A Question for Sean Hannity

This past week one of my favorite people in the world has been going on and on about the validity of the missing explosives claim. Sean Hannity continues to assert that there is no credible evidence after report and report come out supporting the fact that these explosives would have been under control had it not been for our irresponsible action in Iraq. Today on the Today show, they showed a video taken on April 18th with one of the embedded reporters from a Minnesota NBC affiliate. The video showed soldiers sifting through boxes containing explosives at the Al Qaqaa site. I will repeat this again for SEAN, The video showed soldiers sifting through boxes containing explosives at the Al Qaqaa site! My question for Sean is what now? Is this a phony tape? Remember these are the embedded reporters that had to have their footage edited by the military before broadcast. Unfortunately Sean and the rest of the Bush administration exist in an alternate universe where the words the speak are the only truth. Not the sights we see. This was displayed by Paul Bremer later on the Today show, when he did not question the credibility of the tapes, but stuck to the Republican talking points that there is still no credible proof that these weapons were there when our soldiers arrived in Iraq. All I have to say is look at the fricking video Paul, I think there are explosives there. The positive thing about this is that these guys lose credibility by the day when they speak and ignore the facts. Thank god for video. Go to nbc.com to see the transcript of the interview or the tape of the explosives. Watch Hannity & Colmes any night this week to see the bullshit that Sean is spewing.

Eminems new video unbelievable

All i have to say is check this out, it is unbelievable! Go to mtv.com and click on "Mosh", all I have to say it is unbelievable!

Who writes this crap!

Seriously, who writes this stuff! This is a cnn online report regarding the missing explosives. The report highlights a NBC embedded report that stated that the 380 tons of explosives, in Al Qaqaa, that were sealed and under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency went missing before we were able to reach them. Read the following passage and see if you could make the connection that this CNN "reporter" failed to make. "Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. IAEA and other U.N. inspectors left the country in March 2003 before the fighting began on March 19." The rest of the article is slanted towards the Bush administration and their attempts to place the blame elsewhere, because they never make mistakes. Shouldn't this supposed "reporter" at least bring the other side of the argument to the table? Shouldn't he/she have the duty to present all sides of a story? Wouldn't he/she have done this if the media was really liberal? For those of you who may not be able to make the connection here it is: The connection that is not pointed out in this article is the fact that prior to our invasion this weapons stockpile was sealed and under control. When we decided to pre-emptively invade the IAEA inspectors had to leave, thus leaving the weapons for anyone who wanted to take them.

This is just plain bullshit

I recently joined a Sean Hannity meetup group just to see what type of lunatics are members. I received the email below from some Sean Hannity fan. This is the type of crap they try to pawn off as legitimate. Remember while reading the email, even if it is true, let's compare what Bush was doing while Kerry was over in Vietnam Hello Will, Please share this with your Meetup members: Add another KerryEdwards sign to the garbage! On my way to Ft. Collins from Boulder and back each day I am doing a few minutes of door-to-door grass roots. The other day I handed our flyer from to a husband and wife who answered the door. They had no idea the this book, The New Soldier, by John Kerry, where he is flying the American flag upside down,even existed... after talking for a few minutes about this the wife went out on to the lawn, pulled up the sign and tossed it in the trash...We have found in our door to door outings that an overwhelming majority of people have no idea this book, so disgraceful of America and our men and women of the US Military, exists and was written by John Kerry. And on top of that disrepecting the courageous Marines who raised the flag over Iwo Jima during World War II. Sean Hannity recently mentioned this book on his TV show Hannity and Colmes and some people have heard of this book on talk radio, by surfing the internet, etc. That's maybe 10% of 200 million+ eligible voters. It's the other 90%+ who we have to reach before election day. Out of over 800 people that our group of volunteers here inColorado have talked to in person so far while going door to door, more than 30 have removed their KerryEdwards signs from their front yard. We think that is very significant. It turns out that there are many fair minded Democrats like Zell Miller and Independents who have no idea how radical of an anti-US military presidential candidate John Kerry is, not to mention some Republicans we have talked to as well. Please let everyone know that you can about our grass rootseffort and web site to inform America about the real John Kerry. Your next door neighbor may have family and friends in some other state and the same for your neighbor across the street. We understand that many people are busy right now with local, state and national races and ballot issues. We are looking for one or two persons to volunteer their time to inform everyone in their precinct all across America. Please join us to get this in the hands of every eligible voter before election day, especially fair minded Democrats and Independents. You can view and download a copy of the flyer right from the website,take a look at Volunteer Comments and read an email from a staff sergeant currently serving in Iraq that we highlight on the main page. If our current commander-in-chief had ever written a book such as this he would have never been elected President of the United States, Governor of Texas or probably not to any other office in America. thanks, Tony in Boulder, Colorado

Flaws in Electronic Voting Machines hurt Diebold

It seems that the troubles with Diebold's electronic voting machines have hurt their profits as a result of the legal costs incurred. Unfortunately, they are still going to be using the flawed machines in this coming election which could provide for even more trouble in the court room after November 2nd. Click on the title for the Forbes article discussing the troubles of Diebold. For those of you who don't know about Diebold's republican ties: I hope everyone remembers the internal memo from the CEO of Diebold Incorporated. Walden O'dell CEO of Diebold stated in a Republican Fundraising letter that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." This would be expected from most big business owners, unfortunately this Guy is in charge of the company that produces the electronic Voting Machines in OHIO! There is supposed to be a commission to regulate electronic voting machines under the Helping America Vote Act (HAVA). However, the nominees to the commission have just recently been submitted to the Senate for approval, so there is no way they will be regulating the machines used in this coming election. Another problem is that Diebold is attempting to censor anyone who links to the internal memos, using copyright law. Although these are baseless claims many internet service providers have backed down. Dennis Kucinich does not have to since his site is through the House of Reps., here is the link I just wonder how corporations can gain any more influence over the elections. They already have the media in their back pocket. Now they are gaining control over the voting machines. What can we do about this? I hope it doesn't have to large of an impact on this election and maybe we can work to remedy the system before 2006.

The hazard of Bush v. Gore

This editorial written by George Will is very thought provoking. He argues that the Supreme Court decision in the 2000 election leaves open many possible challenges to election results under the "equal protection of the laws" guaranteed by the Constitution. It's just one more thing to worry about, no matter who wins, the result may not be official til the battle in the courts end. To read the full text of the editiorial click on the title of this post or go to this address http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6262242/site/newsweek/

"Why not create a news organization that isn't liberal but credible?"

These are the words of Jon Stewart in an interview following his appearance on CNN's Crossfire. It got me thinking though... When do you actually trust the ideas that are presented to you by the news media? I find the most credible ideas are when the pundits are critical of those on their own side. An example, was after the first presidential debate when conservative pundits such as Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan were critical of their man, George W. Bush. That is just one example. I have not had much time to really research this idea, but it is true, after each debate I turned to MSNBC and Fox News to see what they were saying. If it wasn't totally complimentary of the president, I knew that Kerry had done well. This was also very evident after the final debate. My hypothesis was that if George W. Bush had won the debate then the media focus would have been on his great performance. It was obvious that George W. had not won the debate when the media focus became John Kerry's lesbian remark. The right wanted to divert the attention away from the real issues and save face for the president. The media bought into the shock value of Kerry's statement, ignoring the fact that the gay community found it inoffensive. Another example of the media's bias towards the shocking story as opposed to a worthwhile story that contributes to society. These were my thoughts after reading Jon Stewart's comments, now we just need to figure out how to establish a credible news channel. There will always be personal bias, but that should not get in the way of the right of the people to form their own opinion. The way this will be best be attained is through objective reporting. You must separate your personal bias from the story you are covering. Hopefully, this will some day be the case in our media.

When Good Things Happen To Bad People Pt. 2

Just saw an article on Reuters about Bill O'reilly cancelling the rest of his children's book tour. Not that the book was going to become a bestseller, but it seems that the sexual harassment suit was perfectly timed. Maybe if Bill hadn't rushed to file the preemptive complaint against his accuser he might have been able to sell a few more books. Probably not, as previously discussed the book was pretty crappy. It is nice to know that the book will go down the tube and hopefully O'reilly goes with it. Here is the link: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=televisionNews&storyID=6536445

Jon Stewart, My HERO!

Here the full transcript from Jon Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire. Jon summed up my major grievances with the media in general in one heated interview, he also gave it pretty bad to Tucker Carlson, it was awesome! I edited out all the stupid "crossfires" in parentheses, it makes for a better read. If you prefer the original text click on the title link. Enjoy! CARLSON: Is John Kerry -- is John Kerry really the best? I mean, John Kerry has... STEWART: Is he the best? I thought Lincoln was good. CARLSON: Is he the best the Democrats can do? STEWART: Is he the best the Democrats can do? CARLSON: Yes, this year of the whole field. STEWART: I had always thought, in a democracy -- and, again, I don't know -- I've only lived in this country -- that there's a process. They call them primaries. CARLSON: Right. STEWART: And they don't always go with the best, but they go with whoever won. So is he the best? According to the process. CARLSON: Right. But of the nine guys running, who do you think was best. Do you think he was the best, the most impressive? STEWART: The most impressive? CARLSON: Yes. STEWART: I thought Al Sharpton was very impressive. STEWART: I enjoyed his way of speaking. I think, oftentimes, the person that knows they can't win is allowed to speak the most freely, because, otherwise, shows with titles, such as CROSSFIRE. BEGALA: CROSSFIRE. STEWART: Or "HARDBALL" or "I'm Going to Kick Your Ass" or... STEWART: Will jump on it. In many ways, it's funny. And I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad. BEGALA: We have noticed. STEWART: And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. CARLSON: But in its defense... STEWART: So I wanted to come here today and say... STEWART: Here's just what I wanted to tell you guys. CARLSON: Yes. STEWART: Stop STEWART: Stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America. BEGALA: OK. Now STEWART: And come work for us, because we, as the people... CARLSON: How do you pay? STEWART: The people -- not well. BEGALA: Better than CNN, I'm sure. STEWART: But you can sleep at night. STEWART: See, the thing is, we need your help. Right now, you're helping the politicians and the corporations. And we're left out there to mow our lawns. BEGALA: By beating up on them? You just said we're too rough on them when they make mistakes. STEWART: No, no, no, you're not too rough on them. You're part of their strategies. You are partisan, what do you call it, hacks. CARLSON: Wait, Jon, let me tell you something valuable that I think we do that I'd like to see you... STEWART: Something valuable? CARLSON: Yes. STEWART: I would like to hear it. CARLSON: And I'll tell you.When politicians come on... STEWART: Yes. CARLSON: It's nice to get them to try and answer the question. And in order to do that, we try and ask them pointed questions. I want to contrast our questions with some questions you asked John Kerry recently CARLSON: ... up on the screen. STEWART: If you want to compare your show to a comedy show, you're more than welcome to. CARLSON: No, no, no, here's the point. STEWART: If that's your goal. CARLSON: It's not. STEWART: I wouldn't aim for us. I'd aim for "Seinfeld." That's a very good show. CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show. STEWART: Right. CARLSON: Let me suggest why he wants to come on your show. STEWART: Well, we have civilized discourse. CARLSON: Well, here's an example of the civilized discourse.Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry. STEWART: Yes. CARLSON: You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as -- quote -- "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" STEWART: Yes. CARLSON: "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera. STEWART: Yes. CARLSON: Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him? STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I was actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it. CARLSON: It sounded that way. It did. STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility. CARLSON: I felt the sparks between you. STEWART: I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit. CARLSON: No, the opportunity to... STEWART: ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. STEWART: So what I would suggest is, when you talk about you're holding politicians' feet to fire, I think that's disingenuous. I think you're... CARLSON: "How are you holding up?" I mean, come on STEWART: No, no, no. But my role isn't, I don't think...CARLSON: But you can ask him a real question, don't you think, instead of saying STEWART: I don't think I have to. By the way, I also asked him, "Were you in Cambodia?" But I didn't really care. STEWART: Because I don't care, because I think it's stupid. CARLSON: I can tell. STEWART: But my point is this. If your idea of confronting me is that I don't ask hard-hitting enough news questions, we're in bad shape, fellows. CARLSON: We're here to love you, not confront you. CARLSON: We're here to be nice. STEWART: No, no, no, but what I'm saying is this. I'm not. I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us. And it's -- the idea is BEGALA: Let me get this straight. If the indictment is -- if the indictment is -- and I have seen you say this -- that... STEWART: Yes. BEGALA: And that CROSSFIRE reduces everything, as I said in the intro, to left, right, black, white. STEWART: Yes. BEGALA: Well, it's because, see, we're a debate show. STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. BEGALA: It's like saying The Weather Channel reduces everything to a storm front. STEWART: I would love to see a debate show. BEGALA: We're 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out. STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition. CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I'm sorry. I think you're a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring. STEWART: Yes. CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news. STEWART: Now, this is theater. It's obvious. How old are you? CARLSON: Thirty-five. STEWART: And you wear a bow tie. CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do. STEWART: So this is... CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You're a... STEWART: So this is theater. CARLSON: Now, let me just... CARLSON: Now, come on. STEWART: Now, listen, I'm not suggesting that you're not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie. CARLSON: They're difficult. STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. BEGALA: We do, do... STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it. CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely. CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you... STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. STEWART: What is wrong with you? CARLSON: Well, I'm just saying, there's no reason for you -- when you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing. STEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not believe what he ate two weeks ago. STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably. CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think. STEWART: You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk... CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny. STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey. BEGALA: Go ahead. Go ahead. STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me. CARLSON: I can tell you love it. STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch. STEWART: You know, because we need what you do. This is such a great opportunity you have here to actually get politicians off of their marketing and strategy. CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?STEWART: Yes, it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore. STEWART: I just can't. CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating. Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their opportunities, evading their responsibilities? STEWART: If I think they are. CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat with you, man. That's horrible. STEWART: I know. And you won't. But the thing I want to get to... BEGALA: We did promise naked pictures of the Supreme Court justices. CARLSON: Yes, we did. Let's get to those. BEGALA: They're in this book, which is a very funny book. STEWART: Why can't we just talk -- please, I beg of you guys, please. CARLSON: I think you watch too much CROSSFIRE. We're going to take a quick break. STEWART: No, no, no, please. CARLSON: No, no, hold on. We've got commercials. STEWART: Please. Please stop. CARLSON: Next, Jon Stewart in the "Rapid Fire." STEWART: Please stop. CARLSON: Hopefully, he'll be here, we hope, we think. CARLSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. We're talking to Jon Stewart, who was just lecturing us on our moral inferiority. Jon, you're bumming us out. Tell us, what do you think about the Bill O'Reilly vibrator story? STEWART: I'm sorry. I don't. CARLSON: Oh, OK. STEWART: What do you think? BEGALA: Let me change the subject. STEWART: Where's your moral outrage on this? CARLSON: I don't have any. STEWART: I know. BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material? STEWART: I'm sorry? BEGALA: Which candidate do you suppose would provide you better material if he won? STEWART: Mr. T. I think he'd be the funniest. I don't... BEGALA: Don't you have a stake in it that way, as not just a citizen, but as a professional comic? STEWART: Right, which I hold to be much more important than as a citizen. BEGALA: Well, there you go. BEGALA: But who would you provide you better material, do you suppose? STEWART: I don't really know. That's kind of not how we look at it. We look at, the absurdity of the system provides us the most material. And that is best served by sort of the theater of it all, you know, which, by the way, thank you both, because it's been helpful. CARLSON: But, if Kerry gets elected, is it going to -- you have said you're voting for him. You obviously support him. It's clear. Will it be harder for you to mock his administration if he becomes president? STEWART: No. Why would it be harder? CARLSON: Because you support... STEWART: The only way it would be harder is if his administration is less absurd than this one. So, in that case, if it's less absurd, then, yes, I think it would be harder. But, I mean, it would be hard to top this group, quite frankly. STEWART: In terms of absurdity and their world matching up to the one that -- you know, it was interesting. President Bush was saying, John Kerry's rhetoric doesn't match his record. But I've heard President Bush describe his record. His record doesn't match his record. STEWART: So I don't worry about it in that respect. But let me ask you guys, again, a question, because we talked a little bit about, you're actually doing honest debate and all that. But, after the debates, where do you guys head to right afterwards? CARLSON: The men's room. STEWART: Right after that? BEGALA: Home. STEWART: Spin alley. BEGALA: Home. STEWART: No, spin alley.BEGALA: What are you talking about? You mean at these debates? STEWART: Yes. You go to spin alley, the place called spin alley. Now, don't you think that, for people watching at home, that's kind of a drag, that you're literally walking to a place called deception lane? STEWART: Like, it's spin alley. It's -- don't you see, that's the issue I'm trying to talk to you guys... BEGALA: No, I actually believe -- I have a lot of friends who work for President Bush. I went to college with some of them. CARLSON: Neither of us was ever in the spin room, actually. BEGALA: No, I did -- I went to do the Larry King show. They actually believe what they're saying. They want to persuade you. That's what they're trying to do by spinning. But I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy. STEWART: I think they believe President Bush would do a better job. And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means. BEGALA: I don't think so at all. CARLSON: I do think you're more fun on your show. Just my opinion. CARLSON: OK, up next, Jon Stewart goes one on one with his fans... STEWART: You know what's interesting, though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show. CARLSON: Now, you're getting into it. I like that. STEWART: Yes. CARLSON: OK. We'll be right back. CARLSON: And a ton of fun, I like that too. BEGALA: Some questions from our audience. Yes sir, what's your name, what's your name? QUESTION: Hi, my name's David. I'm from Boston. STEWART: Hi, David. QUESTION: My question is, what do you think the hump on G.W.'s back during the debate was? STEWART: Say it again? QUESTION: What do you think the hump on George's back during the debate was? STEWART: The hump on his back? BEGALA: Oh, you're familiar? This is conspiracy theory. Can I take this one? STEWART: Yes, please. BEGALA: It was nothing, his suit was puckering. A lot of people believe he had one of these in his ear. If he was being fed lines by Karl Rove, he would not have been so inarticulate, guys. It's a myth. BEGALA: It's not true. There's this huge myth out on the left. BEGALA: Yes, ma'am. QUESTION: Renee (ph) from Texas. Why do you think it's hard or difficult or impossible for politicians to answer a straight, simple question? STEWART: I don't think it's hard. I just think that nobody holds their feet to the fire to do it. So they don't have to. They get to come on shows that don't... BEGALA: They're too easy on them. CARLSON: Yes. Ask them how you hold... STEWART: Not easy on them BEGALA: ... saying we were too hard on people and too. STEWART: I think you're - yes. CARLSON: All right. Jon Stewart, come back soon. BEGALA: Jon Stewart, good of you to join us. Thank you very much. The book is "America: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction."From the left I am Paul Begala, that's it for CROSSFIRE. CARLSON: And from the right I'm Tucker Carlson, have a great weekend. See you Monday.

How is the media liberal?

This is a question that never actually comes up when you talk to any conservative. They just say outright the media is liberal. There is much evidence to the contrary, read Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them, if you want a well-researched look at how the media is not liberal. I was looking at the new CNN/Gallup Poll today which showed Bush with a 52-44 lead among likely voters and a 49-46 lead among registered voters. Even though this poll has been proven to be in error by John Zogby, it still brought the question of the liberal media to my mind. If the media was liberal which poll would they show more? I would have to say that the liberal media would want to show the numbers that better supported their candidate. Boy was I surprised when the 52-44 number was the only one I could find on the news sites, I had to actually read the article to find the other number. The reading part is not usually the hard part for me, but for some people they usually only look at the healines. Again I have never believed the media to be liberal and I definitely would not have a problem with it if it were true. These types of things piss me off a little because it is not hard to display examples of non-liberal media bias. I would be interested if someone could show me some liberal bias in the mainstream media. It doesn't exist.

Boycott O'reilly's Children's Book

I would like to initiate a boycott of Bill O'reilly's childrens book. According to the "O'reilly Business Review" such a boycott would have a disastrous effect on the O'reilly economy, it would cost billions of dollars a year. In the Pre-producergate world Bill O'reilly was still not qualified to write a children's book. But after finding out about his exotic adventures and his preference for big vibrators, I believe that fully disqualifies Join me in boycotting Bill's book. Let Bill know how you feel and what the "O'reilly Business Review" said about effect an O'reilly boycott would have on the O'reilly economy. Email him at Oreilly@foxnews.com

Bush to Unemployed "Your Stupid!"

I hope that everyone watching last night's debate heard I heard. Our "educated" president blamed our current economic troubles on the uneducated in America. Although I do agree with Bush that education is very important in alleviating the problems we face today. I would even go further and say to him," You know George if we had fixed the education system I bet you wouldn't be president today!" Unfortunately, our education system is in shambles, mainly in the poverty stricken areas. However, I don't think it is going to help any to tell someone who just lost their job that we are going to put more money in education. Or here have a Pell grant and go back to school, while your family is barely scraping by. Ultimately, our president has no real idea of how to fix our economy and I'm not sure John Kerry does either. But, Kerry does have the right first step which would be taking back the 89 billion in tax money, that was given as a tax cut to those people that supposedly stimulate the economy. They will stimulate the economy with or without tax cut, just like Bill O'reilly will stimulate a producer with or without a falafel. I couldn't resist.

When Good Things Happen To Bad People

I guess it's all a matter of perspective. If you're Bill O'reilly and you are getting sued for sexual harassment, it's a bad thing. However if you are like me and loathe the way Bill O'reilly abuses his guests and the truth, you will consider this a good thing. I guess we can add abuses women to that previous sentence as well. The most interesting part to consider with this event are Bill O'reilly's motives for committing this act of sexual harassment. In order to find Bill's motives we must examine an article he wrote for the townhall. Here is a link, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/bo20030503.shtml, in the article Bill comments on how many rappers such as R. Kelly have profited from such sexual abuse scandals. So I guess we have one motive, Profit. The second motive relates to his discussion of Paula Jones posing for Penthouse as a result of her bringing charges against, President Clinton at the time. Could Bill be pondering a centerfold spread for Playgirl. I wouldn't put it past him. I doubt Bill really wants to expose himself to the rest of the country, as he probably exposed himself to the women he sexually harassed. Bill probably bought into his own delusional idea that,"American society really doesn't care how anyone behaves and that some in corporate America will reward tawdry behavior all day long. " I don't know if the case has any merit, but I sure do love it when Good Things Happen To Bad People.

Bill O'reilly: The Godfather of our Children

If anyone should be giving advice to the children of America it's Bill O'reilly. I would most definitely recommend this book to all American children... who have parents that are addicted to crack. Even then, I might have to reconsider my recommendation, because I think a crackhead probably has equal the amount of common sense that is present in this book. I am sorry if I offended the crackheads out there by comparing you with Bill O'reilly, but it was the closest analogy I could find. I have to admit I only read an excerpt of the book on the Today show website. Actually I couldn't even stomach the whole excerpt. Here's Bill O'reilly on friendship: "You deserve friendship with people who can be trusted. You don't need to accept a so-called friendship with someone because he or she is "popular" or good-looking. None of that matters. I am surrounded in television by people who choose "friends" because they're rich or famous or sexy. That kind of friendship is called "groveling." And it lasts, such as it is, only as long as the other person has money, gets recognized on the street, or looks good in lowriders." If you want to read more go http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192399/, it is pretty comical. It makes me wonder whether I need to raise my kids (when I have them) at all or just let his book do it. I hope you all let Bill O'reilly know how you feel about his wonderful contribution to society. E-mail him at oreilly@foxnews.com, and do what I did and tell Bill to SHUT UP!

An email to Chris Matthews

Chris, I have a huge problem with your assessment of the VP debate last night. Dick Cheney had some great "zingers" as you call them, but the majority of them were untrue and/or exaggerations of the truth. -The reference to Edwards' hometown paper calling him Senator Gone, is purely made up. His hometown paper has no record of any such referene in their archive. -There is a picture from C-span coverage of a prayer breakfast in which Edwards and Cheney were next to each other in the buffet line. These are just two examples that you would easily be able to find if you had any desire to do so. You also failed to mention Edwards "zingers"In which he showed that Cheney has a deplorable record on defense.He has very questionable morals with regards to the abuses that took place under his watch at Halliburton.Overall, the fact that Dick Cheney has a problem with the truth. You will continue to lose credibility with your audience if you continue to be lazy and just echo the majority viewpoint on your panels! Thank you for your time Will Weltman

I become enraged at Chris Matthews

Chris Matthews is a big buffoon. Chris Matthews is like that kid in elementary school that made fun of the "dorks" in the class because the rest of the class did the same thing. We all may have done that in the past, when we were kids, but Chris Matthews has failed to surpass the maturity level of the kid he used to be. Here is a portion of Matthew's comments from last night: I think the analogy would be a water pistol against a machine gun. Every once in a while, Edwards would take a squirt at the vice president, and then the vice president would just turn the Howitzer on the guy. It was all the points about attendance record— that's tremendous amount of homework the Republican candidate for V.P. did here. I don't think the well-rehearsed and well-briefed senator from North Carolina was ready for the assault. It isn't only a failure of performance relative to that of the vice president's. It seemed to me the problem with John Edwards is— he has never really opposed the Iraq war, until recently. The Democratic Party really never came out and said it wasn't necessary, it was bad philosophy, it was making us enemies of the world. They tried to “me too” the president, "Oh, we went too fast or we might have stayed too long, and we didn't get in fast enough from Afghanistan." They never questioned the need to take down Saddam Hussein. And that's why they can't win this argument. What Chris fails to mention is the accuracy of Dick Cheney's "zingers" of John Edwards. Nor does he mention a pivotal point in the debate where the focus was on Cheney's own deplorable record. It is kind of interesting to look at what the other members of the panel said prior to Chris' take as well. Notice that there is no balancing opinion. Here is the address: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6187956/. Please write Chris Matthews and call him out for his cowardice! harball@msnbc.com

The Rope-a-dope of the Kerry Campaign

In what may prove to be a turning point in the public's perception of John Kerry, the Kerry team invoked a rope-a-dope pre-debate strategy. The political buzz leading up to the dates was entirely about how weak a candidate John Kerry was. Some democratic leaders criticized Kerry's failure to make a clear compact statement, basically they felt his positions were too "nuanced." Kerry perpetuated this opinion through numersous statements, some of which were taken out of context, that were long-winded and lacked strength. Last night John Kerry pulled off the unthinkable, he morphed from a "waffling" politician into a man who normal Americans could picture as their next president. He was everything the pundits said he could not be, he was direct, concise, and strong. The president seemed taken aback by the "new" John Kerry, this was noticeable from the occassional angry smirk to the stuttering when attempting to respond to attacks on his deplorable record. In essence John Kerry turned the table and put W. on the defensive, he turned W. into the indecisive candidate that the press had lead many americans to believe Kerry was. Whether intentional or not, the Kerry campaign, the Democratic party and the "liberal" media made many believe that John Kerry was a weak candidate. They allowed Kerry to be backed into the corner of the ring, a weak waffling senator ready to receive his knockout punch. Out of nowhere he stood up at the podium in Miami last night, he began with direct concise jabs at the body of the record of W. He had pulled a rope-a-dope on everyone and last night was hopefully just the beginning of the emergence of the Strong John Kerry that we were all looking for.