pudge's Journal: Huffington Is Dumb

On "The Huffington Post," Arianna posted a "blog" purporting to be from George Clooney. It was not. His publicist, according to Arianna, approved it.

There's three major problems with this. First, there's the ethical problem of saying this was written by Clooney, when it was not. No need to belabor the point.

Second, there's the fact that she calls a single entry in a "blog" a "blog." For example, she wrote: "The George Clooney blog that was posted on the Huffington Post Sunday was published only after we received written approval from his representative to do so."

The word "blog" is annoying enough with it being so misused. It's like George Will saying "the magazine I wrote for Newsweek last week ... ." Stop it, it's stupid.

Third, the "Clooney" article itself -- which, again, he didn't write -- was just stupid.

It implies things like suffrage and equal pay for women and civil rights for blacks are "liberal" issues, even though those issues were championed by Republicans long before Democrats, and today those are not "liberal" issues at all.

It says "liberals" believe Vietnam was wrong, even though it was a liberal Democrat war.

It says "liberals" believe Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, even though Bush has for years said Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and never said anything to the contrary.

The article also whines about McCarthy, perhaps in reference to Clooney's recent movie. Yes, McCarthy was "wrong" in a significant sense, but you have to be able to separate mission from method. McCarthy's method was wrong. I know of no one who thinks otherwise, and that's what Clooney's movie was about. But McCarthy's mission was perfectly defensible: that Communists -- or, in today's terms, radical Islamists -- should not be in sensitive government positions. Duh.

Summary: dumb process, dumb terminology, dumb article.

Perhaps slightly off-topic

[nandorman]

I don't know about the real world (or the world in which most of the folks at /. live), but, at least in my profession (teaching), many people set up Power Point presentations as their mode of communication. Fine (although it's rather clunky). But STOP CALLING THEM "POWER POINTS." Geez. I don't watch a VCR or write a "Word," do I? C'mon, people, get your acts together!

Re:Perhaps slightly off-topic

[jdavidb]

While we're at it, can I mention how much I hate it when people refer to Wikipedia as "Wiki"? That's like calling the Encyclopedia Britannica "Book," as if that were it's title. "Oh, yes, Book has a great article on George W. Bush, but the article on Wiki is more thorough, when it's not vandalized."

Sigh...

Re:Perhaps slightly off-topic

[pudge]

And while I hate the word "blog" on its own, "wiki" is almost as bad. It's just a terrible word.

Re:Perhaps slightly off-topic

[jdavidb]

lol. Have to agree with you, there. It's probably one of the reasons I held off on ever taking the "wiki" concept seriously until it was demonstrated "succesfully" in my view at Wikipedia. (And note that that is after about three major unsuccessful demonstrations at the same wiki.) There was a time when "I wrote my own wiki software" journal entries were all the rage at use Perl, and I kept thinking, "What's the big deal? Why do you people like this? What good can something with such a stupid name do?

um? pudge?

[blinder]

he's an actor. does it matter what he said or didn't say? he's just an actor. it doesn't matter what he says. yes, he's a twit (a twit who i think is quite talented) but a twit, he doesn't make policy, he has no real impact on anything of any real consiquence and therefor, you just smile and nod, pat him on the head and say "there there george, you go over there and make us a movie, okay?"

there, that's all.

Re:um? pudge?

[FroMan]

For the last couple elections we have had actors and musicians becoming political. They use their public popularity to grandstand for a political goal. Because of that, we have folks that are standing up to those making political points with counter points.

In short, saying that Clooney is powerless in political realm so therefore should not be rebutted makes about as much sense as saying pudge[1] holds no public office so should not be rebutted.

[1] Well, he hold some office in the republican party in wash

Re:um? pudge?

[RailGunner]

there there george, you go over there and make us a movie, okay?

Just keep him out of the Bat suit, and nobody gets hurt.

Re:um? pudge?

[Red Warrior]

[Dave, this post is made with your most current JE in mind. But, sorry, I'm responding because I think you're wrong. :-\]

he's an actor. does it matter what he said or didn't say?

Yes. See below. ...a twit, he doesn't make policy, he has no real impact on anything of any real consiquence

He's an actor. He influences people, popular culture, and {yes} political views. You can argue that he shouldn't influence people's political views or how they vote. But entertainers DO influence people's opinions. The fact th

Re:um? pudge?

[pudge]

Yeah. What you said.

Last month's issue of National Review had Clooney on the cover, with a scathing aticle by the incomparable Mark Steyn. [nationalreview.com]

It took this for you to realize tht?

[John Harrison]

I thought it was clear to most everyone that she was dumb, as least since she ran for governor of California.

Re:It took this for you to realize tht?

[pudge]

You incorrectly assume I came to this realization recently. :-)