They Will Never Admit Anything

Recently, I had a nice lunch with a charming young woman who happens to be a Republican. She also happens to be a reader of this blog. She was upset with me for my "constant conservative bashing". Specifically, my post about how liberals can admit when they lose or do something wrong, but conservatives never do.

You may recall that I wrote about that after the differing reactions to the Presidential debates.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure she ended up completely agreeing with my point, though I can't remember because I was drunk.

The next day I saw an interview with Obama on NBC, and he said as President he's made "tons of mistakes". I thought this was remarkable because I remembered that George W. Bush didn't make a single mistake as President, according to him.

Then I was on twitter, and I got into a little spat with one of the conservatives I follow. If you're not aware, on the campaign trail Mitt Romney told a big, fat lie about Jeep deciding to send all of their jobs overseas.

Romney claimed he read about it somewhere. But that somewhere turned out to be a conservative blog which had simply misread a Bloomberg article. It was bullshit and everyone knows it...except for conservatives. Romney stands by it, and so do all of his fans.

So this gentleman that I follow on twitter tweeted: "The Obama Camp is almost completely based on provably false statements...so I won't be taking the Jeep outrage seriously."

I took this to mean that because the Obama campaign is based on lies, according to him, they're not allowed to be mad that Romney was lying. My point to him was that all of us as voters should be upset when either campaign lies.

Of course, he didn't like that too much so we went back and forth a little bit. He tweeted to me: "free to call out Mitt on Jeep, but you better also be calling out all of Obama's distortions or you are being a hypocrite."

 I replied "that's exactly my point, a lie is a lie no matter who says it".

And then for some reason he tweeted: "so you admit you have never called out Obama's countless lies? Thought so. One of us is a hack, but it isn't me."

I don't know where he got that from, but let's not quibble. I decided to try a different approach. I tweeted this to him:

"let's try something: i say that the obama cancer ad about romney was despicable. okay? now you call out something romney has done. go..."

What happened next? Well, he didn't respond. But I didn't let up, because I am an asshole. I tweeted "I'm waiting..." several times. Then asked why he couldn't do it.

Finally, he responded:

 "I can, you just aren't worth the time or effort. You can go search my tweets. Although Romney never had anything = cancer ad."

HA HA!

"You aren't worth the time or effort"! He had tweeted at me at least 10 times before this! But he doesn't have the time, you guys. He's busy not admitting stuff. 

Are you fucking kidding me? This is who the other side is? Why can't they do it? Why are they so afraid? How are they all on the same exact page on this not giving an inch bullshit? It's really incredible.

So to my young conservative friend, these are your people.

Read More

Interesting Sitcom Tidbit

I'm reading Garry Marshall's memoir, "My Happy Days in Hollywood". Marshall produced Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, Mork and Mindy, and then directed a bunch of stuff, including Beaches and Pretty Woman and all those shitty "holiday" themed movies that come out every holiday now.

I wasn't that excited to read it, but I needed something to read and the sample was appealing enough. The thing about Garry Marshall is that he seems to be a very positive, happy, upbeat man. He didn't seem like the type to write a juicy tell all. And as I read the book, that turned out to be true.

He covers Happy Days in a single chapter. That thing went 11 years. You could probably write 5 books about what went on with that show. He wrote a succinct, everyone was happy and the show was really fun to work on, chapter.

The same was true about everything else in his life. It was an easy read, but a little disappointing. I hate when people write about stuff and just kind of gloss over the details. "Oh, and then I sold the show, and we cast it, and then it went to number one!" Okay, but can you be a little specific? Tell us a horror story about Baio or something?

Anyway, the book was going along like this, and I had just resigned myself to not learning anything of note, and then Laverne and Shirley happened. And finally, Garry Marshall started talking some shit.

I didn't know this, but apparently that was the worst show to work on, maybe ever. A complete fucking nightmare. And the funniest part about it is that he created it and cast his sister in the lead role. He made her a giant star out of nothing. Gave her a huge career and tons of money. And yet she was a gigantic bitch and terrible to work with.

Unfortunately, this is still Garry Marshall, so even as writes how painful it was every day, he's still being sorta nice. Which can only mean that Laverne and Shirley was even worse than he's describing, which is pretty incredible.

An example of this:

Cindy Williams (Shirley) sued him for making her work too hard while she was pregnant for $20 million dollars. But Garry says the lawsuit got settled and they are "great friends to this day". Um, what?! She sued you! And you're buddies?

But that's Garry Marshall.

Still, pretty interesting.

One other fun fact: he directed Overboard, which as you know, I love. So props for that. Though no good stories about it, just Goldie Hawn was amazing and Kurt Russell was even amazinger.

Read More

Another (Not a Real) Lawyer Show Sells

Remember when I did that post about how certain premises must die. And I wrote about how people always sell lawyer shows where the lawyer isn't really a lawyer? Well, here's another one that was announced today:

It centers on a former Army lawyer who, in order to crack an ongoing investigation, is recruited reluctantly by the FBI as a Shadow Counsel — a “secret” lawyer who operates in the shadows, completely off the record to circumvent existing roadblocks (hired attorneys, interrogators, etc) in classified cases. 

Oh, so it's one of those SECRET lawyers! I always said OJ should've pretended to represent himself and had a secret lawyer in the shadows. Hey, you do the crime in the shadows, you might as well have a lawyer who works in the shadows too.

Christ. The shadows. Shut up.

Read More

The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

I keep asking conservatives the same question and none of them can give me an answer. I ask and ask and still, nothing. Here's the question:

How come when Obama lost the first debate, liberals admitted that he lost. But when Romney lost the last debate, conservatives say that he won.

Actually, it's not even about saying he won, instead they just complain that Obama was "rude". That's their argument, Obama was being a meanie!

I guess the real answer is: republicans are better at politics. They know that perception means more than reality. You can't concede even the most obvious of points. It makes them look like absolute crazy people to me, but maybe it helps further some overall narrative that they are doing great.

And it makes you wonder how much momentum gained from the hysterical reaction from the first debate over the debate itself. Maybe if liberals pretended like Obama did great it would've helped slow Romney down.

Read More

Why I Love Suburgatory

I'm not sure when it was that I fell out of love with sitcoms. It was probably somewhere between the end of Friends and the beginning of Joey.

Then The Office came on...and it sucked. At least, the first season did. But after that it got good, and I enjoyed it for a few seasons until Jim and Pam got engaged. I had a brief fling with How I Met Your Mother too. I watched the first 2 seasons but then it got stale for me.

But other than that, the sitcom genre was pretty much dead. Dramas ruled the day. After the reign of Seinfeld and Friends, we needed something fresh. I don't know if we ever really got it.

What we did get were a lot of shows that just felt like a barrage of one liners. Cartoons. There was no heart. The prime example of this is "30 Rock".

It's got the best jokes on TV. There's only one problem with that: there is nothing on the show that is in any way believable. There is nothing to relate to. But it has great jokes! Yeah, it's easy to write jokes in anything can happen-land. And I would argue, that makes them a whole lot less funny.

"We were on a break!"

That joke is made a lot funnier because you relate to Ross and Rachel, and are invested in their relationship. I don't think anyone can be invested in Tracy Jordan or Kenneth. They are cartoon characters.

During this time, I didn't even try to get jobs on sitcoms. The fact is I probably wouldn't have gotten hired anyway, but I really had no interest. Plus, there were hardly any sitcoms on the air and hence, nothing to get hired on.

Even though I was technically in "comedy", when I wrote specs I wrote one hour dramas. My favorite shows (at the time) were Friday Night Lights and Rescue Me. That's what I liked to watch. So I figured, that's what I'll write. Why write scripts that mimic shows I hate?

Slowly, sitcoms made a come back. There were more and more popping up on TV. Many of them were of the depressing variety, I'm looking at you, CBS. But Parks and Rec came along - it copied everything from "The Office", even a shitty first season. Then Modern Family. And others.

I still didn't like too many of them. But I got tired of sketch shows and the crappy money basic cable provides. So I threw my hat in the ring, armed with my 1 hour specs.

I assumed this would get me meetings at 1 hour shows. It did. But I couldn't help making the scripts a little funny, so I also got some meetings for half hours. 

I was wary about it. Most of the shows still do that zany joke world thing that I hate. But luckily for me, very luckily, I somehow landed on a show that had a mix of everything that I loved. That didn't live completely in crazy town. That mixed jokes with drama. That had heart. A show called Suburgatory.

Now, I know some of you love the show, and some of you don't like the show. And some of you aren't shy about telling me about it. Thanks for that. But this is about me, and about why I love show and feel so excited to be able to work on it.

Don't get me wrong - there is craziness. There is stuff that is over the top. But that's not all the show depends on. It's also about the characters, and their relationships. There are arcs. There is "will they or won't they?" stuff. Jokes come out of the characters.

Well, it (finally!) premieres tomorrow night on ABC at 9:30 after Modern Family. And I'm really proud of the first episode (well, all of the episodes, really). It was written by our showrunner, and the creator of the show, Emily Kapnek. Despite the fact that she has the power to fire me, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that she's a genius.

The episode has heart. But it's also ridiculously funny. It's a balance. A mix of both things. And I think it's the perfect example of what the show is and should be. And what I love, or rather, used to love about sitcoms. Sitcoms like The Wonder Years.

So if any of this sounds good to you, please check it out. And if you can avoid telling me how wrong I am and that I'm an idiot, that would be great. If you can't avoid it, do your worst. If you only want to watch the episode I wrote, which I do respect, it is airing on November 7th.

Thanks for all of your love and support over the years. I appreciate it. And it feels good to be working on a show that I enjoy working on every day. I hope you enjoy the results.

Read More

The Romney Tax Plan

Finally, we're getting some details on the Romney tax plan.

Read More

Argo F--- Yourself

SPOILERS AHEAD ABOUT "ARGO"

"Argo" is out, and it is getting rave reviews. I saw it on Saturday...and I'm not too sure about it. It's a solid movie, certainly not bad, but there were things about it that just didn't make sense to me. And if I'm about anything, I'm about things making sense. That's why I can't like a movie like "The Master" or "Ted".

Before I explain my problems with the movie, let me be clear about something: I'm not trying to be a contrarian. Everyone is loving this movie, and I'm not criticizing it just to be different. I hate when people do that. I love Ben Affleck, you know I loved The Town, and I absolutely wanted to love this movie. But as I sat in the theater, there were a bunch of things nagging at me about it.

A lot of this is probably because it is based on a true story. But because it's a true story there are all sorts of real life, important details that can't be included in the 2 hour running time. So those get cut. And more of those get cut. And still more. And now all of the sudden you have something that doesn't really make sense.

What are my issues? Let's start with the plot of the movie:

Iranians storm the US embassy. They take 66 Americans hostage. 6 escape and go to the Canadian Ambassador's house.

The 66 hostages in the Embassy are tortured. The 6 with the Canadians live fairly comfortably, though they're not allowed to go outside (but neither were the 66, I assume).  And what is this movie about?

It's about saving...the 6! The 6 who are having nice dinners and hanging out and talking about politics. The 66? Well, nothing we can do about them.

Right off the bat, you can see that this is a weird story to tell. We're not saving the people being tortured, we're getting the people that live next to them! That is a little difficult to swallow as a premise. Talk about setting the bar low.

How can we feel good about success when their are 66 people left behind? It's a hollow victory, at best. 

Okay, next: The Hollywood Connection.

To save the 6 people, many ideas are floated. They are all absurd and deemed impossible. Ben Affleck's character comes up with the idea to make a fake Canadian movie. A science fiction film that would need locations similar to those found in Iran. Then he'll go into Iran pretending to be the movie's producer, get the 6, give them identities as Canadians who are working on the movie, and then fly out of the country.

To set up this fake Canadian movie, Ben flies to Hollywood. Hollywood, Canada? No! Hollywood, America. Wait a minute, what happened to that whole "Canadian movie" thing?

Second, are they reading Variety in Iran? Is a full table read necessary? We really need to go to these great lengths to fool these people into believing this is an actual movie? Who are they, Nikki Finke? Is there a Mahmoud Finke?

The most ridiculous aspect of all of this comes at the end. The "hostages" and Ben are at the airport. The airport security guy, who looks and acts like a Persian Charles Manson, dials a phone number given to him by Ben Affleck.

The number goes to a phone in the production office in Hollywood for the movie. Tension mounts as we wonder if the Hollywood guys will answer the phone and confirm that this is a movie.

Okay. Iranians know what movies are being produced, but they don't know a United States area code?

Also, how about just giving the number to the CI fucking A in Langley and tell the boys there to pick up and say "Argo"? You really need a whole office and idiot Hollywood types manning those phones?

None of this makes sense! It's completely and utterly ridiculous! Why do you need to go to all of this trouble. The phone number could go to anywhere. Anyone could pick up.

The filmmakers clearly try to buy back this whole Hollywood idea at the end when they have one of the hostages start showing the storyboards and describing the movie. There are a million simpler ways for this cover story to be achieved than having a whole table read and everything else. Besides, the guy who spins the yarn at the airport wasn't even in Hollywood learning this. He picked up the story in about a day.

Now, remember those crazy ideas they had before this movie thing that they decided couldn't work? One of them was to get the hostages bicycles, and then have them ride to the border. We are told that this is craziness because the border is 300 miles away.

But here's the thing: Ben Affleck picks up the hostages in a van! How about just driving to the border? If they thought bikes had a chance, wouldn't a van work even better?

Finally, the ending. The ending of "Argo" ended in exactly the same way that every single episode of "The Amazing Race" ends.

The team that finishes each leg of the Amazing Race last is eliminated. So it always comes down to two teams trying to finish ahead of each other to avoid elimination. The simple reality of racing is that you're not gonna have a neck and neck finish every time.

And yet, at the end of every race, the editors always make it seem like it is extremely close, even though it usually isn't. There is rarely one team that is so far behind that there isn't some nail biting. It does happen, but only when they can't avoid showing how hapless a team is at one of the stops along the way.

"Argo" has an Amazing Race ending. The timing of that "almost missed" phone call doesn't add up. The guys raiding the Canadian's house are perfectly late. It all feels like putting lipstick on a pig. Or rather, putting lipstick on a race that wasn't all that close.

There's also a bit about carbon copied paperwork that I won't get into here. But 6 Caucasians at the Iranian airport who all have missing paperwork? That doesn't send up any red flags?

Can you tell I had some issues with this film?

But still, it's well made, well acted, and a cool story. Everyone who is saying how great it is aren't lying and I respect their opinion. I just think a lot of these flaws are getting overlooked because this is a true story. But I couldn't overlook it. Because I like things to make sense.

Read More

I Never Imagine That There Are Coasters

(This is a post about making TV. If you are not interested in the process of making TV, please ignore it. If you are my parents, and want to know what I do for a living, and I know you do, read on...)

Many years ago, I was toiling away on a sketch comedy show. I was doing my thing, and it was all well and good, but I didn't have too many other prospects. I wasn't pitching shows, and it didn't seem like I was even allowed to pitch shows.

Meanwhile, there was a guy I knew who was also a writer. Only, he had never worked on a TV show or movie in his life. I mean, zero. And yet, every year, he would sell a pilot to one of the big networks for a sizable sum.

Being the bitter gent that I was, I was extremely bitter about this. This guy had never even worked on a show! How could you buy something from someone who doesn't even know what it takes to make television every week? He had no experience in anything other than using a keyboard!

As you know, I've matured since then. I don't feel the same way anymore. But I think you can see where my childish, many years ago self was coming from. I mean, if you just take a step back and look at the situation, as if it were any other business: can you imagine investing a bunch of money and hiring someone who has never done what you're hiring him to do? It's sorta nonsensical.

Alas, that's show business. And it's more complicated than that anyway. If one of those shows had gotten on the air (they didn't), they would've hired more experienced people to run the day to day operations, so whatever...

None of this is my point. My point is that I was a little bit right. Because there is something that you can only learn about as a writer when you are actually working on a show that is produced for TV. It's something that that guy would never know about, would never think about when writing scripts. And that something is known as...

The Production Meeting

I read a lot of blogs about screenwriting, and I don't think I've seen anyone write about this and I'm not sure why. I find it fascinating, and it's an important (and scary) part of the process of actually producing stuff.

I think as writers we think a script is the be all and end all. We bitterly complain about directors getting all of the love in film. "A film by..." Fuck you. It wouldn't be a "film by" anyone if my shit didn't say "Fade in".

But as soon as you get into a production meeting you realize how much ISN'T in a script. It's really depressing. Your script isn't the be all and end all, it's a starting point with a lot of holes that need to be filled in. And where do these holes get filled in? At the production meeting.

You always walk into a production meeting filled with confidence. And then you sit down across from a room full of hardened professionals, all of whom who have worked on a thousand more shows than you have. They are awesome at their job, and want to do their best, and this is their time to take your hard work and contribute their hard work.

So just when you are feeling downright cocky about the brilliant piece of comedy you have made, the barrage begins:

"What color is her dress?"
"It says the mood is romantic, are there candles? How many?"
"Are there coasters on the table?"
"What is she eating? Asian food? Sushi? What kind of sushi?"
"Chopsticks or silverware?"
"Is her hair in a bun? Scrunchy or clip?"
"What does the banner say behind them?"
"Do you have names for the things on the dresser?"
"Is that gonna be green screen or practical?"

The truth is you don't know the answer to any of these questions. Yet, you think that you should, and THEY think that you should. And if you pause for a second to think about what the answer should be, you start thinking that you've been had. They know that you are a fraud. Cause you are a fraud.

So the secret to these production meetings is to go in knowing that you don't have all of the answers, but you must pretend that you do! Every answer must be given confidently and definitively. No hesitation. No doubt. If you are second guessed, act like they are the idiot. It's your script, after all, only you can say what kind of sushi it is.

Many of the questions you get asked are dumb. But no one who is trying to decipher your script can really guess which questions are dumb and which are vitally important to telling your story, so all of them must be asked. And they are. Every single one.

It's a very intimidating process. But the quick, decisive answer always works. I totally suck at this, because I'm not a details guy. And I'm not good at noticing the look of things. I don't know about clothes or food, or furniture, or any of that stuff. Hell, I didn't even know there were different kinds of sushis. So I really, really have to fake it.

But let me give you an example from TV of what I'm talking about:

I've seen every episode of Beverly Hills 90210 about a million times. The other day I was watching one such episode. It was during the period when the gang was attending California University.

In the scene I was watching, Brandon confronts his girlfriend Lucinda about her making a move on Dylan. In the process of her stalling and avoiding answering him, she offers him some food.

She grabs a plate from the table, and on the plate is an absurdly neat platter of various meats and cheeses.

I've seen the episode a lot, and I never, ever noticed the plate before. Until now.

And that is just a small example of what a production meeting is for. I guarantee you that the writer did not put what was on that platter in the script. You simply can't do it, or else scripts would be a thousand pages long. But there has to be food on that platter, and someone has to say what it is going to be? They went with meat and cheeses, I might've gone strawberries and grapes.

So there you go, Mom. That's what I do sometimes. 

Read More

If You Like Rap...

This is a MUST read/watch.

For those who won't click, here's the west coast cypher from the BET Hip Hop Awards. It's a beautiful thing that these guys are still doing it, and theirs was the best. Respect the west!

Read More

Posts Return on Thursday

Sorry, everyone. Will come back with a vengeance soon...

Read More

What is "The Master" Really About? It's About Farting

"The Master" is not an enjoyable film to sit and watch. I, along with most of America, like movies with stories. A plot. Twists. Turns. Endings. I'm kooky this way. "The Master" does not give us these things. It is not that kind of movie.

So why does it exist?

A movie like this only serves one good purpose: to talk about what it all means after seeing it. So that's why I'm here. "The Avengers" is fun to watch, but you don't need to dissect it for a second. There's no need to, that's not what it is for. 

But if we force ourselves to suffer through 2 and a 1/2 hours of "The Master", we are doing a complete disservice to our money and our time if we don't talk about it. Debating it is the only thing that makes the experience of it worthwhile.

The filmmaker is trying to convey something with this film. At least I hope he is, cause he is certainly not trying to entertain us. What is it? What is "The Master" about? I think I know the answer.

"The Master" is about farting, and our attitudes about what we should do with our farts.

I have not read a single thing about this movie. This is all coming from me just having seen it. In short, these flatulent opinions are my own. And there might be SPOILERS, so be aware.

"The Master" is a simple (non) story about two men. Two wildly different men who discover each other, become fascinated by their differences, fall in (man) love, and then realize that they are too different to be friends. They have contrasting life philosophies that simply cannot exist together.

And what is so "wildly different" about these two men? Well, a lot of things, but really only one thing:

One of them (Philip Seymour Hoffman) holds in his farts, and the other (Joaquin Phoenix) doesn't. 

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Lancaster Dodd, aka The Master, who is the head of Scientology, er, a cult. Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a troubled World War II veteran who loves pussy and drinking and having a strange looking face.

The two are opposites. Dodd is in control of his life. Freddie is out of control. Dodd believes in searching the past for clues about the present. Or at least pretending to. He believes in thinking before doing things, and trying to understand and get others to understand. Dodd seeks to evolve and adapt and change. But above all, he seeks control. Of his life, and of others.

Freddie believes in living in the moment. He has no interest in the past or the future. He does things without thought. He doesn't want to change. He has no interest in controlling others, he can't even control himself or his urges. He is who he is.

How does this manifest itself? Dodd doesn't let his farts out, Quell does. And the farting life is the better life.

The message of this film is that all of this stuff: cults, psychiatry, religion to some extent, it's all hooey. We are not better than animals, we are animals. We can't help it. And we shouldn't help it.

Thinking about past lives, things that affected us in the womb, it's all silliness. And anyone who is trying to tell you that he knows more than you and can fix your life, is a bullshit artist. And likely their life is a whole lot worse than yours. They don't have the answers, they have the problems. They have unreleased farts. They want to control you, to take away your freedom, because they have no freedom themselves. They're as enslaved as the farts locked up in their ass.

Lancaster Dodd is The Master because he cannot imagine a life in which there are no masters. He doesn't want freedom. He doesn't want others to have freedom either. He seeks control. And deep down, there really is no control in life. Control is an illusion.

The movie is saying don't be like Lancaster Dodd. Let your farts fly.

At the end of the film, Dodd is left living his bullshit life. A house of cards that will eventually fall down on him. And even worse, he's bloated, a lifetime of gas tightly contained inside of him. 

Meanwhile, Quell is released back into the wild, as he was before, living in the moment, fucking mad chicks, drinking and having fun. An animal. A happy animal. He has no worries. No stress. No built up gas. He is home. A smelly, fart filled home.  

And with that, we learn that "The Master" is not Lancaster Dodd. It is Freddie "Let Your Farts Fly" Quell. He is The Master of his own life. The Master of his own farts.

Read More

Embarrassing

I still play video games. Usually, I buy games from Amazon. Occasionally, I go to the local store and buy them in person. I've longed believed that these stores are pulling off some kind of scam. Because there is only 1 or 2 games a month that anyone wants, but somehow there are stacks of games that align the walls that I assume will never get bought.

Even crazier, they buy back your old games for a respectable amount of money. So there's a used section, and just, games and games and games and no one buying them. I'm not sure what's going on or how they are making money. Also, there's Amazon and Target and Walmart and Toys R Us. I don't get it.

Anyway, as I was browsing, the guy who worked there was all over me. I brushed him off, picked up the game I wanted and then met him at the register.

Instead of simply ringing me up, the guy starts barraging me with specials and offers and the like. First, he wanted to know if I was a rewards member. I'm not, and I don't want to be. He then asked what other games I'm "in to". I mentioned some, and he asked if I wanted to pre-order them.

Okay, that's another thing that is suspicious. They're always wanting you to pre-order shit, and yet there is no wait time to get these games. The day it comes out, you can simply go to the store and buy it. Or order it online like a normal person. So I'm not sure what the point is.

But he said if I pre-order it, it comes in a special case! And there's an extra world already unlocked! And it comes with a collector's item map! And an action figure!

He keeps going and going, and finally I have to break it to him:

I'm an adult.

But as soon as I tell him that, I realize something:

I'm an adult.

I'm buying and playing videogames. I'm the asshole in this equation.

He wasn't stupid for thinking I would like these "bonuses", I was stupid for buying the thing in the first place. The reason they're offering them is because only kids should be playing these games.

So then I went home and played the shit out of FIFA '13.  

Read More

Liberals, Right?

I've noticed something annoying, right, and I think only liberals do it. I think it's just liberals because the egregious use of it is on MSNBC, right? The most famous example is Rachel Maddow, right, but the guy who does it the most, to an insane degree, right, is Chris Hayes, who sometimes fills in for her and has a show on Saturdays. 

These rights? are not questions. They're not asking you if they're actually right about anything. It's just a way for them to keep talking, right, so it's a very annoying tic that they think makes them sound smarter or something. 

I was wondering how I was going to demonstrate this annoying thing to you. For you to see it in action. And then luckily for me, Nate Silver came along.

Nate runs a great blog called fivethirtyeight.com, which almost exactly predicted the outcome of the last presidential race. I don't think there's much doubt that he's a liberal, though his numbers are neutral. Anyway, he did an interview with salon.com, and they posted the transcript of what he said, word for word. Thus, we all get to see how right? is used in this way.

Here's just a portion of the transcript, where he answers the question "why are we so fascinated with predictions?":

I have two answers to this, and maybe they’re complimentary in part, contradictory in part. I think, on the one hand, you can go to a site like FiveThirtyEight and it has that one number, right? So Obama today has a 79-point-whatever-it-is [chance of winning] — 79.6 or 79.7 — and that might save you a lot of effort; it’s like, here’s the gist, right? 

And so, getting into that data allows us to feel less alienated from the random course the world might be on, or the inability to influence it. People don’t necessarily trust the news media to mediate information for them anymore — and maybe they shouldn’t, right? So if you show the raw numbers and are actually willing — at least in my case — to set a betting line, basically … And it’s based on a formula you’re not just making up a number everyday. In the end, it does boil down to the numbers.

Right now, you can say Obama’s the favorite, but Romney is not out of it, right? I think everyone can agree with that. But what’s “not out of it”? Does that mean he has a 3 percent chance? A 5 percent chance? It’s that margin between the 5 percent and the 45 percent chance where I’m trying to make my trade.

Am I only one noticing this? It's sorta white people's version of "know what I'm sayin'? 

Read More