You and me.

Is this the stupidest thing you ever saw? They needed to pick someone who had a significant hand in making the "Web 2.0" the force it is today instead of like everyone. I haven't thought much about who should win, (I lost power on my block for most of Saturday) but Jack Murtha isn't a bad choice. Salon's pick of S.R. Sidarth is very cool. What are your choices?

"Macaca" was named the most politically incorrect word of the year.

UPDATE: I will now accept the award as TIME's "Person of the Year" for the entire "internets." I want to thank my parents first and foremost because without them this day would never have been possible...

It looks like our emails are having an effect:

Reporter John Carroll quoted MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong as writing that he was actually the person behind several online pseudonyms, including Scott Shields. Armstrong’s comments were satirical, a fact that was not evident to Carroll as he read the posting. Carroll believed he was quoting Armstrong accurately. Many people have written to tell us that with a little checking we could have determined that the individuals referred to by Armstrong are actual bloggers. We should have checked those facts, and we regret not doing so.

We will run a correction on tonight’s program (Dec. 11), and discuss the story on Friday’s “Beat The Press.”

I think he also needs to go to a few comedy clubs because it seems he's lost his sense of humor. Chris Bowers writes that he does actually exist after all. I will say that I'm the only John Amato who created C&L and blogs here, but there is another John Amato on the internet that is not me. Although---he does play the sax too...hehe

We've mentioned this before, but this op-ed in my local paper had me laughing so hard I thought it was worth sharing. Kudos to Hugh for calling my attention to it.

SF Chronicle:

It is the only way to account for something like, say, the latest twist in the Abstinence Education Program from Bush's increasingly laughable Department of Health and Human Services, a $50 million slice of embarrassing government detritus that is now actually encouraging all states to tell their single, youngish residents that they should -- how to put this so you don't shoot coffee through your nose? -- that everyone should avoid sex entirely, until they turn 30.

See? See your reaction? You are like: No way. You are like: Is the United States government really saying that? You are like: Laughter, a smirk, maybe a shrug and a sigh and a sad shake of the head and another glass of wine because, you know, what the hell is wrong with these people?

Maybe you think I am making this up. Maybe you think that our fair government, as sad and lost and nipple-terrified as it is, can't seriously be suggesting that, to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancy and unchecked misery in their obviously sad and irresponsible little lives, single people under 30 should not have sex, like, ever. And maybe not even then.

You would, of course, be wrong.

It's for real. It's an actual HHS dictum and there are people who actually believe it should be adhered to, and I'm right now guessing you broke this rule this very morning and if you didn't you really, really wanted to, and if you're over 30 and/or married chances are you are sitting there right now wishing you were still single and/or under 30 just one more time just so you could squishily, juicily break that rule again, oh my God yes please. Just a guess.

Read full article here

It bodes well for Pelosi that was willing to spend her political capital right off the bat -- especially on the issue that will define her time at the helm. Far too many modern politicians save theirpolitical capital until it's lost all its value.

  The Guardian UK: (h/t Gregory)

British troops could remain in Afghanistan for more than the 38 years it took them to pull out of Northern Ireland. That is the bleak assessment by Army commanders on the ground in Helmand province.

In an interview with The Observer at HQ in the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, Brigadier John Lorimer, commander of UK forces in Helmand, said: 'If you look at the insurgency then it could take maybe 10 years. Counter-narcotics, it's 30 years. If you're looking at governance and so on, it looks a little longer. If you look at other counter-insurgency operations over the last 100 years then it has taken time.'

His scenario is the starkest assessment yet from a senior officer tasked with defeating the Taliban, tackling the heroin trade and rebuilding the war-ravaged country. Last week troops pulled out of Northern Ireland after 38 years, the longest operation in UK military history. Afghanistan, commanders fear, may take longer.[..]

Scores of soldiers have succumbed to heatstroke while hundreds have battled on despite dehabilitating illness. Almost 50 out of 160 forward troops reported severe sickness and diarrhoea in the forward base at Sangin last month. A number of troops have lost limbs during firefights in the upper Gereshk valley, south of Sangin.

I can't imagine anyone involved--the Americans, NATO, the Brits or most of all, the Afghanis--being okay with this lasting that long.