I’m pretty sure everybody gets it by now that television is an entertainment medium, which, with certain rare exceptions, presents current events (i.e., “news”) on the fly to consumers, who turn to the tube for distraction (because we’re bored or tired, or because … we like to watch):

I’m sure you’re bored to death of hearing about it and I’m not going to belabor this point anymore—I promise!

Except that I get daily reminders. Such as the news, according to Broadcasting & Cable, that Rosie O’Donnelll is indeed “shopping a format” for a talk show “with a ‘hot topics’ portion similar to The View.”

It’s worth reading the whole article, which starts off by intimating that O’Donnell is primarily interested in “creative freedom”:

Industry sources say O’Donnell, who has yet to seriously focus on her next moves, is open to a number of options, including producing her own syndicated talk show and farming it out to an outside distributor. … Independence could bring O’Donnell the type of creative freedom that would be tough to come by at a conglomerate worried about its Washington interests.

On the other hand, she’s looking for such a big payday—she wanted $10 million from ABC to continue on The View for a year—that there aren’t too many outfits that can afford her:

O’Donnell would be lucky to get half of the $40 million annually that she is seeking under a traditional studio deal, even with an ownership stake, according to executives speaking anonymously.

But entertainment conglomerates like CBS and NBC Universal have the assets to make such a large payday possible.

Indeed they do. And they’re salivating at the prospect:

CBS has hotly pursued O’Donnell; sources say it is prepared to offer her a broad deal encompassing network, syndication and even Showtime. NBCU is also in the mix.

And here’s why [e.a.]:

[I]nterest in O’Donnell remains high in Hollywood. As one executive puts it, “She may be a polarizing figure, but if we can just get 5%-10% of those who agree with her and a few of those who don’t, we would have a hit.”

Case closed: controversy sells. Imus’s contract is proof. Olbermann’s contract is proof. (Anderson Cooper’s contract is proof, too, although his schtick isn’t creating controversy; it’s teaching the controversy. He takes a 360-degree turn around every issue—get it?])

It was only in October 2004 that Jon Stewart called Tucker Carlson a dick and yelled at him for “hurting America.”

I guess “hurting America” is all the rage now, eh, Jon?

I’m talking about Herod, whose tomb has been found by an Israeli archaelogical team, whose chief has been conducting the search for 35 years.

The tomb is here

]

Inconveniently, it’s in the West Bank, near Bethlehem.

Maybe that’s why there are scare quotes in a lot of the headlines. Here are a few headlines on Google News:

Team says it’s found Herod’s tomb
Chicago Tribune, IL - 53 minutes ago

King Herod’s 2000-year-old tomb ‘uncovered’
NEWS.com.au, Australia - 1 hour ago

Israeli archaeologist says he found King Herod’s tomb
International Herald Tribune, France - 7 hours ago

King Herod’s tomb may have been found
MLive.com, MI - 8 hours ago

King Herod’s ancient tomb ‘found’ BBC Bulgaria, Bulgaria - 9 hours ago

Archaeologist says Herod’s tomb found
Times of India, India - 9 hours ago

King Herod’s tomb unearthed, Israeli university claims
SI.com - 12 hours ago

And the granddaddy of them all, al Jazeera, tells it like it is

Herod’s tomb ‘found’ in West Bank
Aljazeera.net, Qatar - 5 hours ago

Al Jazeera also notes, sourly, the ramifications of this discovery:

The Herodium find is likely to spark political fallout in a region where archaeological finds inevitably become linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Any claims that appear to strengthen one side’s connection to the land are viewed suspiciously by the other.

Shaul Goldstein, an official from the Gush Etzion Jewish settlement near the Herodium site, told Israeli army radio that the find “constitutes new proof of a connection between Gush Etzion and the Jewish people and Jerusalem.”

He called on the government to name Herodium “a national and religious site.”

Khulud Dwaibess, the Palestinian tourism minister who oversees archaeological sites, said a team of Palestinian archaeologists was due to inspect the site and that her ministry would not comment until seeing their report.

We’ll all be waiting.

You all know that I’m a contrarian, right? I’m not proud of it; it’s just the way I’m wired. I would call myself a skeptic rather than a contrarian, but “skeptic” is too mild and moderate for these partisan times, so I’ll happily cop to “contrarian.” I have a lot of fight in me, and I am pround of that.

Anyhow, contrarians are naturally attracted to other contrarians (thus my intellectual crush on Hitchens, evidence of which you can see scattered throughout this blog like so many mash notes). But I come here not to salute Hitchens.

Rather, I come here today to tip my hat to that sly old codger Norman Podhoretz, grandfather of the neocons, who has been around the block again and again and again. Ol’ Norman is picking up a hint of overreaching triumphalism in the Democrats, and I think he’s right:

I am not predicting that the Democrats of today will suffer the same fate as the Federalists and the Whigs did. But I do think that they are in the process of ensuring their defeat in the next presidential election.

In many respects, of course, the people of this country are very different from their forebears of 1812 and 1846. But I suspect that most of us are not all that different from them in how we view politicians who conspicuously fail to root for American troops fighting in the field, and who seem to think that they can get away with it by sticking the responsibility for the war on the sitting president of the other party.

In 1972, this deeply ingrained American attitude still had enough life in it to give Richard Nixon, unpopular though he was, an overwhelming victory against George McGovern. Unless the American leopard has changed his spots since then, the Democrats are in for a very big surprise in November 2008.

I wouldn’t say the Dems are in for a “very big surprise,” and I certainly wouldn’t discount the changes that have taken place in America since 1972. But I agree that the American leopard hasn’t lost its martial spots (contrary to the fervent wishes and desires of the current crop of dovish young ‘uns) and that Dems who think they’ve found a winning formula by calling for surrender are in for a rude awakening.

In America, everyone is obsessed with November 2008, because it’s being conceived and produced by TV news and entertainment executives as the world’s longest-running political soap opera, and it promises to have us oohing and aahing, and to really get our juices going.

While we’re sucking at that tit, however, the rest of the world is already maneuvering for position in the post-Bush era, as the NYT makes plain in “Deal Is Offered for Chief’s Exit at World Bank“:

What’s the “deal”? That Wolfowitz must get the boot if the U.S. wants to keep the right to select the Bank’s president. Sounds like a threat to me!

Here’s where the various international players stand:

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany favors Mr. Wolfowitz’s resignation, people familiar with her thinking say, but is also eager to avoid a confrontation with Mr. Bush. But as chief of the European Union, she is said to feel obliged to reflect European views, put forth in the European Parliament’s call last month for Mr. Wolfowitz to resign.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, due to step down as soon as this summer, has stood by Mr. Bush, but his presumed successor, Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer, has tangled with Mr. Wolfowitz on some bank policies.

European officials say that the Netherlands and the Nordic countries have been most critical of Mr. Wolfowitz.

Bank officials say that, as of now, only the United States, Japan and Canada would vote in favor of Mr. Wolfowitz. They represent less than 30 percent of the voting shares. Most directors are said to be willing to vote against Mr. Wolfowitz, but some countries, mainly in Africa, are said to be wavering.

In the media and the blogosphere, because Wolfowitz is the big bad villain who brought us Iraq, this is playing mostly as a feel-good story for the Not in Our Name coalition of Bush haters, neocon-bashers, and peace-or-else!(TM) partisans.

It has much broader implications, though. So pay attention.