Nothing like starting the week with lots of links (didn't say nothing better, just nothing like it...). As usual, I start with something not to read. This time, not an article, but a reprehensible editorial cartoon that the New York Times for some reason saw fit to reproduce in yesterday's Week in Review gallery. Scott Stantis, of the Chicago Tribune, has Obama and Medvedev as small figures in the foreground, signing away, sitting at a desk labeled "Disarmament Agreement." Looming behind them is a huge bomb, with a figure labeled "Iran" sitting on top applauding. Oy...I guess the best possible interpretation is that the US and the Russians are focused on managing their affairs and have forgotten about Iran -- which, of course, isn't true --, but really, that's far too generous to the cartoonist. What's clearly being claimed here is that the US (and Russia) are disarming, leaving Iran the biggest kid on the block. Somehow, he's missed the 1550 warheads (each) allowed under the new treaty, compared to the, uh, zero that Iran currently holds. Yes, yes, it's a good idea for Obama to attempt to keep Iran non-nuclear, but there's not much danger of an Iranian nuclear monopoly any time soon. Granted, there are plenty of foolish editorial cartoons every week, but why did the Times choose to reproduce this one? Awful.
Oh well, on to the good stuff. Again, as usual, some of this is a bit old, but it's all still good:
1. James Fallows and Andrew Sprung are both excellent on Obama, the editor. Alex Massie has a good long view on Obama. Charles Franklin looks at Obama vs. Reagan in the polls. And of course you want to read Garry Wills on David Remnick on Obama, although I agree with Andrew Sullivan, not Wills, on Obama's first year.
2. Speaking of Alex Massie, I hear there's an election going on over there, and he's on it, riffing on "the great ignored" and political consultants.
3. TNC on the Tea Party crowd.
4. Yglesias is exactly right on how conservatives failed, and Kevin Drum has an extremely interesting take on liberals succeeding.
5. Read Michael Lind so you don't have to watch Glenn Beck.
6. Conor Friedersdorf has the only worthwhile contribution I've seen so far to the "saving CNN" discussion (but great topic, Ross Douthat, and great graph, John Sides!). I'll toss in my two cents here as sort of a follow-up to Friedersdorf...what CNN needs is to hire someone who knows what a great TV show looks like. Crossfire, in its day, was a great TV show; CNN doesn't have a single good show, now. MSNBC and Fox News don't need good TV shows (although between them they do have a few good entertainers), because they get their partisan audiences. CNN has some people that are watchable, but they need to actually build a real TV show around them, instead of just having them anchor things in their own way for an hour or two.
7. Dawn on things looking up for women in stoner movies, which is good news indeed.