It’s almost time for the 15th annual Webby Awards, which is like the Oscars except with more Zach Galifianakis and surprisingly fewer references to Facebook. With categories ranging from Best Viral Video (Oh god, please don’t let “Bed Intruder” win) to Best Weird (now would be the time to brush up on RatherGood.com), along with more serious topics like Best Political Blog (Huffington Post is on there, which is apparently not a conflict of interest to the Webbys’ academy board member Arianna Huffington) and Best Social Media, the nominees reflect those groups and individuals who really poured their heart and soul onto the Web this year. Oh, and FunnyOrDie.com, because they just clean up at these things.
For a complete list of nominees, check out the Webby Awards website, and vote for your favorites. If you don’t have the time to go through every viral video category, here’s a couple of under the radar gems you should definitely check out:
Voting is open until April 28, and the actual ceremony takes place on June 13. You can track all of the updates on Twitter and Facebook, the latter of which (again) didn’t even place in this year’s list of nominees. Unlike Angry Birds.
In 2009, Natalie Portman read Jonathan Safran Foer’s book “Eating Animals” and turned vegan. Not just any vegan, though. The kind of vegan where you feel the need to make an announcement on the Huffington Post about it, and because you are Natalie Portman, people will read it and be like “Totally,” when you talk about how you educated your less knowledgeable friends (at Harvard) about how “they had never truly thought about the connection between their environmental conditions and their food.”
I am all for veganism, vegetarianism, whatever, but I am also a big fan of “live and let live” mentality. I also don’t like to be given health advice by someone who lost so much weight on her last film that people were legitimately scared for her well-being. Let’s just say, I would not buy that person’s brand of vegan shoes, because there are a lot of shoes out there that are technically “vegan” (i.e., not leather) and do not cost $355.
“I actually went back to being vegetarian when I became pregnant, just because I felt like I wanted that stuff,” she said during a Monday phone interview with the Q100 Bert Show in Atlanta. “I was listening to my body to have eggs and dairy and that sort of stuff. I know there are people who do stay vegan,” she added, “but I think you have to just be careful, watch your iron levels and your B12 levels and supplement those if there are things you might be low in in your diet.”
It is kind of amazing to me that even while trying to defend why she abandoned her vegan post, she then starts to critique the health of other mothers who have chosen to stay vegan. Whoa boy.
But! In Natalie’s defense! As annoying as she might be about her food lecturing, at least she’s being transparent about it, leaving her open to criticism from snarky detractors who are more than happy to call her out on her cuisine pretensions.
To which I imagine Natalie replying, “Yes, sometimes you believe one thing when you are younger and only have to worry about yourself and your dogmatic beliefs, but as you grow older and have a family to think about, when you stay up at night worrying about the health of your unborn child, you’d be amazed at how quickly those earlier convictions can start to take a back seat.” At least I hope that’s what she’d say, and not something about how what she’s doing is actually healthier/better for the Earth/more principled than anyone else’s personal life choices.
So I support your move to vegetarianism for the health of your child, Natalie, even if other people think it’s healthier to stay vegan and still others would argue that a diet during pregnancy should contain meat. I will white-knight your decision because it not only doesn’t come from a selfish place, it comes from a humbler, wiser one as well.
Only two Democrats in the last 90 years have been reelected to a second term — Franklin Roosevelt and Bill Clinton. The rest of the Democrats have seen their presidencies cut short, and so the historical odds of Obama winning a second term are at first glance not encouraging.
What? That is technically factual and completely dishonest. Truman and Johnson — Democrats — were both elected to full terms after assuming the presidency. The only recent presidents to lose elections after serving full terms were Carter and Bush and Hoover. The only other president to lose an election instead of resigning or dying was Ford.
Another way to put this is: “Only four incumbent presidents have been defeated in elections in the last 90 years, and three of those presidents were Republicans, so Obama is sitting pretty.” Or: “In the last 100 years, a nice round century, nearly all presidents who served a full term and then ran for reelection were reelected.”
So Mark Penn is already full of it and we are not even all the way through the first paragraph. Is there even any point in reading on, to learn what losing campaign veteran Penn thinks Obama must do? No, there is not.
OK, fine, let’s read on and see. According to Penn, if Obama wants to win, he must forcefully defend the essential principles of the Democratic Party and fight for organized labor and healthcare access for all, while sharply breaking with conservatives and “moderates” who want to slash the social safety net to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy. In order to energize his liberal base, he should promise to reintroduce the public option and slash defense spending, proposing both as deficit-cutting measures that will help instead of hurt the middle and working classes. He should also close Guantánamo Bay by executive order and try detainees in civilian courts, to show that he sticks by his ideals even in the face of political opposition. Then he must push for a major jobs program and get combative with the deeply unpopular (and hugely profitable) financial industry, which will appeal to white working voters who may otherwise no longer feel that the Democratic Party represents them.
Ha ha ha just kidding, Mark Penn actually just thinks Obama needs to “make a major move towards fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget as President Clinton did.” Can’t believe Mark is giving this gold away, instead of charging millions of dollars, like usual.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene
More Alex Pareene.
So! Arianna Huffington — recently put in charge of all the “content” at AOL following the dial-up ISP’s acquisition of her former “liberal Drudge” Internet newspaper — gave a blog to her old friend Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart helped build the HuffPo, back when he was just another loudmouth Hollywood conservative and not the even louder-mouthed full-tilt culture warrior he is today (thanks in part to training at places like the Claremont Institute). Hundreds of people — many of them idiots, frauds, and liars — have blogs at the HuffPo. But the HuffPo actually promoted Breitbart’s writing on the front page of the site.
Now, Mr. Breitbart is not just a conservative pundit. He is a crusading propagandist who publishes a wide variety of untruths and smears across his “Big” websites. He is not guilty of having the wrong opinions, he is guilty of being a shameless, race-baiting bully.
So various whiny liberals complained, like always, and the Huffington Post bravely promised to continue promoting the stupid nonsense from Arianna’s old friend, in the name of democracy and the free exchange of ideas. (“Ideas” like “NPR and the White House are collaborating to spread the false idea that the Tea Parties are racist” and “the White House is lying about its visitor logs and specifically including the names of famous people in order to embarrass Andrew Breitbart.”) ColorOfChange.org organized a petition, the HuffPo dismissed its complaints.
Complaining about the Huffington Post publishing awful, offensive garbage seldom works, because some of that garbage is profitable and some of it is just stuff that Arianna herself seems to like. And Huffington herself is too busy spending big bucks bringing big names to AOL/HuffPo while shuttering dozens of existing titles and letting various less impressive content-providers go to care if a bunch of liberals are mad at her site.
Andrew Breitbart’s ad hominem attack on Van Jones in The Daily Caller — right down to calling him a “commie punk” and “a cop killer-supporting, racist, demagogic freak” — violates the tenets of debate and civil discourse we have strived for since the day we launched. As a result, we will no longer feature his posts on the front page.
He is welcome to continue publishing his work on HuffPost provided it adheres to our editorial guidelines, as the two posts he published on HuffPost did — guidelines that include a strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks. Our decision today recognizes that placing posts on the front page is an editorial call that elevates some posts over others, and is an indication of how seriously we take these judgment calls.
A strict prohibition on ad hominem attacks! (“Against Arianna’s friends,” is the bit of that sentence that spokesman Marco Ruiz left out.) (Also there is apparently no prohibition on constant, practically obsessive race-baiting, but whatever.) (And obviously there is no prohibition whatsoever on spreading toxic bullshit about autism and other assorted crimes against science.)
Andrew has now gotten exactly what he wanted. He doesn’t need to publish his idiocies at the Huffington Post. But getting banned from the Huffington Post proves his thesis about the repressive, anti-free speech liberal media. And he’ll never shut up about it.
Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene
More Alex Pareene.
The puppy, now named Wall-e, who survived two attempts euthanization shots.
Welcome to “The Week in Uppers,” a new weekly feature where we’ll share a collection of stories that might not have made national headlines, but might just make you smile.
A stray Oklahoma city puppy was euthanized two Friday’s ago. On Saturday morning? Alive and well. (AP)
Daniel Kish once was blind but now can see. He did it by teaching himself echolocation. (Men’s Journal)
A dad makes the best out of a job rejection letter by ripping it up to the delight of his baby (Yahoo):
A homeless man is reunited with his daughter this month using the power of Twitter. (Daily Mail)
Professional golfer Beth Allen donates a kidney to her older brother, who suffered severe kidney defects. (AOL)
When a Minnesota chef suffered a sudden, massive heart attack last week, 20 different people administered CPR for 96 minutes, keeping him alive. (CBS News)
A Massachusetts woman who ran into a burning building made it out safely thanks to the heroics of a 17-year-old volunteer firefighter who ran into the blaze after her. (AOL)
Scientists are investigating a promising new course of genetic research to find a cure for AIDS. (AOL)
Justin Bieber’s now-shorn signature locks helped raise more than $40,000 for charity on eBay. (BBC)
One enterprising Ohio man proposed to his girlfriend — in a TV commercial (AP):
On his show last night, Stephen Colbert recycled his announcement about starting his new business venture: a Colbert-branded version of the Huffington Post called the Colbuffington Re-Post. Pricetag? $316 billion. Naturally, he wanted just a million bucks more than AOL paid for the Arianna Huffington’s popular news aggregation site.
Colbert followed up with a complaint that HuffPost yet again recycled his content by posting his video. And then things get really confusing:
If you were to click on the link to the Colbuffington Re-post re-re-post of the Huffington Post post about the re-post you would rip a hole in the blog-time continuum.
The Huffington Post fired back today by launching a carbon copy of Stephen Colbert’s site, Colbert Nation. Name: Huffbert Nation. Price tag: $316 billion.