Shankar Vedantam, writing in the WaPo, has gone and taken all the fun out of the nasty partisanship out of in the blogosphere and beyond—by clarifying what exactly gives it that nasty edge. His piece is called “Disagree about Iraq? You’re Not Just Wrong — You’re Evil” [e.a.]

A wide body of psychological research shows that on any number of hot-button issues, people seem hard-wired to believe the worst about those who disagree with them. Most people can see the humor in such behavior when it doesn’t involve things they care about: If you don’t care about sports, for example, you roll your eyes when fans of one team question the principles and parentage of fans of a rival team.

I’ve gotta say that as amused as I am by the battling in the blogosphere, and as helpful I find it in working through my own passionate (and sometimes overheated) feelings about hot-button issues, I am sorta stunned by the meanness that goes on in every day life these days.

There is not a corner of my life that hasn’t been touched by the hysterical politics of the day

“We are really bad about putting ourselves in other people’s places and looking at the world the way they look at it,” said Glenn D. Reeder, a social psychologist at Illinois State University who recently conducted a study into how supporters and critics of the Iraq war have come to believe entirely different narratives about the war — and about each other. “We find it difficult to grant that other people come to their conclusions in good faith if they reach a conclusion that is different than ours,” he said.

That’s the creepy thing: that friends, family members, colleagues, business associates, and neighbors can turn one one another in an instant; that people can simply begin to think the worst of one another … over politics. There is no end to the troubles that begin when people use politics as a weapon against one another.

Can’t we all get along?

I’m a New Yorker, so I walk a lot (unlike the rest of America, we’ve got sidewalks). Plus: I like to walk. You should walk, too:

“Walking may be as close to a magic bullet as you’ll find in modern medicine,” says Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. “If there was a pill that could lower the risk of chronic disease like walking does, people would be clamoring for it.”

Walking is the ultimate no-fuss exercise. You don’t need special training or equipment (though plenty of books and pedometer devices are available to help). Walking can get you from point A to point B in an earth-friendly, non-gas-guzzling way. It can be fine-tuned to your own fitness needs — suitable for just-off-the-couch potatoes and adrenaline junkies alike.

And here’s another big plus: Walking is fun, offering up an eye-opening view of a world.

This public service announcement was brought to you by

Eat the Press’s Rachel Sklar has given herself a new title: ombudsblogger. She will

will walk the hallowed halls of media, sternly issuing yellow cards to anyone who is running, shoving, or trying to stuff a freshman in a locker.

Ombudblogger? Ombudslugger, more like. She starts out nice ‘n’ easy:

Radar, your staffer mainlined your editorial meeting to Page Six. Tough luck. Take your lumps.

Page Six, “insipid” is a little unkind. Isn’t brainstorming supposed to be about throwing it all out there in a safe space? Bravo to Radar for providing one.

Radar, you could do worse than being said to aspire to Spy and Vanity Fair. And you ARE in your third incarnation with a third set of investors.

Page Six, considering the attention you pay to really hot people, I would think you’d agree that hot porn models are good for business.

Then she goes in for the kill:

Sigh. We wish that had been all. But then Radar had to go and cross the line into abject dickery, ceding the moral highground for a nasty frat-boy laugh. Yeah, you heard me. FOR SHAME.

And concludes:

Moral highground: Page Six. You’re better than this, Radar — but crap like the above will makes us doubt it soon enough.

By the way, these are the ombudsblogger/slugger’s rules. They’re good ones [e.a.]:

By all means, attack each other. Pull each other to bits — over stuff that matters. Someone goofs, or is careless? Great, call them out. It’ll make everyone more careful. Someone has a conflict of interest they don’t disclose? Well then, feel free to provide the whole picture. That stuff is important. But why are low blows necessary? If you’ve got a solid leg to stand on, they shouldn’t be.

Go, slugger, go!

‘Cause there was a mountain of reasons, that’s why, and those idiotic assholes thought all the reasons would become self-evident when everything was “over,” that’s why. And the bitter, hysterical, profoundly unsettling laugh is on us (those of us who knew it was necessary to topple Saddam and who hoped against hope that those criminally negligent shitballs in power would do the right thing).

What, you don’t like that explanation? Well then one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers has a rather nuanced one for you:

The fact is: we relied so heavily on the weapons of mass destruction argument because it was the easiest rung on which to hang our hat. Everyone knew that Iraq had stockpiles of at least chemical weapons. And once we got in there, who knows what we’d find on the biological weapon or nuclear weapon front? It wasn’t even a question in anyone’s minds, us or other foreign intelligence services. So we relied on that rationale, because it’s hard to make an argument that “we need to go in there and knock heads.” Even if that is what needs to be done.

Obviously, the strategy of relying on that justification was a horrible mistake. We’ve now lost total control of the narrative.

No kidding! Then the reader goes on to describe the stakes:

Walking into that bar is about demonstrating your power and credibility. If you get beat up, you’ve only demonstrated how weak you are, even if you are eventually victorious. If the sheriff manages to beat the local thugs into submission, but suffers a broken nose and cracked ribs and has to take the next few days off recuperating, then he’s lost all credibility both with both the thugs and the townsfolk.

This is basically the situation we are in now and why, instead of victory, we’re fighting for a narrow loss.

It’s so tiresome to find this nuanced, smart (reader’s) analysis on Sullivan’s blog followed by Sullivan going off, Savonarola-like, in hot pursuit of the evil in our midst.

When Dick Cheney looks weak, when he has made the U.S. look weak, we are in trouble. Weakness invites attack. If and when the next attack comes, Cheney’s failed strategy will be partly responsible. He hasn’t just undermined the soft power of the U.S. He has deeply undermined American hard power.

Not long ago it was Rumsfeld who was the Devil. Now that he’s gone, Cheney is the Devil. Who’s next? When Cheney goes, which Devil will Sullivan pursue? And will Hugo Chavez be invited to the hunt?

As the networks try to reinvent themselves, Headline News seems to be doing pretty well.

Here’s an excerpt of an interview with Ken Jautz of CNN:

Q: You’ve made a lot of changes in the two years you’ve run Headline News. What’s worked well?

A: We launched a prime-time lineup of point-of-view shows —- that is, shows that were focused on their hosts and their opinions. We likened this to the op-ed page of a newspaper. We emphasized that these shows were alternatives to the programs that were being offered on prime time on CNN. It was the first time we ever programmed our two main domestic channels in a complementary manner. It was, to be honest, a very big risk for us, [but] it was hugely successful. One of those shows, Nancy Grace, has tripled her audience. Glenn Beck has almost doubled. Those are numbers you don’t see very often in cable news. …

Q: Nancy [Grace] and Glenn [Beck] make you a target of critics. How do you balance the need for ratings with the need to cover news?

A: It’s most important to be honest and straightforward with your viewership, which is to identify exactly what you are doing. That is why we emphasize in both programming and marketing that these are point-of-view shows. They’re not journalists. It is good to bring different types of voices. …

Q: Headline News already feels different than CNN. Will that differentiation become more pronounced over time?

A: We will continue to emphasize that, and look for ways to underscore that Headline News is an alternative. That’s in prime time. It’s news by day, views by night.

And for those of you who like numbers:

The two youngest shows, by audience age, across both networks [CNN and Headline News], are Glenn Beck and ‘Showbiz Tonight.’ Glenn Beck’s audience is particularly affluent.

Now, that is weird.

(via TVNewser)

The latest poll from Gallup indicates that the disgraceful former president of the United States has got a hard row to hoe as he “seeks to erode the ‘impenetrable wall’ that blocks the American public from seeing the plight of Palestinians.” 

(link to this great photo provided by Aussie Dave at Israellycool)

That’s because Americans just keep sympathizing with the Israelis, no matter what:

Carter continues his jihad, although he has had to change his tune. Here’s what he said last Thursday at George Washington University:

“The driving force for the terrible oppression and persecution in Palestine comes from a minority of Israelis and their desire to confiscate and colonize Palestinian lands,” Carter said Thursday. A trade of land for peace would be acceptable to most Israelis, he said, “but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders who have intruded into Palestine and who are unfortunately supported by AIPAC and most of the vocal American Jewish communities.”

See? Whereas in Carter’s narrative there was once a massive conspiracy on the part of Israel to impose racist apartheid on the long-suffering Palestinians, now it’s only a tiny handful of Israeli Jews [a "minority"] who are to blame for the Palestinians’ “terrible oppression and persecution.” (And, of course, the evil AIPAC.)

Here’s another trend for Carter to consider: as Americans move out of the “undecided” column, they move over to sympathize with the Israelis, not the Palestinians.

No amount of Jew-baiting, Israel-baiting, and AIPAC-baiting is going to change this. It’s not a conspiracy, and it’s not that complicated.

When the Palestinians become more sympathetic—i.e., when they are seen to behave in a manner that befits sympathy rather than disgust, indignation, or outrage—they will garner more sympathy from Americans.