Rosie is not the Right Price

Rosie O'Donnell is absolutely positively not the right person to replace Bob Barker, the legendary host of the Price Is Right on CBS. She is incapable of keeping her big fat trap shut and that alone will ruin a show that needs to focus on the products (because of sponsors, advertising and most importantly dollars) and the contestants. It is a model that works and should not be messed with by adding a polarizing host who will use the show as a bully pulpit for her own opinions.

The Price is Right is a show that has survived decades of tumultuous change in the TV industry because people loved Bob Barker and his gentle manner, and his ability to keep his opinions off the show (with the exception of the remember to have your pet spade or neutered, which by the way is good advise). He was able to let the models and the contestants be the star. Bob Barker has also never publicly stated his political opinion in 50 years on the air.

The Price is Right plays to middle America, not to the big fat liberal lesbian who spews hatred to the right. Rosie is going to immediately put off maybe half of their core viewers and once they find something else to do at 11:00 am in the morning (or 10 in Central Time), then they may never come back and that is something that the producers should look to avoid. Just say no to Rosie on the Price is Right. I propose they select either a major unknown or a minor celebrity who can keep the show going until it gets its bearings with a new host. Rosie is too big a risk.

What have we wrought?

According to a new State Department report, the number of terrorist attacks in Iraq jumped 91% from 2005 to 2006, many of the attacks planned and executed by al-Qaeda, and several of those attacks using deadly chlorine gas. That's right people: Iraq and al-Qaeda, working together with weapons of mass destruction. Finally Iraq has become the country we thought it was when we invaded. - Source Unknown

The Rules....this time by Men

.We always hear "the rules" from the female side. Now here are the rules from the male side. These are our rules!

1. Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us bitching about you leaving it down.
2. Birthdays, Valentines, and Anniversaries are not quests to see if we can find the perfect present yet again!
3. Sometimes we are not thinking about you. Live with it.
4. Sunday = sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.
5. Don't cut your hair. Ever. Long hair is always more attractive than short hair. One of the big reasons guys fear getting married is that married women always cut their hair, and by then you're stuck with her.
6. Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way.
7. Crying is blackmail.
8. Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints do not work! Just say it!
9. We don't remember dates. Mark birthdays and anniversaries on a calendar. Remind us frequently beforehand.
10. Most guys own three pairs of shoes - tops. What makes you think we'd be any good at choosing which pair, out of thirty, would look good with your dress?
11. Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
12. Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
13. A headache that lasts for 17 months is a problem. See a doctor.
14. Check your oil! Please.
15. Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 days.
16. If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.
17. If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us. We refuse to answer.
18. If something we said can be interpreted two ways, and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.
19. Let us oggle. We are going to look anyway; it's genetic.
20. You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.
21. Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.
22. Christopher Columbus did not need directions, and neither do we.
23. The relationship is never going to be like it was the first two months we were going out. Get over it. And quit whining to your girlfriends.
24. ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve is.
25. If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.
26. We are not mind readers and we never will be. Our lack of mind-reading ability is not proof of how little we care about you.
27. If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle.
28. If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.
29. When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine. Really.
30. Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss monster trucks.
31. You have enough clothes.
32. You have too many shoes.
33. Foreign films are best left to foreigners. (Unless it's Bruce Lee or some war flick where it doesn't really matter what the hell they're saying anyway.)
34. It is neither in your best interest or ours to take the quiz together. No, it doesn't matter which quiz.
35. BEER is as exciting for us as handbags are for you.
36. I'm in shape. ROUND is a shape.
37. Thank you for reading this; Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight, but did you know we really don't mind that, it's like camping.

Why Mainstream Media Is Losing Its Audience

It is good to see others beginning to actual explain in a more cohesive manner why the Main Stream Media (MSM) are a bunch of tools. I just ranted about the ridiculous media coverage of the Paris Hilton in jail, out of jail, back to jail story over at Whits Place. It is amazing that there is no longer any news in the news, and they are just of touch of what the public really wants from the media. You would think with so many options out there, that one of them would be able to figure this out. What do you think?

Here is the article by BL Ochman from MarketingProfs:Daily Fix

The roll of pet-owning bloggers who "turned themselves into a news and information collection and dissemination machine" to report on the pet food recall debacle is a clear indicator of why mainstream media (MSM) is losing readers to the Internet in droves. MSM just doesn't understand what people really care about.

USA Today's Elizabeth Weise reports on the mobilization of pet owners by a dedicated group of bloggers including Pet Connection who jumped in when mainstream media reports proved sketchy, scattered, wrong, or, in many cases, non-existent.

Blogs written by pet owners assembled information sources that drew millions of readers, and most of the bloggers are unpaid. That's because most of us, including me, blog because we love to learn and share information -- especially when it affects members of our family, like our pets.

Considering that 56% of U.S. households own pets, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, it continues to astound me that MSM didn't think the story important enough to cover.

Weise says bloggers sometimes stated tips as the truth, leaving journalists to track them down and disprove them. She also should have noted that a large percentage of those tips were correct and that the only place to find them often was in blogs because MSM never reported most of the details.

For example, Pet Connection live-blogged and ran transcripts of the FDA press
conferences where the recall was discussed. Those reports never made it to ainstream media websites, and of they certainly weren't in any print outlets.

All in all, it was "crowd sourcing" at its finest, says Paul Grabowicz, director of the New Media Program at the University of California at Berkeley.

"It's heartening to see that people did it," he says.

Reality, Not Rhetoric, On FISA

From the Washington Post, written by Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat from Texas, who is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is well worth a read. It is good to see that Congress is still willing to dive into the muck caused by this president, and make sure that future executives are not so willing to usurp our citizens privacy and liberties.

The congressional testimony this month by former deputy attorney general James Comey called into question the accuracy of everything I had heard before about the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. According to Comey, in the spring of 2004 President Bush authorized a program of domestic surveillance even though his acting attorney general was so concerned about the surveillance that he could not in good faith "certify its legality."

That the program didn't comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was not a shock. We have known that fact since the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005. What was shocking was the amount of dissent, even within the president's own Justice Department, about the perils of ignoring FISA.

FISA has been on the books since 1978 but has been updated and modernized numerous times. The law's purpose is to facilitate secret surveillance and searches on U.S. soil against spies, terrorists and other foreign powers.

A Congressional Research Service report last July found that Congress had made approximately 50 changes to FISA since its inception -- and nearly a dozen updates since Sept. 11, 2001.

Whenever FISA has been shown to be inadequate to track the communications of terrorists, Congress has been ready to update the law.

In his May 21 op-ed, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, tried to make the case for the administration's new proposal for rewriting FISA. But his complaints about the current system were inaccurate.

He stated that our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners abroad. That is not correct. Foreign-to-foreign communications, as a rule, do not require a court order.

One of McConnell's principal concerns relates to the time required to obtain a court order under FISA, but what he failed to mention is that the attorney general (or the deputy attorney general or an assistant attorney general) can grant oral approval for surveillance if that Justice Department official believes "an emergency situation exists" and that the facts will support a FISA court order.

All that is required to start emergency surveillance under the current law is a phone call from the National Security Agency or the FBI to one of those Justice Department officials.

Yet that is not the administration's practice. The administration's practice is to get multiple approvals and involve hordes of lawyers. Before we sweep away the FISA framework, Congress must review the administration's cumbersome, uncoordinated process that leads to delays in getting emergency FISA applications approved.

In fact, I believe it was the administration's cumbersome, uncoordinated process and not the statutory requirements that led the president to authorize an end-run around FISA.

Last week, I announced that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would hold hearings on this issue. These hearings will begin next month and will focus on the following important questions:

• What surveillance activities has President Bush authorized under the NSA
  surveillance program disclosed in December 2005? What was the legal basis for
  these activities, and how did those activities change since the inception of the
  program? What activities are occurring today?
• How does the current FISA system operate? Can this system be improved?
• Are current legal authorities adequate for tracking terrorist
  communications, or are changes to the law required?
• Do current and proposed legal authorities adequately protect the Fourth
  Amendment rights of Americans?

Certain hearings may have to occur in closed session, but a major hearing on legislative proposals -- featuring administration witnesses and outside experts -- will take place in open session. Whenever possible, changes to public laws should be debated in public.

Meanwhile, Congress should insist that the Bush administration streamline and modernize its bureaucratic system for handling emergency FISA applications. Thanks to advanced technology, my staff can reach me any time. There is no reason the FBI and the Justice Department can't use every tool at their disposal to speed the process of starting surveillance and searches. If the terrorists move at the speed of the Internet, so should we.

Bush says Russia won't attack Europe despite rhetoric

So while flipping through the news this morning, I found this headline and said to myself, what the F*(K?

Since when does the President of the United States give his word on how another sovereign nation is going to act and react. If anyone knows anything about European history, then they will realize how outrageous this statement becomes. This is almost as ludicrous as Neville Chamberlain saying we have peace in our hand, as he gave away Czechoslovakia in order to appease Hitler in Sept 1938.

Now, do I think that Russia is our enemy or that we are planning on attacking them or vice-versa right now? Of course not. But from 1945-1991, everyone in the western world viewed Russia (or the Soviet Union) as our mortal nuclear enemy. If you go back another 100 years the alliances between the major European powers tended to ebb and flow depending on who was warring with the other and what alliance and treaty was in effect. The point is that alliances change as the needs of different nations change over time.

I realize Bush was just trying to calm the storm (appease?) and actually talk (perhaps he should try this diplomatic strategy in the middle east) with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and needed to soothe the waters, but it is still pretty ridiculous. Read it for yourself and let me know what you think:

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany — President Bush today discounted Vladimir Putin's threat to re-target missiles on Europe, saying "Russia is not going to attack Europe."

Bush, in an interview with the Associated Press and other reporters, said that no U.S. military response was required after Putin warned that Russia would take steps in response to a U.S. missile shield that would be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"Russia is not an enemy," Bush said, sitting in a sun-drenched garden. "There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with Russia. Russia is not a threat."...

Putin rattled nerves in Europe with his weekend declaration that he would retarget missiles on Europe in response to the missile defense shield. "I don't think Vladimir Putin intends to attack Europe," Bush said.

General George Washington speaks out against the war in Iraq

Leave it to The Onion to write a piece with their tounge firmly planted in their cheek, and have it actually be closer to real news rather than satire. I have actually tackled General Washington's view on the Iraq war once before in this space. It is an interesting contrast between the two pieces since the piece in January was written strictly from a military strategy perspective and today's piece is totally the political view.

Also, in a bit of ironic twist that The Onion would write about the political views of our first president, when he actually never joined or supported the idea of political parties, and was totally against the division of his cabinet that occured after his presidency between Adams Federalist's and the Jefferson/Hamilton's Democratic-Republicans.

Here is the entire piece, with the sections which I found most enjoyable highlighted for your pleasure. I hope you enjoy as much as I did.

Retired Gen. George Washington Criticizes Bush's Handling Of Iraq War

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Revolutionary War veteran noted that while Hussein was a tyrant, that alone did not justify a "conflict that seems without design or end."

WASHINGTON, DC—Breaking a 211 year media silence, retired Army Gen. George Washington appeared on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to speak out against many aspects of the way the Iraq war has been waged.

Washington likens Vice President Cheney to controversial British Chancellor of the Exchequer and Stamp Act architect George Greenville.

Washington, whose appearance marked the first time the military leader and statesman had spoken publicly since his 1796 farewell address in Philadelphia, is the latest in a string of retired generals stepping forward to criticize the Iraq war.

"This entire military venture has been foolhardy and of ill design," said Washington, dressed in his customary breeches and frilly cravat. "The manifold mistakes committed by this president in Iraq carry grave consequences, and he who holds the position of commander in chief has the responsibility to right those wrongs."

Washington noted that while Saddam Hussein was an indefensible tyrant, that alone did not justify a "conflict that seems without design or end."

"The Iraqi people did suffer greatly under unjust rule," Washington said. "But in truth, it is the duty of any people that wishes to be free to fight for its own independence. Had France meddled in our revolution beyond the guidance and material assistance they provided, I should think similar unrest would have darkened our nation's earliest hours."

Washington made the cable news rounds, telling Wolf Blitzer that the war was a "tragic mistake for our nation."

The Virginia-born Revolutionary War veteran and national-capital namesake also expressed his worry over the state of the American militia, the unchecked powers of the executive branch, and the lack of a congressional declaration of war.

"The very genius of the American presidency is that it is an office held by an elected representative of the people, not by a monarch who can rule by fiat and enact policy at will," Washington said.

The retired general asserted that many of the current problems in Iraq could easily have been predicted by wiser civilian leadership.

"I can say from personal experience that even a malnourished force with feet clad in rags should not be underestimated, even by a far superior power," added Washington, who has disavowed further comparison between the Iraqi insurgency and the American colonists. "There is nothing a committed fighting force cannot accomplish if bolstered by the strength of its convictions."

Washington's critical comments echo those of other retired generals, including Maj. Gen. John Batiste and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who attacked Bush's Iraq policy in a series of television ads run by political action committee VoteVets.org during the 2006 midterm elections.

"We're very happy that someone of General Washington's stature is speaking out," said Jon Soltz, cofounder and chairman of VoteVets.org. "He has impeccable conservative credentials, extensive foreign policy experience, is a true citizen-soldier with a proven commitment to his country, and, if that's not enough to get Bush to listen, he's the face on the dollar bill."

However, White House response to the former general's criticism was swift and sharp. Spokesman Tony Fratto dismissed Washington as "increasingly irrelevant" and "a relic" who "made some embarrassing gaffes" during his own military career, such as the Continental Army's near destruction in the Battle of Long Island in 1776.

"The general's reckless and irresponsible comments show that he clearly does not understand the realities of 21st-century warfare," Fratto said.

Conservative pundits moved quickly to discredit the decorated general.

"I don't care who you are—or if you cannot tell a lie—it's un-American to question the president in a time of war," Sean Hannity said on his radio program Monday. "Plus, I find it very interesting that a man who owned slaves and sold hemp thinks he's entitled to give our Commander in Chief lessons on how to run a war."

Toward the end of his Meet the Press interview, Washington expressed fears for the future of Iraq, Middle East policy, and America itself.

"These convoluted foreign adventures were not what I envisaged for my young nation," Washington said. "Certainly the citizens of the republic deserve better than this. Had I but known this was the fated course of my country, I might not have found the strength to liberate Her from the mantle of King George."

I know I have opined about this before, but it is sad that it takes a publication like the Onion or the Daily Show, both irreverent and satirical in order to actually question the role of the current executive monarch want to be, and how the modern media just allows these questions and ideaologies to pass without question, because we will be labeled un-Patriotic if we question the King George. The sad reality is that most people under 30 (not me unfortunately), only get their news from these sources, because they don't trust anything else. Where do you get your news?

How to Foil a Terrorist Plot...

I found this over at the Huffington Post today. I have to admit, I have not been paying as much attention to this alledged plot to blow up JFK Airport as perhaps I should have, being a concerned citizen who lives in the NYC Metro area. However, I don't find it inconceivable that the scenario that Nora Ephron presents is not unreasonable. It makes perfect sense that the government would attempt to infiltrate terrorist cells, but is it that much of stretch to see a convicted felon forming a terrorist cell just to get out of some existing charges?

1. In order to foil a terrorist plot, you must first find a terrorist plot. This is not easy.

2. Not just anyone can find and then foil a terrorist plot. You must have an incentive. The best incentive is to be an accused felon, looking at a long prison term. Under such circumstances, your lawyer will explain to you, you may be able to reduce your sentence by acting as an informant in a criminal case, preferably one involving terrorists.

3. The fact that you do not know any actual terrorists should not in any way deter you. Necessity is the mother of invention: if you can find the right raw material -- a sad, sick, lonely, drunk, deranged, disgruntled or just plain anti-American Muslim somewhere in the United States -- you can make your very own terrorist.

4. Now the good part begins. Money! The FBI will give you lots of money to take your very own terrorist out to lots of dinners where you, wearing a wire, can record yourself making recommendations to him about possible targets and weapons that might be used in the impending terrorist attack that your very own terrorist is going to mastermind, with your help. It will even buy you a computer so you can go to Google Earth in order to show your very own terrorist a "top secret" aerial image of the target you have suggested.

5. More money!! The FBI will give you even more money to travel to foreign countries with your very own terrorist, and it will make suggestions about terrorist groups you can meet while in said foreign countries.

6. Months and even years will pass in this fashion, while you essentially get the FBI to pay for everything you do. (Incidentally, be sure your lawyer negotiates your expense account well in advance, or you may be forced -- as the informant was in the Buffalo terrorist case -- to protest your inadequate remuneration by setting yourself on fire in front of the White House.)

7. At a certain point, something will go wrong. You may have trouble recruiting other people to collaborate with your very own terrorist, who is, as you yourself know, just an ordinary guy in a really bad mood. Or, alternatively, the terrorist cell you have carefully cobbled together may malfunction and fail to move forward -- probably as a result of sheer incompetence or of simply not having been genuinely serious about the acts of terrorism you were urging it to commit. At this point, you may worry that the FBI is going to realize that there isn't much of a terrorist plot going on here at all, just a case of entrapment. Do not despair: the FBI is way ahead of you. The FBI knows perfectly well what's going on. The FBI has as much at stake as you do. So before it can be obvious to the world that there's no case, the FBI will arrest your very own terrorist, hold a press conference and announce that a huge terrorist plot has been foiled. It will of course be forced to admit that this plot did not proceed beyond the pre-planning stage, that no actual weapons or money were involved, and that the plot itself was "not technically feasible," but that will not stop the story from becoming a front-page episode all over America and, within hours, boilerplate for all the Republican politicians who believe that you need to arrest a "homegrown" terrorist now and then to justify the continuing war in Iraq. Everyone will be happy, except for the schmuck you shmikeled into becoming a terrorist, and no one really cares about him anyway.

So congratulations. You have foiled a terrorist plot. Way to go.

It is a fine line between finding a true patriot willing to infiltrate terrorist organizations for the good of their country versus having the government "create" a terrorist group in order to bust the group and get into the papers for being proactive in this other, more important war (on terror, not whatever we are doing in Iraq). The problem is no one seems willing to ask if the above is in fact true, since we are supposed to be just waiving our flag cheering the capture of some suspected bad guys, who don't seem to have the organization, brains or money to actually pull off what they are suspected of planning.

Various Opening Themes to M*A*S*H

If you have a few minutes and love the TV show M*A*S*H then you must click here. This guy has disected every opening theme from the old TV show M*A*S*H and posted all the different variations online. This is a perfect example of someone with way too much time on their hands, but that is a completely different story

Honestly, for someone that has watched every single episode way more than once, I have to admit that other than the font size of the actors names changing after McLean Stevenson and Wayne Rogers left in Season 3, and the absensce of Radar watching for the choppers after he left in Season 8, I never noticed the other differences.

Well done indeed