Bill O! Shit!

Bill O'Reilly managed to apologize only to then find something else. He said that she used the USDA banner to talk politics. That I will agree with him. Under the Hatch Act, as a political appointee, she cannot make political statements in public as a representative of the government.

I'd like to point out his rebuttal to Rachel Maddow: No, Bill. The station you work for is really that lame and stupid. And just because Fox leads in the ratings doesn't mean they're smarter. It just means Fox cornered the market on conservative TV viewers. Most of these viewers, I'm not saying all, seem to have no idea what journalism is. Or even integrity. I consider anybody that takes time - irregularly, let alone habitually - to cite their ratings, good fortune and success to be a vain, egotistical shit. It's a vice that is unbecoming, provincial and without class.

Seriously, countering someone's argument by stating that his channel leads the ratings as proof that the other is wrong is pure foolishness. Since when did higher ratings equal better programming? Look how many people watch reality TV shows! Are they the bastion of television excellence or a three ring circus? Does Bill's head still fit through the door or have they built his studio around him?

Just facts and all the facts!

After a few days of brutality in the media, Shirley Sherrod has made the truth known.

A little recap. Two days ago, Conservative Commentator Andrew Breitbart released a video clip of Shirley Sherrod, a USDA agent in charge of rural development in Georgia, saying that she would not help a poor white farmer. This is what was said in the clip of a larger speech that was delivered March 27 as it was posted on Fox News:

You know, the first time I was faced with helping a white farmer save his farm. He took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn't know, while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.

I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland. And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land, so I didn't give him the full force of what I could do.

So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of the training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him.

It was big news after that! Everyone ran with the story. But there were those who did dig deeper. Unfortunately, many did not. The Department of Agriculture was one and the NAACP was another.

The Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said in response to the tape:

There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person... We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously.

The NAACP stated

Racism is about the abuse of power. Ms. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race. We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers. Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

All to make sure that we all knew they were against the actions of this Georgia woman. Tuesday, she was called three times by Secretary Vilsack asking for her resignation. While she was on the road form West Point, Georgia, she was told by the White House to resign. It was said that they wanted her to resign before Glenn Beck aired later that day. The White House has denied that they had anything to do with pressuring her to resign.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch - er, farm that is - the Spooner Family were willing to tell everyone that would listen that Shirley Sherrod was a great lady. She had helped them keep their farm decades ago and were still friends with her.

So, when I was watching The O'Reilly Factor last night, after the statements, the resignation and the Spooner Family's take on the past, why did Bill O'Reilly not mention the Spooners? He went with the clip as it was. He did not take a deeper look into it as he claims to do. Guess he only does that when it's white men and/or Republicans. Later, he argued that the lack of Black Panther coverage on the other networks meant they had less journalistic integrity. Apparently, they all have blinders on just not for the same stories.

But regardless of how hypocritical Bill O'Reily is, the clip in its entirety and the full context of her remarks have been released.

...if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him ... but that lawyer failed to help ... I did not discriminate against [the farmer]. And, in fact, I went all out to frantically look for a lawyer at the last minute because the first lawyer we went to was not doing anything to really help him. In fact, that lawyer suggested they should just let the farm go. The second attorney [was able to help the farmer] file Chapter 11 bankruptcy to help the family stay on the farm.

Working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who haven't. They could be black, they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to help poor people - those who don't have access the way others have.

The full video is now up for viewing on the NAACP's website.



The NAACP retracted their previous statement and has stated

With regard to the initial media coverage of the resignation of USDA Official Shirley Sherrod, we have come to the conclusion we were snookered by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart into believing she had harmed white farmers because of racial bias ... Having reviewed the full tape, spoken to Ms. Sherrod, and most importantly heard the testimony of the white farmers mentioned in this story, we now believe the organization that edited the documents did so with the intention of deceiving millions of Americans.

After the uproar regarding Ms. Sherrod's resignation, Tom Vilsack released a statement on the night of July 20, 2010 saying that the Department will "conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts".

Ms. Sherrod asserts that the NAACP was “the reason why this happened.” They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that.”She adds that "she might not want her job back if it's offered ... because of all the publicity surrounding what happened … how would I be treated once I'm back there? I just don't know ... I would have to be reassured on that."

On July 21, 2010, Fox News rejected any claims that they helped inflame the situation with a statement saying

[the network] did not make any mention of this story yesterday on the air until after Shirley Sherrod had already lost her job after Secretary Vilsack had already drawn his own conclusions — conclusions that the president apparently agreed with.

Later, the White House sought for an official review of the case. Tom Vilsack, meanwhile, sent an e-mail regarding the issue that states "I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner."

Ms. Sherrod was at the CNN Center, watching live, when Robert Gibbs extended an apology to her. There, she stated that she had accepted the apology and welcomed the review although she felt that this experience was "bittersweet".

House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican, criticized Andrew Breitbart's airing of only a small portion of the video. He said, "It’s unfortunate that whoever laid this out there didn’t lay out the whole story, as opposed to a part of it... They only put a little piece of the story out there and people make judgments and they rush and they make bad decisions."

Last night, in an interview with CNN's Larry King, Andrew Breitbart responded to questions regarding his intentions of releasing the video saying that:

This was not about Shirley Sherrod. It's about me. This was about the NAACP attacking the Larry King Live show and this [the video of Ms. Sherrod] is showing racism at an NAACP event. I did not ask for Shirley Sherrod to be fired. I did not ask for any repercussions for Shirley Sherrod. They were the ones that took the initiative to get rid of her. I – I do not – I think she should have the right to defend herself. [R]acism is used by the left and the Democratic Party to shut up opposition [a]nd [by releasing the Sherrod video] I am showing you that people who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

Yeah... well, Fox News is not retracting the previous articles as good journalists do. They just do their spinning and leave things out there in the collective memory and internet so we can all stumble across it. I thought Fox News could sink no lower.

Last night on CNN, Anderson Cooper managed to dig into it and even put NAACP on the spot for their actions. ABC also gets a mention for taking the time to do research before making snap judgements. Guess I know where the real journalists are.

Sarah Palin

I have not said anything about her because of several reasons. First, she's not nearly as crucial to the Republican Party as pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity would have people believe. Second, she's not really worth talking about. I thought she was a lightweight, a soft politician unable to think for herself.

This former beauty queen who is a maverick unto herself doesn't have the right character to be an elected official. If anyone criticizes her right or wrong, she has to attack them with legal proceedings. I know from just being a Political Science major that its a tough field. Politicians are built of tougher stuff than the average citizen. For her to cry foul on every statement, joke or insinuation about her or her family shows her naiveté and vulnerability. The fact that she allegedly looks for criticism reveals that she is more concerned with what others think of her than her job.

By constantly needing to "set the record straight" she actually creates a bigger firestorm. Lunging at all who say anything gives nameless and faceless bloggers a bigger podium form which to reach a larger audience. Also, by calling what we do the "record" is to give us far more credit than we deserve. I'm neither her constituent nor a fellow party-member (I'm a lib lib - that's Liberal Libertarian). She owes me nothing! But I can still criticize her to my heart's content. But does what I say become a record that can be used against her in a court of law? NO! I doubt I even have any effect on any voter's mind!

Now that she has announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska she has proven many of her critics correct. She lacked the integrity to stick to the job at hand. Instead she let her ballooning and evermore cartoonish profile overwhelm her. Her "personality" became bigger than the office she held but not in the way anyone would want. It also increased her political vulnerability because those in the Alaskan government knew she had something fragile to protect: her national image, her brand. Book deals and lecture circuits are far more lucrative than the pitiful Office of Alaska Governor.

I am angry at Moose Hunter Barbie! She has set women back a decade. It may be harder for anyone to take a female Presidential Candidate seriously. Thus far, we've achieved Secretary of State thrice and Speaker of the House once. The Glass Ceiling is still the Presidential Ticket. In addition, her public face helps to reinforce a stereotype that women have increasingly worked to obliterate. The ignorant, sheltered, naive soccer/hockey mom whose ambitions go only as far as her hairdo! A woman who cares more about what others think rather than how she has lived her life. It seems her biggest problem is that instead of thinking, she just reacts. To Everything!

So like any young insecure girl uncomfortable with what she has, she stays with the "in-crowd". The trend right now is to distrust all government. Glenn Beck, a political commentator who recently left CNN for Fox News, has pointed out repeatedly how little we can trust our elected officials (Common Sense, Beck). If Palin is reading her tea leaves, she probably sees herself in the grouping that are currently unpopular. So, like a teen girl who must be seen in the latest fashion, she bails on her state in favor of more money and a maverick image that few take seriously.

I sincerely wish her luck with whatever she does. I don't think it matters much. Mostly, I think she's gunning for Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham's job or at least their profiles and bloated bank accounts. Though I'd remind her that these women have what they have by inviting criticism! They sell more books by being polarizing and pushing so far to the right. They have what they have because of their thick skins and ability to use other's anger against them (which though I disagree with much of what they think, say and do, I do applaud this rare characteristic). I have serious reservations about Palin's ability to survive jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

On a personal note: I am an unemployed College Student who has next to nothing. Try and sue me!

End yourself!

The Senate confirmed Geitner. I actually sat through Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, go on about all the economic woes besieging our great nation. It made me want to commit suicide. How the hell are we going to ever get out of this hole?

Geitner has been praised up and down mostly by Democrats such as the aforementioned Dodd and Harry Reid of Nevada. When the vote happened almost all Democrats voted for him. All (not including Al Franken. He's still here in Minnesota, twiddling his thumbs) but 3 Democrats voted against the confirmation: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Robert Byrd from West Virginia, the oldest and cootiest coot in the Senate and the Dean (I think Byrd is lonely now that Ted Stevens is a criminal and Ted Kennedy is in the process of kacking... Both named Ted...). Eleven Republicans also voted against him. This includes John McCain, Susan Collins, Richard Lugar and Arlen Specter. These are republicans Obama wants to bring into his sphere of influence. There may already be problems. The margin 60-34 which according to Bloomberg news, is the smallest margin for confirmation of Treasury Secretary. Wow. Someone had little to nothing to do.

Seriously, I'm gonna start using "Honest Mistake" on my tax forms pre-emptively. If they come after me for soing them badly I won't even fall back on ill-written tax code. I'll just invoke the Geitner doctrine. During the White House Press Briefing one astute reporter asked that if say Wesley Snipes, a notorious tax evader, were to have been nominated, would he too have seen his tax case handled with kid gloves? Compelling... Nah! Now that Geitner's done we got Daschle to look forward to now. Oh, break out the popcorn!

On to other things. Rod Blagojevich continues his media blitz. He is now officially a broken record. He need only record himself citing the 6th Amendment, presumption of innocence and the non-contextual snippets of recordings of him speaking with censored expletives. Is there anyone that is convinced that this man is actually telling the truth? He's a democrat so if he can't even get to believe in his so-called good intentions, then he's as good as dead.

Lets make something clear: Impeachment trials are not Judicial Trials. There is no burden of proof. FOR ANYONE! Its a political process that has more to do with viability and public trust than aftual verdits of guilt! It basically amounts to the Illinois State Senate believing that they have cause enough to show him the door.

Blagojevich knows he's toast. He's doing this blitz with several possibilities in mind. 1) He's tryin to taint the prospective jury pool. This may or not be the case. He is a former prosecuter who has gone on record saying that he is censoring himself from talking about details of a pending criminal trial. He has also commented that he thinks this a good choice. I concede that he may honorable on this issue. Or is he? The fact remains, when the public has little to no access to the evidence, we can't verify what he is or isn't leaking. He may well be telling enough to taint future jury pools and just enough.

2) He's gunning for a book deal. Everyone can write a book these days. Someone gave Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Dick Morris all book deals so its not much of a stretch to imagine that scenario. Sarah Palin, aka Moose Hunter Barbie, is hoping to snag a $11M book deal. (Really. She really is a self-important hack.) I can see that possibility. By upping the ante and taking his case to the American People, likening himself to Gandhi, MLK and Nelson Mandela and referring to his trial as a an West shootout, he has created a very important ingredient in National politics and public relations: a brand. You need a brand to sell peanut butter and you also need one to sell yourself to the public whether that be food, a tv, a talk show, President or a failed but colorful former governor from one of the most politically corrupt states in the Union. Yeah...

3) He really is pleading his case to the people of Illinois. Realizing that most state news outlets will be more concerned with the Impeachment trial proceedings, he got the last outlet left to him. National Media needs something else besides the latest Obama event like going to the bathroom and kissing his daughters good night. But if he thinks this may actually win the people over, good luck! I consider myself an Illinoisan. Its where my hometown is (Bloomington-Normal, just northeast of Springfield). I still have family living there. On election night, I had a long conversation with my sister, Mary. I would describe my sister as a casual politico. She's not a junkie, an addict or a fanatic such as I am. But even she hated Blago then and knew of plenty of people who wanted him out of office... in November! You think finding out that he might also be guilty of corruption, abuse of power and... oh yeah.... extortion. Keep digging!

Besides, he's got two daughters and his wife lost her job as a fundraiser. And she's also named in the probe of the Governor. Turns out there are questions about her receiving commissions from state contractors and Rod's political supporters when she was still engaged in her real estate business. I think the Blagojeviches should take a hint from the Gov's aforementioned westerns and get the hell out of Dodge!

Thats it from here. Its freaking cold as hell and I think I have frostbite on my toes. No joke. If they turn black and fall off I'll blog about and include snazzy pictures. Till then!

Launches, sinkings, and a beer?

We are now at T+48 hours since Super Tuesday. And there is still plenty going on. Super Tuesday would be exciting on its own, but it feel a month into primary season. The Republican method of primary voting and accumulation of delegates favors a winner-take-all (WTA) method. The Democratic method favors a long slugfest. It will take longer for a nominee to emerge and assume the crown because it they split the delegate proportionally. Hence, a candidate could get more delegates by winning less states. But this is not something I should have to go over.

The reason I bring it up is that pundits like Bill O'Reilly have outlined a scenario (and I think Dick Morris who is bitter toward the Clintons since they ruined his career and the only people who will hire him are Fox) where Obama wins the most delegates but the Super Delegates decide to go with Clinton at the convention. He says there will be a riot and that they will tear the arena down.

If one were to seriously consider Bill O'Reilly's wishful ranting, the democrats would all tear each thoer eyes out on network television for the Conservative power mongers to gloat over. First of all, I don't think it will get that bad. Second, are you really serious? Have you been to a Democratic anything? Democrats won't even yell a person out of the room. Since I'm in the Democratic party, I can't say I've ever felt violence toward another Democrat. I honestly think that Bill O'Reilly would just like to see this happen. A fractured Democratic party would make his day.

On to something that is not political for a minute. There was a shuttle launch. It was not impressive. That is if you consider the better launch pictures that have been done. Come on NASA!!!! Give us a night launch.




Yeah!!!!!!!!!!! That's more like it. Thats what I call a launch!!!!!!

Gotta get some good launches in before the shuttle programs dies a whimpering death in 2010.



Ok, so there were a lot gun toting violence lately. The deaths at a Lane Bryant recently, the home in LA with the SWAT team taking a casualty along with 4 other people. Now some guy in Kentucky opens fire on a city hall meeting. So, was there something in the stars I didn't see? Like the constellation gunus loadus? There sure are a bunch of crazies running around getting their crazy on.

Speaking of crazies... John McCain went to CPAC (I really couldn't help myself... I really love politics but I'm usually not so mean... and that's nice for politics). Before he could speak Mitt Romney did. He said that he couldn't be the one to blame if the Democrats got the White House. The Democrats he claims, would allow us to be defeated by surrendering the war in Iraq. So, he suspended his campaign. This means he has pulled out. He's still in denial. The Mitt Romney ship has sunk. All right.... it hit a sand bar... but it lost almost all of its sails.... or its in a dead calm.... something....

Before McCain got up to speak, cons at the con (heh) were switching their Romney T-shirts for McCain t-shirts. How astounding: the red headed stepchild of the Republican party at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Group) where even they can't stick to their convictions and principles [grind teeth].

I'm not a conservative. There are beliefs I hold that are conservative but I will not consider myself a conservative for some pretty big reasons. 1. I like people of all types and refuse to be exclusionary and/or intolerant. 2. I think religion is for the church/synagoge/temple/home. It has no place in politics, as part of domestic policy or the basis for laws. No one should expect a country to be made in the mold of a particular faith. Its unfair and intolerant. It infringes other people's 1st amendment rights. 3. I use reason and logic. I think therefore I am not conservative or liberal. You all have your neuroses and need therapy.

To me, McCain is like that. He doesn't judge a person by their party but takes time to get to know them as people. He reminds me a bit of professor of history (a subject McCain likes) who is a bit more hippie than McCain but he is still on of those guys who likes to get to know his students as people. McCain does that with his fellow Senators and enjoys meetings of the mind with them. I've said this before and I'll say it again: We need someone with a proven record of working with the other party. McCain has that.

I watched the speech with baited breath. Hell, I'd been waiting for this one. First, cowboy boot wearing George "macaca" Allen of Virginia introduced Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. I can't help but wonder if not for that video in 2006, would Allen be running and winning this nomination? Anyways, Tom Coburn came out and talked about McCain's courage. Coburn might be commended for his courage, too. In the late '90's, he locked horns with then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich because the Republican led Congress was spending just like the Democrats had been before they had taken over. Nothing had changed and the "Contract with America" was in shambles. He's also worked with Senator Obama. I'd say he like McCain is not afraid to work with someone who has a "D" attached to their name. He also has the regret of his remarks against the airing of Schindler's List to contend with for the rest of his life.

But getting on to the speech itself. I liked it. It was perfect, quiet, John McCainness and simple. He didn't get into specifics which is fine. There were some real nice parts. Like the boo that turned into a cheer. I'll call it a beer. I have no idea why this happened. I only saw McCain do this sort of beseeching shrug that he does. It always seems like his arms are awkward for him. I blame that on the fact that the range of motion in his arms is limited. I believe he cannot raise them to a certain point.

Anyways, this beer started out with the crowd booing when he brought up immigration. I understand their reason for doing that. McCain worked with Ted Kennedy, the living God of Democrats, to formulate a bill on immigration that ultimately failed. He admits to this. It was a so-called "path to citizenship". I'm with the conservatives on immigration but I'm also with McCain. I find immigrants to be criminals. They broke our laws to get in here and continue to break them with their continued presence here. I won't generalize and get into statements of tenement housing and bad driving. These are stereotypes that are as dangerous as general statements about Jews and Roman Catholics.

But, as much as they broke laws and entered our nation illegally, which means they have little respect for a nation's government and lack integrity, there needs to be a solution that works for everyone. We cannot throw the 12+ million people back to Mexico. This would be a humanitarian disaster. It would destroy Mexico. Some would welcome this but hold on a second! Destroying Mexico would not help us but rather, hurt us. If their fragile economy collapses due to a sudden influx of people that it cannot support, we'd have to prop up the flagging economy anyway.

The other option is to figure out a way to reduce the illegal immigrants coming across our border and to get those here to become citizens so they can pay into a system they already benefit from. Getting them out would be far more problematic and violent. No one wants the blood of another country's citizens, criminals or not, on their hands. So, the compromise that he made with Kennedy is justified.

But this boo... as it progressed, it turned into a cheer. A loud and resounding cheer. I don't know if Allen and Coburn started scowling at the audience since they were told to be nice. Maybe conservatives saw it within themselves to be nice. I'd like to know what actually happened there in the ballroom because they certainly didn't show it on TV.

And did you see the covereage of CPAC on Fox? I nornally watch CNN or MSNBC but considering the nature of this speech, getting reaction from the conservatives themselves would be key. But Fox did something that I find reprehensible. Look at the picture below. See if you can pick put out any errors.

That's right!!! Fox has democratized John McCain (I'm taking credit for this new use of the word right now) . They misidentify any republican they want to and claim its a typo. The odds that there'd would be these typos at moments when the Republican party is in a crises or, like when Mark Foley admitted one of their own screws up and only these times are slim. The odds of that each time these mistakes occur, it would always be a "D" is even more slim. I'm no mathematician but I understand probability and randomness from my experience as a pollster and working in statistics. There is no way that Fox can stand by their assertions. At least not without knowing how stupid they look. If I were self-respecting journalist, I could not work with/for Fox without either walking away from this excuse for a "fair and balanced" news outfit or losing my integrity for remaining with them. What a fucking joke!!!!!!!

All right, this post has gone on long enough. I did want to add some clips from The Daily Show from Wednesday night. Jon Stewart takes on the coverage of the primaries on the News outlets. Enjoy!!!



and this!



Ok, The moment of Zen, too.



Bonne Soiree!!!!!!

We're off the air!!!!!!

6 November 2007
Dateline....

Don't you miss that? Don't news outlets know how to be newsy anymore? Did Walter Cronkite take that with him when he retired?

Anyways, I've been out of it for a few weeks. I'm moving into the gritty part of the semester and I'm actually beginning to enjoy it. Granted, I'm jobless (which sucks) and I'm still nursing a perpetual broken hand. But no worries...

I have several things with which to undertake on this November day. They are as follows:

1. Hillary Clinton's "victimhood"
2. waterboarding
3. Writers' Guild Strike
4. My awesome presentation in Global Studies last week
5. Pakistan: 'nuff said

They will not be attacked in that order. Also, I will be writing another get to know the candidates here in a week. I will also be filling you in on some WWII stuff that is rather current. On Sunday, we will have Armistice Day which is a significant day and not just for veterans.

With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, we move on to the opinions.

Pakistan. Its not even the only one undergoing political upheaval. There is some going on in Georgia. Suicide bombings are taking place with more frequency in Afghanistan. First, a small history of this nation. The nation originally was two chunks sliced from India in 1947 in what is called Partition. This was a bloody birth for the young nations. In 1971, the eastern part split away and became Bangladesh. Pakistan has alternated since 1972 between Prime Ministers named Bhutto, first Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and then his daughter, Benazir Bhutto, and military leaders. In 1998, the nation became nuclear just after India did which led to a war particularly in the long contested borderland, Kashmir. In 1999, the current military dictator Pervez Musharraf took over in a bloodless coup. Since then he has reigned over the Muslim state with a heavy hand and yet, the current US administration has fostered a closer relationship than most would find comfortable. Benazir Bhutto returned from 9 years of exile just last month.

On November 1, Bhutto left Pakistan for Dubai. The following day the Supreme Court of Pakistan reversed an earlier decision to allow for an election to proceed in January without scrutinizing the previous election that was challenged by Wajihuddin Ahmad. At 1720, November 3, the Pakistani television reported that a state emergency was imminent. Twenty minutes later, the private media went off the air. At 10 minutes after 6 PM, local time, the state run stations reported that indeed the state emergency had been declared. At 7, it is reported that constitution has been suspended.

Musharraf has claimed that he declared martial law to protect the nation from terrorists. In reality, it is a power grab.. Bhutto has stated that Pakistan is returning to a dictatorship. Musharraf has expressed some dismay with the media's "negative" reporting. "The media could not lend a helping hand to improve the situation" said Musharraf in his speech to the people of Pakistan. The Army has entered the Supreme Court and detained detained Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry because the "judiciary is not working efficiently".

Since the emergency began, journalists, lawyers and other "terrorists" have been detained or in some cases, killed. As seen in other power grabs throughout history, liberal middle classes and the ‎educated classes have been targeted. These are the people who are going to object and will be able to do more than merely object but rally opposition. They pose a huge danger to the regime that Musharraf wants to hold onto. And of course, protests and violence as the Army cracks down on media outlets and regular citizens alike.

What may disturb many Americans is Musharraf's references to Lincoln. Lincoln, though credited with preserving the union and abolishing slavery, made some decisions that, in hindsight, are not considered the wisest. During the Civil War, as with any war, the executive retained certain powers that were stipulated under the constitution. One of these was Habeas Corpus. Over the course of American History, there have been several times when laws have been imposed and rights infringed. Presidents Adams (the first one), Wilson, Roosevelt (the second one) and Nixon have all made strides to make being American a lot tougher.

Bush is right in there who buttered up this military leader so that we could use Pakistan for our wars. Now, we don't even know what to do. The State Department tells Musharraf to knock it off. They keep expressing disappointment. Oh, like that's a threat? Well, yeah, it could be since their alliance was rather... lucrative on their end.

I want to send out a huge "oorah" (I'm ex Navy) to Geo TV and ARY one for deciding to continue reporting the news on the Internet. By doing so, they are working to keep not only their fellow Pakistanis informed but also the rest of the world. Otherwise, we are all stuck with Musharraf and the sanitized state-run media (which I'm sure even you guys are sick of). They're risking a lot to not be complacent and keep working to bring out the truth. For those who understand Urdu go for it. Even if you don't they do speak in English occasionally. For myself, I know Hindi and can make out some of the words and get the gist.

In the meantime, the story is receiving little coverage here in the United States. The Cable News outlets are barely mentioning it. CNN has paid it some attention whilst Fox has devoted nightly opinion shows to Dog the Bounty Hunter. Bill O'Reilly is a lost cause: his show is an excuse to show banned or salacious material that his stooges find on the Internet that "we should not see" and then are shown anyways.

I need to move on. What else is on the list? Hillary Clinton. Lately she has found that the rest of the Democratic candidates are ganging up in her like the Republicans have been. There has been some call that its an "Old Boys Club" and they are ganging up on her cause she's a chick. Well, I don't know about her being a woman, but I don't think that's why. Its called ganging up on the guy in the lead. Or in football, the guy with the ball.

She's the receiver and the ball slips. She dives as does everybody else, those on the team, on the opposing team and the kickers (Paul and Kucinich). They all pile up on the ball. Its going to be about who has the ball when the ref pulls the bodies off.

So, why the complaining? Because it works! By playing the victim she gets women who know what she means. Women can't get a decent run for anything in this country. Men are unable to claim that they are just ganging up on the leader because it sounds sexist. They're screwed.

But is it that tough for a woman in a man's world? Can a woman become the leader of a country? I would like to take this time to point out that both India and Pakistan have elected women as leaders. These are two nations considered far more conservative than the United States. In addition, the first elected women Prime Minister (Ministress?) was Sirivamo Bandaranaike in Sri Lanka in 1960, the same year the United States elected its first Roman Catholic. 1974 saw the first women president in Argentina, Isabel Perón, otherwise known as Evita.

On top of all this there are currently 7 female presidents worldwide: Chile, Finland, India, Ireland, Liberia, The Philippines and Switzerland. There are 4 Prime Ministers: Germany, New Zealand, Mozambique and The Netherlands Antilles. Only Suadi Arabia and Monoco have never had a female anywhere in government. Sweden became the first to recently have their "cabinet" be more female than male with an 11-9 count. If these women can make it, what's wrong with Hillary? If Benazir Bhutto could make it?!?!?!? Hell, some countries who've managed to be led by a woman have been Norway, Canada, Ukraine, Panama, Haiti, Sri Lanka, Peru, Latvia, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Malta, Turkey, Portugal, France, Jamaica, and I don't know... GREAT BRITAIN!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, I need to get onto other things. Like Waterboarding. Yeah, Waterboarding. The practice is torture. Messing around with the legal terminology all you want does not change the fact that it is torture. It is also form of coercion.

You hold a gun to a person's head and tell them to tell you what you want to know or they die. Hmm... tough choice. Either they bet you bluff or they spill their guts/lie. They more than likely lie. When you say "tell me what I want to know!!!" Gee, ok. I'll tell you. And we have laws to reject confessions from being admissible as evidence. So, what makes the evidence gleaned from this practice any more credible? Because its the CIA?!?!?! Oh God, we're all fucked!!!!!!

Now, the Writer's Strike. Beyond the fact that I've waited long enough for Battlestar Galactica. The writers have now seen fit to stop working. As ticked some of us may be, there is a point to this madness. It is the fees that are made off internet and DVD sales. These writers create material that is, like it or not, intellectual material. Depsite the traditional way of seeing the writing as a product for the show and therefore, the show's proberty, we've changed where something conceived in someone's mind is now their proberty. Even if they were paid a salary to do it and should be happy.

But with the MPAA and RIAA raising a ruckus about intellectual property and the copyrights it is now coming back to bite them. Well, its biting the MPAA. The RIAA has its own hydra to worry about. It cannot have it both ways. The writers want to have some of the take when it becomes natural that a film or TV show which 20 years ago made a splash at the box office, faded, maybe made some money in Video sales and rentals then died, is now making killings years after its wrap party. These goods now make money in perpetuity and the writers feel they should, too. So, in essence I agree with them. I just hope that people start watching more news or something.

All Right... last thing... I think.... well two. I had to give a presentation in class on Thursday. My topic was the Global Civil Society and particularly warfare of modern era. I stood up at the front of the classroom and lectured on this with a 72 count powerpoint presentation. I went to town and talked about everything. And when I was done speaking there were a lot of questions. I spent another 45 minutes discussing those.

Afterwards, I was outside with many of my classmates. I got a bunch of good reviews and was even told I should teach the class. So, I feel pretty good about that. I did very well when I thought I might not.

Today, in my Comparative Constitution class, a question was posed to us in the course of debating headscarves in Germany. The Metric system has yet to be adopted in the US making us the lone holdout against the rest of the world. What was brought up was our reason for not jumping on the bandwagon. It would cost trillions to change over all the measurements in the entire country. Well, other western nations have done that and we wouldn't be talking about a 2 year switchover plan. More like 20 year.

And, those trillions would create jobs. Which would create taxes. So, the trillions would end up in government coffers in some way. The government could even go so far as to offer tax deductions to companies who such and such money to implement the plan especially if they do so quicker than mandated by the 20 year plan. We'd start saving money because we spend gobs of money every year on conversions. Yes, conversions!!! In the end companies would save money. They also wouldn't have to make things like speedometers in two sets of numbers!

Ok, on this day in 1861, Jefferson Davis was elected president of the Confederate States of America.

A scant four years later, the last unit to surrender after the Civil War was the CSS Shenandoah. It circumnavigated the globe and went looking for ships to sink. Um, kind of sounds rednecky if you ask me, which you didn't. And it managed to fire it guns off the coast of Alaska.

On this day in 1917, the third battle of Ypres ends as does the irregular papers printed celebrating the "entrenched" battle being waged there.

Back in 1935, Edwin Armstrong revealed his radio discovery called Frequency Modulation aka, FM.

In 1985, "Irangate" was undergoing and it was uncovered that Reagan authorized shipments of arms to Iran.

Time to blow this popsicle stand.

Smoking Lamp is out!

My two hours of happiness

On a given night from Monday to Thursday, I watch The Colbert Report, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Daily Show in that order. On Fridays I just watch Keith who is my hero. Really, the man already was during his ESPN days but in the last few months, I've really come to love him.

Anyways, I bring this up because I watch Bill O'Reilly on occasion. Tonight, I found him awful. There was a case of an 8-year-old boy who called 911 to report his mother driving drunk. While I don't doubt that she may have been intoxicated, O'Reilly jumped to the conclusion that she is an addict. When it became known that the father was not in the picture, she became "trouble".

It's rare that I, a Libertarian, my father, a staunch Republican and my moderate mother all agreed that taking her kids away, even for a month was wrong. We all agreed that O'Reilly was making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Both my mother and I brought up that the child could have damn well been exagerating about his mother. Children know at the age of 12 months how to play the game and get shit. They aren't stupid! Not that I'm blaming the kid but are we getting to the era where a kid need only say anything they want to incriminate their parents or any other relative.

Bill O'Reilly likes to consider himself an objective journalist. Despite his lengthy education, he comes across as a narrow-minded ass. He'd advocate taking the children away which even my 20-year-old video gaming brother thought would only compound the problem. Moreover, children once placed in that system do not usually get back to their parents.

So, Bill O'Reilly, someone who constantly sticks up for families and family values wants to break up one without knowing all the details or even letting due process take its course. Bill needs to get a clue. He also needs to get a brain with it. I'm not holding my breath.

Good Night and Good Luck!

Rosie O'Donnell

Recently, Rosie O'Donnell has made a spate of accusations on the mid-morning women's show The View. Some of these allegations are that the British troops being held in Iran currently, were there in Iranian waters to help kick start a conflict between the the west i.e. the US and the UK, and Iran. She also has rehashed the 9/11 conspiracy. I call that beating a dead horse.

While Miss O'Donnell has the right to free speech and can make unsubstantiated claims, she has raised the dander on many commentators, namely Bill O'Reilly. He has spent countless minutes of his evening broadcasts slamming Miss O'Donnell. He also has the right.

Why I decided to comment on this? There are requests - nay, demands - for Miss O'Donnell's head on the proverbial silver platter. She is being vilified. She has been demonized.

My question: Had she been a 1) thin 2)blonde 3) beautiful and 4) straight woman, would this be happening to her? The bias against overweight people is one that is incredibly overlooked and even more difficult to prove. But I can't help wondering because of a woman I love to hate: Ann Coulter.

Miss Coulter spews out enough toxicity to make the Lake Erie of 20 years ago look crystal clear. She has little to add to the Body politic and nothing substantial to add to the discourse promelgating the airwaves. Her vitriolic nonsense is bought by rabid fans who like the name calling and angst that floods out of her. Her calls for women (which she may be.... we aren't sure) to not have the vote notwithstanding....

So, considering the ire that Coulter raises and the fact that she is continually brought on channels like Fox to put forth her insight into the political system, what makes Rosie any different? Maybe it's the fact that she has a real day-to-day job... Ann Coulter just pops up occasionally. She has no permanant outlet on TV. She has her webstie and blog....

Is it because Rosie is a lesbian? I actually don't think this is it. In the arena of entertainment (which, let's face it, they are ALL in.... even Bill O'Reilly, which he owns up to), being a homosexual does not work against you.

But being overweight does. Some can make it: Roseanne Barr and Camryn Manheim are a couple. It's rather rare. And when you put your neck out and say something wholly controversial: woe be unto you.

I'm not siding with Miss O'Donnell. I do only so far as this: She has that right. We all do. But lets be honest: would we be calling for her termination if she were a supermodel? And if people can honestly say that it has nothing to do with it, we need to evaluate other talk show hosts and commentators whose shows are also hate-filled and worthless.

Ann v. Bill: round 1. FIGHT!

Hey, new blogger. Let's see what this looks like and if its worth the hype.

I do however, want to comment on something.

Well, Somethings!

First, I really let myself get away from doing this.... again. My apologies.

Second, I do not like Ann Coulter. And its not because I'm liberal and she ain't. I have no problems with people who completely oppose me politically. I have a quite a few close friends who do. My problem with Ann is she is way smarter than what she uses. But she relies on swagger and elitist shananigans to get her point across. Very rarely (if ever) have I seen her use the proper debate skills in an argument. I suppose her education in law included how to win a fight without proving anything. She also has a hard time being able to look into the camera when replying to people. She can stare arrows into it when she's waiting to be called on but when speaking she tends to look up randomly and frequently. She also tends to use extraneous information against people that have little to no bearing on the argument in question. I suppose this is also the trick snarky lawyers learn in Sleeze 101.

My qualm of late with Ms. Connecticut and never had to work for anything I have is her "joke" against Edwards. My qualm isn't use of the word faggot or the connection to Isaiah Washington. Its how she could connect it to John Edwards. She says that is the joke; that he is a married man with kids so it doesn't apply. That doesn't make it ironic... or any form of humor actually, that I know of. In other words, it was stupid. She says it was a joke, but honestly, I think it was an insinuation she is not willing to stand by.

Now, Bill Maher made comment about the VP and how he'd be happy (?) if he were dead. That a lot of people would be happier. That certainly makes Ann Coulter seem like a bad day at the circus. Bill! Come on!!!! Save that for the playground. To wish that the second in line dead is pretty serious and I wouldn't be surprised if men with guns weren't following your every move. Ya know, secret service agents waiting for you to prove them right. Watch yourself!!! In this day and age with a Patriot act and unchecked powers, who knows where you could end up. Guantanamo?

Fox labels Foley Democrat by "mistake"... right.....

Yeah, I realize the Daily Show covered this one, along with everyone else, but I had to post about it, too. I read about it on Wonkette yesterday. To be honest, I am not surprised. The fact that it

happened on the O'Reilly Show, really not surprised. For someone who claims its a No-Spin Zone, he sure as hell does a ton of spinning. Not to mention shouting matches that leave me one or both several things: a) angry, b)bewildered, c) confused, d)dumbfounded, e) exacerbated f) frustrated g) galled h)hysterical i) inflamed j) jaundiced k) kvetching l) livid m) malcontented n) nonplussed o) offended p) perturbed q) quesrulous r) raging s) splenetic t) troubled u) upset v) vexed w) withered x) xerotic (look it up) y) yarling and z) zealous.

Here's a link so you can actually view said "mistake". I watched Anderson Cooper 360 last night, though I also watched The Towering Inferno right before. The Towering Inferno made me feel better, if that means anything to you. At least I got to look at a younger (near 50) Paul Newman (like his age even matters, he's still gorgeous!) and Steve McQueen in one of his last major roles before his death (my Mom adored him and even had a crush on my Dad when they first met because she thought he looked a little like him and was a Macinist Mate like McQueen's character in The Sand Pebbles - a great movie with Mako back in the day...). I then watched the replay of 360 and there were more gorillas! Yay for Anderson and gorillas. Cuteness and adorkability aside, he's living out a dream of mine. I've always wanted to see gorillas. Even the one checking out his ass would have been fine to me. I wouldn't care if a gorilla did that.

Anyways, my real beef though is the feedback. Are people honestly unhappy about this? What, you think the government is seriously working on this? If they were, wouold we really have Bono running around talking about debt relief?

The blog over at 360 makes the point (actually, Anderson did and I don't know if it might be because of Final Jeopardy question he got wrong...) about how our hi-tech life is basically bankrupting the Congolese people. How? We need a particular mineral called coltan which is a black, graphite looking substance primarily made up of Niobium and Tantalum. The name is, in fact, a contraction of Columbite and tantalite. It is used to make tiny little electronic parts in cell phones, laptops and PDAs. Think of a mobile tech device and it likely has it. It is found mostly in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. For those of you who are unfamiliar with geography, it was once known as Zaire. Its in AFRICA. That's South of Europe in the eastern hemisphere. It was once colonized Belgium (called the Belgian Congo) and was brutally impovershed, oppressed and enslaved by King Leopold in his quest to have empire. The legacy continues. Coltan mines are valuable and therefore, roving militias fight for control of these mines and the revenues they bring. They pillage, burglarize and rape the people and little to nothing is done to stop conditions there.

Thats basically (really basic) problem. There are indeed far deeper issues and problems facing DR Congo not to mention, many central African nations. But what I don't understand is why aren't we talking about this? We could protest aratheid but not the massive humanitarian problems in Afrcia? Is it because we can't be bothered to think our cell phones are causing harm to others? Blackberry-addicted Anderson Cooper seems to be well aware. And I'm not holding him up asa model of who to emulate but keep in mind, he's a techy guy. He likes his mobile devices just as much as the next 30-something male professional.

Yeah... Go Coop...

Back on this day in good ol' 1969, Monty Python's Flyg Circus went on the air. It really was something completely different. Ironically, the following year, PBS became a real station. Imagine that!

In 1986, we found out what we pretty much knew: Israel has nukes.

And in 1991, Linux vers. 0.02 was released. This was the first official release of the kernal and after that, my PC would never be the same. Really, its not. You should try linux.

(Screencap coutesy of Anderson and the gorilla (who was a girl, too) came from All Things Anderson cuz they're so cool)

(BTW, if I was going to show a screen cap pf Fox, whom I loathe, then I had to show CNN, a channel I love. You can see the bias wrtten all over this post in several layers...just letting ya know!)

The Reaction to Bill Clinton: Retorts and...Socks?

Let me preface this post with a comment: I rant at times. Sometimes for great length. I did not go too long in this post. I started out nice and calm but as I wrote more and more, I began to seethe till finally, I exploded in a torrent of anger and insanity focused on the actions of my government. I do not apologize because I'm exercising my first amendment right to free speech. I honestly don't think its that bad but... whatever.

**********************************************************************

I did say I'd find the links to the video of the interview. They are in fact on YouTube. Its in three parts and can be found at these links: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Onwards to the reaction to Clinton.

I know my appreciation for CNN knows no bounds. I can't help it. It was ingrained in me as a child because my parents loved the news and it was the only 24 hour news network there was. They invented the damned thing. I also loved that James Earl Jones ident that you never hear anymore. The only other channel we watched as much was the Weather Channel! Well, in the last 24 hours or so (except for some of 360 last night), I've watched the "others". I wanted to see how Fox and not to mention MSNBC, ABC, and CBS would cover the Clinton interview. I know what Coop said about it last night and that was good enough for me as far as CNN was concerned. I loved it on 360 last night when they revealed this regarding Clinton: "Spokesman Tony Snow, a former FOX News commentator quipped, 'He retorts, you decide.'" Excellant! A "Rush" transcript of 360 can be read here. To Anderson Cooper's credit, he reported the news with nothing in the way of opinion and interviewed numerous people from different schools of thought. That's why I love Anderson!

Earlier in the day, I watched Good Morning America. Diane Sawyer had Bill O'Reilly on to discuss the recently broadcast Bill Clinton interview we all love to analyze to death. He was milder than he normally is. I can only guess it was because it wasn't his show, he wasn't in charge and its Dame Diane Sawyer, a real Lady of Journalism. He said that Clinton as well as many in the current administration such as the hated 4: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Not to bring me back to Cooper but it reminded me of the spinning going on a year ago about Katrina. Mary Landrieu said people were frustrated. People aren't frustrated! People are dying!!! Those people are our servicmen and women! Whatever...

I watched Keith Olbermann and his Countdown over on MSNBC. I like Olbermann and I wish he wasn't on MSNBC which I forget about half the time because its on channel 70 and all the other news channels are clustered together in the 30's. "The Dirty Thirties!" ...Anyway. Olbermann devoted quite a large chunk of his show to an editorial. He pointed out that Clinton's "tear" during the interivew on Fox opened up a lot of doors, not to mention windows, doggie doors, escape hatches and bunker seals to run around and scream at the current administration for their ineptitude and inane stupidity. He also claimed that it was a wake-up call to the media as a whole. That they need no longer swig from the bottle of booze known as Stooge. They could now start ripping down the sets that Bush and his administration built. Olbermann went for quite some time on his own "tear" toward Bush and his administration. So much so I almost jumped up and applauded. I didn't but I shed a tear or ten. Its nice to see the press finally get a spine back. His editorial can (and should) be read here.

This morning on MSNBC, they were still going on about this interview but now they were splitting hairs. An anchorwoman on MSNBC was discussing with two men about Clinton showing a little leg. Apparently, his socks were too low and his pants were too high. Couldn't someone tell him "to pull down his pants?" Oh yeah, that was brilliant! I was astounded that they would devote any more time than 10 seconds mentioning Clinton's wardrobe malfunction.

Ok... things are getting absurd. Maybe they were to begin with. Now, there is talk of pre-planning (isn't planning already pre-whatever? That's like pre-early. "I wanted to beat you here so I got here pre-early") on both sides. Did Wallace plan on brow-beating Clinton to deflect criticsm of Murdoch getting cozy with Clinton and his initiatives? Did Clinton plan on ripping Wallace a new asshole on the GOP leaning Fox news? One may believe that both are correct statements. Fox did need to make an effort to offset the potentially troubling coupling. Dems need help for the election in 5-6 weeks. Leaking parts of the National Intelligence Estimate isn't enough. (Which if you don't know about that, lord, help you!)

Was Wallace even smirking? His colleagues all jokingly told him "just don't smirk!" And Clinton's finger wagging... well, the last time he did that was in fact when he told us he didn't have sexual relations with Monica.

Take this how you want to. There's spinning on either side. Case in point: Condalezza Rice has come out today to talk about Clinton's claims that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel its first 8 months. "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said in interview with many staff members of the New York Post. She also mentioned "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida" contradictory to Clinton's assertion that he did. The same article ends with Hillary, always defending her husband, saying "I just think that my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take this." And, in fact, it is likely they won't take any of this anymore.

But before I declare the Democrats awake and out of torpor, I must briefly mention that many of these people went along with every brazen and emboldened thing Bush could think up to ruin this country. Why? Fear be damned, its politics! The Politics of Fear, in fact, a strategy most usefully employed by lords and kings in the feudal era. That was when "Might makes Right" was the slogan of the day. The Bush administration continues to use fear as a political tool to keep the left doing their bidding, the media reporting what he says they can and the American people as a whole sweating and re-electing. He keeps us scared for his own ends. And we are turning into the country we swore we never would, that we wouldn't be terrorized by terrorists. But we are! We are scared because of our privacy isn't, our rights are infringed, we can't bring liquids on airplanes, there's anthrax in the air and e. coli on our spinach (Ok, the last one isn't related but whatever...). They keep asking if Americans feel safer now and the answer is no!!! How could we be? And how can we feel safer with a government that reveals nothing? Even if al-Quada didn't exist, I'd still be scared becuase my government is frightening!!!

So, our government still runs on the medieval idea of whomever has the ability to kill more must be the best. In a WWE smackdown, sure! But this is Global Politics and we are a democracy. Conflict should never be settled with bombs and bullets but debate and discourse. I'm hoping Bill Clinton opened the flood gates for the Democratic Party. I hope they launch into scathing attacks of not only the failings of the current administration but also the lies, the deception and the stupid strategies employed by nitwits who can't win either war we're in. I hope...

And if I sounded crazed and Clinton looked crazed its because we are. Fox did itself a disservice by advertising the crazed Clinton. Anyone would be crazed at this day and year for all the shit we see happening. I feel as though I'm living in Nazi Germany before the war: I'm watching the beacon on the hill become the cesspool in the sewer. And I just can't take it anymore!!!!!

There are too many things to bitch about. I'm done. There is nothing else to say. Whatever...

The Devil you say!

Yesterday, at the United Nations, Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, spoeke out against the United States and its hegemonic political policies. In fact, here is the juicy bits where Chavez refered to President George W. Bush as the devil.

I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.

"The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today."

"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world."

A transcript of the speech can be found on this site. Want to watch it?

The book he refers to is Noam Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States which has jumped to the top of Amazon's sales rankings after being somewhere in the very obscure. He encouraged Americans to read it and evidently, they are taking him up on it.

Also, Anderson Cooper interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his show last night. Cooper only got 20 minutes with the leader so there wasn't time to get into the most meaty questions such Iran's plans for world domination and the spread of Islam. He did however ask him if the President does indeed believe the holocaust did not occur. Ahmadinejad circtitiously answered the question with evasion and repetition. He did make sure that we know that the Iranian people love Americans and peace. At one point he accused Cooper of asking him similar questions and that his questions were given to him. Anderson Cooper retorted that they were his and we have free press in this country unlike Iran. In defense of Anderson, what could he do? Ahmadinejad never came out and answered a question and Cooper wanted --WANTED -- those answers so he fought for them but eventually moved on.

Which is what I'm doing now. The military coup in Thailand was apparently a bloodless coup. However, the political machinations of the country such as the ability to speak out and assemble have been banned. Radio and Television operatrions are under the control of the military. Ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is in London after arriveing there from New York. He was in the US for the opening if the 61st General Assembly of the United Nations. Four of the Prime Ministe's government are being detained by the militray which has declared martial law. The man in charge now is General Sonthi Boonyaratglin who has stated that he intends to return Thailand to Democracy as soon as possible. The King evidently approves of the coup and its likely it wouldn't have occured if he hadn't given prior blessings. Lukman B. Lima, exiled leader of Muslim rebels, hailed the coup d'etat as a move in the right direction. The Army Cheif is a Muslim and could help end the conflict between the Buddhist and Muslim factions within Thailand.

The woman who stole the baby in Missouri is allegedly Shannon Torrez. She claims to have miscarried a baby the morning of the abduction. She arrived at her hearing today and kept her head down. The hearing lasted about 20 minutes and the woman never spoke above a whisper. She was seen to be wiping tears away. One can only wonder what is going through her mind during this time. As for the baby, she has been returned to her mother and father. The baby was spotted by Torrez' sister-in-law when they went to take the baby to the doctor. She noticed makeup and the baby's forehead that was no doubt there ot cover the baby's distintive and well pubilcized birth mark. After rubbing it off, she confronted Torrez and then took the baby and handed her over to authorities. Good on ya, lady!

One last comment regarding Bill O'Reilly whom I don't hate because he's fiercely conservative. In fact, I don't hate him. My serious issues with O'Reilly are his tendency to believe he knows everything and his desire to try and convict people on his show despite his being ill qualified for both. My other large problem with the talking head is his propensity to yell down others and disrespect those of different opinions. Unless you're a conservative lapdog (or as they were called back in the early 90's, populist) or Ann Coulter, you're going to crucified if you go on his show. To add to my list of peeves against the "No Spin" guy is his apparent gloating about being on al-Qaeda's death list while being interviewed by Barbara Walters for ABC's 20/20. "With the controversy comes death threats on a daily basis," O'Reilly said on Wednesday night's show. "Not only from kooks. But the FBI came in and warned me and a few other people at Fox News that al Qaeda had us on a death list. That's a little disconcerting." But who goes about telling people about that? Apparently, O'Reilly who lives on the edge, keeping alive by doing whatever it is he does.... On RADAR online, people at FOX and the FBI both denied the claim. An angent for the FBI even went so far as to say "I'm not aware of any FBI agents warning anyone at Fox News of their presence on any list....For that matter, I'm not aware of any al-Qaeda hit list targeting journalists. Agents from the D.C. field office, FBI headquarters, and an agent from the kidnapping unit went to Fox's offices in New York last month to advise them specifically on the Gaza kidnapping [of Fox employees Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig]. But they only talked to management, they didn't talk to any individual journalists".