Two things I don't care about: The Royal Baby and Anthony Weiner's sexting

By Frank Moraes 

(Ed. note: I'm with Frank on this. I don't give a shit about the Royal Baby, other than to the extent that I care about human beings generally, because I loathe that silly family and stupid institution. As for Weiner, the way the media are reacting with a combination of prudish moralism, titillation, and hypocrisy almost makes me feel sorry for him. As it is, I don't care about the sexting, because I'd like to think I have a broad understanding of and appreciation for human sexuality. The problem there is the dishonesty, narcissism, and lack of judgment. I'm not sure that disqualifies him for mayor, but he does seem to be a shameless creep. -- MJWS)

I have no interest in the royal baby. In general, I have no interest in a royal family -- at least until the sons start killing each other in order to become king. To me, we had a war so we wouldn't have deal with this bullshit. And then when we created this country, we specifically didn't create our own explicit class of people who are better than the rest of us. It's all a big joke and people who are caught up in it really need to get a life.

The other thing I don't care about is Anthony Weiner's newest sex scandal. But I do care about how the Democratic ecosystem reacts to it. It isn't new, of course. We all know that when something like this happens to a Republican, they circle the wagons. Eventually, they may abandon the man (It's always a man!) in the middle of it. But they will assume the best and try to play defense. The Democrats are just the opposite—they have no loyalty at all. It doesn't matter if it's former IRS head Steven T. Miller or Shirley Sherrod or Weiner. Democrats might think that we should be understanding of the unnamed masses, but if it is a named person who is part of our team, they have to go.

Read more »

The absurdity of the royal wedding: monarchy v. democracy

By: R.K. Barry

Last night Lawrence O'Donnell, on The Last Word, did what I thought was a fabulous job of questioning America's interest in the upcoming Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton.

Frankly, I don't care what some people might want to do to pass the time. I'm sure I have hobbies and such that are of little interest to others. But O'Donnell wasn't simply talking about the fact that there are more important things to worry about. His comments were not of the more mundane nature that "some people waste their time watching the adventures of Snooki on the 'Jersey Shore,'" as much as that fact does amaze me.

Rather, he was making the point that America fought a revolution to toss out the British monarchy, a form of government based not on the democratic principles we profess to hold dear but on heredity. Monarchy is a form of government that expressly deems some people, by virtue of birth, better than others and thus fit to rule. This has historically justified the mistreatment of peoples all across the world simply because they were considered to be of a lower station and fodder to promote the glory of the select few.

If there is anything less consistent with the democratic political values that Americans claim to hold, I don't know what it is.

Perhaps you will say that this is no longer the case in practical terms - that the Royal Family is now just for show. But why, as O'Donnell argues, would we stand and applaud the wretched remnants of this pernicious form of government?

Unless, of course, many are not thinking about this in a critical way but simply want to enjoy a good party. I guess that's it.

Below are the comments made by O'Donnell followed by some hilarious remarks by Jerry Seinfeld. I encourage you to watch to the end.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost)