Sunday, April 29, 2007

Another Take on Rosie Leaving "The View"

Rosie O'Donnell will not be returning to "The View" when her contract is up. Yes, I know it's a great disappointment to you, but I don't think we're getting the whole story. Some, like Rosie and ABC, say they just couldn't reach an agreement that would keep Rosie on the air. Others, like Laura Ingraham, said public outrage forced ABC's hand. I don't think either of these is the case. Here's what I think happened.

Remember when Rosie was going on about all the alleged coverups and said the media helped? She called out ABC on air in front of a nationwide audience and accused the company of perpetuating a lie. That's grounds for termination in most companies, but since Rosie is seen as singlehandedly saving "The View," it wasn't a good enough reason to toss her out on her ear.

There's also another reason why ABC wouldn't have released her after the aforementioned tirade. Rosie tends to talk a lot about injustices, real or imagined, and being fired for speaking out would give her a LOT to talk about. And ABC doesn't want to appear to be anti-gay, since there are fringe elements out there who would look solely at Rosie's sexual orientation and claim a firing was motivated only by homophobia. The PR nightmare alone would be enough to make ABC hold off on firing Rosie.

On the other hand, ABC suffered a lot of backlash from Rosie's comments. They understand ratings, but they also understand pressure by sponsors since advertising is how shows like "The View" make their money. Once sponsors start complaining, it's time for the tough decisions within the network. Do you keep Rosie in the hopes of keeping up the ratings, or do you fire her to please the sponsors?

Neither party in this case had an upper hand. Rosie knew ABC could fire her outright for her comments and that money could make her walk in a heartbeat. ABC knew Rosie could lash out at them for firing her, putting them in a world of hurt from a PR standard. Thus, the environment was perfect for a mutually beneficial parting and the subsequent "we just couldn't reach a mutual agreement on Rosie's contract" story. By coming to the agreement I think really happened, ABC gets rid of Rosie and a PR backlash, and Rosie gets to leave without being fired and without having to alienate sponsors she might need later on should she do TV again. A win-win for both parties.

And one that is being obscured by spin.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

A Few Questions on Impeachment

Grassroots Democrats have been calling for their Washington counterparts to move against the Bush Administration on impeachment. And who should take up the banner for this all-important demand?

Dennis Kucinich.

Boy, I feel better about impeachment, don't you?

With Kucinich drawing up articles of impeachment against Dick Cheney, there are a few questions that come to my mind.

1) What will be accomplished? Let's say the Democrats' dream comes true and Dick Cheney gets impeached and removed from office. Who gets to pick the new VP? Under the Constitution, that would be George W. Bush. Not Nancy Pelosi. Not Harry Reid. Not George Soros. Not Dennis Kucinich. GEORGE W. BUSH. Consider Cheney doesn't want to be President, that slot could go to someone who could, like...oh I don't know...Fred Thompson. And if you thought Cheney was rough, Thompson will make Cheney look like Barney the Dinosaur.

2) Is this really what the American people want? Let me quote Nancy Pelosi from prior to the election: "Impeachment is off the table." You know why she said it? Because people didn't want impeachment at that time, even though the Democrats did. And do you think the people have warmed up to it yet? I don't think so. You can do as many skewed polls as you want, but the vibe I get is that people are unhappy with the Bush Administration, but they aren't gathering up pitchforks and storming 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. There are people who want impeachment to happen tomorrow, but they've wanted Bush and Cheney to be impeached since January 2001.

3) How would the House vote if the articles of impeachment get to the floor? The Democrats may have a majority in the House, but that doesn't make a Cheney impeachment a lock by any stretch of the imagination. The freshman Democrats tended to be far more conservative than their leadership...and they have a lot more to lose if they torque off the people back home. They also risk the wrath of their party leaders if they don't vote in favor of impeachment. Then, there are the conservative Democrats already in place in the House. Will they be willing to buck the party to save Cheney? Ultimately, I think the Democrats might be able to sneak an article or two through to the Senate, but not a whole slate. And it will be a very close vote either way.

4) How would the Senate vote if the articles of impeachment get to the floor? The words "kissing your sister" come to mind. And I don't mean it in the good way. The Senate makeup is 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 Independents, with 1 of the Democrats being incapacitated. For Democrats to remove Cheney, they would need at least 60 votes. Somewhere along the line, they'd have to pick up 12 votes if every Democrat in the Senate voted to remove. Bernie Sanders is a lock. Joe Lieberman? Not so much. That means 11 Republicans would have to jump ship, and I don't think there are that many RINOs in the Senate. So, it will be just like the Clinton impeachment: close, but not close enough to matter.

5) How strong will the case against Cheney be? Having seen some of the articles of impeachment against Bush written up by some of the people on the left, I don't think it can be that strong. Impeachment articles are serious business, but the brain trust on the left haven't come up with a legitimate or even semi-legitimate offense that meets the minimum requirement of being a high crime or misdemeanor. After all the talk Democrats have done, to come up with anything less than an airtight argument is to announce to the world, "We are going to waste taxpayer dollars on an exercise in stupidity." And people tend to remember that sort of thing.

And finally...

6) Is it just me, or does Kucinich look like a cross between Ross Perot and Casey Kasem?

Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Dems Are Sooooo Last Decade...

For a while now, I've seen chatroom Democrats and faux liberals express a desire to go back to the 90s when Bill Clinton was President. To them, it was an ideal time when the economy was humming (which had nothing to do with Clinton), we didn't wage war (against those who want to kill us), and we had a handle on important issues (like where to get a hair style like Rachel from "Friends").

This past week, the Democrats got their wish. Two big issues, abortion and gun rights, that were white hot in the 90s came back into view. And they should want nothing to do with either one.

The first issue, abortion, came up in regards to a Supreme Court ruling that upheld bans on partial birth abortion. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, PBAs are absolutely brutal procedures where a nearly-formed child is killed in the womb and then removed. If it's done to save the life of the mother, I can understand that, but like with most abortions, it's often done by choice. That's unbelievable to me.

And abortion rights activists are trying to protect that to protect their "right" to an abortion? Please. I'm not a woman and I'll never bear a child, but I don't have to to see just how utterly barbaric partial birth abortions are. Even abortion rights activists should be leery of even talking about it in the contexts of the overall abortion debate.

Then there's gun control. In the light of the Virginia Tech shootings, the faux left has reintroduced the idea that the way to prevent future school shootings is with...more gun laws. Yeah, the ones on the books right now have really done the trick. Let's not forget Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone" and the shooter still managed to get guns on campus and kill 32 people. And another gun law is going to stop that from happening?

Why should Democrats stay away from these two issues? Because most people are burnt out on these issues. We went through these same issues in the 90s when Democrats and faux liberals beat the drum more than Neil Peart playing a solo, and we're tired. We've already thrown up our hands and said, "Enough already!" because we know neither one is going to be resolved anytime soon. Meanwhile, there are real issues that need to be addressed, like illegal immigration and the war on terrorism. These are issues we can and must address and should as soon as possible.

And Democrats want to bring up abortion and gun control?

Saturday, April 21, 2007

A Little Something Lighter

My blog posts have been more on the serious side lately, what with all the bad news we've faced lately. The Virginia Tech shooting. Casualties in Iraq. Sanjaya getting voted off "American Idol." In the midst of all of this negativity, it's often a good idea to take a step back and escape, if only for a little while.

So, instead of focusing on being serious, let's lighten the mood, shall we?

- "Blades of Glory." If you haven't seen it, see it. If you have seen it, see it again. It's THAT funny.

- "Grindhouse." Great movie up until Tarantino's "Death Proof." Is it just me or has Quenton Tarantino sucked as a director most of the time? Here's my impression of "Death Proof" so you won't have to waste money on it.

blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah car sequence blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah
car sequence another car sequence Kurt Russell gets the snot kicked out of him The End.

If only Tarantino were "suck proof."

If you feel you must see it, wait until it comes out on DVD or see it at a matinee and leave after the "Previews of Coming Attractions" in the middle of the movie.

- Rock star Rob Zombie is remaking "Halloween." WHY? Why do people today think they have to remake classics to make them "more modern"? In some cases, it works (see "Seabiscuit"). In most cases, it sucks (see "Poseidon"). It's too late to stop Rob Zombie, but it's not too late to tell Hollywood to start creating new stuff and not trying to "improve" on the old stuff.

- Alec Baldwin/Kim Bassinger. Knowing what I know about Baldwin's temper, I have no doubt he very well could have left that angry voice mail message on his daughter's cell phone. Knowing what I know about Bassinger, I have no doubt she could be using her daughter as a pawn to get back at Baldwin. It gives me no joy to consider that that young woman is going through right now and wonder if her parents actually love her or if they just say they do.

- Sanjaya off "American Idol." I'm shocked he got this far. He's a decent enough singer and he has the boyish good looks to be a pop singer, but what really seemed to shine was his personality. He loved performing and he loved giving back to his fans. That's something more than a few big performers today could learn from the guy.

- Dennis Miller's new radio show. Great stuff. Miller shows he is a natural for radio and his interview segments are top-notch. He doesn't try to talk over people, but rather gives them a wide berth to get out what they want to say so the audience can decide. If you haven't had a chance to listen to him yet, his website has an audio archive. The stuff with Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz will leave you hurting from all the laughing you'll do.

- Larry King celebrates 50 years in broadcasting. A great milestone to be sure. Anybody who does what King does night after night deserves all the recognition he can get.

- "Hot Fuzz." It's the latest film by the guys who did "Shawn of the Dead." If you haven't seen "Shawn of the Dead," BUY IT. It will turn your head around on the zombie film genre, and "Hot Fuzz" looks to do the same for police movies and "buddy films" like "Lethal Weapon."

- "Spider-Man 3." Can't we move the opening date up a week or two so we can stop seeing all the hype for the movie? I was in WalMart today and I swear I saw Spider-Man 3 Bug Spray on sale. Throw in a Spider-Man 3 George Foreman Grill and a package of Spider-Man 3 Kosher Hot Dogs and we will have officially hyped everything possible with this movie.

And finally...

- Monkeys. They look like us and they fling their poo. What's not to like?

Thursday, April 19, 2007

From Peacock to Poppycock

After the Virginia Tech shootings earlier this week, the media have been scrambling to try to find out more about the shooter. What was he like? What did he do? What caused him to step over the line?

Then, NBC got a video tape mailed by the shooter. After they debated their options, they decided to turn the original over to authorities after they made a copy to show on the air. People, including families of the victims, were outraged. By the same token, NBC had a golden opportunity for a scoop, and in today's ultra-competitive world, every ratings point counts.

People have weighed in on whether NBC should have run the tape, but few have the perspective of someone who controls the content of a media outlet. Although my website doesn't get the traffic of NBC, I do have control over the content on the site, so I feel qualified to speak to this controversy.

In journalism school, I was taught that getting a story at the expense of the feelings of others The classic example is the photojournalist who took a great picture of a man who had just drowned and his grieving wife. At some point, there needs to be a value judgment made. Sure, the picture could make the photojournalist and the newspaper he/she works for famous, but at what price? Does the public really need to see the suffering of the woman?

In today's news environment, the answer to those questions are a) at any price, and b) absolutely. NBC says they weighed the pros and cons of airing the tape, and I wasn't privy to their debate, so I can't say one way or the other how intensely they considered these questions.

What I can say is that I think their decision to run the tape was wrong. Nothing good can come from evil, especially not an evil like we saw at Virginia Tech. Thirty-two people lost their lives at the hands of one mentally disturbed young man armed with handguns. His words and pictures served no real purpose and could only widen the wounds we all felt as he shot the students in cold blood. If I were someone in charge at NBC, I would have turned over the tape and pictures to the authorities, gone on the air, and said the following:

"Ladies and gentlemen, the Virginia Tech shooter sent us photographs and a video tape of his cruel exploits that cost 32 people their lives. It is news. We had every right to show it to you. And we would have been the only major network who could show it to you. But we won't because nothing good would come of it. We would be giving the shooter publicity at the expense of the families and friends of the slain, and that is something we cannot in good conscience do. We have turned the tape and photos over to the authorities because they will do more with this material than we could and should. There will be people who will criticize and malign our decision not to show the footage. We will meet their criticism with a proud and resolute heart because we will know that we didn't inflict more pain in the pursuit of a story that is painful enough as it is."

That's what makes great journalists, NBC. Knowing when you don't need to tell a story.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Virginia Tech: A Case Study in Failure

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting yesterday, politics took a break...or did it. Not even 24 hours after the shooting, political operatives on the left were blaming the shooting on George W. Bush, the National Rifle Association, the lack of gun laws, even Charlton Heston. And what would save us? Why, more gun control laws, of course!

But let's take the discussion down a road that most people may not have considered. Gun control is an easy answer to a more difficult question, but are gun control laws effective? Quick quiz question: Name a gun control law that would have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter.

The correct answer? None. There is no gun control law on the books, proposed, or that will ever be proposed that will prevent someone intent on shooting someone else from completing his or her desired action. The reason is because criminals and crazy people don't care about the law. If you want to test this, go to Washington, DC, get mugged by a guy with a gun, and try to stop him by yelling, "That's illegal!" as loud as you can. Oh, and before you do, pick out a hospital close to the crime scene. You know, just in case the mugger decides to do more than just mug you after he stops laughing.

Spin it all you want, you Sarah Brady acolytes, but the truth is gun control laws are batting a big goose-egg when it comes to protecting people. That's because gun control laws aren't meant to protect people; they're meant to control people, namely gun owners. And in case you missed this memo, it's not the average gun owner who is shooting up a college. It's someone who is either mentally unstable or of a criminal mindset.

In either case, gun control laws don't tend to cover these situations. Sure, the concept of background checks are meant to weed out these folks, but how many of those checks can see into the future well enough to predict when someone will go crazy or decide that a life of crime is better than playing by the rules? And how many of either type will circumvent the background checks altogether by going to someone outside of the legal channels? You can pass gun control laws from now until Judgment Day, but not a one of them will prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.

Ban assault weapons? The shootings yesterday were not done with assault weapons. They were done with pistols, which are not covered by the assault weapons ban. Furthermore, less than 5% of all gun-related crimes are committed with guns considered to be assault weapons (and, if memory serves me, it's actually closer to half that percentage). Nothing like focusing all sorts of attention on weapons that aren't used that often in the commission of a crime, huh?

Let's face facts. Gun control has been an amazing failure. And as a result of this failure, 32 students lost their lives at Virginia Tech. So, what would have stopped the shooter?

One student with a gun and the knowledge of how to use it safely. When you compare the number of gun-related deaths per year to the number of defensive gun uses in that same year, one fact jumps out at you: there are a LOT more of the latter than there are of the former. Gee, that would lead one to believe that gun ownership might stop more crimes than they cause death...

So, my fellow Americans, we have a choice. We can either pass more gun control laws and continue the cycle of failure, or we can start pushing for more people to own guns and protect themselves and others.

Choose carefully. The life you save may be your own.

Monday, April 16, 2007

American Racism and Sexism Today

Between the Don Imus controversy and the Duke rape case, we've seen the ugly side of America. Racism and sexism are running rampant, or so we're told by the media. And we know racism and sexism are wrong.

But there's one group of people who is the target of a lot of racism and sexism. A race and a gender that has been blamed for crime, drug use, poverty, irresponsibility, corruption, war, and all sorts of other bad stuff. Whenever they complain, the majority of people ignore their complaints, no matter how valid they are. To many people, this group is the lowest of the low. Who is this group?

White males.

It's no secret that white men have done more than a few things that have hurt our country, and we deserve to be knocked around a bit for those things. Heck, I'm still apologizing for Vanilla Ice. But what passes for criticism of white males these days is just as racist and sexist as anything uttered by Don Imus.

Take the comments following the dropping of the charges against the three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a woman. For the better part of a year, these three young men were dragged through the mud, all because of one woman's lies and one prosecutor's misdeeds in defense of those lies. And what do you think happened? Most people were happy that the men were vindicated, but there was still a contingent who believed they bought justice. Why?

Because, as Joy Behar of "The View" put it, Duke is a "rich white boy's club." Try telling that to their families, who now have legal fees to deal with.

And it's not just celebrities or near-celebrities who are doing it. Blog posters all across the country are getting into the act. Reading some postings on message boards about the Duke case and the Imus controversy got to be downright bigoted with the general attitude of some posters being "Now whites know how blacks feel." Take this posting about Imus, for example:

...I just love white guys like you -- who know NOTHING about being demeaned on the basis of race OR gender -- Having so much to say. If I hear one more "whiney white guy" pitying the sad state of affairs for their lot, I think I'll puke...They are the BIGGEST whiners about "political correctness" 'cause what REALLY bothers them, is the fact that they just can't insult everybody else anymore without consequences... Boo-freakin'-Hoo...You don't "hold all the cards" anymore -- which is the way it SHOULD have been all along -- You're NOT the only people in the world...In fact, when you count white WOMEN in addition to both genders of color -- It is YOU who are the minority.

A test to see if your comments are bigoted in any way is to change what you say about a certain group to your group and see if you get offended. Let's try it with a portion of the above post.

...If I hear one more "whiney black guy" pitying the sad state of affairs for their lot, I think I'll puke...They are the BIGGEST whiners about "racism" 'cause what REALLY bothers them, is the fact that they can't just insult everybody else anymore without consequences...

Judges, we have a winner.

It's nice to see people speaking out against racism and sexism, but we shouldn't be racist and sexist to speak out against them. That makes us no better than the ones we criticize.

Of course, what do I know? I'm only a white man.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

A Chill Wind for Free Speech

Okay, America, it's time to have a talk about free speech. Don Imus said something incredibly stupid and has been apologizing more than Trent Lott at the Apollo. He lost his sponsors and now his job. But that just isn't enough for some people.

Enter Al Sharpton. Even though he had Imus appear on his radio show and apologize, even though he berated Imus throughout, Sharpton wants more. Read this and be very scared.

It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves.

Apparently, Sharpton's never heard of the FCC...

Then, there's Keith Olbermann. With no apparent sense of irony, Olbermann came up with a list of others he would like to see kicked off the air, including people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Neal Boortz. Hmmm...seems to be a pattern there.

In both cases, I'm sure there are a lot of "progressives" and self-styled liberals who are nodding in agreement with the two of them. After all, to them, Limbaugh, Beck, Boortz, and others are all hatemongers who spew conservative venom, poisoning the minds of their sheeplike followers. But they're overlooking something.

The Law Of Unintended Consequences.

If these nozzleheads get what they want, they open themselves up to the same thing being done to them when they're out of power. Of course, when it happens to them, they'll scream "free speech" and wrap themselves in the Constitution. Well, let me tell you something, Al and Keith, you are fairweather friends of the Constitution. When it suits your needs, you will defend it with every fiber of your pathetic beings...or you'll pretend it's like a wisp of smoke.

Like the smoke from a book burning.

Get it yet, guys? You can't pick and choose who gets free speech. If you want it, you have to allow it for those who you disagree with. Protecting the speech you like doesn't make you a patriot. It makes you part of the problem, and it makes you liars when you say you defend free speech.

On the other hand, there are people out there who defend Imus's right to say completely stupid stuff and the rights of those who want to call him out on it. You don't fight bad speech with censorship. You fight it with good speech.

And that doesn't happen when one side is allowed to gag the other.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Justice WASN'T Done

Sure, the three Duke men's lacrosse players accused falsely of raping a stripper have had the remaining charges against them dropped. But justice wasn't done.

Sure, Michael Nifong may get disbarred or worse for hiding evidence that would have exonerated the lacrosse players, or for generally conducting himself in an unprofessional manner for the sake of winning an election. But justice wasn't done.

Sure, the stripper who accused the three players has been discredited and will be mocked rightly by columnists, pundits, and late night talk show hosts. But justice wasn't done.

Sure, the Duke faculty who sided against the players without checking into the hard facts are more than a little embarassed at making so public a scene at something that proved to be nothing. But justice wasn't done.

The comedy of errors that was the Duke lacrosse rape case hasn't reached an end. It's only reached a temporary stopping point. Here's what I mean.

- The accused players, especially the three accused of the more serious crimes, won't be able to get their reputations back. For the duration of the scandal, they were maligned by members of the press, members of the Duke University faculty, and members of the Duke University student body. No matter how hard they work or how many times they repeat that all the charges were dropped, there will still be that percentage of people who will think they raped that stripper and got off because of their parents' money.

- The players' legal fees have reached around $3 million. We can demand Nifong or the stripper pay these or that Duke University or the state of North Carolina pay these, but it won't do any good because all we'd be doing is shifting responsibility for who should pay the fees. And let's face it, one bankruptcy filing by Nifong or the stripper and the players won't see one red cent if they go back against one or both of them for the legal fees.

- Duke University's men's lacrosse team lost three members and at least part if not all of their season. Having played sports in high school, I can tell you there is no greater feeling than representing your school in an athletic endeavor. That got stripped from many of the members of the team, not just the accused.

- Duke University brought shame on itself with a ham-handed attempt to discuss the case without naming names. The faculty who signed the open letter regarding this matter should be ashamed that the would defile their place of employment, one with a pretty good law school from what I've heard, by ignoring the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Apparently, they thought quelling a perceived desire for African-American students to rise up and protest was more important than doing right by the accused.

- Race and class relations in Raleigh-Durham took a beating. How many people thought the students in question were guilty merely because they were rich and white? How many people think the students got off not because they were innocent, but because their parents paid off somebody? How many people will disregard the stripper's lack of credibility and constantly changing story because the accused were "spoiled white boys"?

No, justice wasn't done with the dropping of the charges. The best we can hope for is a return to something resembling normality. But for the accused, they've lost far more than what the American legal system can ever give back.

Was This Really Necessary?

Well, now we can sleep a little easier. We finally know who the babydaddy of Anna Nicole Smith's girl is. Now, we can focus our attention on an important issue, one that will define our generation: whether Don Imus will be back on the air after he made an allegedly racist comment about members of the Rutgers women's basketball team.

Is it just me, or are we forgetting that there's a war against people who want to kill us going on?

Maybe it's me, but it seems we're getting far too distracted by meaningless issues to focus on the truly important matters on our plates. The global war on terrorism is pretty important. Nancy Pelosi breaking the law by going to Syria and possibly doing it again by going to Iran is pretty important. How the Iranian hostage situation impacts the world's perception of Iran is important. We have big issues on our plates, folks.

And we're focusing on the freak show stories like Imus and Smith.

Anymore, the media are like childrens photographers at the mall. They pull out squeaky toys or stuffed animals to divert attention and make the subjects happy so they can click the picture and sell the parents a picture package. The Imus and Smith stories are the squeaky toys and stuffed animals so that we don't focus on the big issues, and too many of us get wrapped up in following the freakshow. It's a nice diversion, but it shouldn't be confused with serious matters. Yet, it is time and time again.

And we don't even seem to be bothered by this.

Waiter, check please.

Monday, April 9, 2007

The I-Word

Ladies and gentlemen, it's time we discuss something we haven't had to discuss for a while, but it's of the utmost importance. We need to discuss impeachment.

Not of George W. Bush, but of Nancy Pelosi.

With her grandstanding trip to Syria to talk about the Iranian hostage situation, Madame Speaker clearly violated the Constitutional separation of powers. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to give "advice and consent" to treaties and appointments to various offices. It does not, however, give Congress the power to set or make foreign policy. Not even Article I, Section 8, which lists the powers of the Legislative Branch, makes any such claim. In fact, you'd have to stretch the "advice and consent" clause pretty far to not only cover what Pelosi did, but to cover the House and the Senate.

Granted, that may not be enough to impeach Pelosi. That's where the Logan Act comes into play. The Logan Act makes it illegal for an American citizen to communicate with a foreign country in an attempt to alter that country's behavior on matters of controversy or that are in dispute and, thus, work against the interests of the United States. The Bush Administration not only has tried to freeze any relations with Syria, but specifically told Madame Speaker not to go. In either case, her attempt to create a new foreign policy would fall under the Logan Act's jurisdiction.

A number of you reading this might be saying, "But Congress can't impeach its own members." If so, you'd be wrong. Think about it. The Constitution provides the ability to impeach the President, Vice President, or any civil official. And what would a Congressman or Congresswoman be? A civil official. Furthermore, why would the Founding Fathers set up a means to punish the Executive Branch and Judicial Branch, but leave the Legislative Branch unaccountable on matters of illegal activity? That flies in the face of what the Founding Fathers set out to do, and it won't fly when it comes to Pelosi.

Watching Demcorats try to spin Pelosi's activities brings up another i word: inconsistent. Let's not forget these are the same folks who want to impeach President Bush for following not-that-bad intelligence into war (a war Democrats were in favor of as late as 2004, I might add) and investigate him for firing 8 federal prosecutors, something the President has the authority to do in the first place. But when it comes to Madame Speaker, they're full of excuses. So much for Democrats being in favor of law and order...

As for the Republicans, I have another i word for you: incompetent. Where are the Republicans on this issue? They're letting this one slide when if the roles were reversed and it was Newt Gingrich pulling a Pelosi while Clinton was President, the Democrats would be screaming for Newt's head on a pike. But Republicans? They're content to let this one go. Even conservative talk radio and TV host Sean Hannity wants Republicans not to do anything. Ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly what the Democrats want Republicans to do: be so scared of a PR fallout that they'll let a felony go unpunished.

It's past time for Republicans to call Pelosi and the Democrats on the carpet for this little junket. If the Democrats are truly wanting to "drain the swamp" as Madame Speaker said, they'd better get on board and hold Pelosi accountable for gross abuse of power and a violation of the Logan Act. So, what's it gonna be, Democrats? Hold Pelosi accountable, or keep making excuses?

The ball's in your court. Take a stand for justice or forever hold your tongues with your calls to hold Bush accountable for his "crimes."

Monday, April 2, 2007

April Fools!

Yes, April Fool's Day was yesterday, but that's not the point of this entry. Instead, I want to focus on some of the biggest fools out there today, present company and myself excluded. (Figured I'd beat Mr. Anonymous to the joke.)

Now, in no particular order...

Nancy Pelosi - Madame Speaker, going against the wishes of the White House, flies to Syria to talk about the Iranian hostage situation. First off, who died and made her Secretary of State. Second, why go to Syria to talk about Iran? Apparently, John Murtha was responsible for her itinerary.

George W. Bush - Let me get this straight. You asked your Attorney General for help in determining if you could fire federal attorneys, he provides it, and now you're trying to cover up a legal and Constitutional activity through a series of not-well-thought-out lies? Dude, you don't have to lie to do what you did. Brush up on your Constitution and tell Congress to shove their subpoenas up their...well, you know.

John McCain - You torque off Republican voters in 2000 and have steadily decided that you don't need the conservatives of the GOP to win. Well, judging from the poll numbers, you're going to need any vote you can get. Of course, that's not going to be easy, considering you've put your foot in your mouth so often you're getting athlete's tongue. Here's a clue for ya. Fred Thompson is on your heels and he hasn't even announced yet. Time to pack it in.

Henry Waxman - There were two things wrong with the way you handled Valerie Plame's testimony before the Senate. One, your ugly mug was all over it. And two, you allowed it to happen. You weren't there to find the truth, as was evidenced by the number of times you had to twist the truth to justify the dog and pony show you were running. You were there to score political points against the President when it's clear he didn't have anything to do with outing Plame. And if lying to Congress is such a big deal, why did you let Plame do it and why aren't you resigning?

Rosie O'Donnell - Watching "The View" is getting to be like watching an episode of "The X Files," only less believable. I know you're trying to "inform the people" about what's really going on in the world (at least according to you), but your credibility is shot when you start spewing conspiracy theories that make Art Bell look like Fox Mulder. And while we're on the subject of "The View"...

Joy Behar - One of Rosie's enablers on "The View." Last week, she maligned Yale University, saying it couldn't have been that good if President Bush was allowed to go there. And just where did you go to college? I've never been there and I'm not particularly fond of their political bent or elitist mentality, but to say it can't be a good school because of one person you disagree with? Makes me wonder if your alma mater would claim you.

Tony Blair - The way you've handled the Iranian hostage situation is nothing short of breathtaking. It literally takes my breath away that you're making the mistakes of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter simultaneously! I know you Brits aren't exactly known for being down and dirty, but you're going to have to learn how quickly if you want to see those hostages, alive or otherwise.

Al Franken - Wow. After watching your recent appearance on Letterman, I was blown away by just how unfunny, unoriginal, and uninformed you are. Fortunately, the Senate doesn't have that high a bar, so you might just squeak by. Provided, of course, you can find a way to parlay a fourth-rate talk radio career into a fifth-rate government job.

I know that's only a few fools, but you can add to my list or come up with your own. Not to mention, the list will most certainly grow over the rest of the year. After all, Congress has to come back to work sometime...