I’m glad Tennessee politics is getting interesting again. I was becoming concerned. Now The Tennessean (best known for offering minimal content at the largest font size available) has made itself the focal point of the story out of a non-story run in today’s paper.

For those not from around here, there has been a multi-year debate regarding cable television and franchise uniformity in the state. Before, providers had to obtain numerous local franchises to operate in Tennessee. Once the so-called “AT&T bill” becomes law (because AT&T has been pushing for its passage), cable providers need only get one franchise license from the state. Some oppose it, but for the life of me, I cannot find a logical reason why.

Back on point - the bill passed 29-0 in the state senate. Senator Bill Ketron, a Republican, has been targeted and lambasted by Nashville’s largest circulating daily because his wife works for AT&T’s wireless division and he didn’t wear a sandwich board declaring it. Or at least, that’s what they imply they would have needed to be happy

What the Murfreesboro Republican didn’t mention then was that his wife, Theresa, works for AT&T Mobility, the company’s wireless unit, which he had noted on his ethics disclosures this year. Nor did Ketron mention the tie when he earlier acted as an unofficial spokesman for behind-the-scenes wrangling over the bill.

Wait a minute. He disclosed it, but then … what? He also disclosed his wife as an income souce. I am failing to see the ethical travesty here. What’s worse, the headline The Tennessean chose is an outright lie: “Senator discloses AT&T link after vote”.

As if any more criticism is necessary, what makes this story even more irrelevant is that the AT&T bill passed 29-0. If the vote had only been 15-14, I very well could see (somewhat) the paper’s point. But that’s not what happened and the possibility of Ketron’s recusal from the vote, which would have been voluntary in this case under the ethics rules, would have made no difference whatsoever. The Tennessean saw a chance to smear an up-and-coming Republican senator, and they jumped at the opportunity.

Technorati tags: msm, tennessee politics, Del.icio.us tags: msm, tennessee politics, LiveJournal tags: msm, tennessee politics

Why does The Tennessean have this headline

Metro must have fairness in its water funding plans

with this picture

If the editorial board has been hung over, that explains a lot.

Just days after AC Kleinheider is downsized at Channel 2, he signs on with NashvillePost.com

Adam “A.C.” Kleinheider, who until recently ran the respected VolunteerVoters.com site for WKRN-TV News 2, will on Monday join NashvillePost.com to augment the site’s breaking news coverage with a political blog.

Kleinheider ran VolunteerVoters.com for almost two years, amassing a loyal readership of local business and political leaders with his aggregation of and commentary on political blogs from all corners of Tennessee.

Kleinheider’s work will supplement the political reporting of NashvillePost.com veteran Ken Whitehouse, who among other stories recently broke the news that John Wilder will retire.

That was nice and quick.

It must be exhausting to spend every waking hour looking for the underlying racism that exists in every photo taken, word spoken and action made. What an all-consuming (and ridiculous) way to spend your time! “Racism spotting” is exactly the career path chosen by Orlando Patterson, a professor of Sociology (of course) at Harvard.

Dr. Patterson has an editorial in The New York Times today titled, “The Red Phone in Black and White”. You already knew that Senator Clinton’s 3:00am phone call was a play on our fears as well as completely unoriginal. But, did you also know that it is racist? I didn’t, either! Read this excerpt from Dr. Patterson and be enlightened:

I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image … it brought to my mind scenes from the past. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.

Patterson also compares this ad to “Birth of a Nation” and believes that Clinton meant to imply that black men are “lurking in the bushes around white society”. The white mother is protecting her white children from the scary dangers just outside her door. How can a black man protect us when he is … one of them? That is what Patterson believes the racist voters of Texas were thinking when they viewed this ad.

Let me go ahead and make this clear. If there is a black man in my shrubbery (or a man of any color, for that matter), my first instinct will not be to make a late-night call to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I do not expect my president to protect me from home intruders. I think that 911, combined with my husband’s gun, will be a much more effective remedy to diffusing the danger.

And, concerning the larger scale problem that Patterson implies, I trust a black man as much as a white man … or woman … to protect our country. I just don’t trust the specific black man and white woman running for president this year.

Walter Mondale did not mean to imply that Gary Hart was secretly a black man and therefore could not be trusted with our nation’s security. And, Hillary Clinton did not have racist intentions when she aired her version of the “phone call” ad in Texas. She just wanted to remind you that she has a lot of experience answering phone calls in the White House at 3:00am. Of course, she doesn’t remind us that the person on the other end was usually a girl who giggled, whispered “Oops, sorry!” and then quickly hung up.

Can we please focus on real issues of racism in our country instead of fabricating problems where they don’t exist? Crying racism in this instance is just plain silly.

Come on, now. It’s obvious why you are shouting out the name Barack Hussein Obama at every opportunity. You want voters to think he’s a Muslim and therefore scary and dangerous. Don’t play these cutesy little games.

I’ve listened to various radio talk shows over the past 24 hours (as is my norm) and I’ve heard statements from the hosts such as:

“What if I started saying John Sidney McCain? What’s the difference? I’m just saying his full name.”

“It’s the liberals who want to think there is an ulterior motive here.”

Really? Do you actually believe that? I actually get kind of embarrassed for you while listening.

I was in Target a couple of weeks ago and the cashier offered this opinion:

“I’m so tired of Obama. I hate hearing him talk. I heard he’s a Muslim and his real name is Hussein. His first name sounds like Osama. I bet they’re related. We don’t need that in this country. He would probably help the terrorists.”

So, take comfort, those who enjoy shouting “Hussein” from the rooftops! Your secret plan is working.

There are MANY reasons that I would never vote for Barack Obama for president. His middle name is not one of them.

Nathan and I have been watching “analysis” of tonight’s primary on MSNBC for the last couple of hours. I am usually one who is hesitant to use the “liberal media” tag but … wow!

In terms of time given to the primary coverage for each party, the Democrats have received about 95% of the attention from the “journalists”. What an amazing night for Hillary Clinton! Barack Obama and his beautiful wife remind me of the Kennedys! Hillary has shocked the political world! Obama is the greatest speaker this country has seen since 1372 (yes, I know our country was not yet founded at this time, but MSNBC isn’t big on accuracy)! Women voted for Hillary Clinton tonight! Barack Obama is so dreamy and I can’t wait to pin that new poster of him to the ceiling in my bedroom!

John McCain’s candidacy was left for dead several months ago, with nearly his entire campaign staff being laid off and no money in the campaign account. He decisively won the primary tonight over a dude who was governor in a neighboring state! This should be a huge story! Umm … nope. MSNBC apparently didn’t get the memo that news networks should probably cover the election happenings of both major political parties. But, wait … did you see that Hillary cried yesterday and the female voters rallied to her defense? Did you see that cute I Heart Obama shirt that Chris Matthews was wearing? It coordinates so nicely with his combover and obnoxious attitude.

I will admit, McCain was discussed briefly after he gave his poorly executed victory speech. Matthews and Olberman took turns making fun of his delivery and the choppy structure of the message. You could hear everyone in the studio laughing along with these “journalists”, who were acting like children. Oh, what fun!

Matthews: “Did the cashier at Dunkin’ Donuts suggest some of those lines that McCain used (chuckle, chuckle)?”

Olberman: “We apologize to the McCain campaign … now let’s get back to making fun of him!” (yes, he actually said this about a man/senator/former POW who had just won the primary)
Very professional, gentleman.

When Hillary Clinton gave a similarly dry, monotone speech read directly from paper later in the evening, she was considered profound. What a great speech! She really isn’t going to let anyone get her down, is she? Hillary Clinton’s speech was just as poor as John McCain’s painful delivery, but please don’t tell that to the boys over at MSNBC.

As I mentioned, I usually roll my eyes at the people who rant about the liberal bias of the media. Yes, I think it exists, but there are plenty of places to get your information these days. However, this was some of the most blatantly partisan coverage I have ever seen, and I’ve seen coverage aplenty in my time. The label of “Liberal Media” was earned in spades by the folks at MSNBC tonight (that includes you, Scarborough).

His return to blogging is a welcome one.

I spent a few minutes listening to Steve Gill this morning. I get a little restless with The Wakeup Zone once my fellow Terp Frank Wycheck leaves at 9:00am, so I start pushing buttons and searching for other talk options.

Today, Mr. Gill was discussing the embrace of the need for AIDS awareness by Hollywood. He believes that people on the Left Coast bring attention to AIDS as a way of promoting a gay and lesbian lifestyle that involves “perverse” sexual activity. That’s right! Betcha didn’t know those little red ribbons shoot invisible beams that turn people into flaming homosexuals. Do you know the real reason that Senator Obama stopped wearing the American flag pin? He was tired of supporters breaking into “God Bless America” every time he turned in their direction. Yep … patriotic beams!

Mr. Gill used a tone of disdain for gays and seemed to imply the ridiculous notion that AIDS is a punishment for being gay. Yes, this disease started in the gay community more than 25 years ago, but its effects have been felt by people from all backgrounds (just ask Ryan White or the college student who had sex in 1985 with her unknowingly infected boyfriend). Where is the compassion and respect for a human being regardless of your thoughts on his lifestyle?

I believe that, in 2007 America, most new cases of HIV infection are the result of poor decisions. There is enough education now concerning safe sex and clean needles that people should be able to protect themselves. Blood tranfusions are now expected to be safe. I was part of one of the first high school classes that had Health as a graduation requirement, and the decision to add this course was a direct result of AIDS. And, to be honest, I would vote to more money into research for cancer or Alzeheimers than AIDS any day. All this being said, I would never say that a person deserved to get AIDS or that a push for a cure was meant to excuse dangerous behavior.

Side (Related) Note: I’m a huge fan of The Soup and I try to catch it every Friday night ( at least when I’m not out getting wasted and dancing on tables). Joel McHale made a brilliant point which, to paraphrase, was something like, “Gay couples can’t get married but Pamela Anderson and Rick Solomon … each of whom has public sex tapes and previous divorces … can get married between performances of Ms. Anderson’s new Vegas show. That makes sense”. As Fred Thompson believes, let the states decide!

When I open The New York Times each morning, I always start with the Letters to the Editor. A good chuckle is a pleasant way to start one’s day! The opinions are generally quite one-sided for one of three possible reasons:

1. Most of the people who read the NYT are left-leaning, and therefore are bound to constitute more of the letters

2. The NYT chooses to publish mostly letters with a left-leaning slant

3. Conservative readers, for whatever reason, just aren’t as inclined to submit a letter to the editor (and, no, it’s not because they don’t know how to write a complete sentence, you liberal elites … you know you were thinking it)

Today’s letters focused on Al Gore as a newly minted Nobel Peace Laureate. The general theme … this award is meant to make up for the fact that Gore had the election stolen from him in 2000. Two telling excerpts are as follows:

What a different world we would have except for butterly ballots and a conniving Supreme Court.

and

Maybe next time, the Supreme Court justices will follow the Constitution and allow the states to resolve their own election disputes. In 2000, they made the wrong decision not only for America, but also for our planet.

It warms my heart when liberals embrace federalism. I feel like there is hope for politics in this country, after all. I certainly don’t want a detailed rehashing of the 2000 election seven years later, and my grasp of the details aren’t as fresh as they once were. However, do people forget that Florida’s state legislature was controlled by Republicans? It’s almost certain the state’s votes would have been certified for Bush anyway. Would that have been OK since the state retained power to make that call? Doubtful.

Another letter writer brings up the obvious question that I have often asked. What does a movie and activism concerning global warming have to do with world peace? If anything, isn’t there a more fitting science category? The man who penned the letter explains the connection as such,

Those who claim, oddly, that the environment has nothing to do with “peace” should look at the award another way. Al Gore defeated George W. Bush in 2000 and he knew it … Rather than allow the nation to be plunged into a growing constitutional crisis … Al Gore accepted the peculiar ruling of the Supreme Court. Al Gore placed the safety and security of the nation above his own political ambition.

That makes absolutely no sense. This person contends that Gore’s desire to bring peace after the election, if you wish to make the argument that Gore really had such noble goals, is worthy of the award. Fine. Believe that. However, Gore’s actions in 2000 are completely separate from The Incovenient Truth work for which he actually won the prize. So, we return to the belief that Gore is owed this award to make up for the Supreme Court decision seven years ago. By this logic, Al Gore could have done cartwheels for eighteen hours straight and the committee would have seen fit to make him a Nobel Prize Laureate.

I must head off to bed now so that I am rested and fresh to read tomorrow’s letters. I’m hoping for a handful about how Rush Limbaugh should be censored (because free speech concerns don’t apply to conservatives) and perhaps a few about how we need to intervene in Darfur now (because sometimes unprovoked military action simply to protect human life and promote freedom is OK).

Son of a Coal Miner

Senate and House Democrats appear to have lost their collective minds.

Harry Reid, the son of a coal miner (he wanted me to tell you that), has taken to the Senate floor to denounce Rush Limbaugh. That’s right - Rush Limbaugh.

That would be like Mitch McConnell coming out and attacking…well, there’s no one on the liberal side that would even compare to Rush Limbaugh. All of Air America’s audiences combined never rivaled Limbaugh’s popularity. Nevermind, then. The greater point is that the Democrats, and especially Harry “we’ve already lost” Reid, are in desperate need of a vehicle to recalibrate their “support” of the troops, when the phony soldier incident seemingly falls in their lap. Too bad they don’t fact check.

If the Democrats were truly as popular with the people as they claim, and as well positioned as the pundits declare, such a dice roll certainly wouldn’t be necessary. If Limbaugh was a lion of the right before, he is a tyrannosaurus rex now.

The truth is, and the greater fun of it is, that the national Democrats are in a terribly bad place, where they adopt a strategy that actually includes a coordinated attack on a private individual, thrown down on the United States Senate floor, with all the constitutional protections that affords. The claims themselves are ludicrous - that Limbaugh doesn’t support American troops, and that he is unpatriotic (Reid’s words, not mine), stemming from Limbaugh’s criticism of a confirmed fraud, Jesse Macbeth. Fuel has been added to the fire with the help of Media Matters, a de facto arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign machine. Even more ludicrous is that the Democrats’ attacks are easily refuted by casually reviewing some rather easily available transcripts. If this attack hadn’t happened on the Senate floor, both Harry Reid’s and Tom Harkin’s drivel would certainly constitute actionable defamation. Maybe Reid, Harkin et al have been talking to John Murtha, who has been painfully learning just this over the past year.

In an attempt to raise the term “moral equivalence” to a stratospheric level, deplete of oxygen, Maryland Democrat Steny Hoyer declares Limbaugh’s comments to be no better than those of MoveOn.org, the liberal advocacy group that recently accused a serving four star general of treason in The New York Times. How is this done with straight face, you ask?

It’s called the willing suspension of disbelief.

UPDATE My apologies for only mentioning three Democrats in this post.

UPDATE UPDATE And worth reading, the response to Harry Reid and company - the slap down letter from ClearChannel.

I have been meaning to share a moment I saw during CNN’s coverage of the Jena protests. A reporter stood among the largely-minority crowd and, in a ridiculous attempt to compare the gathering to the crowds of people left stranded in another part of Louisiana two years ago, she shared the following with the viewers (please allow my paraphrase, as I did not have a tape recorder handy):

It is hot down here in Louisiana today. And, for hours, no one came to provide water or toilets. I kept wondering,”Where is the water?”  Finally, in the middle of the afternoon, some relief arrived in the form of a truck bringing bottled water. And, I hear that Porta-Pottys have been set up. Despite these challenging conditions, those here to speak their mind kept a positive attitude.

Hello, Ms. Reporter, this is not a repeat of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone assembled around you arrived in Jena by choice.  Many of them are college students, and undoubtedly understand the need for liquids when the weather is hot.  I checked the online Yellow Pages, and there are nine gas stations and twenty drug stores in Jena.  Betcha that most, if not all, have both bathrooms and water for sale.  While people certainly have a right to gather and protest, the government does not need to call up FEMA to have cold water and lavatories at the ready. As much as you are apparently trying to create some drama, there is no great controversy here surrounding lack of government-sponsored hydration.

I tuned into The Steve Gill Show this morning and had the pleasure of hearing his interview with the Vanderbilt student who is featured in Playboy’s new “Girls of the SEC” issue. (I will not even look for a link to these pictures to post here.) Mr. Gill had an eager and excited tone during his conversation with this assumedly hot coed. And, while he commented (after the interview) that he would not be a happy parent if his daughter made the decision to pose nude, he was friendly to her and mentioned how smart and articulate she seemed.

This Vandy student is a consenting adult so I applaud her right to find the experience liberating and exciting (it’s not for me, not that Hugh Hefner is banging down my door). I’m in favor of legalizing most things if all parties involved are of age. However, I do not understand how someone can complain about supposed societal decay but then provide a platform for a guest whose moral decisions given a pass because they are appealing to the male eye. How is someone who is participating in pornography OK but someone who happens to be gay not? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and a worldview, I’m just looking for consistency and the attempt to treat all people fairly and with respect.

For anyone who doubts the leftist slant of the mainstream media, let us move past voting records, and issue polls of journalists, and move directly on to in-kind contributions, in the form of discounted ad rates

The Times acknowledged to The Post on Wednesday that the going rate for such an ad would be $181,692.

But a spokesman for MoveOn told The Post that the group paid just $65,000.

Amid a firestorm of criticism yesterday, the Times seemed confused about the proper ad rate.

Earlier in the day, the paper’s spokeswoman said MoveOn had received a discount and confirmed to Reuters the normal rate was “about $181,000.” But later, the same spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the proper rate for such an ad is about $65,000.

Saying he wanted to place an advocacy group ad similar to MoveOn’s, a Post re porter who contacted the Times without identifying himself was told earlier this week that the rate was about $167,000.

“We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad,” spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, confirming that the normal rate was “around $181,000.”

Of course you don’t. That’s why MoveOn.org received somewhere between a 61% and 64% discount on its “aid and comfort to the enemy” ad attacking the commanding general in Iraq for not adopting its fabricated version of complete disaster in the Middle East.

Of course, the Times, being the upstanding bellwether of responsible and fair journalism that it is, will certainly offer the same discount rate to Freedom’s Watch. Or not. We will certainly see. There is no debate that the price for the ad that was sold to MoveOn.org was $65,000.00. The real fun will be watching the debacle when the Times explains in its answer to a certain shareholders’ derivative suit why it has cut its ad rates by 60% at a time of self-described declining circulation.

I made the decision several weeks ago to clear some garbage out of my life. I stopped going to gossip websites (like People and PerezHilton) and I no longer allow my fingers to use the buttons on the remote to land on the E! Channel and the “music” networks. I already feel cleaner now that my mind has been scrubbed of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. I do know that Britney apparently flubbed her MTV performance last night, but that’s only because it was on the front of the Fox News website this morning. I’m glad they are covering the important stuff.

I also have started to get up in the morning before my husband and daughter for some precious quiet time. This means setting the alarm for 5:30am, but it’s worth rising before the sun to have those moments to myself (now if I could only convince myself to go to bed before midnight). I put on some classical music, prepare a hot cup of tea and settle in with my reading — a yearlong study about the women of the Bible (I’m reading about Sarah right now … you go on with your nation-building self, girl) and then The New York Times.

The first paragraphs of my tale come together with two stories that I found on the front page of The Times this morning. Above the fold, there is a heartbreaking story of people around the world who don’t have access to morphine because their governments are concerned about addiction and drug crimes. I learned about one woman whose tumor from her breast cancer has broken through the skin. She lives in constant agony. The article also relates information about children who receive no pain relief from burns and childhood diseases. How many of us can even imagine such a situation?

Below the fold, you can find a story about how the TV program Married with Children has been adapted for a Russian audience. The show is now the most popular viewing choice for that important 18-34 age group in the former (and possibly future?) Communist nation. Analysts believe that only recently has Russia become economically stable enough to be able to escape and enjoy the crude jokes about surburban discontent. One Russian critic opined,

“Today, people are becoming accustomed to not thinking about life. The television is training them to not think about which party is in Parliament, about which laws are being passed, about who will be in charge tomorrow. People have become accustomed to living like children …”

The accusation that we use entertainment to avoid interaction with reality is frighteningly true. I believe that we all need a break from work and politics and other stresses of life. Outlets such as movies and sports are great ways to find that opportunity to relax. I know that I am looking forward to the Terps’ big game against West Virginia on Thursday night. However, we have gotten to the point where celebrities and their fake world have completely supplanted our exposure to the real issues in the world. Britney Spears should NEVER be on the front page of a news website, unless she finds Osama bin Laden or cures cancer (so … never).

We should care and want to know more about the woman in Africa who is preparing to die in excruciating pain, not what Paris Hilton will write in her memoirs about her time in jail (can you write an entire book using only one- and two-syllable words?). For my part, I will continue to avoid the sickness of the celebrity culture and spend more time learning about the real people who inhabit this world.

One of the undesirable side effects of having the unequalled in wonderfulness job of being a mother is exposure to children’s programming.  I was never a big fan of cartoons when I was a kid, only watching the Saturday morning shows to see the “One to Grow On” and Menudo segments that came on just before the top of the hour. Now, I am learning about the new characters that have sprung onto the toddler landscape.

I have a problem with one feature I have noticed both in the classic Sesame Street and the new program likely created under the influence of hallucinogens called The Wonder Pets.  In both shows, there is a character who speaks with a pronounced speech impediment (Sesame Street features Little Bear and Wonder Pets has, I believe, a baby chick).  For these animals, “serious” becomes “see-we-us” and “bear” becomes “ba-wah”.

I suppose the intention of the shows’ creators is to allow children who struggle with speech impediments to hear others who sound like them and therefore know they aren’t alone (just as it makes sense to feature children of different races and backgrounds).  However, isn’t a primary purpose of these educational shows to teach children about proper language and diction?  Shouldn’t these puppets serve as an example for the kids to model?

I assume that children who have difficulty pronouncing certain sounds will be provided speech therapy in school.  Why continue to reinforce incorrect practices until that point?  I don’t let Catherine watch Wonder Pets anymore and I turn off the sound when Little Bear comes on Sesame Street.  I don’t want her to think that those words are correct as she learns sounds for the first time.

I don’t know who these Rick and Bubba people are, but I do not appreciate the fact that they have replaced Kevin Wall on WLAC in the morning.  I thought that wacky DJ humor was reserved for morning shows on the FM side on the radio, with some slapstick squeezed between Tim McGraw and Kenny Chesney.  I didn’t always agree with Kevin Wall, but I thought he was an informed host who did a good job with guests and listeners alike.  I enjoy quality coverage of local political issues, which is why I miss Mark Christopher … where I am going to get that now?  No, not from him.  Ummm … not him, either.

Even more upsetting than the dismissal of Kevin Wall is the replacement of Matt Drudge with a show called “Start Your Engines”.  Really?  Three hours of stimulating discussion focused on turning left at really high speeds.  Drudge’s sarcasm and great sound bites provided my sweet lullaby every Sunday night.  I cannot instead listen to tales about Junior’s problems following the rules of the track.

Now I have no reason to click on WLAC until 11:00am and I’ll shut it off at 2:00pm.  Even the scheduling wizards who are running WLAC won’t touch Rush Limbaugh.

Yesterday at the gym, I passed my time on the treadmill by watching a replay of Tuesday’s Metro Council meeting (not for the first time, as noted previously on this blog). Today’s coverage of the Beer Board hearings was not as enthralling, so I turned to The View for some exercise accompaniment.

The gals were chatting about a newly discovered diary by Ronald Reagan. After Joy Behar made the lovely quip that the pages must have been filled with cave drawings, she went on to mention an excerpt in which Reagan shows his anger at Ron Jr. for hanging up on him. President Reagan writes that he will not talk with his son again until he apologizes. Joy’s response was as follows:

“President Reagan is credited with ending the Cold War. I don’t know if that’s true or not. However, he would never have hung up on or refused to talk to Gorbachev. The Cold War would never have ended So, why would he refuse to talk to his son?”

Oh, Joy. Please allow me to remind you of a cold northern city called Reykjavik (yes, I had to look up that spelling). Reagan walked out of a meeting with Gorbachev … an in-your-face hang up … because Gorbachev insisted that Reagan give up the Star Wars program.

Reykjavik, Margaret Thatcher says, was the turning point in the Cold War. Finally Gorbachev realized that he had a choice: continue a no-win arms race, which would utterly cripple the Soviet economy, or give up the struggle for global hegemony, establish peaceful relations with the West, and work to enable the Soviet economy to become prosperous like the Western economies. After Reykjavik, Gorbachev seems to have resolved on this latter course.

Gorbachev wasn’t sacrificing a pawn, he was giving up his bishops and his queen. The INF treaty was in fact the first stage of Gorbachev’s surrender in the Cold War.

So, as it turns out, being firm and refusing to talk when principles were at stake did help bring about the end to the Cold War. I’ll expect a retraction on Monday’s show.

I am not a fan of Don Imus.  I don’t find him even mildly entertaining.  I thought the comments he made about the women of the Rutgers basketball team were offensive.  In case you missed it, he referred to these athletes as “nappy-headed hos”.  I have a couple of thoughts about Imus’ choice of words.  First, is he the last person alive who is still using the word “nappy”? That was an insult when I was in middle school.  Second, perhaps Imus has some inside information about the sexual practices of the female ballers at Rutgers, but when I was in college the women on the basketball team were not known as the easy girls (aka, in Imus’ words, “hos”) on campus.

My dislike of Don Imus and his ridiculous comments aside, I don’t understand why he needs to go to Al Sharpton for forgiveness.  Seriously … does the Reverend really carry that much weight (OK, that’s kind of funny) on the racial forgiveness scale?  First Michael Richards and now Don Imus are going to Al Sharpton with their best “I am so sorry.  I do not have a racist bone in my body and some of my best friends are black” routine.  Even Vicente Fox apologized to Al Sharpton for his disparaging statement about black workers!

Sharpton is hardly the ideal person to whom one should beg forgiveness regardless racial or ethnic insensitivity (just ask Orthodox Jews, police officers and lacrosse players who attend a university at which the basketball team gets obscene favoritism from the referees).  Why is his radio show the default stop for one’s mea culpa following racist statements?

I don’t think Imus should be fired.  I prefer that the First Amendment protect him and the free market bring him down.

Something screwy is going on with our DirectTV. I just put Catherine down for her nap and turned on the TV to get my daily C-Span fix. The wires must be crossed somehow, because C-Span is instead broadcasting the SciFi Channel — a classic episode of “Tales from the Darkside”. When I turned to the real SciFi station, I found that the screen has gone dark.

I find it quite amusing and appropriate that Congress has been supplanted by science fiction. Perhaps the secret alien invasion by the likes of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and Dennis Kucinich (come on … he looks like would fit right in at a Star Trek convention) has finally moved to the next phase. We are now being fed their dramatized propaganda and soon the leader Zoltar will appear on the screen and let the earthlings know that socialized medicine, a 90% tax bracket for the wealthy and the melting of all weapons to make metal domiciles for the homeless are now the laws of the universe.