I'm Sorry, Rush

My version of the fill-in-the-blanks form on the website:

Dear Rush,

I am sorry I called you a thorn in the side of the Obama socialist agenda. In fact, the Democrats are terrified of you, so you are obviously much, much more than a mere thorn.

My comments were greatly understating the level of fear you instill in Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et al.

Needless Distractions for the GOP

I’m having difficulty understanding the latest drummed-up “saga” between Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and radio personality Rush Limbaugh.

The media has seized on this political chum in the water, and Democrats are all too eager to toss more overboard. Yet if you pause and think about it, the two shouldn’t really care what the other is doing. Rush is an entertainer. Period. Yes, he has a following, and that is good for ratings, ad buys, even stoking the masses when the left missteps — all integral parts to an entertainment show. But he’s still first and foremost an entertainer.

GOP Hitches Its Wagon to Limbaugh’s Star

Who’s the leader of the Republican Party? That’s a lot harder to answer than you might think.

It’s certainly not John Boehner (Ohio), Republican leader of the House.

Nor is it Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Republican leader of the Senate. Nor Newt Gingrich, although he’d like to be. It’s not even Michael Steele, newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee.

No, clearly, the leader of the Republican Party is right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh — as Michael Steele learned the hard way. When Steele dared criticize the big talker for saying he wants Obama to fail, Limbaugh slammed Steele for being an apologist for Obama. And poor Michael Steele was forced to say, “I’m sorry, Rush.” Which just proves who’s calling the shots for the GOP. And it ain’t Michael Steele.

One City, Two Rags

I do not normally advocate layoffs, and I'm not about to start, since all too often that's the way the corporate fat-cats keep their own jobs and bloated salaries.

No, I will not be advocating layoffs here. But I am demanding that certain people be summarily FIRED.

They would include anybody in the chain of command at the New York Post who had anything to do with or any responsibility for that editorial cartoon that showed two policemen, who had just shot dead a chimpanzee, saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.”

Brother Rod's Traveling Salvation Show

As the Illinois state Senate began its impeachment trial, Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) did the nonsensical. He got out of Dodge and headed for the bright lights and big city.

After the sideshow of the possible attempt to sell the Obama Senate seat and the circus that was the process that gave us Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), where else would Blagojevich want to go but the land of "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere" — Manhattan!

In doing so, he became one of the biggest "gets" for television in recent memory — except that seemingly anyone who wanted Blagojevich got him. Larry King, Rachel Maddow, Diane Sawyer, Geraldo Rivera. And, of course, the cringe-inducing appearance on "The View." Just when we thought Illinois's Office of the Governor had been stripped of all dignity, enter Joy Behar, mussing the Blago mane and asking for a Nixonian "I am not a crook." Could "Saturday Night Live" be next?

Bill-O’s Problem with Oakland

Last Friday I was flipping through the channels on my television and what do you know, the footage from the Jan. 7 riots in Oakland was running on “The O'Reilly Factor.”

Bill O'Reilly, who has been extremely critical of San Francisco and the Bay Area in general, claimed that the protesters are out of line for coming out against the BART Police. He claims that people have the right to be upset about the execution of Oscar Grant, but should just let the BART Police figure this out in the courts. That the people of Oakland have no morals because they are upset about this obvious police brutality yet haven't protested the higher-than-national-average violent crime, "the gang problem, the downtown blight or any of the 124 murders last year.”

Coulter Too Quick To Cry Foul

Poor Ann Coulter. She’s made millions spewing hate in book after book, and on television show after television show. But now Coulter wants us to feel sorry for her because NBC canceled an interview with her on yesterday morning’s “Today Show.”

The fiery blonde had been scheduled to appear to hawk her latest book, Guilty, but her appearance was canceled — and Coulter’s crying CENSORSHIP!

Nonsense. You want to talk censorship? Try getting booked as a liberal on the morning talk shows. For my latest book, Trainwreck, I was rejected by “Today,” “Good Morning America,” CBS and CNN’s morning show. But I didn’t whine about it.

News Blankout

Now that media owners have decided the only way to keep their profits way high is to gut their staffs without regard for coverage or public service, I want to provide a public service of my own.

In the absence of enough writers to do even a bare-bones job, here's another idea whose time has come.

How about fill-in-the-blank stories? These generic scripts and articles would report on the most commonplace current events. They could fill the pages and airtime between the advertising and keep conglomerates' revenue incoming with far less outgoing to the writers, reporters, producers, etc., now that so many have been laid off.

The Mumbai Tragedy: Beware of Innuendo Concerning Pakistan

There is enough that is horrible and tragic about the terrorist attacks and killings of innocent people in Mumbai (the Indian city long known in the West as Bombay) in the last several days without some careless media reporting and premature accusations by Indian officials suggesting Pakistani government responsibility making matters worse.

Full disclosure: I represented Pakistan in the 1990s, have visited the country several times, and made many close Pakistani friends during the time I helped Pakistan recover hundreds of millions of dollars the U.S. government owed it.

Observing the Supreme Court in Action

The United States Supreme Court refused to grant C-SPAN prompt access to the audiotape of the arguments before it last week in Fox TV v. the Federal Communications Commission. The case raises interesting questions about the agency’s administration of its indecency laws — what language may not be broadcast. As Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times Adam Liptak noted, the high court is not a lexicographer, but it has been called upon to mediate the use of four-letter words by media. Given the level and ubiquity of foul language on radio and television, one wonders what standard is left to administer by the FCC. Do four-letter worlds necessarily have sexual or excretory meaning, exclusively? When is swearing “vulgar” or “indecent”? Indeed, should government be in the censorship business?