in the U.S. and then some.  It could fund the Department of Education 18 times over and surely, “put muscle into the slogan “No child left behind.”  It could multiply our scientific research hundreds of times and put us years ahead in energy advances to cure our dependency on foreign oil and cure life-threatening diseases.  It could secure nearly every port and chemical plant.  It could even save the lives of million of children across the world dying of what to us are common, treatable illnesses.
Strangely, it seems that it would be almost impossible to convince Congress that any of these endeavors would be a strong investment.
ABC News: Who’s counting: How Iraq’s trillion could have been spent

Crossposted at The Proving Ground

It hasn’t made the front page of U.S. media outlets, but the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) just came out with a report claiming that “Millions of dollars in US rebuilding funds have been wasted in Iraq.” BBC

The report is coming out just as President Bush is asking Congress for Congress to approve $1.2 billion in additional reconstruction aid.

The BBC cites a couple of examples of waste or funds that have gone unaccounted for:

One case involved a payment by the US State Department of $43.8m to a contractor, DynCorp International, for a residential camp for police trainers outside the Adnan Palace grounds in Baghdad. The camp has never been used.

The Iraqi Interior Ministry ordered $4.2m of work there, never authorised by the State Department, that included 20 trailers for important visitors and an Olympic-size swimming pool.

The State Department has said that it is working to improve controls.

Another example cited in the report is $36.4m spent by US officials on armoured vehicles, body armour and communications equipment that cannot be accounted for because invoices were vague and there was no back-up documentation.

On top of millions of dollars in reconstruction aid going unaccounted for, “billions of dollars budgeted for capital projects remained unspent at the end of 2006.” BBC

Democrats have picked up on the report and, “In the House, at least two committees said they planned hearings to examine spending waste and abuse.” NYT

As for the effectiveness of the money the U.S. has spent so far on reconstruction, Special General for Iraq Reconstruction Stuart Bowen said yesterday that, “billions in U.S. aid spent on strengthening security has had limited effect. He said reconstruction now will fall largely on Iraqis to manage — and they’re not ready for the task.” NYT

Even before the latest reports on U.S. spending in Iraq came out, SIGIR, “was nearly closed down last year by Republicans.” BBC

In November 2006, Republicans in the House Armed Service Committee buried a clause calling for the termination of SIGIR in a massive military appropriations bill.

In the past, the SIGIR investigations “have sent American occupation officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Halliburton and Parsons, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.” NYT

The clause was placed in the bill during a closed-door conference. There’s no denying that the elimination of SIGIR was intended to go under the radar. “The one thing I can confirm is that this was a last-minute insertion,” said Susan Collins (R-ME). NYT

With Democrats in control of Congress, the office will continue oversight of the war at least through 2008.

In case you’re wondering, Stuart Bowen isn’t some liberal watchdog bent on ruining the reputation of the Bush Administration. Before he served as Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Bowen, “served President George W. Bush as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary and Special Assistant to the President and Associate Counsel. He has been a partner at the law firm of Patton Boggs LLP, in its Washington, D.C. office. Before his White House tenure, Mr. Bowen served as Counsel to the Bush-Cheney transition team; and from 1994 to 2000, he held a variety of positions on Governor George Bush’s staff in Texas, including Deputy General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel for Litigation, and Assistant General Counsel.” Wikipedia

Journalist Ed Harriman has been following the American audits of spending in Iraq and gave some insight on the current situation in an interview yesterday with BBC World Today Select:

BBC: Do you have a sense that the current Iraqi administration is better at keeping an eye on this type of thing than it’s predecessors?

Harriman: Oh no, not at all. And people are very distraught in Iraq at the moment because the government has become almost entirely unaccountable. What’s really interesting is that the American embassy in Baghdad seems to be unaccountable as well. And that’s after almost four years of the occupation…

BBC: Is it possible to calculate finally how much money is missing, one way or another?

Harriman: There are guesstimates because you never really get to the end of it because crooks are very good at hiding what they steal. But, we’re certainly talking about tens of billions of dollars.

Harriman’s findings have been published in a series of three articles in the London Review of Books:

Where has all the money gone? – 7.7.05

Cronyism and Kickbacks - 1.26.2006

The Least Accountable Regime in the Middle East – 2.7.2006

Sources:

BBC: U.S. money is ‘squandered’ in Iraq

BBC: World Today Select Podcast

NYT: Dems decry report of wasted Iraq aid

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has announced he won’t be running for president in 2008.  I’m a little surprised since Bayh has been working hard over the last couple years to establish himself as a moderate voice in the Democratic field.  I’m guessing his decision was partly prompted by all the attention Barack Obama has been getting lately, but Obama hasn’t even announced whether or not he will run.

The way things stand now, I only see three people having a real shot at the Democratic nomination: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.  Each has decent to excellent name recognition and the resources needed to win.  Clinton is obviously way ahead in the money race and has the best network of political operatives, but Obama and Edwards have the advantage of young, idealistic charisma that seems to be lacking in so many politicians these days.

We shouldn’t forget other Democrats who have expressed interest, but they’ll have a rough road ahead.  The other Democratic contenders left are: Kucinich, Kerry, Richardson, Clark, Vilsack, Biden, and Dodd.

A couple months ago, I had thought Warner and Bayh would be two of the last to drop out of the race.  Maybe they know something we don’t.

I don’t usually write about advertisements, but this one’s too good to ignore.

I’ve seen plenty of Web sites that try really hard to be “viral” advertisement for some product.  They usually have flash animations or games that are usually pretty poorly produced.

www.clearification.com centers around the random, hilarious musings of comedian Dimitri Martin.  It’s fairly basic - just a simple animated Dimitri rambling on.  It features a few videos and plugs Dimitri’s upcoming comedy tour.

The most interesting thing is that the whole site is really an ad for Windows Vista.  There’s a small, but noticable Vista logo at the bottom of the screen and Vista is featured in each of the video shorts.

Or maybe I just like it because I think Dimitri Martin is funny.

NBC has teamed up with AOL to put the pilot episode of Aaron Sorkin’s new show, “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” up, commercial free, on the Internet a week before it first airs on the peacock.

The pilot was solid… combining the movie-style production and idealism of The West Wing with the quick wit of Sports Night.
It’s pretty bold of NBC to pick up the show, both because it draws it’s schtick from Saturday Night Live and a new show written by and starring Tina Fey will air on the same network.

And the show ends with “Under Pressure” by Queen and David Bowie.  Could it get much better?

With the midterms fast approaching, both NBC and ABC have begun blogs devoted to providing daily political updates from their respective pools of reporters.

NBC’s “First Read” is a new take on what used to be their morning on-line update of the day in politics.  “First Read” no longer exists in its previous and has been completely folded into the continually updated blog.

ABC has retained their version of the morning update, “The Note”, and added a blog,”Political Radar“, that will allow for continual updates throughout the day.

We’ll see which one proves to be more popular, but it’s interesting that NBC has conceded the battle for the long-form morning update.

CBS may have Katie Couric… but they’re still lacking the comprehensive political reporting teams of NBC and ABC.