Watch the full interview (just shy of 20 minutes:

)

While we’d like to claim her the winner of this debate, moments like below show Maddow clearly losing her temper while “Mr. Reformed” remains in an irritatingly stoic position. She’s attempting to make a point

Perhaps the flaw in the conversation, and its victor, is the angle in which the story was approached. It was a two-issue debate focusing both on homosexuality as a myth and supporting evidence for that myth being used to kill gays. While related, the two are each large enough battles to devote entire shows to, let alone a 20-minute combined segment.

Maddow’s weakness is this merging of arguments. She (should have) wanted to talk about Uganda, but she ended up confronting the bullshit claims out of clear personal resent. And rightfully so, but that’s what makes this segment fail. Watch as it’s spun: first as a promotion for his organization, then second as a disclaimer against the use of his material for the persecution of gays. Her argument is lost in a sea of, “We’ll I didn’t mean to …”

We’re left in awe of what a complete fuckup this guy is, not in awe of Maddow’s take-down of said fuckup. While negative, he still retains the focus.

As mythical as the detached observer principle of journalism became this decade, this is one example of why it needs to exist. Maddow’s personal attachment to the story, as that of an openly gay woman, causes her more harm then good. Talking points become personal and it interferes with the ability to take charge of the debate.

While some find him repulsive in his Murrow-esque behavior, Maddow’s time-slot neighbor, Keith Olbermann, would have handled this debate better. Anyone doubting his thoughts on the issue need only turn to his Prop 8 special commentary around this time last year. He made the argument personal to his viewers without having the direct personal interest himself. That’s something Maddow, and frankly much of her audience, can’t claim.

It’s not that Maddow failed. She’s didn’t. That’s impossible to do when you’re up against a man practicing psycho-babble. The shame is that she couldn’t leverage the insanity of his argument against gays to make him admit that – intended or not -  it’s ultimately leading to their genocide.

A question I hear all the time…  No I’m not sulking around in the women’s locker room, but just about everywhere else… minus the sulking.

I don’t necessarily hear this question directed at me all the time, but I laugh to myself regardless.  The reason I find such humor in this simple question is because the answer is more than obvious 98% of the time.  If I’m sitting down at a restaurant with fork in hand and a joyous morsel of food entering my mouth, don’t be taken aback when you say, “Travis, what are you doing here?!” and my response is an increasingly enthusiastic, “I’m riding a jet ski! What are you doing here?”

I know, I know hard to believe I’d be out eating or better yet that I’d have a sarcastic response to such a basic question.  This isn’t to say don’t ask the question.  There is a  2% chance you actually thought the person was supposed to be out of town, out of the country, or dead.  Moreover if they were supposed to be dead and you see them out I think “what are you doing here?” or “why aren’t you dead?” might be pretty fair questions.

Chances are that if I’m at a bar I’m not there for a killer game of horseshoes or four square.  If you see me at a Macys I’m probably not there for the petting zoo.  For the love of god if I have a beer in my hand at the bar and you think my train is getting ready to leave please grab the beer and push me out the door.  I’m just kidding please don’t grab my beer ever.  That’s like coming between a man and his incessant need to… drink beer.  (Trust me it’s the only analogy where you can just repeat it and it works)

I don’t know if what you’ll take away from this thought is to think before you speak.  If that actually happened I’d be impressed.  More than likely it’ll just create a situation where you see me out and you’ll make a specific point of asking me what I’m doing here.  After I run through my list of seemingly endless witty remarks, and my patience, I might just go straight to a sincere and truthful response, “That’s a great question… I’m never quite sure”

Oh and I love this clip

A new Bud Light promotion is losing is sell-ability as univerisites threaten legal action and file complaints. Bud Light cans around the country are changing colors – 27 different color combinations in all – around college areas and regions, WSJ.com reports.

At least 25 schools have formally asked Anheuser-Busch to drop the campaign near their campuses, Mr. Siegal says. In recent letters, the University of Michigan’s lawyers threatened legal action for alleged trademark infringement, demanding that Anheuser-Busch not sell the “maize and blue” cans in the “entire state.” The University of Colorado, Oklahoma State University, Texas A&M University and Boston College have also told the company to stop distribution near their campuses, citing trademark issues and concern about student alcohol use.

[Image via FOTP.]

That was Joe Barton of Texas, a Republican, asking the Energy Secretary how oil magically ended up in Alaska. Except, of course, anyone who learned about Pangea in elementary school, knows the answer and the answer offered Steven Chu makes perfect sense. In fact, it seems remarkable that Mr. Chu didn’t lower his face into the palm of his hand and mildly curse. Does Mr. Barton realize he is asking a stupid question? How does he think that he “stumped” Mr. Chu? Because he paused several times while reading his answer to simple enough for Congressman Barton to understand it?

Oh wait, he was just trying to get Mr. Chu to say the Earth was more than 6000 years old so they can put it on a pamphlet and send it to every church below the Mason/Dixon line.

The most recent public example of awkward teens going through puberty: Two cheerleaders were suspended from their Seattle-area high school squad after sending nude photos of themselves to people who apparently gave a shit. Now, one of the teen’s parents are suing the school district.

Below, CNN Headline News pundits explain how teens today are engaging in sexual misconduct using phones their parents bought them.

We’ll leave the asinine nature of this situation to itself. Let’s focus on the commentary.

Ms. Pundit/expert Dr. Dr. Sari Locker: Good luck finding a phone without a camera. Why don’t you have a phone with a camera? Clearly no one is interested in you.

Locker’s Web site image would demand you think otherwise:

Oh, we’re not done with this one yet. I’ll take hypocritical for $500, Alex.

Wait until you see what books this angel has written – it’s below the fold.

Locker makes note of three factors causing this outrageous act of … trying to impress other people using what ya mamma gave ya.

1. Parents (They enabled them with the technology.)
2. Desire to perform (Celebrities take off their tops, so must teens.)
3. Partner pressure (Boys have other options these days, so the girls have more pressure to put out!)

Hm. I wonder who helps facilitate this pressure. I wouldn’t be able to find it at, say, a neighborhood Barnes & Noble, would I?

These are all books penned by Locker, courtesy her bio page:

• Mindblowing Sex in the Real World (1995), a hip and savvy book about sex for twentysomethings.
• Sari Says: The Real Dirt on Everything From Sex to School (2001), a great multi-topic teen advice book, which was awarded by the American Library Association
• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Being Sexy (2000) that discusss how to look, act, and feel sexier
• The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Amazing Sex (1999; 2003; 2005), a comprehensive 480 page book about all aspects of sex for adults of all ages

Mindblowing Sex in the Real World. Yeah, and the celebrities are the problem?

Be sure to check out her other articles, while you’re visiting:

• The Science of Casual Sex from Maxim
• Eight Great Places to Have Sex
• Why New Sex is the Best Sex from Playboy
• And last but not least: Hand job techniques

Locker goes on to explain the “partner pressure” factor, saying:

“Boys nowadays are looking at online pornography.”

Fucking-a! Say it ain’t so!! THEY’RE DOING THIS CRAZY MASTURBATING THING, TOO! GOD ALMIGHTY CAN ANYONE STOP THE MADNESS!?!

Nowadays? As in 2008? Because the Internet didn’t have porn in 1998? No – it did. I checked. And then I read the techniques.

Thanks, Doc!