Oops

What do you call it when your public relations people decide to plant a little of their own moralistic views into an announcement about your feelings? If you're the Bush White House, you get that same public relations person to say, "Sorry."

For those that may have missed it, apparently, Tony Snow overstepped his bounds a bit by saying that GDub feels that stem cell research is akin to murder. This was Snowjob's way of explaining why a President who hadn't issued a single veto his entire time in office decided to use that power on a medical issue. But no worries. Snowjob felt just awful about the whole thing.

Here's the real catch, though. Why did Snow apologize? Did he truly feel he'd overstepped his bounds? Well, maybe, but the biggest reason is because he gave Josh Bolten, the WH Chief of Staff, a headache to deal with.

Although one question from the whole debate keeps not getting asked. If we can't use embryonic stem cells because those embryos may one day become a fully grown human, can we use cells from convicts on death row? After all, Texas, where the Great Decider hails from, apparently doesn't hold the same regard for human life once it's been convicted of crimes as they do when said life is barely started, and is stored in freezers.

A cease-fire on talks about a cease-fire

The United Nations is strongly urging a cease-fire to be declared between Israel and Lebanon. The United States, however, is standing firm against the notion, even while claiming that they would like to see the fighting stop. Given that the US is one of the few nations who has the ability to override a UN resolution with a veto (and hey, GDub just learned how to use his after five years), any amount of dragging of heels on our behalf can quickly squelch any talks.

But why is the United States so resistant to allowing this way of thinking to carry through? In the immortal words of Tony Snow, "at this point, there's no indication that Hezbollah intends to lay down arms." Which is technically true. But given that Israel has responded to Hezbollah's actions with force that most of the world views as excessive, there's not a whole lot of reason for them to lay down their arms. For their part, Hezbollah doesn't recognize Israel as a state, which, up until the mid-1940's was completely accurate. Meanwhile, Israel has aggressively waged campaigns with the intention of trying to dismantle and destroy opposing nations, even while being forced to defend its own borders.

Ultimately, it should come as no surprise that the United States is throwing its support and weight behind Israel in the current conflict. After all, the Israeli state was largely supported and bolstered by the United States ever since its inception, and the US knows that, if Israel falls completely, they will lose footing and face in the Middle East.

Now I am by no means condoning the actions of Hezbollah, nor am I decrying Israel as purely the enemy and the evil face of this war. One cannot justly deny that Hezbollah brought Israel's wrath down upon itself by kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and holding them hostage. One also cannot deny that Israel has mounted a far more aggressive campaign than is justified, and has had little concern for the casualties they are causing. After all, there is evidence that Israel not only encouraged people to evacuate Beirut, but that they then bombed the caravans leaving the city.

Of course, through this conflict, we've had GDub swearing into microphones, acknowledging racism in his first appearance at the NAACP (after multiple invitations), and improperly groping the German Chancellor. If that isn't an acknowledgement of a cowboy who's intent on leading with bravado and not reason, I'm not sure what is.

Compassionate reporting

Elizabeth Smart, the young woman who was kidnapped from her home in Salt Lake City back in 2002 (and recovered in March of 2003) appeared recently on CNN's "Nancy Grace" show to discuss the new national sex offender bill that she is championing. Host Nancy Grace seemed interested in holding a very different interview.

Basically, what we have here is a complete and utter failure to communicate. Elizabeth, who had already dealt with numerous interviews over the past three years regarding her abduction, has moved on as best as she possibly can. She has decided to use the experience to fuel her desire to push the new national legislation. Nancy Grace, on the other hand, made the determination that she would garner more viewers, and milk sympathy out of those that were watching by once again trying to get answers to inane questions about the abduction. Even when Elizabeth made it clear that she was appearing for a different reason, Nancy nodded, pretended to understand, and pressed ahead with further questions about what the captivity was like.

Mind you, this is coming from the same network that, while Israel and Hezbollah were shooting missles at each other, kept wondering "Middle East: Brink of War?" CNN used to be an official news organization, but with reporters like Grace, and an unwillingness to call a war when they see one, the question has to become whether or not they're still viable in covering the news, or if they've fallen down the same slippery slope that has plagued the other 24-hour news networks since their inceptions.

Looking at the website for the program has me already picturing what the conversation with Yvette Cade (who was horribly burned by her husband) may contain. For example:

NG: So, exactly how did the odor of burning flesh affect your sense of smell.
YC: It was awful. But I really don't want to talk about that.
NG: I understand. I know that it's hard for victims to relive their experiences. So, how exactly did the fire race across your skin.

Let's hope that I'm horribly horribly wrong about that potential conversation. If I'm not, then someone please find a way to GET THIS WOMAN OFF THE TELEVISION. Replace her with something wholesome. Y'know, like have an hour of screeching weasels.

You can call it "FOX on CNN".

By any other name

The battles between Israel and Hezbollah are definitely causing the world to take notice of the region, and the destructive capabilities contained therein. Unfortunately, the people representing the United States seem to be incapable of actually focusing on the Middle East and what's actually happening.

Take, for example, Tony Snow, the White House Press Secretary. First off, when Helen Thomas, whom the Snowjob has bashed heads with before, called into question the US veto of the UN cease-fire resolution, Snow attacked her by thanking her for her "Hezbollah view". Then, in a different press conference, he gets caught in his own double speak, first calling the battle a war, and then quickly correcting himself. It's almost as though Snowjob feels that, if you just refuse to call something what it is, it loses those key properties that make it exactly what it is. We'll try that theory ourselves. For example, I shall stop referring to any debt owed to companies as bills. I'm going to call cigarettes happy fun sticks. And I'm going to call GDub an idiot. Because at least one of these things should still ring true.

But Snow isn't the only member of the press who has a difficult time when referring to the war going on between Israel and its neighbors (lest we forget, they're still attacking Gaza, too). Thankfully, one news source is making sure to call what they see, and they're calling the rest of the news to task on it. Thank you, Jon Stewart.

In other news, it appears that US Airways has decided to start putting ads on their air-sickness bags. Apparently the thinking is that the bags are there, and they may as well get some use (and some financial kick-back) out of them. While not a frequent flier by any means, I'm pretty certain that placing ads on the bags will definitely increase their usage. Maybe come fall I'll jump on an US Airways flight, and fill my Sony brand airsickness bag with some CBS brand egg from my earlier breakfast.

Live from St. Petersburg

By now, pretty much everyone across the world is at least familiar with the "accidental" exchange between GDub and Tony Blair concerning the conflict in Lebanon. And by now, many have established their own interpretations of what happened. Given that the President, when he learned of the mistake, apparently "rolled his eyes and laughed" when shown a transcript of his own words, it seems almost impossible to continue to hope that there will actually be any strong resolution proposed by Washington.

Plain and simple, even if it was truly an accident that the microphone was live, this is another example of the cowboy diplomacy that Bush has engaged in throughout his Presidency, and appears ready to continue following through with. He is the type of leader who feels that he can bully people into doing what he wants, and, like most bullies, he is unable to see his own failings with regards to his goals. Cowboy diplomacy launched the war with Iraq, and now it appears set to cause the conflict to spill out even further into the Middle East. GDub believes that by simply flexing his muscles, he can get Syria and other ME nations to weigh in on stopping this conflict, when all it tends to do is stir the pot more.

What our Cowboy fails to truly realize is that he is stepping into a ghost town, and the rival gang, while not holding the strength in either numbers or dedication, does hold the power of conviction. Bush is a lame duck President, who almost seems driven to push the global perception of the United States into never-before-seen lows, leaving a mess behind for whoever is unlucky enough to take the office in 2008. Without strong and thought-out leadership, America will continue to flounder in the political morass, while conflicts will keep pounding on our doors.

We have a spoiled child as a President, and, before too long, he's going to just get bored, pick up his toys, and walk away.

Leaks: Packaged for your approval

The recent attacks against the NY Times for its role in leaking information regarding the surveillance of financial records have certainly brought a blight to that newspaper, as well as other papers that picked up the story quickly. By making mention of the secret Treasury Department program, the Times brought the program itself under intense scrutiny, and may very well have made the prospect of curtailing terrorist activity that much harder.

Except for one minor, insignificant detail. As it turns out, the Treasury Department was fully expecting the leak, and even had a press plan in place for just such an occasion. Conveniently, this press plan was followed when the Times wanted to go to print with their article.

So what does this mean? Unfortunately, it means far too little. Especially in a world where the leaders of the strongest nations on the planet meet but can't come to a resolution about what to do concerning the Hezbollah/Israel conflict. Especially in a world where former political leaders can outright state that there should simply be a declaration of World War III, so that we can move forward accordingly.

But hey, maybe this means that, in a few short months, we'll see a report that Valerie Plame actually outed herself to Robert Novak in a press release. Actually, given the current administration's tendencies towards veiling the truth from the public, I'm surprised we haven't seen it yet.

But at least we'll be able to get commercials with breakfast, even if we leave the TV off.

The American Way

Welcome to another Friday, and another round of shotgunning.

First up, the whole situation revolving around Valerie Plame is about to take an interesting twist, as she and her husband Joseph Wilson have decided to sue "Scooter" Libby, KRove, and VPFudd, amongst others. Basically, the lawsuit is levying attacks against those that outed her for destroying her career simply to further their own aspirations. What the lawsuit should be about is the endangerment of any operation she has ever done, and put at risk the lives of her, her family, and any of her contacts made while working for the CIA. After all, isn't that what the administration is accusing the NYTimes of being guilty of with regards to leaking the financial surveillance information? Better question, especially in light of the Fitzgerald investigation. Isn't suing these guys kind of like the civil case against OJ Simpson?

Secondly, seriously, Israel, stop bombing people. The area is already bad enough, and tensions are high, without you going around and dropping bombs on Lebanon, Palestine, and anywhere else you feel appropriate. No wonder the leader of Hezbollah is calling you out. Of course, maybe you believe that you're in the right, and you may have some valid points. But there should at least be some consideration for global relations, given that most of the world wants a full cease-fire reached. All except for the Imperial Decider, who has kindly asked that there be a curtailing of violence by Israel. Not a full-out stop, but GDub has asked that they Israelis limit the amount of damage they cause. It'd be nice if they interpreted "limit" as prevent, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Finally, in a piece of press that shouldn't really come as much of a surprise, Pete Coors, former Senate candidate and owner of Coors Brewing Company, was arrested. For DUI. True, he wasn't much above Colorado's .08 limit, but he was above it, and was cited properly for it. Doesn't really seem to fit with the flow of "Drink Responsibly", an ad campaign that, in spirit at least, has been promoted by all alcohol producers for quite some time now. Maybe this means that Coors will have a new campaign, with a picture of Pete being pulled over. Run the tagline "Don't Do What We Did." It might sell.

Losing touch

First off, let's pretend that you're Israel. Okay? Are you pretending? Good. Now...

STOP BOMBING PEOPLE. Especially when you're already on tenuous footing in global views, and the only guy who's on your side is the Decider reviled the world over.

Moving on. Ann Coulter, sometimes referred to in hushed tones as She Who Makes Satan Look Good, also sometimes referred to as Michael Berryman in a wig, has suffered through her trials and tribulations, especially since the release of Godless. The attacks of her views on national news programs and the outcry and accusations of plagiarism immediately leap to mind. Just because she happens to hold viewpoints that make certain infamous people from history look like kitten-hugging hippies (I'm looking at you, Mengele), and just because she decided that she wanted to lift full sentences and then replace a single word, passing it off as her own (you're not escaping my gaze, Viswanathan) doesn't mean she's a bad person, right? Right?

And given that she's obviously not a bad person, is it really fair that newspapers around the country are beginning to wonder if maybe her opinions column is no longer worth printing? Maybe The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, IA was a little hasty in pulling the column ahead of the rest of the nation. Except for the fact that Ms. Coulter has finally started to alienate the only people who were reading her in the first place, the conservatives, and causing the paper to receive complaints, this just seems like a typical knee-jerk reaction from the liberal media.

So does this mean that she's going to finally start keeping herself quiet, or will this harpy take the opportunity to blast everyone yet again with her opinions, and slam the newspapers that once gave her a pedestal from which to spew her vitriol? My bet rests firmly with the second option.

Perking up in the Garden State

The good citizens of New Jersey can rejoice, and it's a good bet that a decent number of them will be rejoicing between the sheets. After a two month hiatus, Medicaid prescriptions in NJ once again cover Viagra and other erectile medications.

In a bold move, aimed at keeping people sexually gratified even if they can't get it up under normal circumstances NJ's Governor Corzine has made efforts to include the drugs once again into programs that help low-income citizens get the prescriptions they need. The biggest roadblock now? Reinstituting the program that weeds out convicted sex offenders from those that are eligible to recieve the pills.

True, there's a quality of life issue at stake here, and the number of men that get prescribed for Viagra or its fellows tend to discover other diseases that they'd never have learned about if they couldn't get it up on their own, but how important is it to include these drugs into the state's drug benefits? After all, education budgets are being slashed everywhere, and NJ is also experiencing less money for municipalities, nevermind an overall increase in taxes. Is it really the best use of money to make sure people can continue having pill-enhanced (or capable) sex while students are given substandard texts?

All in all, it's probably pretty safe to declare New Jersey as Rush Limbaugh's new favorite state.

Better late than never

Although 300 years may be a little much. Even for a witch.

On Monday, the governor of Virginia finally overturned the only witch conviction his state had ever seen. The conviction came after a "water trial", where the suspect in question was believed to be a witch if they were able to float. Given that Grace Sherwood, the woman in question, floated, she was declared as being guilty of witchcraft, although there is evidence that, while she may have been jailed, she also quite possibly lived to die of natural causes.

This news coming out of Virginia yesterday is actually quite interesting, in a number of different lights. First of all, it points out the sheer ridiculousness of the trial itself, as a woman who was "dunked" could be found guilty of witchcraft by simply not drowning. Secondly, it shows a willingness by a politician to alter bad decisions of the past, which could lead to some hope for the country with future elections. Third, it demonstrates the sheer ridiculousness of many of the decrees of current government. After all, while it's a good thing to correct mistaken verdicts, is there ever a need to overturn a ruling of 300 years ago that caused prison time, but not, by many accounts, an overall loss of quality of life?

Of course, there are other examples of government changing things recently that don't necessarily hold such good will. For example, there's Tony Snow's declaration that the Bush Administration is not continuing the policies of the Clinton Administration with regards to North Korea. This should come as a "Duh" to anyone playing at home, especially when one focuses on the fact that during the Clinton presidency, North Korea had no measurable nuclear potential.

But the Snowjob doesn't finish there, as his recent declaration over the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo exhibits. He's stating that the change in the way prisoners will be treated and tried isn't a reversal of position by the administration. Which, I suppose, is technically true, given GDub would probably push his ideas further towards the military tribunals had the Supreme Court not shot him down.

Come to think of it, exonerating a witch after 300 years probably isn't such a bad move after all.

What warnings?

Back in 2002, the President was warned that the policies he was looking at enacting for detainees at Guantanamo Bay would lead to severe political backlash, along with possible declarations of illegality for the activities. Opponents of the harsh treatments stood firmly on the side of thought that said even terror suspects are protected under Geneva Convention. GDub, and his minions, disagreed, and have been working to establish a legal "outer space". The recent Hamdan decision by the Supreme Court should have theoretically put a stop to the bickering, especially as they stated that putting the detainees up before a military tribunal was illegal and in violation of our own policies.

It didn't, as Georgie took a route different from a semi-expected "let's pick up our toys and go home" approach. Nope. GDub has firmly kept himself in the same spot, it's just that now he's inviting different kids to play with his toys. The Court's decision has led to the President and his political allies doing everything just a few steps shy of calling political enemies traitors for attempting to curtail his powers, and the judges of the Supreme Court are simply an "imperialist judiciary [that believes war] should be within its grasp." Or, at the very least, that's the position espoused by professor John Yoo, who played a large part in the writing of the anti-terror documentation.

And what have we learned from this? We've learned that when the Supreme Court makes a decision in favor of the administration and its policies, they're heroes. When they rule against GDub and cronies, they're traitors and "imperialists". And we've also learned that it doesn't really matter, because there's currently a push going on to rewrite pieces of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the document that made it illegal for Bush to put detainees before tribunals, by giving presidents the power to toss any criminal they feel before a military tribunal.

What else have we learned today? Well, we've learned that potential criminals who are awaiting trial for money laundering could still get elected to office. That's right. Tom Delay is saying that he may have no choice but to run for the position he vacated when the came under legal scrutiny in the first place. Of course, given the (potential) history of money laundering, it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to raise the funds needed to make the run.

Do you smell that on the breeze, America? That's freedom. Or methane gas.

On the 7th day of July

We shotgun, now new and improved with links!

First up, the President has decided to travel the country. He's holding a news conference in Chicago, to kick off his concept of making occasional trips outside of Washington to "learn what's on Americans' minds". Of course, this should strike everyone as being a bit odd. Now he wants to learn what the public is thinking? Isn't this the same guy who decided that poll numbers didn't really matter? Now, I'm not going to say that polls are actually a good representation of what the average person is feeling on any given subject, but it's at least a start in the right direction. Maybe all of this traveling will actually cause the President to see what his policies have wrought across America. Or maybe the audiences will be filled with pre-selected individuals, allowing GDub to bury his head further into the belief that his administration is helping the people.

But even with that, thank goodness that GDub has Tony Snow working for him. After all, the Press Sec'y is well-informed, and can pass along necessary information to the President wherever he should be. For example, Snowjob, during a recent press briefing, was able to talk about the Mexican election. Or not. Psst... Tony? The winner was Calderon. At least until the ballots get recounted. Then it might not be Calderon. Either way, read the paper before you go to a briefing, because you're supposed to be the one passing the information along to the press, not the other way around.

Of course, the world doesn't stop spinning just because Snowjob doesn't have enough facts to keep the spin going himself. In a report by New Scientist we learn that it's possible for nuclear weapons to explode accidentally. Not saying that they could make a big boom unattended, with nothing happening. But they certainly could be detonated by a car crash, or by an attack on a convoy. Given that nuclear weapons are quite often shipped overland for inspection, there is a risk of these "single-point safe" bombs becoming highly dangerous. True, there have to be other failures along the way, but the fact that the UK Ministry of Defence is admitting that the risk exists should cause ears to perk up around the globe. Which also means that we're a relatively short time away from someone in the US declaring the MoD as being panicky, and not supportive of the efforts to curtail violence globally. After all, you can't stop violence without creating more violence, especially if you're in the Pentagon.

And finally, it wouldn't be a fair shotgun of fun if there wasn't at least some bizarre celebrity story. No, not the concept that Suri Cruise may not actually exist (although she'd better, given that Katie Holmes had to suffer through 11+ months of pregnancy to bring the Antichrist to Earth). Nope. We're just going to ignore the lack of proof of A.C. Cruise, just like Messiah Jolie-Pitt shall until the time has come for their final confrontation at the End of Days. Today, we receive word from Paris Hilton, as she declares that “If you see pictures of me out I’m being paid." Which makes her the only person other than Shane MacGowan to make a career out of being drunk 24/7. It's also a thin cover story for the side job that Paris has; prostituting herself. After all, can you think of any other job where you're paid simply for being seen?

I found it on Wikipedia

The recent death of Kenneth Lay has served a number of different purposes. One, it has brought tragedy to a family that was already figuring out how to cope without their patriarch due to a potentially lengthy prison term. Two, it has prompted conspiracy theorists to crawl out of the woodwork to insist that Lay isn't actually dead, but that he faked everything in order to get out of serving any of his sentence. And three, it has pointed out one of the weaknesses in Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia.

Now, overall, Wikipedia can actually be a fairly positive thing, as the pooling together of global information, especially when it can be edited by the rest of the online community, should lead to better dissemination of that information. And yet, therein also lies the tragic flaw of the Wikipedia, as there is no actual body of editors or fact-checkers, and anyone can edit the entries therein by simply signing up for a free membership. An entry can be incorrect, fixed by a more reliable source, such as the creator or a close personal confidante, and then returned back to the incorrect form by someone certain that they have the facts right because that's "just the way they've heard it".

For example, Ken Lay's biography had, in less than one hour, seven different causes of death, ranging from the basic ("yet to be determined") to the farfetched ("The guilt of ruining so many lives finally [sic] led him to his suicide"), before it finally settled on citing KHOU-TV out of Houston for the information regarding a heart attack. Had it taken longer to come to an actual cause of death, we may have found Wikipedia entries talking about how Lay died battling aliens in a valiant attempt to save the world from further Enron scandals, all the while letting the Holy Grail slip through his fingers to rest eternally in the embrace of Mother Earth. Or that he'd strapped on some Acme rocket shoes and miscalculated his flightpath.

The free and willing spread of information is a good thing, and it's always positive to see as many different sources working together to get the words out in a highly informative way. That is where the Wikipedia shines. But, without more stringent editorship, or, at least, a willingness to search out authorities on the subjects, then the Wikipedia will never be more than what it currently is. A jumble of webpages, some good, some bad, united under a common theme of "I'm pretty sure it's this way."

The right hand

The Valerie Plame incident just keeps getting more and more tangled, and now, we can't be certain exactly what anyone that may or may not be involved knows. Apparently, during an interview with the prosecutors in the case, President Bush admitted that he had specifically instructed VP Cheney to lead an effort to help discredit former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Wilson, of course, is Plame's husband, and was a large opponent of the war in Iraq. So now we have evidence that GDub was willing to do pretty much anything (up to and including potentially illegal activities) to keep opposing viewpoints silenced.

Of course, this shouldn't come as much of a shock when you look at the current administration's record with regards to signing statements and any other suspicious and questionable activity with relation to presidential powers. It also shouldn't come as much of a shock that Bush claims that, while he may have directed Cheney to release classified information, he wasn't aware that Cheney passed the instructions on to "Scooter" Libby, and then Libby leaked it to the press rather than get it declassified and simply announce it to the American people directly.

So let's get this absolutely correct. Libby is indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Bush, shortly before the indictment, announced that anyone found guilty of crimes in relation to the leak case would no longer have a place within the administration. We now have evidence that Cheney and Bush were definitely working together (by the Great Decider's own words) to release classified information in what could only be referred to as a leak. Of course, both GDub and Fudd are claiming that they never instructed Plame's name to be leaked, or her status within the CIA, but it's not too hard for one to imagine that, in an effort to discredit someone, casting a suspicious light on their spouse might not be all that bad of a way to do it.

And what will come out of this whole thing? Well, if the past six years have shown us anything, the answer is absolutely nothing. Truth be told, it wouldn't be surprising to see pardons come down on high as soon as the investigation is over and all indictments have been handed out. Worked for Nixon, after all. And to think, a decade ago the country impeached a President for what amounts to being an incorrigable lecher, but there's absolutely nothing being done regarding a President who has made his term of office one that violates and suspends civil rights in order to increase his own power.

Of course, for those that believe 2008 can't come fast enough, realize that a lot of the GOP is looking to Jeb Bush as a potential running mate for their candidates, thus (potentially) prolonging the legacy. True, he's often referred to as the smarter of the two Bush brothers, but how hard can that be when GDub has the IQ of steamed beets?

The world is watching

And they're not horribly approving.

For example, look at the British. They used to admire the United States, and even looked to us as a "beacon of hope for the world". Not quite the case anymore. Now, 77 percent of those polled strongly disagree. Only 12 percent trust the US to act wisely in global affairs. Keep in mind that during Vietnam, that number was hovering right around 25 percent.

To be fair, the British don't really think that all Americans are hopeless. In fact, 70 percent of them like Americans to some extent. Unless you're in power. The American government is looking at the fact that over three-fourths of the people polled think that GDub is a "horrible leader" and two-thirds are fairly certain that the United States has shifted completely from being the isolationist country it was a century ago, into an imperialistic nation looking to expand it's territory. Of course, the British have absolutely no experience with imperialism and expansion of territory.

Basically, this poll points out that a lot of the British have many of the same criticisms as a lot of Americans. There is an overall lack of faith in what the Bush administration is capable of, and the tasks that have been accomplished seem futile in the face of greater issues.

Almost makes you wonder how Americans would rank Tony Blair? Wait... that's a silly question. Far too many Americans would respond with "Tony Who?"

Rest assured, though. The UK isn't the only place where there's discontent with the United States. North Korea is pretty upset about a number of things, including fly-overs (which they believe to be espionage), and the threat of a pre-emptive strike by the US. They've gone so far as to threaten that, if attacked, they will respond with nuclear strikes, with the intention of launching the planet into an atomic war.

And they're just crazy enough to do it.

It's kind of like handing the school bully a box of dynamite, and then yelling at him when he wants to prove that he has it. If you don't handle the situation carefully, he's going to just drop a match into that box and see what comes out of the ensuing chaos. It's just that this time, the bully has a perpetual frown, thick glasses, bizarre hair, and has starred in a Trey Parker movie.

But hey, Happy 230th Birthday, America!

Wide World of Cable News

Before touching on the subject at hand, I've noticed that there have been a number of celebrity incidents over the week that made me shudder. To pass on the pain, I share them here (no, not pictures... I'm not that cruel). Britney Spears naked in Harper's Bazaar. Pam Anderson naked for PETA. Rush Limbaugh with Viagra. Star Jones appearing anywhere. Woody Allen calling Scarlett Johansson "sexually overwhelming."

Okay, that last one was a shudder simply because of Woody Allen. If it had been someone not creepy calling Scarlett "sexually overwhelming", the global response would have been along the lines of, "duh."

And now, on to the subject of this post. Last Sunday, Rep. John Murtha was (mis-)quoted in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel as saying some pretty harsh things about America. They then corrected themselves, letting people know that Murtha was quoting global opinion polls, so it's the global community, and not Murtha himself, that views America as "more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran." The correction was issued on Wednesday.

Well, in the fast-paced world of cable news, four days is plenty of time to take the incorrect information and blast it all over the airwaves, which talking heads at both FOXNews and MSNBC made a point of doing. In the few days that the world was running with the impression that John Murtha felt that his own nation was the largest threat to global peace, the news networks drilled that information into their viewers heads. Names were called, and Murtha was lumped up with other anti-America activists.

Since the Sun-Sentinel made their correction, one of the two news channels mentioned has issued on-air apologies, from two of their biggest personalities. On recent programs, FOXNews hosts Bill O'Reilly and Brit Hume both made the correction from the Sun-Sentinel known, and let the viewers know the details under which Murtha was actually quoted. In the meantime, Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson have been fairly close-mouthed on MSNBC.

This seems a little odd. Perhaps FOXNews, in an attempt to persuade people that they're "fair and balanced", has started offering programming to support that claim. Maybe MSNBC has been too concerned with the firing/cancelling/reorganization as it pertains to host Rita Cosby.

Or maybe the approval ratings for the President and his administration have finally sunk so low that we've entered into an alternate dimension, one where the name FOX becomes synonymous with accurate reporting without an obvious political bias.

Or maybe, just maybe, the events that caused me such disgust earlier this week are causing more than just me consternation, and everyone's a little off their game. We'll see how this one plays out.

Re-writing the rules

Once again, the American people are finding out more about Valerie Plame than we originally were meant to. Of course, when the most recent declaration concerning Ms. Plame originates from Tom Delay, it's probably a decent bet that he's simply trying to cover numerous tracks, and that truth may not actually be found within the statement.

Plame, the CIA operative outed first by Robert Novak, was the subject of an intense investigation surrounding who could have possibly leaked that information. So far, only "Scooter" Libby has been indicted, for perjury and obstruction of justice, but certain members of the administration, namely VeeP Fudd and KRove, have never officially denied that they knew about Plame's identity, and may have let some words slip.

Tom Delay recently appeared on MSNBC's Hardball, and, during a discussion regarding the New York Times leaks, he stated his feelings that leaks should never be accepted. Unless they are a leak that comes from within the Presidential administration. In which case, there wasn't a leak, because "Valerie Plame was not a CIA agent." Instead, Delay says she worked in one of the CIA offices, and, as she wasn't in the field, than that meant she wasn't a true agent.

Oddly enough, when the news first broke about Plame, it turns out that she was listed as an NOC (or non-official cover operative). NOC is the most dangerous of classifications to receive, as it basically is a statement saying "We don't admit to knowing you're there, in case your cover gets blown." In the case of an NOC, the agent is required to be active overseas for 5 consecutive years, but they do not need to live there. From the sounds of things, Ms. Plame was a fairly active agent, who may not have been in covert operations at the time (which was the contention of Libby and others), but she was still most definitely someone who could see field time.

Now, overall the law that pertains to this is a law called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is a law meant to ensure that, if someone is or has recently been involved with a covert operations. Plame was outed in 2003. It was documented that, within her cover job, she spent time overseas in 2001, 2002, and 2003. That seems to be pretty recent to me.

Basically, what this comes down to is Tom Delay once again, as he and other officials have been wont to do since they found themselves facing possible legal trouble, is rewriting history to make it fit into his particular world view. Delay believes that the Bush administration did no wrong with regards to Plame. Therefore, if there was not any possibility for wrongdoing, then the administration is quite obviously innocent.

Kinda like if I said that I couldn't possibly have eaten all of the cookies you bought, because you never bought them in the first place. Except on a much larger scale, with more serious consequences. Of course, this really doesn't surprise me. Delay's the same guy who was smiling in his mug shot. I bet it makes a lovely Christmas card.

Important issues

Last night, there was a vote on the Senate floor regarding the (once again revitalized) flag burning issue, and whether or not there should be a Constitutional amendment concerning this. Well, the "do-nothing" Congress once again did nothing, as they proceeded to debate on an issue that had a whopping 4 documented cases of abuse thus far this year.

Wow. 4 cases of flag-burning. And our Senate wants to make sure that those 4 cases (along with the huge number of 21 since 2003) are clearly outlined in our Constitution as being illegal. The vote itself didn't pass, mostly due to Democrats voting against the resolution out of a crazy idea that the issue doesn't need to be specifically outlawed within the Constitution. Instead, they suggested that maybe a federal law with clearly definied punishments might be enough.

Silly Democrats. Of course the GOP is going to turn their noses up at the concept of not making a grand, sweeping, and utterly pointless gesture. Besides, this is proof that the GOP loves this country more than the Democrats. They want to protect the flag so much that they're willing to waste ink and alter permanently (until they overrule it... look at Prohibition) a document that holds a special place in American history.

But that's not quite all. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, knows exactly how important getting flag-burning into the Constitution is. In comparison to things like the energy crisis, the continuing war in Iraq, the minimum wage, the wage hike for Congress, and the issues with affordability of health insurance, quite obviously, Sen. Hatch knows right where the flag rates. It is "the most important thing the Senate could be doing."

Wow. Was I ever off-base. Here, I was thinking that something that's happened 25 times over the last 4 years getting its own special Constitutional designation would rank somewhere below getting pictures of the Pitt-Jolie Messiah (or the Cruise-Holmes Antichrist) into our magazines.

Thanks, Sen. Hatch, for correcting me. And thank you for being willing to put your foot down on this "most important" issue.

Interviews and opinions

In the world of the reporter, how much of their personal bias are they allowed to show before it crosses a line and becomes too much? More specifically, is there or is there not an unwritten code of remaining unbiased and impartial during, at the very least, interview segments? And isn't that part of why reporters will interview people that they don't necessarily agree with?

Take, for example, a recent appearance on "FOX and Friends" by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). During the interview, questions were raised regarding the recent proposals from Gen. George Casey, a general on the ground in Iraq. Gen. Casey has a number of proposals for dealing with the situation in Iraq, and the suggestion gaining the most ground (at least, news-wise), is the idea of starting to pull troops out of Iraq later this year, with a more concentrated effort in the future. Part of the reason that this particular proposal of Casey's is getting so much attention is that it fairly closely mirrors suggestions that the Democrats in Congress have put forward, only to be met with allegations from the GOP about how they are looking to "cut-and-run".

Sen. Levin, in an interview with FOXNews host Brian Kilmeade, brought this proposal into the light again, and questioned openly whether or not the GOP would attack Casey for his suggestion of removing troops the same way that they'd attacked the Democrats. Kilmeade made the correct move initially by pointing out that the removal of troops was one of a number of different suggestions Gen. Casey made. Levin, in true politico fashion, maintained his point, driving home that the Democrats suggested a similar withdrawal plan, only to be lambasted by the GOP. The real problem, and the obvious crossing of journalistic impartiality came just after, as Kilmeade announced what the "best-case scenario" was, and that he firmly believed that Casey had as much hope as Levin, but that the fact remained that it was one of a number of different proposals presented by the general. By injecting his own opinion into the conversation, Kilmeade inadvertantly downplayed the facts as they existed. The final comment by Sen. Levin was, "I was hoping this would be an interview of me rather than an interview of you." Kilmeade snapped back, and that was that.

Again, the big question has to be whether or not journalistic impartiality still exists. Sure, the pundits and talking heads are allowed to spew whatever vehemence they want, regardless of the side they take (I admit to liking Keith Olbermann, but he's a very very angry man, and he DEFINITELY has a slant, and Bill O'Reilly is never afraid to speak his mind, even if it means being incorrect on the details), but aren't the journalists supposed to be held to a different standard? Or is this a sign of things to come, as network and cable news gets further and further from impartiality, and we're completely tied to a news organization based off of our political beliefs?

Maybe this is a good thing, really. Maybe, before long, we'll be able to see cartoon characters, who are known for being caricatures of extreme viewpoints, espousing their political statements. I, for one, would love to see a debate between Harvey Birdman and Yosemite Sam.

Set shotguns to bizarre

Some days, one article leaps out, practically screaming for attention and skewering. Some days, there's just too many items to really focus on one. Regular readers will be familiar with that, and the shotgunning philosophy of aiming at a group, hoping to get something insightful and/or funny out of one piece. Today is part of the second group.

Some days, the news is full of very serious items; items that are so serious that it takes a special level of callousness and twisted humor to find something to poke fun at. Today is not one of those days.

Today, we take aim at some of the more bizarre news stories that I was able to find. Chances are, they'll already be too ridiculous to really allow for skewering, and we'll all have learned something about ourselves at the end of the experience. That being said, climb in, buckle up, and let's get ready to take a ride.

First off, we head over to Germany, and the FIFA World Cup. Sure, I could talk about the fights that randomly break out, but come on. These are soccer fans, and these people fight faster than the Irish (unless they're Irish soccer fans, in which case, duck). Instead, let's talk about the relationship between soccer and sex. Apparently, during the World Cup, that relationship isn't quite so good. In a country where prostitution is legal in designated areas, the World Cup seems to be hurting business. Sure, there's a wealth of new potential clients, but those clients are soccer fans who are looking to get more bang for their buck by getting low-cost beer and partaking in the open air party zones. After spending large amounts of money on simply getting to the World Cup, let alone on tickets into the games themselves. This pretty much leaves them with little money to spend on prostitutes. To make matters worse, the larger concentration of traffic is keeping the regular customers away. Note to self, if I really feel the need to get a prostitute ever, head over to Germany. Not only can I see part of Europe, but I could help booster a sagging economy. Although maybe one shouldn't say "sagging" when referencing prostitutes.

Secondly, let's take a jump up to Great Britain, as a military unit was forced to demote one of its members for his poor behavior during a ceremony for the Queen. Apparently this member couldn't keep marching order and was throwing others off their stride. The culprit, who was demoted to fusilier (which is the equivalent of private), was the unit's mascot. Their pet goat. Apparently, in the UK, goats can have rank. Even more disturbing, previously the goat was actually receiving salutes, due to the fact that it outranked some of the soldiers in the unit. This has been put to a stop. Maybe America can follow suit, and demote it's military monkey.

Finally, speaking of America, we just don't like each other that much anymore. A recent study shows that Americans now have, on average, two close confidants, down from the three that we had twenty years ago. Even more to the point, 25% of us no longer have any. Of course, anyone that's had to spend any long amounts of time talking with people through a customer service position can probably get a good guess as to why people don't have as many people that they can rely on anymore. Sure, the study claims that a lot of this could be due to more time spent at work, and less time out socializing. Others claim that, while we have fewer close friends, the overall number of friends and acquaintences doesn't seem to be fluctuating much. The biggest and most important thing to take out of this study? There are certain organizations that have too much free time, and decided to study relatively random items, like the number of friends Americans have.

And thus ends our own little experiment, at least for today. We'll see if anything good actually comes out of it.

When is a law not a law?

This is something that Arlen Specter, R-Penn, is going to attempt to find out. The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be questioning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, also known as AGAG, about the "signing statements" used by the President during his term of office.

Just in case anyone has somehow escaped this concept, basically each "signing statement" is GDub signing a piece of legislation into law, but including stipulations that, because it may infringe upon his presidential powers, the law doesn't apply to him. He's used these statements on a variety of issues, including surveillance and torture. Basically, it's GDub deciding (there's THAT dangerous word again) that he likes the law fine, as long as he doesn't have to abide by it. However, as Specter has said, "Our legislation doesn't amount to anything if the president can say, 'My constitutional authority supersedes the statute.'"

By the Boston Globe's account, GDub has signed at least 750 such statements since he originally took office back in 2000. This number is higher than any previous president for memos of this type. Truth be told, this number is higher than the total number of statements signed by all U.S. presidents since Washington. So yes, there is a precedent for this type of statement, but that precedent has never before been exploited quite so often. Of course, Specter stands by the belief that GDub using so many of these statements is simply another indication of how much the administration has stepped over and above their own guidelines and authority.

With this development, it appears that some of the GOP is finally making bold statements to distance themselves from the administration that is experiencing some of the lowest approval ratings in history. The question is, is it already too late to save face?

A couple of quick hits before wrapping up. Saddam Hussein ended a hunger strike after skipping one meal. I can just imagine the exchange. "No, please no. I am on a hunger strike in honor of my murdered lawyer." (three hours later) "Give me the food now, pig dog!"

Daily Show viewers may be more cynical regarding politicians and the electoral process than people who get their news from other sources. May be? Looks like Stewart and company really need to step it up. After all, being from a television show that advertises as fake news, and yet provides more thorough and insightful coverage of stories (admittedly peppered with jokes) than the Big Three tend to do is obviously weighing on them. They seem so tired... or is that the politicians they're making fun of?

Beijing bans disco from clubs, in an effort to halt the sale of illegal drugs. Makes sense, as too many listenings to the BeeGees or Abba can certainly drive me to shoot heroin.

Ready, aim, shotgun

Another Thursday, and another pile of too many stories to focus on just one. So let's get the ball rolling, shall we?

First up, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proceeds to find out just how good his own loafers taste. In comments regarding an Islamic belief that death suffered while engaged in a jihad will result in being met in the afterlife by 72 virgins, King stated that, with regards to al-Zarqawi, "There probably are not 72 virgins in the hell he's at and if there are, they probably all look like Helen Thomas." That would be Helen Thomas, esteemed long-standing White House correspondent. While it's true that being met by 72 different versions of her would be a rather frightening experience, it would be so due to the hard-hitting questioning and reporting she'd be doing. From 72 different mouths. Needless to say, King has apologized for his remarks, and his opponent in the elections for November is jumping at the chance to make an even bigger deal out of his comments. King could've made things a bit better for himself politcally, by referencing Paris Hilton instead of Helen Thomas. Heck, he might've even brought in a youth vote, for showing that he's "hip". By the same token, nobody believes in a Paris Hilton virgin, even if you subtract 72 from the total number she's slept with.

Second up, poor Rick Santorum, and poor FOXNews. The only thing they can seem to do is create controversy for each other, and broadcast completely false information over the cable channel. Namely, Ricky was on FOXNews recently, and he stated that, contrary to every single report that's been released, Iraq DID have WMD's, and that these were found. Shortly after that statement, the Defense Department debunked the entire thing, leaving Santorum a bit red-faced. Meanwhile, FOXNews has continued to air the story as though it's true, going so far as to assert that there's a conspiracy involving the US, Russia, France, and China. Of course, this is also the network (and the story) that had Santorum showing "classified documents." Which, if it were true, could net severe sentences for all the laws broken. Maybe Ricky should stick to stumping for street vendors with "English Only" signs. At least that piece of paper can't net him any legal trouble.

Third, in a valiant effort to save the penny from extinction, VirginMobile has gotten in touch with someone who can feel the penny's pain. Kevin Federline, who would maybe have two pennies to rub together if it weren't for being better known as Mr. Britney Spears, has come out in support of the cent, which, oddly enough, now costs more than 1 cent to produce. He joins the likes of Darryl Hannah and Angelina Jolie in supporting the little copper guy. Unlike the other two mentioned, KFed actually has a vested interest in keeping the penny around. He probably needs to collect all the change he gets in a big jar, just to take it to the bank and have spending money for the week. Now if only he had two brain cells to rub together. Wait, that's a little incorrect. If only he and Britney combined had two brain cells to rub together...

And finally, in another round of being completely out of touch, an editor for the Wall Street Journal has made it clear that he believes that gay marriage will lead to people marrying domestic animals. This is, of course, coming from the story out of India about a woman marrying a snake. Stephen Colbert took the story apart in his own way, and I harbor no foolish notions that I can even approach Colbert's level when it comes to the shredding of the ridiculous. Still, I can't help myself. This editor believes that men marrying men and women marrying women will lead to people marrying dogs, or cats? Sure, looking Biblically, we see that a snake was used as the ultimate instrument of temptation during the time in the Garden of Eden, but that doesn't mean that either Adam or Eve was looking to marry it. There are just too many instances of animals being horribly evil (the Serpent in the Garden, the dog who "talked" to the Son of Sam, Garfield), whereas it's hard to imagine gays (Harvey Fierstein, Ellen DeGeneres, Rosie O'Donnell) as being really all that bad. Except for that last one. She's a bit out there.

Why doesn't Europe like us?

Maybe it's because, when GDub is in Austria for a press conference, he claims that Europeans didn't take the attacks of 9/11 seriously enough. In his words, "for Europe, September the 11th was a moment; for us it was a change of thinking." Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a huge outpouring of support from the European community after the attacks? And didn't the nature of the attack and the cities struck cause the global community to think differently? Wasn't there a large amount of martial support drummed up to help our cause in Afghanistan, as we sought the man who orchestrated the whole mess?

But, as he has shown so many times in the past, GDub doesn't view Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden as being truly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He views the ruling powers of Iraq. He acknowledges that people disagree with his decisions concerning Iraq, but also vows to remain steadfast, because he is "not going to forget (the lessons of 9/11)."

He even goes so far as to say that "Some people say, It’s OK to condemn people to tyranny." This sounds like he's saying that, if you disagree with him, you believe that allowing others to live in tyrannical nations is perfectly acceptable. He goes on to say that, while America is tough on terror (and nothing could be tougher than abandoning pursuit of the actual guilty party to chase after a family grudge), we're helping provide food in Africa. That we're devoting more money than ever to AIDS research. Nevermind that, as a percentage of the GNP, the amount we spend on AIDS research and helping to curtail starvation are mere pittances compared to what some other countries spend.

Almost makes you wonder if he'll dance the same dance after he's declared war on Iran. And North Korea.

To think. As children, anyone who would so adamantly follow the same course of action while ignoring their peers would be ostracized from the community they exist in. And our President wonders why our country is currently facing the same fate?

Absolutely fabulous!

In light of the past couple of posts, I felt that I needed a bit of a sedative. And some more calming and, possibly, laugh-provoking material in the news.

Thank goodness for that Advocate. Overall, the site provides a pretty good service, and they do a very good job of addressing the concerns that face the gay community. For example, they take the time to point out that the military still considers homosexuality to be a mental disorder, 30 years after mental health professionals realized that such a classification was wrong. They talk with Kevin Aviance, the man who was unfortunately horrendously beaten for the simple fact that he was a gay man who performed as a woman.

And then, every once in a while, they feel the need to lighten up. And they deliver hard-hitting stories, such as "How Gay is Superman?" Not that they're really saying that the Man of Steel is gay. More to the point, the article talks about how a lot of the things that affect gay culture definitely affect superheroes in the comicbooks. From secret identities, complete with a fear of being "outed", to overall persecution experienced by characters such as the XMen, the article points out similarities between supers and homosexuals, while also discussing why homosexuals may find themselves drawn to the comics in the first place.

But I think they missed a golden opportunity. Let's not focus on the similarities between the two cultures. Let's instead look at the possibilities of the two cultures being a lot more closely linked than previously believed. If you look merely at the costumes that the supers wear, there's already an indication that maybe, like professional wrestling, the characters are a bit more homoerotic than the majority of fans may want to believe. After all, there is a fairly unhealthy fascination with tights and spandex. It almost makes you wonder how many readers would bat eyes if Aquaman showed up in fishnet stockings (pun semi-intended), or if Thor put on lipstick before swinging his hammer. Nevermind that in many cases, most notably Batman, the most meaningful relationship that these heroes have with other people is with a sidekick, who is, generally, a younger, fitter version of themselves. And the entire concept of running around as a vigilante wearing a cape? Almost sounds like something you could see on FOX during sweeps week.

I mean, come on, Advocate. If you're going to ask how gay Superman is, at least take the steps to point out how many gay tendencies he, and, for that matter, his ilk, possess. Plain and simple, no man should ever wear that particular shade of blue, while also wearing bright red briefs.

And Supes? The boots are a little much.

Auto focus

Tony Snow has already made quite a mark during his short tenure as Press Secretary for the White House. Unfortunately, that mark hasn't quite been the positive one that the administration must have been hoping for.

Less than one week after declaring that 2,500 dead American soliders in Iraq were "a number", Snow appeared on FOXNews, and decided to criticize the media for the amount of attention being paid to the two soldiers who have gone missing. Two soldiers who may or may not have been kidnapped by groups tied to al Qaeda. Two soldiers who, if they are found unharmed, will have miraculously escaped being more contributions to the growing "number".

American troops are combing the area in an attempt to find these troops. The concept of never leaving anyone behind, no matter the personal cost, is apparent in this situation, tragic as it is. Meanwhile, our mouthpiece for the current administration is stating that we are focusing too much on these missing Americans, and not enough on what has happened since Zarqawi was found dead. This is the same man who has stated, "Most people realize simply pulling out would be an absolute unmitigated disaster."

Unfortunately, on this point, Tony Snow is 100% correct. It would be a disaster for us to pull our troops out at this point, because of the environment that we've created. An environment that, instead of curtailing the number of insurgents, simply breeds higher numbers, with more desire to overthrow those they view as infidels.

And through it all, we're focusing too much on missing soldiers. Truth be told, we can't focus enough on those missing soldiers until they've been found, and a resolution to their situation is provided.

More than a number

Yesterday, in response to the 2,500 American death in the ongoing war in Iraq, Congress held a moment of silence. A moment to look back and absorb the huge toll that this ongoing conflict is placing upon our country and our people, not to mention the Iraqis. A moment to reflect on all the other moments where they've been silent about ending the conflict.

A moment was more consideration than was given by the White House, as Press Secretary Tony Snow referred to the report of 2,500 by saying, "It's a number."

Senator Larry Reid took the moral and political high ground by giving a speech pointing out exactly how wrong it is to look at 2,500 as "a number." And he's right, because each and every single one of those numbers is a person, who has left behind a grieving family. While there are families of the deceased who still support the war effort, there are also families who are adamantly against the ongoing battle.

Meanwhile, the battle rages on, both in Iraq, and in Washington D.C. The insurgency in Iraq hasn't lost steam, and a resolution that looks at planning a timetable for removing the troops has been handily rejected, in language that both praises the troops, and abandons them to an even longer conflict with no end in sight. Not to say that pulling the troops out of the Middle East at this point is the right decision at all. After all, we have created the mess that is currently been dealt with over there, and embroiled ourselves into what, by many accounts, is a civil war. Ultimately, given that this is OUR mess, we need to clean it up, and simply pulling the soldiers out of the area won't come close to accomplishing this.

Still, this is a conflict where there will ultimately be no winners, only hundreds upon thousands of losers. There are reasons why there are people who steadfastly support the troops, but refuse to support the war. There are reasons why there are people who "Love my country, but fear my government." There are reasons why the support for the war and for the administration that caused it are spiralling downwards.

Congress observed a moment of silence for the 2,500. The same moment of silence when the war began.

And, despite what Tony Snow says, 2,500 is more than a number. So very much more.

Is it support?

Ann Coulter has recently been all over the television, making appearances in support of her newest book. She is someone who has furthered the partisan divide in the country with her rhetoric, and who inspires hate mail and fervent attacks from any that are opposed to her views. Truth be told, Coulter relishes the ability to inspire such hatred, standing firmly in the belief that, well, it's still publicity. And she may have found herself a strange new bedfellow in this endeavor.

NBC.

Coulter is no stranger to channels like FOXNews, networks with a blatant political slant and agenda. But she has recently appeared a few times on NBC programs, and the nature of the appearances seems a little suspect. For example, when she was on the Today Show, Matt Lauer at least called her on the carpet regarding her statements from the book "Godless", specifically her statements about the 9/11 widows who have weighed into the political arena. However, when it became blatantly obvious that Coulter was not going to actually answer his questions, but was merely set to spew more rhetoric and vitriol, it became obvious that the interview could not continue. After that sort of a reaction, and the response it provoked from viewers, that should have been the last time Coulter appeared on NBC, at least until she drastically changed her tune. After all, Michael Moore is held accountable for what he says during interviews, and, if he acts like a petulant child on television, he is treated like a petulant child.

And yet, a little over a week later, Coulter makes her triumphant return to NBC, this time on The Tonight Show, in a show that also featured George Carlin as a guest. However, instead of seeing the verbal fisticuffs one could expect from such a pairing (possibly resulting in the loss of some jaw tissue from Jay Leno), the overall confrontation was, by all accounts, incredibly bland. Bland enough that there is wonder if, perhaps, NBC told Carlin that he needed to be above and beyond his best behavior, and that he had to play nice. Given that, even with Leno at the helm, The Tonight Show can have a huge impact on what happens in someone's career, Carlin may have felt obliged to play it safe. Either that, or he was remembering the seven words you can't say on television, coupled with the increase in cost for indecency fines, and decided to simply bite his tongue for the betterment of his wallet.

As stated above, Coulter's return to NBC was triumphant, and for a couple of reasons. The first being the response she received upon being announced. This woman who inspires such hatred, and who claims to wear the "liberal's contempt like a badge of honor" is greated with typical Tonight Show exuberance, and then is set across from Leno, who is well-known for throwing nothing but Nerf balls for questions, all the while allowing the guest to talk about whatever they actually want to put before a national audience.

And this is where the question of support has to come in. Is it enough to simply state a disapproval for the words and views of someone, be it a regular network personality or a guest? Or is the simple fact of a continued access to a media outlet a silent acceptance and approval of what they say?

I'm not going to claim that Coulter doesn't have a right to say whatever she believes. After all, if she believes that angels are going to descend from heaven and save the US soccer team from World Cup elimination, she can say that all she wants. It's part of free speech, something I very adamantly support. But just because she has a right to say what she wants, that does not mean that she has the right to say it wherever she wants, or that any organization where she chooses to make her statements heard is not silently accepting and agreeing with her. Yes, I believe that Ann Coulter is a vile, hate-filled woman, who spews rhetoric and vitriol in an attempt to divide classes, political philosphies, and anything else she can get her hands on, in a simple attempt to gather more money for herself through her book sales. I also believe that, through allowing her to appear, NBC is just as subject to the hate mail that Coulter has inspired, so long as she continues to appear on their programs.

Ultimately, we can only wait until Conan takes over the Tonight Show. "In the year 2000..."

Wednesday shotgunning

Another sampler platter of news stories. Nothing today really leapt out as being worthy of an entire post, but a few things definitely needed commentary.

First up? Eva Longoria, of Desperate Housewives and giant MAXIM covers is writing a book. You read correctly... she's writing a book. Of course, as can be expected from someone who talks quite openly (and often) about her love for lovin', the book will be a romance novel. Fact of the matter is that, unfortunately, she and the rest of her television counterparts are so popular (across gender lines, for different reasons), that she could drool onto a keyboard, print 150 pages, slap her name on it, and people would by it. Given that this IS Ms. Longoria, maybe I shouldn't have been so hasty in giving away the plot.

Second up? A retired farmer in Wisconsin wants to set up a memorial. On his farm. To Hitler. Ted Junker is attempting to "clear up inaccuracies about the war and Hitler's role in it." Inaccuracies like the conquest of other nations? The systematic genocide of multiple people? The one-testicle lunacy? Basically, Junker doesn't really hold Hitler responsible. Looking back at his own military history, you can kind of see why. He was a former member of the Waffen-SS, that special branch of the SS that engaged in combat alongside the regular German army. Guess brainwashing lasts a lot longer than people originally believed. You want to know what Hitler was like, and how responsible he was? Watch Triumph of the Will and you'll get a good, disturbing idea.

Third up? Congress has proven once again how much they suffer. In a bold move, they blocked a vote being pushed for by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah concerning a cost of living increase. And if the vote hadn't been blocked? Why, then the $3,300 more per year paid out to our congresspeople would have actually been open to debate, and, possibly, a vote to keep it from taking effect. This is, of course, at a time where the rest of the nation is facing joblessness and lower wages. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all get automatic raises, unless we voted to see the topic discussed? If that happened, though, then there wouldn't be any perks to being a politician, aside from the six-figure salary, the bribes, the money for speaking engagements, and the ability to wield legislative power over the voters, possibly even causing positive change in the world. Nope. No perks at all.

Fourth up? In Michael Jackson's world, if you record a song for charity, you get paid. While there haven't actually been any songs released for charitable purposes by Jacko since "We Are the World", he was supposedly working on a couple of different ones, to help victims of 9/11, Katrina, starvation, freaky pop stars, etc. In the Jackson world view, all proceeds from the sale of the CDs would go to the charities. All proceeds from radio sales, or from others looking at copyrights and licensing, would go to Jackson. Pretty much confirms that he is somewhere out in orbit with regards to his views.

Finally up? Apparently Keith Olbermann and Rita Cosby, both of MSNBC, don't like each other much. Given that Olbermann doesn't have much of a reputation for either pulling punches or playing nice, this should really come as no big shock. Let's hope that Dan Abrams, the new MSNBC boss, finds a way to keep things as amicable as possible.

A tale of two spouses

One is shied away from, by even some of their most stringent supporters. One is embraced openly.

One cannot buy new friends, even when things appear to be righting themselves. One has a perception around them that they can do no wrong.

One is President of the United States. One is the First Lady.

In the middle of one of the more turbulent moments in history, with civil wars threatening to break out globally, weather disasters creeping through the jetstreams, and politics threatening to fall apart along partisan lines, GDub and his wife are treated very differently. Just one example of this is on the campaign trail, where GDub is asked to stay away, yet Laura is invited quicker than you can say "bribery scandal".

Looking at the legacy of George, it's not much of a surprise. This is the man who stated beyond the shadow of a doubt on May 1, 2003 that we had reached Mission Accomplished in Iraq doesn't have any answers as to why we are still trying to reach a conclusion to our involvement in Iraq. Even the recent death of al-Zarqawi hasn't really helped his poll numbers. If anything, it's kept them from falling too much lower, as his administration seems to be falling around his ears and he's been creating more division in this country than has been seen in decades. After all, this is the man whose war has surpassed Vietnam for the most reviled combat exercise in American history. This is also the man who seems reluctant to admit to mistakes, and to actually follow through with any harsh language and actions, especially with regards to those that helped put him into office in the first place. And yet, when surrounded by liars, cheats, and criminals, the image, justly or not, is going to rub off.

In the meantime, Laura has miraculously distanced herself from even her own husband. GOP members up for election this year are actually proud to have her on the campaign trail, stumping for them. Her name attached to a candidate can bring in large sums of campaign money. The overall commentary about the First Lady is that she's just "a nice person", and that she's not trying to run the country.

And that may be where some of the difference lies, and definitely where the difference between Laura and the previous First Lady lie. George strikes portions of the country (larger and larger portions with each passing week, if you believe the pollsters) as a child who has stuck his hand too far into the cookie jar, and has bitten off far more than he can chew. He flounders in the face of true leadership, preferring to espouse catchphrases and hold onto beliefs that have been proven incorrect, simply because they are convenient to repeat. Laura seems content to play the stereotypical First Lady role, of being the person who chooses the decorations for the White House, and plays no part in politics, except for pet projects that can respond better to a softer, more feminine angle (i.e. Nancy Reagan and the "Just Say No" campaign). Meanwhile, Hilary kept putting her face into legislation, and made it crystal clear that she was just as interested in running the country as Bill was. It should have come as no surprise that Hilary ran for Senate, and is toying with a Presidential run.

Twenty years ago, Ronald Reagan was referred to as the Teflon President, because nothing ever really stuck to him or his reputation. Perhaps the American people should start referring to Laura Bush in a similar light. She has miraculously side-stepped all the bad feelings and discontent aimed at her husband, and emerged as someone who can draw support and positive thoughts towards the GOP candidates.

And, in light of all that George has put this country through, that is no small feat.

This just in...

A FOXNews correspondent connects with the rest of the world, and takes a stance that can't be immediately viewed as pro-convervativism and pro-right agendas.

In an interview being conducted by Shirley Phelps-Rogers, one of the zealots behind the Westboro Baptist Church and their crusade to protest as many funerals for soldiers as possible, under the despicable banner of "God Hates Fags", Julie Banderas of FOXNews got into a yelling argument. Ms. Banderas decided that any group that is thankful for events such as the roadside bombings of our troops in Iraq, or the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 is a group that needs people to stand up against it.

For anyone that's miraculously avoided reference to this church since it's inception, just want to throw a little out there to bring everyone up to speed. They view each and every death of an American soldier as a little blessing from God, as punishment for American's "cozying up to and protecting homosexuals". Funny, as a country that is currently pretty dead-set against allowing gays to have equal rights, it doesn't really look like we're being all that friendly. But reality and the WBC quite obviously have never met. And, while Phelps-Rogers was expounding about how the military will be "always faithful to the fags", Banderas started pointing out exactly how disgusting and depraved the message actually was. In fact, Banderas went so far as to state that the WBC was "not a real church" and that the only thing the group preaches is hatred.

It's odd to think that the network which has brought us Bill O'Reilly could also bring us someone just as willing to stand up quite so readily against groups like this. Of course, by even giving them airtime, FOXNews ran the risk of validating their message. Thank goodness that Julie Banderas threw her professionalism aside for a moment to speak her true feelings, and attack this establishment which does nothing but spread hatred and intolerance.

Maybe she's working on getting a job with MSNBC.

The ratings game

In the world of entertainment and media, ratings are an important factor, causing either an intensified interest or acting as a warning label allowing people to shy away from something they may not like.

Take, for example, the recent advent of the "AO" rating for video games. This rating was spurred on, largely, because of the "Hot Coffee" patch to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. The "AO" rating, for those that may have been secluded away from learning about these things, is for "Adults Only", and includes the signifier 18+. It's basically an NC-17 for video games, where M for Mature is the industry's R. Now, GTA already had an M rating, due to the content, and the extreme levels of violence contained within. Under the M=R theory, nobody under 17 could purchase the game, and be exposed to this material. Understand that this is all theory, much the same way as the theory that nobody under 17 is watching R rated films. Well, once critics learned that there was a (unlockable, and not easily so) sex scene contained within the game, well, that got them up in arms and they panicked, crying out in the dark for the AO rating to be created and slapped all over the GTA title. Lesson learned? Sex is far more damaging to the psyche than excessive random violence.

But where has that led us? Well, it's led us right to the inevitable end, where there are now companies working on creating pornographic video games. Now, given that the average video game customer is a 25-year old male, porn games seem completely logical. The biggest reason why there are discussions about this? Pornographers have always been searching for new media to get their fingers into, and, by creating the Adults Only category of video games, they now have an opening to pry into the realm of video games. If the rating had stuck with the "Mature" label, the likelihood of this avenue being pursued isn't as high, because there would be too much risk involved towards censorship and decency laws. As long as they can market the product to Adults Only, these things have been circumvented, and the industry has found a new pie to nibble at for awhile.

But I mentioned the flip side, where certain ratings are not welcomed, but reviled. This, of course, varies from project to project, based on content. There is a history of films not receiving ratings because they were too graphic in content for one rating, and felt that the next higher rating would keep audiences away. The movie Facing the Giants, due out this fall, is part of that category. The odd thing is that Facing the Giants is upset that it has been plastered with a PG rating.

PG is the rating for "Parental Guidance suggested", which means that parents may not want their kids to see it, dependant upon how they feel discussing the issues. It's still only "PG", so it's not like their going to be stepping into territory better suited for teenagers than for younger children. It's also a football movie, so there may be some curiousity as to how it received anything other than a heartwarming and family-friendly "G". Turns out, the MPAA feels that large amounts of overt religious messaging is something that parents may want to know about in advance, the same way as they would probably be curious if there was foul language or sexual content. That's right, folks. Facing the Giants has, by some accounts, a large amount of overt Christian messaging, and that alone caused the MPAA to throw the PG rating onto the film. Naturally, the film's producers are upset, and feeling that they are being lumped in with sex and depravity. Nevermind that, if the religion that was being espoused in the film was anything other than Christianity, there would be a clamor for warning labels and, quite possibly, anger if it didn't receive at least a PG rating. Seems fair that anything that broaches such a sensitive subject as openly as this film is purported to do contain a notice to give parents what basically amounts to a "heads-up", and allow them to decide if the content is suitable for their children.

Then again, it may just be me, but I happen to stand firmly by the belief that all media should be considered PG. It might actually cause parents to spend some time with their families, as opposed to using the television as a babysitter.

But then there'd be no need for BabyFirstTV. Not that that's a bad thing, really.

Is it the message?

Another shot-gun approach to the news, partially prompted by being unable to access my own site yesterday.

Item One, news out of Indonesia. Turns out that the leaders of the island nation have asked "Gin" Rummy to tone it down a bit. Rather than push U.S. foreign policy and security beliefs down the throats of other nations, those wacky Indonesians think that it may just be better for the States (also known as the Boss Hogg of the planet) to allow our allies to make their own decisions. They also seem to believe that if we continue to be "overinsistent", we may damage even further the way the rest of the world views us. And here I was, thinking that we couldn't possibly have a worse global reputation than we already do. What's next? Are the Indonesians going to suggest that we allow other nations to elect their officials in their own way? Wacky. Just wacky.

Item Two, news from the White House. Immigrants coming to this country need to, by GDub's recent declaration, adopt American values, and learn our national language. That's all well and good, except shortly after his little announcement, GDub was greeting a group of prospective citizens and, even though their instructor was teaching them in English, Georgie decided it would be most prudent to speak to them in their native Spanish. Thank goodness we're not giving any potential immigrants mixed messages. I'd like to think that we save those for our citizens. Of course, with the Border Patrol, this may have been one of the Great Decider's final opportunities to confuse and misdirect immigrants, so his hand may have been forced.

Item Three, news from China. The DaVinci Code takes another blow to its box office potential, just when you thought that all the damage possible was dealt out by the 1-2 punch of Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Apparently the Chinese, in a bold move proving that they are just as discriminating in their cinematic tastes as India, and far more discerning than the Americans, have pulled the Dan Brown picture from their screens. Of course, people are wondering if this is in response to complaints from Chinese Christians. Some are wondering if the government line of "opening up the theaters for locally produced films" is legit, or if it that's just a song and dance, with Over the Hedge hitting the Sino-plex on Friday. It could be either of those things. It could also be that the Chinese government has decided that it doesn't need to have an outlet for American garbage anymore, and pulled the plug on the Code because it's a bad film.

And finally, Item Four, news from all over the place. Ann Coulter, a name that is cursed the world over, and even in some alternate dimensions, has of course been all over the news recently, for the new book that she put out. Since the release of the book, aside from the obligatory appearances on FOXNews (because when you pander to the right, you REALLY pander to the right), she's also gotten her shots in interviews with Matt Lauer and Tucker Carlson. I'm sure there's been more, but, blessedly, I've missed them. Well, Lauer and Carlson both got completely run over by her, and weren't really able to take her to task. Who can we look to in this dark time? Well, there's always Jon Stewart, but he'll generally pull some punches when dealing with incredibly controversial subjects due to the nature of being on Comedy Central (thankfully, Stewart abandons the gloves when he appears on someone else's show). So where do we look? Well, hey, there's MSNBC. And there's Keith Olbermann. Who is quickly becoming my news hero... go here to see the video of yet another scathing Olbermann report.

Now, as Blogger's been kinda temperamental the last couple of days, I'm putting this one to bed. Y'know, tacking it to a wall and framing it for your viewing discretion. And yes, by tempermental, I mean Blogger's been acting like some of my exes. Just goes to show that God does exist. And He doesn't prove it by saving people from lions, He proves it by reincarnating different events into new forms.

Here's hoping that Coulter's new form at some point is a flaming bag of poo. Unless she's already there.

Forget the Tigers and Bears....

The age-old battle between lions and Christians received another entry Sunday evening, in a place people probably didn't expect it. As it turns out, a man at the Kiev zoo decided that he would put his faith where his mouth was, declared, "God will save me, if he exists", and lowered himself by rope into an enclosure full of lions. He then removed his shoes, approached the big cats, and was promptly mauled by a lioness, who quickly severed the man's carotid artery. Of course, this was at a time where there was a large number of visitor's to the zoo, so, undoubtedly, a decent number of impressionable people must have witnessed this act.

Does this proof the lack of existence for the big G? I really don't think so. I think this does prove that perhaps entering into a dangerous environment armed only with faith may not be the best course of action.

It also makes me wonder if this could be a precursor. Will we see someone tickling a bear, swearing that the Lord will not only protect them, but make the bear laugh? Will someone get bitten by a dozen copperheads, and throw their faith into the concept that Jesus is the only antivenin they need? And what about playing a game of live-action "Frogger" across the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, hoping that God will cause the cars barreling down towards you to swerve ever so slightly past you, leaving you unscathed and somehow not disturbing the delicate airflow that keeps them from flipping over?

This is not proof of a lack of God's existence. This is proof that, when putting yourself into a situation where survival is questionable, maybe you'd be better served by putting your faith in a rifle.

After all, God doesn't have a long track record of saving those too stupid to save themselves.

Like a Rhinestone Agenda

Over the weekend, Pres. Decider made a strong decision, one that could cause echoes throughout the political world.

He decided that he wanted to push forward the proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

There are so many reasons why this tweaks brains nationwide. First off, should the Constitution (theoretically the highest law in the land) be worrying itself with things like marriage of any sort? Isn't it supposed to be more of a handbook for the government itself, hence the obliteration of Prohibition? I mean, yes, tell us about our freedoms, tell us who gets the right to vote, but don't tell us who should be married.

Secondly, this is merely an issue because some of the more extreme religious zealots that this country has (and holds dear) want it to be an issue. They are basically saying "You need us more than we need you, and we want you to push these religious issues." In other words, if the GOP doesn't at least make an effort to get this issue on the table, then a large portion of their voting bank is threatening to turn their support away from them. We've discussed this and the likelihood of it happening before, and we know the result of the GOP making promises to followthrough on these topics. Of course, when you have people stumping on the campaign trail and declaring that the US is a "Christian nation", as they recently did in Texas. Of course this is going to bring the evangelical's even more firmly into the GOP pocket, and widen the "religion gap" with regards to voting practices.

Thirdly, you almost have to wonder if GDub is simply going through the motions of a lame-duck president, or if he's desperately trying to improve not only his own approval ratings, but the approval ratings of his constituents, many of whom are being left with a bag of flaming debris after his presidency. If so, maybe he needs to keep a better eye on what his friends are telling the press regarding the issues that he's trying to push forward. One of GDub's old friends, under requests for anonymity, was quoted in NEWSWEEK as saying, "I think it was purely political. I don't think he gives a S--T about it." This contradicts WH aides, but when you look at which group is being paid to toe the party line, you've gotta wonder a bit.

Finally, is there really that much of a clamor against gay marriage that we need to put on the November ballot a proposed Constitutional amendment to keep Adam and Steve from becoming man and man? I certainly hope not, and, with the political and religious climate perking up around the country, I'm not entirely sure how much support a ballot item like this could possibly receive. Of course, I could be horribly wrong, and we could all wake up in November with the knowledge that gay marriage is gone, obliterated from our consciousness, a mere hallucination brought on by far too much drug abuse during the 60s.

I firmly believe that there is no call for such an amendment. While faith in this country (that's faith with a little "f", not the kind that inspires church visits and confessions) has been eroding bit by bit over the past decade, I don't want to think that we've gotten to a point where we are so infused with our own zealotry that we make laws stating not only who can get married to who, but how many children they can have, and whether or not they will learn evolution or creationism in school. I refuse to accept that we are in such a darkened age of acceptance that we are more willing to persecute someone for following Jesus differently than we do, than we are to listen and attempt to understand their perspective.

And if I'm wrong, I'm moving to Ireland. At least they're honest about their attempts to kill each other.

Religious fervor

Welcome to a "faith-based nation". Whether or not people want to admit it, religion is playing a larger and larger part in our day-to-day lives as Americans, just as it is the world over. Evidence of this is popping up all over the place, with various forms of Christianity taking the forefront, and any other form of religious expression being relegated to a backroom, where people don't ask or tell about it.

The first example of this is the "Faith Nights" being held at minor-league baseball parks. These promotions are causing spikes in attendance, and are bringing out something other than just a baseball game for those of the flock. Everything ranging from Christian musical acts to bobbleheads of figures from the Bible (excepting, of course, Big J) are being tied into a world that formerly was known as the location of soon-to-be and has-been big leaguers and semi-reasonably priced beer. Given the willingness that athletes themselves have shown towards talking about their faith, these promotions are really not that different from any other promotion that's thrown together. As these stadiums look at things, anything that gets butts in the seats is good, and Faith Nights are driving attendances up.

But there's always a flip-side to the fervor, and this flip-side is manifest in the new video game slated for an October 2006 release: Left Behind: Eternal Forces. This is a game where some of the worst aspects of the 9/11 attacks (religious fundamentalism, bodies strewn about, smoke filling vision) are praised, as opposed to decried. The big difference seems to be that the proponents of all these things are the "heros" portrayed in the Left Behind world, the conservative Evangelicals, as those that are left after the rapture work on converting the country into a theocracy to defend against the Anti-christ. And hey, if the people won't convert, well, then they'll quite obviously have to die, because they're heretics and they are standing in the way of the true glory of the Lord. And this "game" is being marketed through churches, and praised by religious leaders like Rick Warren. The very notion that this game exists is sickening, and the way that it co-opts some of the most visceral parts of 9/11, and then twists them to their own purposes should cause an enormous public outcry. Unfortunately, there's just as high of a chance that those that will rise up to rail against the game are merely heretics in and of themselves, and examples of why the game is needed to "educate the faithful" (no, nobody's said that specifically as of yet, but I'm waiting for it).

Finally, in a world where there is no apologies made if you've reached enough celebrity that you practically have a cult surrounding you and your words, Bill O'Reilly has choked on his hip, as Keith Olbermann of MSNBC recently pointed out during his program. Olbermann, some of you may remember, was one of the most vehement of news anchors shortly after the Hurricane Katrina FEMA collapse, and he recently trained his eye towards O'Reilly for the huge mistake of not checking full facts before announcing his news. This particular instance that Olbermann was referring to is related to O'Reilly's (glaringly) incorrect statements regarding what happened at Malmedy during WWII. As Olbermann points out, the issue is not simply that O'Reilly was so horridly incorrect twice (both times, while trying to rip apart statements made by Gen. Wesley Clark), but that FOXNews corrected the transcript in an attempt to cover his error, and that, when confronted by a viewer, O'Reilly did nothing to apologize, he merely changed his wording ever so slightly, and then moved on as though he had done nothing wrong. A partial transcript and full video can be found here...

This type of refusal to back down, showcased by the Left Behind people and by Bill O'Reilly, is part of what makes me afraid that eventually the "Faith Nights" are going to lead minor-league baseball fans down a similar path. Thankfully, the stadiums will still have things like "Nickel Beer Night" and foam bat giveaways to keep things in perspective. Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to grab myself a foam bat and take it on a road trip. I think Mr. O'Reilly could use a little perspective...

Comparing apples to orchards

In attempts to curtail how quickly the general public is throwing their support away from the war, the NeoCons and their talking heads have decided to take an entirely new tactic. Let's point out just how much safer Iraq (a country) is than Washington, D.C. (a city).

When you look at the rates of violent deaths for those two areas, yes, techinically Iraq would be safer, clocking in at 27.51 civilian deaths per 100,000, compared to DC's 35.8. But, as mentioned, these figures, while valid, do not compare with each other, simply due to the scope. Looking just at national capitals, Baghdad ranks at 95 per 100,000. Suddenly the comparison doesn't look so good. If we go nation-vs-nation, then the U.S. sits with 5.5, and again, the NeoCon rhetoric doesn't look quite so good.

But we don't want to poke too large of a hole into their theory, so we'll leave it at nation-vs-capital. But let's take a moment to include the soldiers in Iraq, who are not Iraqi citizens. If you count their deaths, that brings the violent death rate in Iraq up to somewhere in the vicinity of 128 per 100,000.

In other words, no, Iraq is by no means safer than Washington D.C., or anywhere else in the nation. However, this is the message that is currently being pumped out. And, even more frightening, this is the message that people are going to mindlessly believe, the same way that they've believed just about everything else espoused by Rush and his cronies.

Even when they contradict themselves.