Not Nickelodeon Too!!!



I like Nickelodeon. In fact, I'll admit that when it comes to TV shows, I'm like a little kid. Spongebob, Fairly Odd Parents, Drake & Josh, Jimmy Neutron, All That, Rugrats...I'm secure enough in my manhood to admit that I totally dig that stuff. I eat it up. I was even pissed off when they canceled Hey Arnold! With that said, it should come as no surprise that I often flip over to Nick just to see what's on.

Well tonight I did just that, during that half hour of limbo between the Simpsons and Family Guy when Fox is airing "The War At Home" (which I can't stand), and imagine my surprise when I saw not Drake Bell, not Spongebob Squarepants, but one of the head honchos over at FAIR, interviewed as part of a Nick News report. It was a short segment, part of some top ten countdown about what concerns kids about television. This particular segment was regarding bias in media.

That's a fair (pardon the pun) topic for discussion, and it warms my heart to know that young kids are aware and concerned about this phenomenon, but what upset me is the fact that FAIR is a shining example of everything that is wrong with the media today. I'm not suggesting that they don't have a place in society; I think right and left leaning watchdog groups are beneficial because they each hold the other side accountable, but to use such a watchdog group as a source analyzing general media bias is just ridiculous. It's like hiring a Zionist to give a balanced lecture on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Can you imagine the outcry if Nick News had instead interviewed Bernard Goldberg? I think a few liberals would be more than a little steamed, and understandably so. There are hundreds of reputable journalists and plenty of non-partisan organizations that could have been used. I mean, honestly, was the Pew Research Center closed for renovation?

John Stossel (a biased reporter) was right when he referred to FAIR as a far left organization. I visit their website regularly to see what's going on, and I don't think I've ever seen an article denouncing left-wing bias or inaccuracy. In fact, I checked their archives for coverage of the memogate scandal, and the only complaints I could find about Dan Rather were charges that he is TOO PRO WAR. You can't make this shit up. If Bill O'Reilly had done the equivalent of what Dan Rather did with the apocryphal memos, the journalists at FAIR would have ripped him a new one and devoted an entire chapter to it in "The Oh Really Factor Volume 2." And for the record, the FAIR archives are surprisingly lacking in coverage about Mary Mapes as well.

And I repeat, this isn't anything against FAIR itself. As I said before, they do serve a purpose in society, and bias isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're straight about it and it's intended to serve a specific goal. Hell, I certainly don't pretend to be unbiased, but then again, I wouldn't recruit myself to give a non-partisan lecture about any specific topic either. I would at least hope to be beside someone who disagrees with me for the sake of balance.

Anyway, getting back to the Nick News report. This gentleman (I wish I could remember his name, some old guy with a white beard), who seemed amicable enough, spoke briefly about the crucial need for honesty and integrity in the media, and it sort of felt like I was watching Eminem give a lecture about how we need to end domestic violence. He spoke about how we never had an honest debate about the war in Iraq and how most of the news articles leading up to the war were in favor of the conflict (citing, suspiciously, a report from his own organization, and remember, his organization thinks Dan Rather is too pro-war, which should tell you something). He was absolutely right when he said that a big part of the problem is the profit-based nature of journalism. I couldn't have agreed with him more there. Most of the journalists I know here in LA are wealthy left-wing socialites who scream about the rich-poor gap while using their laptops as tax write-offs.

And what about Linda Ellerbee, the lovely, grandmother-like Nick News host? I've been watching her on that channel since I was a kid. She taught me about how children live in other countries, and how to respond if some pervert ever tries to abduct me. I have great respect and admiration for her. Still, this isn't the first time she has used questionable material on her show. A few years ago she championed the gay rights movement alongside Rosie O'Donnell, explaining to a circle of children how there are many different kinds of families, and all are equal. I basically agreed with her there, but felt that the subject matter was highly innapropriate for ten-year-olds given its sensitive nature and differing values regarding the topic. I just figured that was something that parents should deal with.

So to provide some much needed balance on Nickelodeon, I had an idea. How about: "The O'Reilly Factor For Kids," THE TV SERIES! Airing weekday mornings on Nick Jr. Listen to Bill tackle the tough topics, like how to deal with the pinheads at school, how to be slim and trim just like Bill, and how to cope with your left-wing fifth grade science teacher.

Then let's see how long before the letters start pouring in...

I Hate To Say It, But Rummy's Got To Go!



Did anyone catch Bill O'Reilly's interview with Donald Rumsfeld last night?

I watched it with the hopes that Secretary Rumsfeld would shed some light on current progress in Iraq, respond boldly to common accusations and just put things into perspective. Unfortunately, the only thing he put into perspective was the fact that he is completely inept and unfit for his position. Now to be fair, some people just have a difficult time speaking articulately in a public setting, I understand that. But for god's sake, this guy couldn't answer a few simple questions that he's undoubtedly been asked a million times already. He spent the entire half hour clearing his throat, waving his hands like he was doing sign language and parroting such classic one-liners as "Saddam gave twenty-five thousand dollars to suicide bombers" and "Abu Musab al Zarqawi was treated in Iraq."

Well, duh.

Now I'm not saying Rummy's heart isn't in the right place. Personally I like the guy, and I agree with him on a great many things, but he's not a vacuum cleaner salesman. He is the Secretary of Defense, the solid rock of the pentagon, America's most authoratative symbol of militarism. If he can't stand strong and make a solid, definitive case for the war in Iraq, then I think it's time we sacked him and hired Christopher Hitchens, because apparently there are freelance journalists who understand the conflict better than Rumsfeld. Am I the only one who finds that just a little bit scary? When Hitchens defended the war on Al Franken's radio show, I literally felt chills, and even Franken was rendered speechless. However when Rumsfeld faced Bill O'Reilly last night (a guy who basically shares the same views as himself), he couldn't even answer a few simple questions without stuttering.

I'm not saying that Rumsfeld was wrong, and I'm certainly not saying that he was lying; I'm merely saying that he was weak in his presentation, for which there is no excuse. O'Reilly only asked the questions that are on everyone's mind (for instance, why are we safer now with Saddam out of power?), all of which have been asked million times. There were no surprises; no curveballs.

I think one likely reason for the weaknesses in Rumsfeld's argument is the fact that the administration already has its foot in its mouth. Early on, they chose to overemphasize the WMD argument, making it appear as though we were going to war merely for the sake of destroying Saddam's arsenal. Many Americans bought it. So now, if Rumsfeld were to emphasize other important factors, such as Saddam's many Gulf War resolution violations (which play a key role in examining Saddam's credibility and the threats he posed), or the ominous relationship between Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal, then it would appear as though the administration were backpeddaling (and understandably so). The mistakes they made in the beginning will continue to haunt them.

Nevertheless, Rumsfeld would have been infinitely more convincing had he been careful to avoid the cliches, or at least back up his cliches with a bit of support or explanation. For instance, yes, Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to the families of suicide bombers....in Israel (as O'Reilly pointed out). There's no secret that Saddam is a vicious anti-semite bent on Israel's destruction, but how does that relate to us? O'Reilly wanted to know how WE as Americans are safer. Well, Rumsfeld COULD have pointed out that most of the suicide bombers supported by Saddam Hussein were from groups like Hezbollah (whose slogan is "Death to America") and Hamas, thus making Saddam Hussein one of the world's wealthiest and most powerful funders of Islamic terrorism. Apparently, though, he didn't want to overload our brains with too much information.

So even though Rumsfeld was technically correct, his words didn't inspire much confidence (at least in me), because they were just words. He made very few connections, offered very few specific details, and in fact appeared--at least by his body language and hesitation--uncertain of his own convictions. Is this really who we need as our Secretary of Defense? I have been patient with Secretary Rumsfeld for a long time, but I think that at this point he is just playing into the hands of his critics. The war critics want us to make simple, monosyllabic statements because their lack of substance makes them easy to tear apart. The war, however, is not simple. It cannot be summed up in five-second soundbytes. Bush is just as guilty of this as Rumsfeld, but I was hoping that our Secretary of Defense--in regard to military action--would at least be capable of moving beyond the charming but lowbrow utterances of our president. Donald Rumsfeld, however, has demonstrated time and time again that he just isn't up to the task.

I say he needs replacement. What do you say?

How the Left Stole Christmas



A Parody of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," by Dr. Seuss
New words by Kris Avalon


Every Who
Down in Who-ville
Liked Christmas a lot...

But the Folks
Who lived just Left of Who-ville,
Did NOT!

The Left hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that their heads weren’t screwed on quite right.
It could be, perhaps, that their shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that their brains were two sizes too small.

But,
Whatever the reason,
Their brains or his shoes,
They stood there on Christmas Eve, hating the Whos,
Staring down from their caves with a sour, grouchy frown
At the warm lighted windows below in their town.

"All those holiday trees!" they snarled with a sneer.
"Tomorrow is x-mas! It's practically here!"
Then George Soros growled, his fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find a way to keep Christmas from coming!"
For, tomorrow, he knew...

...All the Who girls and boys
Would wake up bright and early. They'd rush for their toys!
And then! Oh, the noise! Oh, the noise! Noise! Noise! Noise!
That's one thing he hated! The NOISE! NOISE! NOISE! NOISE!

Then the Whos, young and old, would sit down to a feast.
And they'd feast! And they'd feast!
And they'd FEAST! FEAST! FEAST! FEAST!
They would start singing carols with Jesus’s name
Imagine the scandal! Imagine the shame!

And THEN
They'd do something he liked least of all!
Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Would stand close together, with grace and finesse.
And say merry Christmas, in public no less!

And they'd sing! And they'd sing!
AND they'd SING! SING! SING! SING!
And the more the Left thought of the Who-Christmas-Sing
The more the Left thought, "We must stop this whole thing!
It’s unconstitutional! We must stop it now!
We MUST stop Christmas from coming!
...But HOW?"

Then they got an idea!
An awful idea!
THE LEFT
GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!

"I know just what to do!" Michael Newdow declared
With a cold twisted smile and cold twisted glare.
And he chuckled, and clucked, from his head to his heels
"I’ll go to the ninth circuit court of appeals!"

"All I need are supporters..."
The man looked around.
But in Who-ville support was quite scarce to be found.
Did that stop Mr. Newdow...?
No! The man simply said,
"If they don’t see it my way, I'll make them instead!"
So he called up his friends at the ACLU
To pursue every caroling, Christmasing Who.

THEN
They sued all the cities
Each park and each town
Wherever a Jesus or Mary was found

With funds from George Soros
They hired the best
Until even the Who’s
Became filled with unrest.

Caving in to the pressure, they fell to their knees
And their shops started marketing holiday trees
In Who-ville the grandeur had turned to unease
The Salvation Army was asked to leave too
In case it offended some sensitive Who

And all the Who plays in all the Who schools
Sang carols acceptable with the new rules.
Like “Merry Little Winter,” “White Holiday” too.
But which holiday, no Who really knew


Then the leftists applauded, they thought they had won
Till one grouchy Who came and spoiled their fun
With a stick up his butt and a frown on his face
O’Reilly stepped forward, “Oh, what a disgrace!”
“They’re secular pinheads, yes, that’s what they are!”
“Their little agenda has gone way too far!”

Then he put on a coat, and a hat and a beard
And hitched up a sleigh while the Leftists all jeered
He rode into town, shouting “Christmas for all!”
“You fascists can suck on my Christmas tree ball!”

And the Left became angry, so very irate
But some others in Who-ville said, “Wait, now just wait”
“Perhaps this O’Reilly has something to say”
“Perhaps we’ve let Christmas just whither away”

And some but not all of the shopkeepers then
Began shouting out “Merry Christmas” again
And children sang carols aloud in the snow
While Christmas trees stood in the midst all aglow

And as for George Soros
Well...in Who-ville they say
The vein in his forehead
Grew three sizes that day!

The Passion of the Govenator



Poor Arnold just can't seem to please anybody. Only weeks ago he was bombarded with multi-million-dollar attack ads coming from influential California Democrats and union members. Now he has sparked the ire of the far right (again) for appointing prominent Democrat Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff. Some Republicans are so angry, in fact, they are talking about running a more conservative Republican against him in the next election. Which conservative Republican, you ask?

Mel Gibson!

I have nothing against Mel Gibson personally, but to me this is just stupid. I mean, I can understand people being upset about Arnold for a number of reasons (myself included), but if the Republicans really expect to have a fraction of a chance of winning the next election, splitting up the Republican vote is the dumbest thing they can do.

The far-right Republicans tried this in the recall election, and proved (just as they had with Bill Simon in the previous election), that running a right-winger in California is about as effective as running a Black Panther in South Carolina. In the recall, the conservative was Tom McClintock (a man for whom I have great respect). I think he got about 16% of the vote, if I remember correctly. Now they're trying to do the same thing in the forthcoming gubernatorial election, knowing full well that someone like Mel Gibson has 0 chance of winning. But if it were merely a waste of time, I wouldn't be annoyed. The problem is that this potential dog-and-pony show (and I'm not even saying that Gibson will run, but SOMEBODY probably will) will serve no purpose other than to take votes away from a man whose approval rating is already in the toilet, thus assuring a landslide victory for any radical the Democrats decide to run (did somebody say Rob Reiner?)

If the conservative anti-Schwarzenneger lobby gets their way, they will be handing a victory to the Democrats in the next election; handing it to them on a silver platter. This is California. Not Texas. Not Georgia. If the Republicans can't mobilize around a candidate with some degree of centrist appeal, we might as well stay home on election day.