One of the biggest hurdles for most websites, magazines, newspapers, and other media is to really know their user. For ESPN, for example, it's likely largely middle-class males. For Martha Stewart, it's upper-middle-class, middle-aged, white women. For Tiger Beat, it's mostly tween girls and closeted Republican Congressmen.

But what does that really mean? How much can you really know about a person -- about each individual user -- if you know approximately how much money they make each year, or how old they are, or what their race is, or that they're secretly gay? Not much, really.

But when I was inadvertently alerted to this website by Marti, a longtime friend of the blog, it struck me that fastfood.com knows exactly who its users is.

First, its users are lazy. Not only are they too lazy to drive all the way from Wendy's to Carl's Jr., but they're also too lazy to use apostrophes. "McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, and many more," says the website. "Why spend all that time running all over town filling out applications which may never reach the person who actually does the hiring?" Good point, fastfood.com! Sonic is almost always on the opposite side of town from Long John Silver's. Plus, most of your readership is auditioning for an Iron Maiden Tribute band in, like, a half hour!

Second, they're drifters not likely to respond well to authority (especially when that authority is in the form of a smug 16-year-old named Thad, who constantly holds it over their heads that he gets to wear the denim shirt and restaurant-themed tie, when they're stuck wearing the too-big polo shirt and visor). On most job applications, when asked about experience, one would answer in increments of years. The choices would likely be something to the effect of: less than a year, one to three years, three to five years, five to 10 years, more than 10 years. But not at fastfood.com -- they know you better than that. They list their choices in three- and six-month increments, because for their users it's almost certain that before they reach the six-month mark at a new job they'll either a) get caught stealing and get fired, b) get fired for skipping work one day to go to a Metallica concert and then again the next day because they were too hungover to come to work, or c) quit because (and this is always the reason) "they don't need this fuckin' place." Plus, if you last for a year, you're upper management and probably wouldn't use their site.

Fastfood.com doesn't need demographics and psychographics and focus groups and case studies. It knows who its users are: It's that guy you went to high school with -- and you know exactly who I'm talking about.

So I thought this post on Craigslist was vaguely humorous. It's your typical vague, say-nothing apartment post that has no pictures of the actual apartment -- but it has a random picture of a seal (it turns out it's actually a sea lion). Yeah, it's not really very funny but at the time I thought it was and I thought the guy who posted may be a little crazy (most brokers are) -- until I saw this, and his craziness was dwarfed like Billy Crystal in "My Giant."

"I am an elderly lady, in my 70's. I am looking for someone lovely to live in the second bedroom(lovely people only). I am not thrilled about living with someone but I could use the extra cash. I have only one rule. You must wear a belt I designed that has bells all over it. I do this so I know when you are in the appartment and where in the appartment you are.

If you have friends over, they must wear the device as well. I only have 2, so no more than 1 friend over."

I can't decide if this is a real post or just a misplaced pitch for an episode of "Law and Order: Criminal Intent."

Gategate Sweeps the Nation

When, oh when, will people stop slapping "gate" at the end of every mini-scandal that happens. Gate is not a suffix that means "scandal" or "controversy." Watergate was not a scandal involving water -- it was the name of the hotel.

This year alone, there has been spygate, NAFTAGate, and now, apparently, Monstergate. Then there's Skategate, Marthagate, Kobegate, Nipplegate, Camillagate, Fajitagate (huh?), Rathergate, and Monicagate.

So please, media, I beg of you. Just stop it. It's not funny. It's not clever. It's not cute. It's a cheap way to coin a phrase, and it jumped the shark 35 years ago.

Update: Spitzergate!

Should Obama Go Negative?

Should Barack Obama resort to a mud-slinging campaign? The short answer is, simply, no. The longer answer is this: After the Nafta debacle (which, by the way, is possibly the least scandalous scandal ever) and the Anthony Rezko trial, Obama can't afford to lose any more face with voters. If he goes negative, it could destroy his image as the face of hope and change in Washington. He will come across as just another politician conducting shady business and slinging mud at opponents. Because his appeal to most voters is his ability to transcend politics as usual and unite the country, engaging in the campaign tactics employed by Clinton and Bush negates his single greatest weapon.

He needs to stick to his guns -- politely but firmly deflecting Clinton's attacks but not fighting fire with fire (lots of metaphors in this sentence!). If he does fight back, it should be only to criticize her for resorting to these kinds of attacks -- and even then in a manner that doesn't sound hostile or defensive. He needs to focus on his message of hope and maybe the millions of Americans who are begging for change will see that they're not going to get it from Clinton. Maybe I'm being a little idealistic, but, then again, so is Obama. And that's why I like him so much.

Rochelle, Rochelle: The TV Show?

According to the New York Post (which apparently thinks it's fine to use itself as the only source in an article), Jerry Seinfeld is in talks with NBC to create a show that is, more or less, just like his first one. Instead of being compared to "Seinfeld," however, it's being likened to "Curb Your Enthusiasm," which is, more or less, just like "Seinfeld," but with swearing and (gah!) Wanda Sykes.

The concept is two for two so far, so let's hope they can get the hat trick!

Get Set for "Seinfeld 2"

Finally, an Example of Intelligent Political Discourse

From commenter Blondie_4414 on nymag.com comes the most coherent, well-thought-out, rational argument against Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. Take note, Clinton and/or McCain!

"Obama the new ice cream of the month for some really stupid people.
What do these people need a roadmap to hell that this Obama will cause?
Read My Post Obama is a hack ( yes a hack) omg yes he is a phoney know nothing thats in the pocket of anyone that will let him.
Who pays his bills? Michelle Obama that wanta be bigger phoney?
She is no one you want deciding our fate and she is in the pocket of Oprah.
Follow the dots where he is concerned and they will lead to nowhere you want to go.
This is funny this no nothing no body has money of a few behind him like omg OPHAH Ring a bell? Oprah is just a lucky mental case thats trying to make herself out to be something she isn't. She isn't a nice person in person. She is a control freak."

Also, besides being stupid (a word she oh-so-ironically uses to describe Obama's supporters), Blondie_4414 is a total bitch, too!

Obama's Troubles Mount

Fenced In

This is probably the most well-put, succinct argument against a border fence I've read. Maybe that's because I agree with pretty much every word of it.

Border Insecurity

Are You Experienced?

The day is upon us -- Hillary Clinton's last-ditch effort to save her presidential campaign in Ohio and Texas (and Vermont and Rhode Island, but no one seems to care about them even though an Obama victory by a large margin in Vermont, where he has a significant lead in polls, would create a bigger gap in delegates than the virtual dead-heats in Ohio and Texas).

For the past few weeks -- and, actually, the majority of the campaign -- Clinton's main criticism of Obama has been his lack of experience. She was first lady for eight years and has been a U.S. senator for seven years, and Obama has been a state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for only three years. Advantage Clinton. Clinton is all action and Obama is all talk. Clinton is realistic and practical and Obama is hopelessly hopeful and naive. And the beat goes on.

But what does this mean? Does experience in national politics automatically qualify a candidate as a better leader? Or is experience completely irrelevant, having no direct bearing on the quality and effectiveness of one's tenure in the Oval Office? Below is a resume of sorts for a selection of presidents from the past 75 years and an extremely subjective verdict for each -- let's see how much experience actually matters.

Franklin Roosevelt

Experience: Two years in the New York state senate, seven years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, four years as governor of New York.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Carried the United States out of the Great Depression, led the country through World War II, only president to be elected to four terms (or three, for that matter), widely regarded as one of the best presidents in the nation's history by academic historians.

Verdict: Little experience, great president. (Yep, my verdicts are that simple.)

Harry Truman
Experience: 10 years as a U.S. senator, 82 days as vice president.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Was president when Allied forces achieved victory in Europe; kinda, ya know, dropped those atomic bombs on Japan; integral in the formation of NATO and the Marshall plan to rebuild Europe after World War II; hastily and without Congressional approval entered the Korean War; had a 22 percent approval rating when he left office, lower than Nixon's when he resigned. Also, a pretty big racist.

Verdict: Moderate experience, probably a sub-par presidency.

Dwight Eisenhower
Experience: Umm...none? He was pretty old, I guess, and he was a five-star general in World War II. But, yeah, that's pretty much it.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: The Interstate Highway System (!); Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960; deployed the first American soldiers to Vietnam (oops!); carried on what FDR started in making the United States a global (nuclear) superpower; instituted an anti-immigration policy called, umm, Operation Wetback.

Verdict: Less experience than me (I was student council and senior class vice president!), pretty solid presidency.

John F. Kennedy
Experience: Six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, eight years in the U.S. Senate.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: His assassination and sleeping with Marilyn Monroe, mainly, but he did other stuff. The Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the run-up to the Vietnam War (keep reading -- it actually gets better), the formation of the Peace Corps, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the space program, and a lot of victories for civil rights.

Verdict: A decent amount of experience, a very good presidency (maybe not as good as people remember, though).

Richard Nixon
Experience: Four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, two years in the U.S. Senate, and eight years as Eisenhower's vice president (during which time he was acting president three times when Eisenhower was sick).

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Not an easy one to boil down. Other than continuing in Vietnam, he was actually quite brilliant with foreign policy (Kissinger helped), particularly regarding China and the Soviet Union. But his domestic policy was an absolute joke and he was a tad on the corrupt side. His paranoia and general distrust and contempt for the people he was supposed to be leading eventually got the best of him and resigned from office having tarnished and disgraced himself and the office of the president.

Verdict: You don't get much more experience than he had, and you don't get a president who is more widely thought of as a horrible president than he was (George W. Bush being the exception, mainly because people forget about Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan).

George H.W. Bush
Experience: Four years in the U.S. House of Representatives, two years as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, director of the CIA for a year, vice president for eight years under Ronald Reagan.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: The fall of the Berlin Wall, the beginning of NAFTA negotiations, the Gulf War, military action in Panama, economic recession, breaking his "no new taxes" promise.

Verdict: About equal experience to Nixon, but with better results. Not great results, but better than Nixon and much better than his son would do in the next decade.

George W. Bush
Experience: Governor of Texas for six years.

Extremely Oversimplified Legacy: Wow. Yeah. I think we know how this one turned out.

Verdict: Not much experience; in the upper echelon of worst presidents ever, sandwiched between Andrew Johnson and James Buchanan.


So let's see: We have a great president with little experience (Roosevelt), a not-great president with moderate experience (Truman), a quite good president with absolutely no experience (Eisenhower), a very good president with a decent amount of experience (Kennedy), the most dichotomous and widely mistrusted president ever with a ton of experience (Nixon), an okay president with all the experience you could ask for (Bush I), and one of the worst presidents in the nation's history with very little experience (Bush II). And what does this all mean? That experience means nothing.

If Lauren and Frank Can't Make It Work, Is There Hope for Any of Us?

Few things give me greater pleasure than watching idiots be idiots. And that's why this woman on "The Moment of Truth," who stole money from work, cheated on her husband, and wants to get back together with her ex-boyfriend -- all of which she admitted in front of her sister, parents, and Ryan-Phillipe-meets-Andy-Samberg husband for, ultimately, no reason whatsoever -- brings a smile to my face and a tear to my eye.

Copy and Paste

Plagiarism happens all the time. That doesn't make it excusable, though. (More than four million people bought the "High School Musical" soundtrack. Just because a lot of people do it doesn't mean it's acceptable.) After the Obama plagiarism story broke last week, I couldn't help but wonder if using someone else's idea as your own is ever OK. (I also apparently couldn't help but steal an oft-used line from "Sex and the City.")

In journalism and academia, plagiarism obviously is universally, undeniably, without fail unacceptable. Jayson Blair, Mike Barnicle, Stephen Glass, and many other journalists have ruined their careers and undermined both their respective publications and an already widely distrusted journalism institution when they were found to have plagiarized and fabricated stories. I do, however, think these are isolated incidents that are not representative of journalism as a whole. This does not happen often.

It does, however, happen all the time in music. Every aspect of Noel and Liam Gallagher's existence is copied from the Beatles; specifically, the melody to Oasis's "Don't Look Back in Anger" is copied directly from "Imagine" by John Lennon (as is a line in the chorus of the song). "You Were Meant for Me" by Jewel sounds a little too similar to Neil Young's "The Needle and the Damage Done." The guitar riff from dreadful band Papa Roach's even more dreadful song "Last Resort" is a rip off of Green Day's "Brain Stew," which is a rip off of Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4." Even George Harrison has done it; he was sued (successfully) for stealing the melody for "My Sweet Lord" from the Chiffons' "He's So Fine." And, of course, Vanilla Ice's (vehemently denied) theft from "Under Pressure." A lot of "borrowing" of riffs, melodies, and lyrics can easily be cast as an homage (especially in the case of Hootie and the Blowfish's lifting of a lyric from Bob Dylan's "Idiot Wind" -- they actually attribute it to him, thus avoiding the plagiarism label), but the line between theft and tribute has become extremely blurred.

It seems to be frowned upon to pilfer designs in the fashion industry. According to an article in Radar, Forever 21 has had more than two dozen lawsuits filed against it in the past year alone for stealing designs. Apparently, though, it's fine when high fashion rips off the pattern on my grandma's couch or the collective look of Herman Munster and Joey Ramone.

What about in Hollywood, that bastion of faux-creativity, where burgling someone else's hard work is lovingly referred to as a "reimagination" or a "remake"? The 1998 remake of "Psycho," for example, was a shot-by-shot reproduction of the original -- not an ounce of original thought went in to the movie. Even Daniel Day-Lewis's mustache in "Gangs of New York" is a rip off -- it looks strikingly similar to former Oakland A's pitcher Rollie Fingers's. Well, James Marder, a lawyer in L.A., is mad as hell, and he's not going to take it anymore*. He has devoted his entire career to representing writers who have had their ideas stolen by movie studios.

And in politics: Obama steals from Patrick, Clinton steals from Edwards, Edwards steals from Clinton, Clinton steals from Obama, McCain steals from Obama, Clinton steals from Clinton. I think in this most recent instance of rhetorical philandering, it's not the actual theft of the line that matters (although Obama definitely should have cited the source in his speech, despite having Patrick's permission to use it). What stands out is both Clinton's obvious desperation to find something on which to attack Obama (other than the extremely weak experience argument) and her hypocrisy. In last Thursday's debate, Clinton attacked Obama for the indiscretion with the obviously spontaneous big-time burn, "It’s not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox" (which, by the way, makes no sense -- don't you typically Xerox an original copy of something, meaning Obama's original ideas will be copied by other politicians? Does she mean "It's not change you can believe in, it's change that has been Xeroxed"?). Then, a few minutes later in a transparent emotional appeal, she stole a line from a speech John Edwards gave in December (which, it should be noted, was stolen from a 1992 Bill Clinton speech).

So Obama gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar and then has the good fortune to find out that the person who caught him had just drunk all their parents' vodka and filled the bottle back up with water. How lucky is this guy? This is like if, after being persecuted for having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton released a videotape of Kenneth Starr and the entire U.S. Congress having sex with RuPaul.

*Network. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1977. (See, citing sources isn't that hard!)