MediaCynic.com Archives Homepage Linking to Us Recent Headlines Categories 2008 Election George W. Bush Dick Cheney Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton Economy John Edwards Entertainment Environment Al Gore Health Care Immigration International Iraq John Kerry Media Middle East Miscellaneous Plamegate Politics Polls Religion Condoleezza Rice Donald Rumsfeld Scandals Science Social security Supreme Court Taxes Technology

2004 Archives Stingy No More; U.S. Antes Up $350 Million for Tsunami Relief The Washington Post reports that the U.S. has upped its offer of aid to victims of the Tsunami to $350 million, after a humiliating series of criticisms from both international and U.S. political figures. After first ignoring the disaster entirely while clearing brush on his Crawford ranch, President Bush finally issued a diplomatic statement of sympathy for those affected by the tragedy. Bush reportedly was infuriated by U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland's characterization of foreign assistance from western countries as "stingy." A visibly distraught Mr. Egeland appeared on Larry King Live the other night to clarify his remarks. He said that he never named a specific country and that he was referring to foreign aid, in general, not specifically to the tsunami relief effort. He said that he was not trying to offend anyone, but he had seen too many starving children in his job. The U.S. had a great opportunity to help turn around the bad opinion held of us by much of the world because of our handling of the Iraq War. A speedy response to the tragedy by the president of the United States would have both helped the victims and helped us bolster our image abroad. Instead, the world got a slow and grudging response to the tragedy. And when the New York Times pointed out that we'll spend over $30 million on the presidential inaugeration festivities (twice the paltry $15 million we originally offered in relief aid)-- well, it just looks bad. Another missed opportunity. Posted on December 31, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Will Katie Couric Take Over for Dan Rather? Broadcasting & Cable magazine reports that CBS wants to "land a superstar to take over" for departing news anchor Dan Rather and that Katie Couric, host of the popular Today show is CBS's top pick. Couric is still tied to a $15 million a year contract with NBC, which expires in 18 months. "Virtually everyone in the news pantheon who's younger than 60 is tied up even longer than Couric or simply doesn't want the gig," the magazine reports. The plan (assuming Ms. Couric is even interested in the spot) is for someone like Bob Schiffer or Ed Bradley to take over on an interim basis until Katie is available in 2006. The gig would reportedly be worth a whopping $20 million a year -- or even more. I like Bob Schiffer; he did a good job during the presidential debates. Although nobody did as well as Jim Lehrer. I like having one of the grizzled old guys at the anchor desks; it's soothing somehow. Especially when the news they're reporting is turn your hair white awful. It's nice to have grandpa say it will all be ok. Posted on December 20, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Social Security: Living on Borrowed Time In President Bush's weekly radio address, he said of his plans to revamp Social Security: "I'm open to good ideas from Democrats and Republicans." So, let me get this straight. He still doesn't have a specific plan yet for tinkering with the elderly's social safety net? That's not terribly reassuring. The White House keeps floating trial balloons to see what kind of reaction they get. So far, the reaction has been remarkably cool, especially considering the fact that we still haven't even heard the details for this supposedly sweeping change. If one supposes that Bush's plan is to allow workers under 30 to take a small percentage of their incomes and put them into private accounts, the estimated transition costs will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Because our government has recklessly spent the money that the current retirees have been paying into the system for the last forty years or so, the system relies on the earnings of today's young workers to fund current benefits payable to retirees. This shortfall will have to be met by our borrowing from the Chinese and anyone else who's willing to continue to finance our profligate spending spree. But the word is that the countries that hold much of our debt are increasingly unhappy with our free-spending ways. And aren't the countries buying up our debt also doing arms deals with terrorists? Is this really a good idea to owe these people a lot of money? And exactly how much did Bush just ask for in additional funding for the Iraq War -- $100 billion or so? But we'll get that money back in oil revenues, right? Oh wait, Bush made sure that that provision was taken out of the Iraq spending bills -- Iraq doesn't have to pay us back for the cost of "liberation." Not to worry. I'm sure our international creditors will be just as generous when the time comes. Posted on December 18, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Republicans to Rumsfeld: "We're Just Not That Into You" Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is joining in the Greek chorus of high-powered Republicans who are increasingly unhappy with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's handling of the Iraq War. Collins put pen to paper and blasted Rummy about his pathetic performance at the town hall meeting with soldiers. Collins said that Rummy's responses to soldiers' complaints that they have to dumpster dive to find armor for their Humvees was "troubling." "I am very concerned that it appears the Pentagon failed to do everything in its power to increase production of the vehicles," Collins wrote. "The Department of Defense still has been unable to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their mission as safely as possible." Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) said of Rummy's comments that "you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have," that troops in Iraq "deserved a far better answer than that flippant response." Rummy told the troops that it was a matter of "physics" and blamed the manufacturers for being so slow. Too bad that the two companies producing armor plating flat out contradicted that statement and said they could produce as many as double the number of armor kits in a month, but hadn't heard from the Pentagon. This is outrageous. We need to supply our troops with the proper equipment. Armor plating is essential in a country where convoys are routinely attacked with RPG's, mines and weapons fire. Senator John McCain looked like he was going to be sick when interviewed on CNN about the fact that Rummy has re-upped to head up the Pentagon for another four years. Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) and Senator Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey) have called for Rummy's resignation. Does any of this bother Rummy? Not so's you'd notice. But if our troops not having equipment to fight a war doesn't bother him, why should anything else? Posted on December 16, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Bernard Kerik and the Smokescreen Nanny In a classic late night Friday news dump, the White House announced that Bernard Kerik was withdrawing from consideration as the next Homeland Security chief citing potential confirmation problems with his hiring of an illegal nanny. Kerik says in his The resignation letter: "Under the present circumstances, however, I cannot permit matters personal to me to distract from the focus and progress of the Department of Homeland Security and its crucial endeavors." The nannygate problem has scuttled quite a few nominees over the years, and it's a great excuse -- which most of the media isn't buying for a minute. Mickey Kaus of Slate writes, "Is 'I have a nanny problem' the new resignation smokescreen of choice, replacing 'I want to spend more time with my family'? The latter phrase has become such an implausble cliche it's lost all utility--it's practically a red flag signalling 'I have a big problem I'm not telling you about.'" There are lots of other theories about what's in Kerik's past: from questionable business practices to the fact that apparently there is a warrant for his arrest outstanding in New Jersey. Bernie, Bernie...what have you been up to? Posted on December 11, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Powell Ponders His Future After being turned down in his request to stay on as Secretary of State so that he could try to make some headway on the Israeli-Palestinian situation in light of Yasir Arafat's unlamented (by the West, anyway) departure, Colin Powell now faces the task of figuring out what he wants to do next. A recent poll showed that he had a good shot of winning if he ran for governor of New York, but Powell has ruled out running for political office. (I can't imagine why. The last presidential election was so lovely, so civil, so easy on the candidates' families....) AFP via Yahoo reports that Powell said today that he will not be leaving public life. He hinted that he may pick up a pen and write a political column, or perhaps even host a political show. Of all the people leaving the White House, Colin Powell is the one that I think most people would like to see a lot more of in the future. And I also think he'd make an excellent governor of New York. Or anywhere else, for that matter. Posted on December 10, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. A Snowy Day at the White House The Wall Street Journal reports that Treasury Secretary John Snow has been asked to stay on for a second term, after weeks of rumors that he was going to be shown the door. The word is that the bigwig Wall Street executive that the inner circle wanted for the job turned them down flat, no doubt horrified by what happened to the last big exec who took the job, Paul O'Neill, who clashed repeatedly with the White House because of his incredibly annoying habit of telling the truth to reporters. Snow is said to be loyal and is willing to go along with Bush's plans to privatize social security and revamp the tax system. Rumors are also swirling around D.C. that Snow is just a placeholder until another exec can be found to take the job in a year or two. Those rumors were not put to rest when Snow refused to answer questions about whether he will be staying for Bush's entire second term. With the AARP already sending out 55 million letters to its members opposing the proposed partial privatization of social security, Snow better be ready to rumble come 2005. Posted on December 9, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Soldiers Talk Back Live to Rummy Camp Buehring, Kuwait was the setting for an amazing piece of theater -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was on a morale-building trip and (ill-advisedly) decided to take questions from the troops in front of reporters. But instead of the kinds of questions President Bush got during his controlled campaign appearances, Rummy got a doozy of a question from Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, which consists mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard. Specialist Wilson asked "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense. Nonplussed by the question, Rummy asked him to repeat it. "We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Spc. Wilson said after asking again. The Defense Secretary's response? "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can [still] be blown up." Well then, that settles it. Posted on December 8, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. P. Diddy and W. Have a Chat The New York Post reports that hip hop impresario and Vote or Die founder P. Diddy (well, he's Sean Coombs to his mother and went by Puffy when he was with J. Lo) showed up at the White House for a private tour, only to discover that his tour guides were President and Mrs. Bush. Which must have been a bit surprising, after that nasty little snafu during the campaign season when Mrs. Bush refused to pose for a photo with the Diddy. P. Diddy's feelings were said to be hurt by the incident and he shared with reporters that Vote or Die is non-partisan. The word must have trickled back to the compound since the first couple reportedly was very gracious during the tour. So what in the world did this threesome discuss? Sources say Laura Bush told Puffy: "I understand you had a wonderful birthday party recently." And when they discovered that P. Diddy and Mrs. Bush have the same birth date, W suggested they celebrate jointly next year. "I'll arrange that," P. Diddy offered. As he left, Mr. Coombs told the first couple, "You have a nice house." Kudos to the Diddy for overcoming the shock and awe of a surprise presidential meeting and coming up with some polite chit chat. Although I'm still not convinced that President Bush had any idea who he was having to lead on a tour, since he kept saying "SO, you're Sean Combs." Posted on December 7, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. October Surprise: Osama bin Laden Takes the Stage Despite the U.S. State Department's best efforts to convince the government of Qatar to clamp down on al-Jazeera, the arab news network aired a fourteen minute tape from terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. U.S. news networks quickly followed suit, providing excerpts and transcripts for American viewers as a sort of extra Halloween treat. One of President Bush's favorite stump speech lines is that "al Qaeda hates us because of our freedom." Osama riduculed that explanation of the terrorists' aims, saying: "free people don't let go of their security -- contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden, for instance. It's known that those who hate freedom don't have dignified souls, like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you because we are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation." Bin Laden then went on to take full responsibility for 9/11, and described how the idea came to him when the U.S. helped Israel bomb Beirut, Lebanon in 1982, and he watched towers fall and women and children die. He also mentioned the Palestinian people. Basically, he justified his actions as retaliation for the killings of Muslims around the world. Of course, what Osama doesn't seem to understand is that American foreign policy (and Americans' memories) are like an Etch-a-Sketch; every four years we shake the slate clean and start over again, as if nothing had gone before. "Beirut in 1982??" most Americans will ask, scratching their heads, "what the hell does that have to do with flying two planes into the Twin Towers in 2001?" And that just points up one of the many differences between our two cultures. "Though I have to wait 1000 years, I will have my revenge" is an old saying in Osama's part of the world. Blood feuds last lifetimes. Americans, by contrast, can barely remember Paris Hilton's last sex tape. And polls show that most Americans are so ignorant of geography and current events that they probably couldn't even find Beirut on a map. We haven't heard from Osama in quite a while and this new tape is puzzling terror experts for a number of reasons. Osama looks fit, well-rested and has the full use of both of his hands (in prior tapes, it appeared that he couldn't move his left arm at all). He also speaks calmly, and reads from prepared remarks as he stands at an American-style podium, with his hands firmly on the lectern. One wonders if he watched the presidential debates. He delivers his speech in common Arabic, using none of the flowery, religous language he has used before. He addresses the American people directly, telling us that he will share how we can avoid another tragedy and that our safety is not in the hands of President Bush, Senator Kerry or even al-Qaeda, but in our hands -- and presumably in those who conduct America's foreign policy. What is profoundly odd about the tape is the way Osama delivers his lines: like a politician or diplomat addressing the U.N. He speaks calmly and rationally, as he describes his justification for murdering 3,000 innocent people. He has the air of wanting to open a diplomatic dialogue with the American people. No ranting, no raving, nothing. I personally found it much scarier than the other tape that came out this week in which a turbaned guy talked about the streets running with blood, there being so many bodies that we wouldn't be able to count our dead etc. etc. But Osama sounded clear and rational, while saying irrational and evil things. It is unclear right now what this October surprise means for the election. It isn't helpful for Bush to have Osama, alive and well, show up on tape and ridicule Bush's actions on 9/11. Osama tasked Bush for reading "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren while leaving "50,000 of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him." It also galling to have the admitted architect of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil laughing at us, while we sit in the quagmire of Iraq with no exit strategy or benefit to the U.S. in sight. I mean, 1,000 troops are dead, over 7,000 are injured and yet the perpetrator of the crime has not been punished. Bush seemed to grasp this fact immediately, hopefully predicting that "Americans will not be intimidated or influenced by an enemy of our country. I'm sure Senator Kerry agrees with this." In response to the tape, Senator Kerry said, "Let me make it clear, crystal clear: As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. They are barbarians. And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes, period." Kerry sounded strong and the tape may hurt Bush. On the other hand, Bush's poll numbers are better than Kerry's on the terrorism issue and a new tape, regardless of the substance, may help Bush. I think it will be a wash and isn't going to help either candidate. But we'll see on Tuesday. Posted on October 29, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. RNC to Rock the Vote: Shut Up or Face the Wrath of the IRS With American troops stretched thin on the ground in Iraq, and the activation of reservists and national guardsmen to active duty in Iraq, many experts are questioning where the troops are going to come from to continue the progression of the current administration's foreign policy. The L.A. Times quotes Elaine Kamarck, a public policy expert at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, saying that the rumors of the reinstatement of the draft "stem from a direction in foreign policy that is just beginning to sink into the consciousness of the country. Which is, 'Wait a minute, if our foreign policy is to go around the globe and take out bad guys, something's gotta give.'" And although major newspapers and policy experts are talking about the realistic possibility of a draft in America's future, apparently, the Republicans don't even want the subject discussed. Why is that? Polling shows that young people believe that Bush is much more likely to impose a draft than Kerry would, although both candidates have said they will not impose a draft. But Kerry has said he will add two divisions to the Army and double Special Forces to cover the shortfall and end the backdoor draft. Bush keeps saying things are fine in Iraq and that the troops aren't stretched too thin -- which is why there is a credibility gap as large as the Grand Canyon between his comments and the beliefs of anyone who has bothered to actually read the Republican Party Platform. Founded by liberal-leaning musicians, Rock the Vote is a non-partisan group which focuses on encouraging young people to get involved with politics and to vote. It has encouraged a discussion of the draft issue. Enter Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie who, after reading about this in the L.A. Times, sent this astounding letter to Rock The Vote, demanding that they stop even discussing the issue of the draft or face the repeal of their non-profit status. The grounds for Mr. Gillespie's there will be no draft under President Bush, so an assertion that even raising the possibility of a draft is engaging in "malicious intent and a reckless disregard for the truth." And Mr. Gillespie's proof that there will never be a draft? Why, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld said so! I predict that this heavy-handed attempt by the RNC to stop free speech by Rock the Vote is going to backfire in a big way. Because young people just don't trust old men who promise not to send them to war -- especially when the old men pull stunts like this. Posted on October 15, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Bush v. Kerry, Round 2: Advantage Lehrer The second debate took place in a less formal setting: a town hall format, with audience members asking prescreened questions, presided over by Charlie Gibson, genial host of Good Morning America. Gibson is a nice guy, but honestly, I thought Jim Lehrer was the clear winner. Lehrer came out swinging in the first debate; he told the audience that they must be absolutely silent during the proceedings. If they left the room, they couldn't get back in. If they made a sound during the debate, laughed, talked, clapped, wept or engaged in any other prohibited behavior, he would stop the debate and personally humiliate them on national television. The crowd was cowed and deathly silent. The debaters were also cowed -- when Lehrer spoke, they listened. But Charles Gibson was weak from the outset. He chatted with the audience members beforehand and actually took their complaints about the lousy sound system. He didn't threaten at all, merely asked them to be quiet during the debates...a fatal error. After Kerry said that he was "not going to go alone like this president did" in Iraq, Bush leapt from his stool and roared, "I've got to answer this!" just as Gibson was going to ask a follow up and give Bush time respond. Bush cut Gibson off at the knees, charged towards him and thundered, "You tell Tony Blair we're going alone!!" After that, Gibson lost all authority. The crowd laughed at the candidates' jokes. They sighed. The coughed. You were aware they were there. Gibson strove to regain lost ground by pulling out some half-glasses and donning a stern look, but the match was over by then. Lehrer would never have allowed a sitting president to run roughshod over him -- no, he is made of sterner stuff. Advantage, Lehrer, with Gwen Ifill coming in second for her snappy put-down of Dick Cheney in Tuesday's debate: when he said he couldn't answer in only 30 seconds, Ifill snapped back "Well, that's all you have." Oh, and the presidential candidates? Kerry wins on points for substance, and for managing to get in the facts he's a Catholic, served as an altar boy, that you can be Pro-Choice without being Pro-Abortion, and for bringing up Nancy Reagan when discussing stem cell research. Bush improved immeasurably from his dismal performance in the first debate. But he lost on style points for 1) forgetting this was a debate, not a bullfight and charging the moderator; 2) chuckling and smirking to himself, then doing facial contortions in a heroic attempt to suppress his scowls when Kerry talked about how he's for tort reform and lower taxes, 3) talking about the "rumors you've heard on the Internets", thereby immediately fueling more rumors of a second, undisclosed Internet location and 4) answering questions with values instead of facts. Although the "we had to cut down the trees in order to save the trees" argument was impressive, as was the claim that he was the one who proposed the hydrogen automobile and the piece de resistance, "To destroy life to save life is one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face." Bob Schieffer has his work cut out for him on the 13th. Posted on October 8, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Iraqis Embrace Democracy With a Vengeance: They're Suing Us Aljazeera.net is reporting a statement by Suha Said, a member of the Iraqi interim parliament, who said "now that the WMD file is closed, it's only natural that Washington should compensate the Iraqi people for all the damage inflicted since April 9, 2003." Mr. Said is, of course, referring to the bombshell report released today by the President Bush's handpicked chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer. The exhaustive report concludes that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear capability and was no threat to the United States. The report also notes that Saddam dreamed of the day sanctions would be removed and at that time he intended to get some more weapons -- to guard against arch-enemy Iran. It also revealed that Saddam hoped to mend relations with the United States and bluffed about having WMD so as not to lose face in front of Iran. Iyad al-Samarrai of the Iraqi Islamic Party said today that the Duelfer Report proves the war was "not legitimate" and that "All the information available before the war showed that [President] Saddam Hussein had put an end to his [weapons] programme." Therefore, reports Al-Jazeera, the Iraqi government states that the U.S. invasion was illegal under international law. The Iraqis are apparently demanding an apology and compensation for the loss of 15,000 Iraqi lives and damage to infrastructure, which they are willing to to go court to obtain. Now, how does one say "tort reform" in Arabic? Posted on October 7, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. John Edwards Passes the Test Dick Cheney is one of the most experienced men serving in the U.S. government today: a congressman, a presidential Chief of Staff for Gerald Ford, the Secretary of Defense for George H.W. Bush, and the most powerful vice president in American history. John Edwards, a one-term Senator and trial attorney, who has never been in a formal debate before this evening, was the clear underdog. For Edwards, the test was whether he possessed the gravitas necessary to be a heartbeat away from the President of the United States in wartime. Tonight, John Edwards passed the test. Moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS did an excellent job with the questions -- in fact, she exhausted the candidates. It was a brutal, serious debate which was heavy on issues and facts and light on fluff. Surprisingly, Cheney seemed nervous and tired -- especially towards the end, when Edwards was just getting warmed up. Some of Edwards' best moments were: --Edwards repeatedly hammered Cheney on the fact that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and that Cheney has been saying on the stump that he did; --In responding to Cheney's snippy comment that Edwards wasn't present at enough Senate votes, Edwards blasted Cheney's record as a congressman when he voted against Meals on Wheels for Seniors, the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the Department of Education and a resolution in support of freeing Nelson Mandela. --In response to Ms. Ifill's question as to whether flip flops are really so bad, Edwards hammered home the flip flops of the present administration, such as opposing the Department of Homeland Security and then supporting it, and oppposing the 9/11 Commission before supporting its creation. --Edwards pointing out the 1 million jobs lost during the past four years, which has made Bush the first American president since Herbert Hoover 72 years ago to preside over a net job loss in his term. --Edwards blasting Cheney and Halliburton for doing business with Iran and Libya, known enemies of the United States Dick Cheney's best moments were when he talked about gay marriage, saying that "freedom means freedom for everyone." He said that he prefers that the matter be left to the states, but that he supports President Bush (who wants a consitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage.) The format of the debate favored Cheney, who is an awkward stump speaker, but who is most comfortable behind a desk. But towards the end, he was really just phoning it in. As far as closing statements go, there was no contest: Edwards looked right into the camera and effortlessly connected with the viewer. Cheney just tried to scare everyone with another mention of nuclear attacks. But because of Edwards' hawkish speech about killing terrorists before they kill Americans and his impassioned defense of Israel, it fell flat. Advantage: Edwards. Now the pressure's back on for Friday's Town Hall-style debate, which should favor President Bush's more relaxed speaking style. Posted on October 5, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Presidential Debates: Advantage Kerry After all of the niggling over the height of the podiums, the gameshow warning lights and buzzers, the temperature of the auditorium and the prohibition against the candidates talking directly to each other, the first of the presidential debates finally got underway. For the Kerry camp, the debate was a crucial milestone in the campaign. And it appears that the Bush campaign miscalculated when it insisted on such strict time limits for the candidates' responses: for tonight, John Kerry was articulate, charming and -- gasp -- concise. Yes, that's right: he didn't ramble or explain too much or qualify any of his answers, as he has been wont to do in the past. He was calm, collected and in command of his facts. He was decisive and bold. President Bush, on the other hand, bumbled and fumbled his answers and actually got off message. Presidential advisor Karen Hughes was clearly devastated by her boss' performance. She told Wolf Blitzer that the president did a good job, but her demeanor said otherwise. The normally calm Hughes looked frazzled and nervous -- she was literally sweating bullets onscreen. General Wesley Clark, on the other hand, couldn't stop grinning as he answered Wolf's questions, and then those of John Stewart on The Daily Show. One of Bush's weirdest moments was when he demanded extra time and then ranted about it being a MISTAKE to talk to Kim Jong-Il of North Korea. "We can't talk directly to him!" It was just bizarre, really -- Kerry, on the other hand calmly advocated talking directly with North Korea, and also continuing multilateral talks. Kerry also finally put a flip-flopping charge to rest by admitting that he misspoke when he said that he voted for the $87 billion spending bill before he voted against it. "I made a mistake in how I talked about the war; The president made a mistake by going to war. Which is worse?" The president, famous for his malapropisms and misstatements seemed flummoxed. The networks gleefully violated the "no cutaway" rules that the Bush camp insisted on, and it really hurt Bush. When Kerry scored points, Bush smirked, then looked annoyed, then looked really angry. He also rolled his eyes a lot. Kerry, by contrast, seemed to know where the camera was. He smiled and took notes as Bush talked. He looked calm and focused. Bush looked rattled and angry. So, to sum up: Advantage Kerry. But it's far from over. There are two more debates and a long month of October campaigning to go. But there is no joy in the Bush camp tonight, regardless of what the spinmeisters may say. Posted on September 30, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Iraqi Elections: An Exercise in Futility? If you think the current U.S. presidential elections are confusing, with all the contradictory poll numbers, dueling attack ads and Rathergate, wait until you hear what's supposed to happen in Iraq. The timing of the election and who will be allowed to vote seems to depend on who's doing the talking. President Bush said, "They're going to have elections in January in Iraq. When America gives its word, America will keep its word. We'll stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq." [9/22/04, Remarks by the President at Victory 2004 Rally, Latrobe, Pennsylvania] Ok, that's a noble goal...but as I understand it, there are a number of "no-go" zones in Iraq, such as the cities of Falluja, Tikrit, Samarra, Ramadi and Sadr City, where the insurgents and local militias are in total control and the violence is so bad that American troops aren't even allowed to go there. So, if we can't even get in there, then how are the U.N. Elections officials supposed to go there? And how are ordinary citizens supposed to get to the polls without being shot or beheaded? On September 21 in Lansing, Michigan, Vice-president Cheney said that it would be up to the Iraqis to decide whether to hold elections. ?First of all, I'll be happy to pass along the message. I will see Mr. Allawi, as I mentioned, on Thursday -- both in the Congress, and then he'll come to the White House for a meeting with the President and myself. He has indicated repeatedly that he wants to keep that January deadline. We agree wholeheartedly. It's important to remember this is an Iraqi decision.? Ok, so it's not our decision, it's their decision. I get that. And everyone gets to vote, right? No, not right. Secretary Rumsfeld says that everyone doesn't need to vote in free elections -- maybe 3/4 to 4/5 of Iraq could have elections and that would be fine. ?Let?s pretend hypothetically that you get to election time in January and lets pretend that its roughly like it is, or a little worse, which it could be, because you?ve got to expect it to continue. They?re not happy the way its going. They don?t want a government elected in that country?badly, they don?t want that. And let?s say you try to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn?t because the violence was too great. So be it. Nothing is perfect in life. So you have election that?s not quite perfect.? [Donald Rumsfeld, Senate testimony 9/23/04] Now wait just a minute. How can a country be a democracy and have free elections when only 3/4 of the country gets to vote? That's absurd. Does anyone really think that the insurgents are going to recognize a government that their city didn't even get to vote on? In a speech before a joint meeting of Congress, even Prime Minister Allawi conceded that any Iraqi elections "may not be perfect, may not be the best elections that Iraq will ever hold" and "won't be the end of the journey toward democracy." This guy has a talent for understatement that is truly remarkable. And he seems to be forgetting the powerful Muslim Clerics' opinions -- something one can't afford to forget in Iraq. Abdul Salam Al Qubesi of the Sunni Clerics Association told The New York Times, "We think the elections will be fake." So what does the U.S. State Deparment have to say? "We're going to have an election that is free and open and that has to be open to all citizens. It's got to be our best effort to get it into troubled areas as well," [Richard Armitage, House testimony, 9/24/04] Hmmm... so the State Department (run by Colin Powell) says elections must be open to all citizens. That's what I thought. So where does that leave us? In a statement issued today, Senator John Edwards said: ?The administration?s credibility on Iraq collapsed today. Over the past 24 hours, the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of State have all contradicted each other on elections in Iraq. For a President who is fond of saying we should not send mixed messages ? you need a scorecard today to keep up with all the different and contradictory statements from the White House....[this] administration just can?t seem to tell the truth when it comes to Iraq.? Just wait until the Iraqis see a butterfly ballot. Posted on September 24, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Will Your Vote Count in November? With all the media coverage being accorded to the Vietnam-era activities of President Bush and Senator Kerry, there is another -- much more important -- story simply falling through the cracks. After the voting debacle of the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election, you'd think that our government would have taken steps to ensure that yet another one million African American votes aren't mysteriously "lost" in Florida or elsewhere, for that matter. But you'd be dead wrong if you thought that. As Election Day approaches, most voters are unaware that approximately 50 million votes cast in this upcoming election will be made on voting machines which give no paper receipt or have any way to verify what votes were cast. The major vendor of these voting machines, Diebold Inc., makes cash registers -- you know, the kind that give you a receipt after you buy your groceries? Or buy gas? But for some reason, Diebold decided that there was no need to leave any paper trail or tangible record of how people cast their votes. Election officials from a number of states have pooh-poohed the idea that a receipt or paper trail is needed in case of a recount. Unfortunately, those election officials have neglected to mention their cozy relationship with the voting machine industry. According to the New York Times, California's Secretary of State, Bill Jones, left office in 2003 to take a cushy job with Sequoia Voting Systems, as did the assistant Secretary of State. And now the former secretaries of state from Florida and Georgia have signed on as lobbyists for Election Systems and Software and Diebold Election Systems. How nice for them! A bipartisan bill to require a paper trail for the new machines stalled out in the U.S. Senate. According to Wired magazine, saner heads have prevailed in California and Nevada, where laws have been passed to require a paper receipt for electronic votes. But has Florida, Ohio or Pennsylvania passed such a law? Not a chance. But, don't worry. Walden O'Dell, the CEO of Diebold, Inc. (a major contributor to President Bush) wrote in a Republican fundraising letter to potential donors that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." Diebold is based in North Canton, Ohio. Thank goodness! For a minute, I was beginning to worry that there might be something crooked going on. Posted on September 10, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. The U.S. Presidential Campaign Kicks into High Gear Polls taken just after the close of the Republican Convention show President Bush getting a robust bounce in the polls: both Newsweek and Time show Bush ahead of Kerry by 11 points. Before the convention, which effectively pounded home the message that only President Bush can keep our grandchildren safe from terrorists, the polls were too close to call. Some pollsters are saying that those numbers could flatten back out again in the coming weeks, especially if Kerry decides to abandon his gentlemanly style of campaigning and go for the jugular. All signs do point to Kerry having made a fundamental shift in his campaign style. Immediately after the addition of Joe Lockhart to the campaign, the Kerry Rapid Response Team shifted into action. During the Republican convention, Terry McAuliffe roamed a room of fact checkers who monitored the Republicans' speeches for accuracy. When distortions of Kerry's record were found, McAuliffe emailed his rebuttal to the media -- oftentimes just as the speech in question ended. The wild-eyed oratory by Zell Miller generated so many Democratic corrections and talking points, it's a wonder that the Rapid Response Team didn't develop Actue Carpal Tunnel Syndrome on the spot. But the best part of Zell Miller's performance wasn't his speech on Wednesday night; it was on Hardball with Chris Matthews. After Matthews asked Miller if he really thought that Senator Kerry would try to defend the United States against Al-Qaeda using only spitballs, Miller became enraged and actually challenged Matthews to a duel. He was actually shocked that Matthews had the audacity to challenge him on a talking point -- that Kerry is weak on defense. It was an easy question to answer for someone who had done his research. Ed Gillespie certainly could have answered it. Well, I say kudos to Chris Matthews for finally asking some hard questions. I just hope he's well-versed in the etiquette of dueling. Posted on September 3, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Dying to Bring You the News According to the The Guardian, the number of journalists and media staff killed in the Iraq War has now reached 51, after the death of Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni. The International News Safety Institute released the figures and appealed to all combatants to "recognize the neutrality of the news media and allow them to go about their business free from harm or threat." Unfortunately, that plea is unlikely to be heeded -- especially by terrorists who continue to kidnap journalists. Kidnapping seems to have become a weekly occurrence in Iraq. And what's really odd is the fact that in this war, it is the journalists who are the most attractive targets. The death of Daniel Pearl was shocking, not only because of the brutality and injustice of the murder, but also because he was a journalist just trying to do his job. The current breed of terrorists is nothing like the terrorists who hijacked planes in the 70's. Perhaps realizing that they needed the cooperation of the journalists in order to get their demands made known to the world at large, terrorists -- generally speaking -- agreed that it didn't really help their cause to behead the guy trying to cover the story. 63 journalists were killed in Vietnam, and the number of media casualties in the 17 months since the invasion of Iraq is quickly approaching that number. Of course, being a war correspondent is a dangerous business. It's easy to get killed or injured in the middle of a war -- even when no one is deliberately targeting you. But this level of violence and torture towards the journalists is like nothing we've seen before. The men and women who are putting their lives on the line everyday in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world are doing civilians a great service. They provide us with needed information about what is happening in the world around us. I think that the least we can do is read what they have to say and take a moment to look at the photos and film clips that are now readily available on the Internet. The BBC has excellent coverage, as does CNN, and the Associated Press, just to name a few. This slideshow from New York Times photographer Warzer Jaff is really exceptional. The photographs of Iraqis loyal to Moktada al-Sadr while holed up inside the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf really capture the flavor of the movement and show Western eyes (especially women) sights they would never be allowed to see, inside of Shia's holiest shrines. So, next time you're surfing the web to see what Paris Hilton is up to, why not take a few minutes to see what these brave men and women are risking their lives to show you? Posted on August 27, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Swift Boat Veterans' Claims All Wet The New York Times leads today with a story that blows away any lingering credibility of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the Republican donor-funded Viet Nam veterans group who have launched attacks on John Kerry's integrity and honesty about events that happened during the Viet Nam war. Between the New York Times piece and the Washington Post piece (which uses official military records to demonstrate that Larry Thurlow lied when he said there was no gunfire the day that Kerry saved Jim Rassmann's life and won a Silver Star) it seems clear that this group has major credibility problems. When asked for a copy of the citation for the Bronze Star he received the same day as Kerry won his Silver Star, Thurlow came up with some ridiculous story that his ex-wife has it and he can't stand to talk to her. But that didn't stop the journalists from the newspaper that exposed Watergate; they simply filed a Freedom of Information Act request and got the records themselves. The military records show that Thurlow's boat was full of bullet holes. In fact, the official report describes "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow's citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him." Sounds to me like the five swift boats were in a very difficult and dangerous combat situation. And there was plenty of gunfire when Kerry fished Rassmann out of the water. What's really odd about this story is the fact that these same men who are attacking John Kerry's heroism on the Bay Hap River that day have made statements as recent as last year praising his heroism. Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, told Douglas Brinkley that although he had not agreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions, he said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man." In a feature piece about Kerry that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Hoffmann said of Kerry's actions that won him a Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that." Group members George Elliott and Adrian Lonsdale both praised Kerry's courage in Viet Nam and campaigned for him in 1996. The New York Times futher reports that Mr. Londsdale told reporters and camera crews at the Charlestown Navy Yard that "Senator Kerry was no exception." "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers." Kerry's military records were released earlier this year. Those records show Mr. Elliot in 1969 ranking Kerry as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" -- the second-highest distinction -- in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group." Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that the same group is airing a new ad which completely distorts Senator Kerry's testimony to Congress after he came home from the war. Kerry was reporting to Congress about the Winter Soldier investigation and described what other vets had told him about atrocities they had seen committed. The new ad deletes Kerry's preface to his remarks, which explain their source, and merely runs Kerry's descriptions of atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Viet Nam. When asked by Sean Hannity on Fox News about Kerry's accusations of U.S. atrocities in Viet Nam, General Tommy Franks refused to contradict Kerry. He affirmed that atrocities were committed, telling a surprised Sean Hannity: "[the] things Kerry said are undeniable," explaining that "things didn't go right" in Viet Nam. A cold, clear reading of the evidence in this case tells me that the Swift Boat Veterans' story is as full of holes as Larry Thurlow's boat was on the day that Thurlow got a Bronze Star and Kerry earned a Silver Star. I think the Swift Boat Veterans are starting to be a liability rather than an asset to the Bush campaign. Time to bail out and find a new tactic: like discussing the current war, instead of one that was over forty years ago. Posted on August 20, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Olympic Opening Ceremonies Impress Everyone has been giving the Greeks so much grief about not being ready for the Olympics -- with endless news stories and even a Saturday Night Live sketch spoofing the confused construction director -- that I'm sure the Olympic Committee was determined to show the world what they are made of. Well, they did it. The opening ceremonies were simply amazing. During the first hour, a fantastic procession of figures from ancient Greece reminded the world of just how much Greece has contributed to our culture. Figures who were made up to be statues represented various Greek myths. The Greek theater was also represented, such as scenes form Sophocles' tragedy "Oedipus Rex." Now, you know Bob Costas couldn't let that one pass by. So Costas intones, "Oedipus, as you know, is the tragic Greek king who killed his father and married his mother, a sequence of events that seldom turns out well." Groan. As the parade of figures went forward in time, the makeup and clothing changed and went from white (such as one would see on a stone bas-relief) to more colorful tones, until we got to the modern age of Greece, where the performers were in full color. The faces of the performers went from the statue-like stillness of the past to vibrant, fully lifelike representations of the current Greeks. It was really quite educational, in spite of Bob Costas. The lighting of the Olympic rings, the participation of the 70,000 spectators with the use of lights in the darkenss was incredibly moving -- and tasteful. It was so tastefully done, in fact, that it made our opening ceremonies in Atlanta (remember the weird Disney-like figures?) pale in comparison. I also like the fact that the medalists get crowns of laurel leaves. Now, that's cool. Let us hope and pray that no violence mars these games. The Greeks have done a fabulous job so far. I can't wait to see what they've got planned for the Closing Ceremonies. Posted on August 14, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Crazy People Exchanging Views The media wars just got nastier. First, there was Robert Greenwald's documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which reveals memos sent by the corporate honchos to reporters telling them to downplay John Kerry's war record and the Abu Ghraib scandal but to give President Bush favorable, respectful coverage. Then Fox News Channel Chairman Roger Ailes asked, "Why does CNN hate America?" Now, Richard Parsons, CEO of TimeWarner and CNN has fired back. During a speech to minority journalists in Washington today, Parsons was asked by Univision Anchor Jorge Ramos why CNN was losing the ratings battle with Fox. Parsons said that CNN actually has more unique viewers than Fox (which is true, by the way.) Parsons said that Fox was more like talk radio on TV, which meant that its viewers stayed longer because people tended to "come and sit down for an hour or two and listen to crazy people exchange views." Ouch. He also said that CNN is not liberal in its bias and -- in another jab at Ailes -- said that no corporate memos are sent to anchors telling them how to slant news. CNN, in fact, has been widely criticized for its pro-Republican slant during its coverage of the Democratic National Convention. So, is Fox News right? Does CNN's or MSNBC's analysts report in a fair and unbiased manner or do they all just parrot back the talking points memos sent out by email every day from the Kerry and Bush campaigns? You know who's got the right idea? Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's The Daily Show, who wields his humor against both Republicans and Democrats alike. Perhaps mindful of CNN's disastrous and overly talkative coverage of the Democratic National Convention, Stewart asked viewers to simply listen to the candidates' speeches on C-SPAN or public television, then turn their tv sets off. Don't listen to the pundits, he said. Instead, ask yourself, "Did I like what that candidate said?" "Does what he said square with the facts or is it just empty rhetoric?" Then, make up your own mind. I agree. With all the networks accusing each other of biased coverage, it's hard to get to the truth on the important issues. So, this year the informed voter has to do a little legwork. Read the actual platforms on both JohnKerry.com and GeorgeWBush.com. Read the news online. Independent thinking -- it's a good thing. Posted on August 6, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Will Ferrell Plays George Bush Again Will Ferrell reprises his impersonation of President George Bush that was such a hit on Saturday Night Live. In the hilarious new online short film by America Coming Together, Ferrell portrays Bush taping a commercial at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Opening line: "I'm George W. Bush and I approved this ad .....because it's awesome!" The film is written and directed by former SNL head writer Adam McKay, who also wrote the feature film, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. No word yet whether the opposition will respond in kind. But if they do, who will portray Kerry? I'm not sure that this was what Senator McCain had in mind when he pushed for the new, byzantine campaign finance laws which allow nonprofits to do ads so long as they don't consult the candidate, but both sides are wholeheartedly embracing the concept of independent ads. The candidates, however, are somewhat less happy about messages that they can't control. Posted on July 31, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. 9/11 Commission Cracks the Whip Well, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission released its report and it's a doozy. Available for download free online, or in bookstores for $10, the Report is an interesting mix of history, analysis and recommendations for the future. For the most part, it avoids placing blame for 9/11 one any one party or or person. But it does detail a number of missed opportunities during both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. The report also lists a number of changes that it recommends be implemented by the government. The five major areas of change are: ? unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamist terrorists across the foreign-domestic divide with a National Counterterrorism Center; ? unifying the intelligence community with a new National Intelligence Director; ? unifying the many participants in the counterterrorism effort and their knowledge in a network-based information-sharing system that transcends traditional governmental boundaries; ? unifying and strengthening congressional oversight to improve quality and accountability; and ? strengthening the FBI and homeland defenders. Many of these changes can be made by executive order by the President. Some must be implemented by Congress. For example, the Report calls for more oversight of the intelligence agencies and their budgets by a new joint House and Senate Intelligence Committee. The Commission has made it clear that it wants action -- now. The strongly worded statements by Chairman Kean scared the heck out of everybody. ?An attack of even greater magnitude is possible and even probable,? he said. ?We don?t have the luxury of TIME.? Yikes! Senator Joe Lieberman and others have cut their traditional August vacations short to start work on this important work for our country's future safety. Of course, there is nothing guaranteed to generate a turf war than Congress suddenly demanding more oversight of the CIA, NSA and other security organizations. So far, President Bush has been non-committal about the recommendations, saying he must study the issues first. Presidential candidate John Kerry has endorsed the idea of a new intelligence czar, which the acting head of the CIA bitterly opposes. The Committee has announced that it will release four more reports in the future and will also give a report in a year or so as to how the government is doing on implementing the changes it recommended. This bipartisan committee has worked incredibly long, hard hours and has given us a report that is as non-political as it is possible -- no easy task, given the polarized political environment. So, kudos are in order to the 9/11 Commission for a job well-done. Posted on July 23, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Another Abu Ghraib Bombshell? Remember when Donald Rumsfeld told the Senate Committee investigating Abu Ghraib scandal that there was a lot worse evidence to come and that if "these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse"? Well, it seems as if we're about to find out what else is on those torture tapes. According to Salon, reporter Seymour Hersh, the reporter who broke the Abu Ghraib story, the most disturbing tapes show "children being sodomized in front of women" -- presumably their mothers. Today on CNN, Senator John Warner (R-Virginia), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that he will resume the investigation into the Abu Ghraib scandal, because his committe is receiving new evidence daily. And he didn't look happy about it. Asked if holding the inflammatory hearings during the election season would hurt the Republicans, Warner (himself a decorated veteran) replied: "I will not let politics deter me," he said. Here's exactly what Seymour Hersh said at a recent speech he gave to the ACLU: "...at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out." So, where are these tapes? Why doesn't Hersh write about them? Has he actually seen them? The Abu Ghraib scandal is an absolute disgrace which has seriously hurt American's image and standing all over the world. The reports coming out clearly show that most of the people in Abu Ghraib were not terrorists, but petty criminals and innocent victims who were picked up in the dragnet after the war. Now we find out there were children being tortured? Aside from the moral and legal issues which surround the torture issue, there is another issue which makes the torturers' actions inexcusable: it's not practical. Anyone who reads memoirs of old spies and veterans of the Cold War or interviews with psy-ops experts knows that torture doesn't work. If they want information out of a captured spy, there are much easier ways to get it than by waterboarding or sodomizing someone. Victims under torture will say anything --it's simply not reliable information. Sodium pentathol and its newer pharmaceutical cousins are the preferred choice for getting reliable information out of spies, quickly and cleanly. There is no way that what went on in the basement at Abu Ghraib helped make Americans safer. In fact, the opposite is true. The Geneva Conventions were enacted for a reason: to provide some protections for American soldiers who become prisoners of war. As Senator Joe Biden emotionally said to John Ashcroft at the Senate hearings, "By allowing this, you have put my son (a member of the Armed Forces) at severe risk of torture." Ashcroft looked a little shocked, but quickly resumed his normal poker face. On the political front, this is a PR disaster for the White House. As Senator John McCain said, it is very damaging to have this information come out in dribs and drabs. Release all the information at once, so we can get to the bottom of it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Amen to that. Posted on July 14, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Gmail and Orkut: Hi Tech Status Symbols It was bound to happen sometime. The innocence of the fledgling Internet was shattered only two years or so after its creation as a tool between academics as a medium for communication and sharing of information. As soon as big business figured out that the Net was a fantastic way to sell people things, that put an end to privacy and the joy of an email box with no spam in it. But, as with all living organisms, the Internet is changing once again. The latest incarnation of the Web, for the young and hip at any rate, is its usefulness as an exclusionary social tool. Witness the growth of the hot new social networks, such as Friendster and Orkut. Orkut is owned by Google, the search engine giant that's about to go public and whose motto is "Don't be evil." Orkut is like thousands of other online communities in that it brings together groups of people with like interests to chat about life, the universe and everything. But there is a difference with Orkut -- not just anyone can join. You have to be invited to join. Instantly, Orkut became a status symbol, with people frantically searching for someone who could recommend them as a member. The old negative sell works once again. A brilliant marketing tactic, I must say. And now, the guys at Google have generated an interest in Gmail that borders on hysteria. After a barrage of initial negative publicity about Google's proposed new email service (due to privacy concerns over the fact that all emails are retained forever by Google), Gmail is the hottest email address to have. Why, you might ask? Well, you can't just sign up for the free service. It's in beta test mode, so you have to be invited to join. People are frantically searching for invites to open a Gmail account. In fact, they are listed on ebay right now for around $5.00 U.S. Google sends free invites to certain current Gmail members, who can pass them on to friends. Figuring that your chances of getting your first choice email address at gmail.com will be slim to none if you wait until the service launches, people are buying the rights to a free email account, or offering amazing services in trade. Will Gmail and Orkut last? Will they be status symbols next year? Beats me. But one thing's for sure. The guys at Google are very, very smart. And that bodes well for the future of their company. Posted on July 2, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Michael Moore Stirs the Pot Well, after all the press and hype about Michael Moore's Palme D'Or-winning documentary, Fahrenheit 911, I had to see for myself what all the fuss was about, so I took in a showing this afternoon. Ok, the real reason I felt compelled to see it instead of The Stepford Wives or even The Chronicles of Riddick, was that so many people were telling me that I can't see it. I think that conservatives are making a big mistake, tactically speaking. Their approach to this film has been a scorched earth approach: letter-writing campaigns to the theaters telling them not to carry the movie, saying that Mr. Moore is anti-American, denunciations of the film to any reporter who will listen etc. But as Michael Moore told John Stewart on The Daily Show last night, all this hyperbole is simply great publicity for the film. A much better approach would be that taken by one Republican Senator I saw on CNN this morning. He said that it was a film that everyone should see. He said that the hype was overdone and that it really wasn't that damaging to the current administration at all. This is much better spin, in my opinion: to agree that the film has some valid points, but point out things favorable to the current administration. The Democrats are winning the spin on this one, no question. So, I saw it and was impressed. Moore has stated that this is not a balanced film, and it's not. He has used real footage of the war and of political figures, and edited it in such a way to present his point of view. It is somewhat uneven as a film and could have used some shortening, but there is no question that it is an effective piece of film: e.g., it clearly and effectively communicates Mr. Moore's opinions about the reasons for the war in Iraq and the ability of President Bush to lead the country. I was surprised at how funny it was. And how sad it was. And how disturbing it was, for a number of reasons. But what I found most interesting about the film was that what you see in the film will surely be seen through a lens of your preconceived political beliefs. The theater I saw the film in had a mixed crowd: Whites, Latinos, Blacks and Asians were all represented. There was a mix of ages, too. I even saw one snowy-haired grandfather taking his 15-year old grandson with him. They were both loaded down with treats and looked to be having a grand time. (I just hope they weren't trying to see Harry Potter and landed in Fahrenheit 911 by mistake.) I did see one group of 30-somethings who walked out about halfway through. But everyone else stayed and applauded wildly at the end. I think the most important thing about this film is something that no one has really mentioned yet: this is the moment in history when documentaries become major political tools. Mark my words, conservative filmmakers are wasting no time. According to Matt Drudge, there is a film festival being planned for the fall in Dallas, Texas which will showcase films that are the polar opposite of Fahrenheit 911. Believe me, this is the beginning of a wonderful time for documentary makers. With the plethora of political books on the bookshelves, you can read works by Anne Coulter or Al Franken, Bill O'Reilly or Bill Clinton, Sean Hannity or Richard Clarke. There's something for everyone. I know the nation is polarized now. But at least with all the books and films being made which discuss important political issues, people are becoming more involved in the world around them and joining in the discussion. And that seems like a good thing to me. Posted on June 25, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Goodbye to Ronald Reagan After a week of unprecedented media coverage of the funeral and memorial service of President Ronald Reagan, I must admit that one thing that struck me was the incredible style and panache of the Reagans, as compared with the last few administrations. It's not a partisan observation, merely a stylistic one. American hasn't had a state funeral since the one for President Johnson in 1973. In 2004, we demonstrated that we still know how to pull off a grand event with style. Apparently, every U.S. president has a full funeral plan on file with the government, and is supposed to update his plan every year. Ron and Nancy Reagan did update this plan on a yearly basis, as requested. President George Bush, Sr. has a plan on file. Bill Clinton hasn't filed one yet. Every U.S. president is entitled to a state funeral, but it's not required. Not every president wanted one. Harry S. Truman died less than a month before Johnson in 1973, for example, but his widow, Bess, was ill and didn't want to travel to Washington. Richard Nixon died in 1994, but didn't want his body flown to D.C., a place that had many bad memories for the only U.S. President to resign from office. From the moving procession of the caisson through the streets of Washington, D.C., to the riderless black horse with President Reagan's favorite boots in the stirrups, to the multi-faith service at the beautiful National Cathedral, to the sunset burial at the presidential library in Simi Valley, California, it was flawlessly orchestrated. Nancy Reagan wore black with simple gold jewelry, made more striking by the contrast with her usual red tailored suits. Ronald Reagan was a man with strong opinions, and not everyone agreed with his views when he was in office. But what even his detractors remembered in the various tributes given throughout the week was his ability to joust with Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill on everything from welfare to the arms race, then at 6 o'clock, shake hands and socialize at the various diplomatic parties and state dinners that were a staple of the Reagan years. This is a lesson that both political parties could learn from today. The rancor on Capitol Hill is the worst it's ever been. It seems as if both Democrats and Republicans are guilty in this regard. No one can agree to disagree on big issues, while agreeing that we're all Americans who love this country. And that is something that Ronald Reagan would not have approved of at all. Posted on June 18, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Average Joe's Adam Gets His Chance Adam, the guy that Melana Scantlin dumped in favor of Jason Peoples, gets his turn to call the shots in the first of a four part series. With the help of some of the average joes from the first series, a group of women were selected to vie for the attentions of Adam. Ok, I admit, I couldn't stand Adam and thought Melana made the only logical choice by choosing Jason. I thought Adam was obnoxious (remember his "what a great ass comment" during Melana's bout of rock climbing?) Adam was almost as bad as Zach was in discussing Melana's portly "cousin" (really Melana in disguise). He got off easy, in my opinion. His choices for their last night date were equally obnoxious. His gift to her was a bedroom outfit from Victoria's Secret? Can we all say, "Not in this lifetime"? In any event, Adam has already proven to be just as shallow as some said Melana was. He immediately kicked three of the most unattractive women off the show. What a surprise! This supposedly witty and funny fellow turned into a blithering, gibbering idiot when faced with tall, blond buxom women at the first cocktail party. The most priceless moment? When the last, most mysterious blond stepped off the bus. She had killer cheekbones, platinum blond hair and...hairy legs. Yes, it was none other than Jason Peoples in drag to "go undercover and find out the intentions of the contestants." Peoples noted in a voiceover that it was the dumbest thing he'd ever done, but he felt bad about the way the first show ended. See, I told you. Jason was the nicer guy, after all. Oh yes. And he never said a bad word about Melana's unfortunate-looking "cousin." Posted on March 16, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. The Exporting of America He is not who you might think of as a populist hero, someone willing to take on corporate greed and avarice in order to fight for the American middle-class worker. Lou Dobbs, the anchor of CNN's Moneyline, looks like a corporate CEO himself. His suits and haircut are conservative, his knowledge of business and finance is extensive and his politics have always seemed quite conservative. So why has Lou Dobbs been running an extensive series of programs about how giant American corporations are outsourcing jobs to third world countries and putting millions of Americans out of work? Because he believes there is a difference between being fiscally conservative and being downright evil. He believes that this massive jobs outsourcing is destroying our middle class, increasing unemployment and the trade deficit and setting the stage for disaster when consumer spending (which is currently holding our economy together) grinds to a halt. On his website, Dobbs provides a list of American companies who are sending their jobs to overseas to people who will literally work for a pittance, sometimes in slave labor conditions. The corporate shills' answer to the outsourcing charges are consistent: "Just retrain the workers for another job in the service industry and it will all be fine." But if you actually talk to one of the $60,000/year computer programmers whose jobs are being sent overseas to someone who will work for $4 an hour, you will hear fear and disbelief in his voice as he discusses the insane idea that he should quit the job he trained for all his life to sell insurance or change bedpans as an orderly at the local hospital. Gartner, a research and analysis firm, has said one of every 10 jobs at information technology companies and at companies that provide IT services will move overseas by the end of this year. That means more unemployed Americans. It also raises some disturbing issues. Credit cards, medical records and tax records are being handled in third world countries that have no privacy laws at all. As for the long-term results of this jobs migration? Well, for starters, MIT's Engineering program enrollment is down by 30%. Enrollment in computer programming classes at colleges has decreased by a similar amount. So in twenty years, America won't even have the expertise to program a computer or engineer a space shuttle. And the only major news personality brave enough to talk about it is Lou Dobbs. Moneyline airs on on CNN, Monday through Friday, 6:00 - 7:00 pm, Eastern time. Posted on March 12, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. DUP: Driving Under the Influence of Porn The Washington Post is reporting that a bizarre new crime is on the rise: driving while watching porn. Apparently, those tv screens in the minivans and Mercedes aren't just being used to play cartoons to keep the kids amused on long drives. Nope. People are loading up the porn in the old DVD player and driving off to work. Other motorists, pedestrians and even kids are getting an eyeful at stoplights. Is this what we've come to? People can't even drive to the grocery store without making sure their favorite porn movie is keeping them company? Keep it off the streets, folks. It's bad enough that the number one cause of car accidents today, acording to AAA, is people not paying attention to the road because they're talking on a cell phone or changing a radio station. Now we have to deal with drivers who are watching snuff films while driving, forcing everyone else at the stoplight to share their taste in erotica. Remember the traffic grid in Minority Report where a computer controlled all vehicular traffic in the city? Where you just get in and tell the computer where you want to go? I think that is one futuristic idea whose time has come. Posted on March 11, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Tommy Thompson Wants Your Love Handles Well, it's official. Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has lost his mind. After losing a few pounds himself, he has become infused with missionary zeal to make America thinner. But instead of advocating some ideas that might actually help stem the obesity epidemic in America like having insurance companies pay for weight loss programs, giving a tax break for weight loss related activities and purchases, stopping the massive corn subsidies which creates a mountain of extra corn which is turned into the crack-like substance called high-fructose corn syrup that is used to make cheap package goods like twinkies, or taking soda machines out of elementary schools, he decides to spend our hard-earned tax dollars to make fun of fat people. Like that's going to help people lose weight! The three new multi-cultural TV commercials, along with print, radio and billboard ads, send the message that it's really easy to lose weight just by walking on the beach or eating a few fruits and vegetables. In the first TV ad, a white male takes a pair of triangular white blobs to the lost and found at a shopping mall. "What are they?" he asks the clerk behind the counter. "Love handles," the clerk replies. "Lots of people lose them taking the stairs instead of the escalator." The clerk tosses them in a drawer, and a message fills the screen: "Take the stairs instead of the escalator. Take a small step to get healthy." The second ad opens like a horror movie. Two Latino kids at the beach stumble over a naked belly buried in the sand. "What is it?" asks one boy. "Someone lost it walking on the beach," says the other boy. In the third ad, a portly African American couple at a supermarket runs their shopping cart over a double chin. The husband picks up the blobby chin saying, "someone lost this by snacking on fruits and vegetables." My tax dollars paid for this? Has Tommy thought about what those ads say to the thousands of teenaged girls who are either anorexic or bulimic? Instead of driving home the message that exercising is healthy and even fun, we get the message to make fun of people's body parts that aren't perfect. While your tax dollars pay for these ridiculous and tasteless ads, the budgets of police forces all over the U.S. are being slashed because of funding cuts in the latest federal budget. That's right, the first responders in any terrorist attack are being laid off in droves and major police departments cannot afford the right equipment. But we're paying ad firms to nag at Americans about their weight. That makes about as much sense as Tommy Thompson's comments to the media at the beginning of the anthrax scare at the Florida offices of the Sun tabloid newspaper. Remember Thompson's explanation of why the reporter died after opening his mail filled with white powder? "Well, he went fishin' and huntin' a lot and we know that anthrax can hang out in streams...he probably drank from a stream and got anthrax." Posted on March 10, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Martha Stewart Verdict: Not a Good Thing In a shocking verdict, the jury found Martha Stewart guilty of all four charges: conspiracy, obstructing justice and making false statments to investigators. Martha's daughter Alexis, burst into tears as the verdict was read. Sentencing is set for June 17th; the former CEO of Martha Stewart Omnimedia now faces a maximum of twenty years in prison. Martha has stated again that she is innocent of all charges and will file an appeal. One juror said this is a victory for "the little guy." What a moron. The little guy? Martha was not charged with insider trading or securities fraud. She was not an insider of ImClone. She was charged with lying to investigators about a private sale of stock in a company of which she was not an insider. That one juror's comment tells me that the jury was misled, as Martha's attorneys claimed at the voir dire hearings, repeatedly asking the judge to tell prospective jurors that this was not a securities fraud case. But Martha's lawyers really blew it, I have to say. They made a major tactical error not putting her on the stand. Jurors are now coming forward saying that they really wanted to hear Martha's side of the story. With only one defense witness, no defendant testimony and the attorney saying that an acquittal would be "a good thing," the defense team looked arrogant and the jury didn't like it. And that's not a good thing at all. Posted on March 5, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Oscar Hails Lord of the Rings It was over 3 1/2 hours, but for Peter Jackson and the cast of The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King, it was well-worth it. The Lord of the Rings swept the Oscars last night, winning 11 awards, including Best Film and Best Director for Peter Jackson, Best Song for Annie Lennox, Fran Walsh and Howard Shore's "Into the West." After the Superbowl fiasco, network execs cracked down hard and the censorship showed: this was a pretty boring telecast, all things considered. But there were a few funny and worthwhile moments, although there was a marked lack of political blurt-outs, such as Michael Moore's infamous anti-Bush speech from 2003. Here are some highlights and lowlights: Highlights: --A cleaned up, well-barbered Johnny Depp who politely sat through the entire thing, only to lose Best Actor gracefully. --Michael Moore's hilarious cameo in the Billy Crystal opening short film, in which the activist rails against "fictitious hobbits" for waging a "fictitious war" in The Lord of the Rings, before getting crushed by a rampaging oliphant on the battle fields of Middle Earth. --Peter Jackson's acceptance speech for Best Director in which he dedicated his Oscar to his parents, who he said gave him a Super 8 camera when he was a boy, which he used to make movies in the backyard. Jackson said he wished they were alive to see him win. --Peter Jackson's acceptance speech for Best Film for The Lord of the Rings, the first fantasy film to be so honored, "Fantasy is one 'f'-word that hopefully the 5-second dealy won't delete." --Will Ferrell and Jack Black's very funny rendition of the actual words to the song used to hush up wordy winners entitled, "You're Boring." --Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller's funny and snappy repartee to promote their new film, Starsky and Hutch. Stiller dressed as Starsky, but Wilson showed up in a tux, looking suave. Wilson tells a pouting jeans-clad Stiller, "It's not the 'Ben Stiller I made a mistake and now everyone has to pay awards.'" --Blake Edwards' slapstick moment when he shot across the stage in a wheelchair to accept his Oscar for Lifetime Achievement, only to crash into the opposite wall, in a gag worthy of Inspector Clouseau. But Jim Carrey's homage to Edwards was just plain weird. --Billy Crystal's ad-libbed response to Erroll Morris' acceptance speech for Best Documentary film, The Fog of War in which he said: "Forty years ago, this country went down a rabbit hole in Vietnam and millions died. I fear we're going down a rabbit hole again." Crystal's quick response: "I can't wait for his audit." Lowlights: --The horrifyingly annoying antics of Billy Bush, who climbed over celebrities and totally humiliated 13 year-old Keisha Castle-Hughes by introducing her to her crush Johnny Depp in front of a billion people. (Earlier she told Billy that's who she most wanted to meet because "he's such a stud," so he dragged her out of her seat to introduce her to Depp, who was very nice about the whole thing.) --In general, the sad lack of shocking and inappropriate political blurt outs. Sean Penn kept his comments clean and only made one joke about the missing WMDs. Even Tim Robbins kept mum about politics and instead urged victims of abuse to come forward. --The instant replay of the announcement of the winners of major awards. Hey, we just saw who won. We're not that ADD. A major time waster. --All the beautiful, but boring dresses. Where is Bjork in her swan outfit when you need her? Where is Cher in a Bob Mackie showgirl extravaganza? Blame Joan Rivers and her scathing commentary for scaring the hell out of the more fashion forward stars. Although Diane Keaton did show up in a totally ridiculous Annie Hall get-up, complete with a man's fedora. --Renee Zellweger inexplicably thanking Tom Cruise in her acceptance speech for Best Supporting Actress, while the camera zooms in on poor Nicole Kidman's face (whom Renee did not thank) to see how she's taking it. --With the exception of Annie Lennox's haunting rendition of "Into the West" (the only decent song nominated), the absolutely grating musical performances. "My Ain True Love" should have been nominated for a Razzie, not an Oscar. Sting should know better. --The odd sense of humor of the musical director. When Angelina Jolie came out to present an Oscar, the orchestra broke into "Louie, Louie," bringing to mind the toga party scene from Animal House. Posted on March 1, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Judge Drops Most Serious Count Against Martha Stewart In a surprising show of good sense, U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum threw out the absurd securities fraud count against Martha Stewart, writing, "Here, the evidence and inferences the government presents are simply too weak to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal intent." If you will recall, that count was based on the ludicrous assertion by the government that by saying she was innocent of the charges, Ms. Stewart somehow committed securities fraud. There are four counts left for the jury to consider: conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of lying to investigators. The case will likely go to the jury on Wednesday of next week. I have no idea what the jury is going to do and I must admit I'm a bit nervous about it. Will the jury have the legal acumen to understand that she's being charged with only the "laundry list" charges that prosecutors usually tack on to an indictment in addition to the real charge, like insider trading (which she was not charged with)? Will they fall for Douglas Faneuil's outrageous performance on the stand where he acted out the events, imitating the voices and mannerisms of Martha and Peter Bacanovic? (Apparently, when he wasn't picking up guys in bars, snorting coke or drinking to all hours, he was studying to be a stand-up comic and celebrity impersonator). Tune in next week to find out. Free Martha! Posted on February 27, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Greenspan Lobs a Grenade Into the Political Arena Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan lobbed a grenade into the political arena with his comments about the ballooning U.S. deficit of $521 billion, which he said must be reduced. Chairman Greenspan warned that if we do not take steps to reduce the deficit, long term interest rates will rise and eventually wreak havoc on the U.S. economy. When the 70 million baby boomers start to retire there will be a massive demographic shift. There won't be enough people paying into the system to pay out benefits. His solution to this problem? Cut spending on social security. Greenspan recommends cutting the amount of benefits for future retirees, raising the retirement age and changing the index used to calculate inflation. These comments have created a firestorm of outrage in this election year from the AARP, Democrats and seniors. President Bush tried to calm fears by stating that: "My position on social security benefits is: those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."[emphasis added] Hmmm...that sounds like he does support cutting benefits for anyone who isn't going to retire in, say, the next five years or so. Doesn't surprise me a bit. Anyone who reads the newspaper knows that Social Security is bankrupt. The funds are co-mingled to pay for other projects...there is no magic "lockbox" that keeps those funds separate. And lately the government has been spending like a drunken sailor, to quote Senator John McCain. So, you know that big chunk of cash that's witheld from your paycheck every two weeks? Don't count on ever seeing it again in the form of a government check that arrives when you hit 65. I hope you're all putting something into savings, because I guarantee you that social security won't be there to bail you out in your Golden Years. Posted on February 25, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Mel Gibson Stirs Passions Who could forget a young and handsome Australian named Mel Gibson in Mad Max, the film that made him famous? And who knew that he'd turn from the People's Sexiest Man Alive to today's Most Controversial Director Alive? I haven't yet seen The Passion of the Christ, Gibson's film which portrays the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ. So far, critics either love it or hate it. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper loved it. Roeper said, "This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film." But David Ansen of Newsweek said it "plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade ... an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see ... Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion." Ouch. So what is this movie: a brilliant and moving portrayal of the greatest story ever told or an anti-Semitic, violent gore-fest? I suppose I'll have to see it for myself before I can give an opinion Posted on February 24, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Lord of the Rings Cast Wins Best Ensemble The generally overlooked cast of The Lord of the Rings trilogy finally got their due last night when they won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Best Ensemble in a feature film. They have been nominated for three years running, but finally won. Thank goodness. And, yes, I am still peeved that not one cast member was nominated for an Oscar. Posted on February 23, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. WB Stakes Angel Right Through the Heart It was not a happy Friday the 13th for Joss Whedon and the cast of Angel. On Thursday, WB co-chairman Jordan Levin dropped the bomb on Joss -- that despite good ratings, a growing fan base and being the WB's top show in terms of drawing the coveted 24-35 male demographic, the show was being cancelled at the end of this season. Whedon broke the news to a stunned cast and crew on Friday. Whedon shared his thoughts on the situation by posting at the VIP Bronze Beta, saying: "I thought this would be a good time to weigh in. to answer some obvious questions: No, we had no idea this was coming. Yes, we will finish out the season. No, I don't think the WB is doing the right thing. Yes, I'm grateful they did it early enough for my people to find other jobs. Yes, my heart is breaking. When Buffy ended, I was tapped out and ready to send it off. When Firefly got the axe, I went into a state of denial so huge it may very well cause a movie. But Angel... we really were starting to feel like we were on top, hitting our stride -- and then we strode right into the Pit of Snakes 'n' Lava. I'm so into these characters, these actors, the situations we're building... you wanna know how I feel? Watch the first act of "The Body." Ouch. And to add insult to injury we now find out the real reason for the cancellation: Levin is bringing back yet a third version of the supernatural vampire soap, Dark Shadows next Fall and didn't want to have two vampire shows on the air. This version is said to be sort of a Gilmore Girls/Dawson's Creek/vampire thing. Joss Whedon helped make the WB a real network -- not the joke it was when it started. The network was built on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the spinoff Angel. Angel is far and away one of the best shows on television today: it's funny, it's witty and it's different from anything else out there. The changes made this season, including the addition to the cast of James Marsters as Spike and Mercedes McNab as Harmony have only added to the show's appeal. This is a disgrace. Posted on February 18, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Network Execs Bracing for More Fallout From Nipplegate As of today, Janet Jackson's publicist has confirmed that she will not be attending the Grammys on Sunday. However, Entertainment Tonight is reporting that she still has a seat reserved for her in the front row, so who knows whether she'll be there or not. It is also being reported that Justin Timberlake still may be disinvited from performing at the event. But the most unfair fallout from Nipplegate so far has to be the abrupt cancellation of J.C. Chasez's planned halftime performance at the Pro Bowl in Hawaii. Chasez has blasted the NFL for punishing him for something his *NSYNC bandmate did at the Superbowl (he wasn't even there). Daily Variety is reporting the Chasez will be allowed to sing the National Anthem before the game as some sort of consolation prize... Because it's an election year, Congress has decided to get into the act and is now drawing up witness lists for the hearings to be held next week in Washington, D.C. Word is, the head of Viacom and everyone involved in the now infamous Superbowl halftime show are going to be called to testify. Not only are the tv execs about to get a congressional grilling on national television, the Grammys and the Oscars are reportedly instituting up to a five minute delay in the broadcasts, allowing censors to delete any performance they feel is indecent under FCC rules. And ER cut a scene which showed trauma surgeons ripping off an elderly woman's shirt to treat her (her breast was exposed for a second or so). After the furor dies down a bit, it will be interesting to see what the networks do. They are losing viewers in droves to sex and violence-laden shows on cable, such as The Sopranos. FCC rules do not apply to cable because it does not use the public airwaves (the rules were promulgated long before cable existed), so the sky's the limit as far as content goes. But the majority of Americans now get their tv through a cable or satellite system. I think that it's unfair that Janet Jackson is getting all the blame for this. Yes, she made a mistake in planning any kind of "reveal" for that performance. She's apologized over and over again. But no one at the networks has apologized for the incredibly tacky ads that viewers were forced to watch which featured: a dog biting a man's crotch, a sweaty Scotsman (presumably wearing no underpants) standing over a grate while cold air blows up his kilt while a little boy watches, a horse breaking major wind into the face of a woman in a sleigh and erectile dysfunction ads which warned users to seek medical attention if the erection lasted more than four hours. Now, that's tacky. Posted on February 6, 2004 Permanent link to this entry. Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake Spice Up Superbowl Halftime Show MTV promised a "shocking surprise" the halftime show of Super Bowl XXXVIII, which it produced. CBS wanted MTV to produce the show, thereby ensuring that the younger audience would stick around, instead of heading off to MTV's rival show, as has happened in years past. Timberlake and Jackson were doing a great job with "Rock Your Body." But right after he sang the lyrics "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," Justin leaned over and ripped off the top of Ms. Jackson's costume, thereby exposing her right breast to around -- oh, say -- 60 million people around the world. A silver tassle was covering her right nipple, preventing total exposure. But right afterward, Ms. Jackson covered herself with her hands and shot a look towards Timberlake that could have melted metal. The censors freaked and pulled the plug. Outraged viewers bombarded CBS with complaints. Now I'm sure we'll get quotes from Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake tomorrow, but in the meantime here's what I think happened: it was a goof. Ms. Jackson was wearing a tight black corset with a bright red bra peeking through. I think he was supposed to pull off the black material all the way across the chest, exposing the bright red peek-a-boo bra. He used too much force in an Incredible Hulk-like moment and ended up with both the corset and the red bra...of only one breast. Voila! A bare breast, an outraged viewership and an embarassed CBS. It had to be a mistake -- both are seasoned perfomers. Pulling the material off only one breast just looked .....odd. Not balanced, not artistic at all. That's my theory. Posted on February 1, 2004 Permanent link to this entry.

Our Blogs Bloggers Blog Book Blog Crafters Craft Drivers Drive Fantasy SF Blog Gamers Game Health News Blog HowToWeb.com The IWJ Blog Lovers Love Media Cynic Petosphere Pleasant Morning Buzz Science News Blog Shopping Blog Singers Sing Surfers Surf Traders Trade Video Nacho Watchers Watch Workers Work The Write News Writer's Blog Text Ads Your Ad Here

www.mediacynic.com
Copyright © 2003-2007 by Writers Write, Inc. All Rights Reserved.