Julian's blog

I always enjoy a Jon Stewart interview. 

Even more so, an interview with a prominent public figure that I don't particular care for or agree with. Past interviews with William Bennett and John Bolton come to mind.

These are the words of the First Lady Laura Bush during an interview by Ann Curry.

"You know the American people are suffering watching --," Curry said to the first lady.

For me at least.

First off, I'm not big on conspiracy theories. I love the X Files, but I'm more of a Scully than a Mulder.

This is breaking news somewhat.

Houston Chronicle

Enron's founder Kenneth Lay suffered a massive coronary Tuesday and died, according to Dr. Steve Wende, of First Methodist Houston and died.

"He and his wife, Linda, were in Colorado for the week, and his death was totally unexpected. Apparently, his heart simply gave out.," he said in a memo to church staff.

Average:

0

I know it's long, but it's worth it.

Chris Baker is a right-wing, radio talk show host for KTRH in Houston.  Earlier this week, Chris made an apperance on MSNBC to discuss the recent New York Times story about the administration taking financial data of millions from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication.

Read the full story here.

Of course, I'm not sure I understand Baker's credentials for speaking on the subject, but tis' the way of the 24-hour news networks.  In the other corner was progressive liberal Bernie Ward.  Ward is also a radio talk show host for KGO San Francisco and used to be a Franciscan priest.

The discussion started off with a clip of Bush stating that, "The fact that a newspaper disclosed it [financial spying] makes it harder to win this war on terror."  The "mediator," Chris Jansing, then continued by asking the question, "Should the press be allowed to report details of the programs that some argue could compromise national security?"  She gave Ward the floor first.  Ward first pointed out how Jansing used the word should in her opening, as if 'freedom of press' meant nothing.  He then went right to the question that would echo throught the next few minutes.

WARD: "Should the government be able to tell newspapers what to publish?"

Baker had his talking points ready though.

BAKER: "National security has to come first."  "This is a time of war.  These people are trying to kill us."

It was something I had seen too many times before.  The smart guy asks a smart question, then the crazy guy presses the play button on his talking points.  But then Ward cut Baker off.

WARD: "You still haven't answered my question."

This is something new and exciting I thought.  Ward might actually make him give a real answer.  Ward kept on...

WARD: "Who determines whether it's a national security issue or not?"

Good question I thought.  Make Baker back-up his talking point with an answer.  Put his talking points under the light.  Baker began to stumble.

BAKER: "Well it's kinda basic ya know, for obvious reasons.  Somebody with [garbled] more sense than you."

Running from the question, no surprise.  But the personal, non-relavant attack was a surprise.  Note this is not even a minute into the discussion.  But Ward was ready for it and called Baker on it.

WARD: "Well just answer my question, instead of taking shots.  Answer the question."

Wow.  This guy means business.  He isn't letting down, not giving an inch.  Maybe a minute into it and he has shot down Baker's talking points and called him on his cheap shots.  I began to sit up in my chair.

BAKER: "Listen toots, calm down.  This is national security and we're at war.  This isn't 24..."

Baker went on to say that the government is in the national security business, not the 'gotcha business' and that if the government asks the papers to not publish a story, papers should take their word for it.  Another stupid point, but at least he got away from calling names.  Ward however was ready for this as well...

WARD: "I love it.  They're going to take their word for it, like we take their word for the fact that, that they find out later on, that they are actually spying on Americans without any subpeona, without any judicial oversight."

Baker tries to blame Ward for going off subject, so Ward gladly gets back to the question he asked earlier.

WARD: "The answer to the question is that you want the government to say that something is national security, then you want the government to tell a newspaper it can't publish it."

By this point you can see Baker start to lose it.

BAKER: "Don’t put words in my mouth… "

WARD: "You don’t have a mouth to put it in. You just said you want the government to determine what’s national security…"

BAKER: "I got one chin man [Ward is slightly overweight], I mean Jesus (garbled) Christ man, what do you want? Why don’t you just surrender. Just surrender."

WARD: "It’s simple. Do you want the government to tell news papers what to do or not?"

I am amazed at Ward's persistance, and unwillingness to take Baker's crap.  Baker literally fell to calling Ward fat and asking him to surrender.  The arguing gets to a point where Jansing has to cut in.  She asks Ward if there should be an investigation of treason against the New York Times.  A stupid question.  And Ward answer accordingly.

WARD: "Firstly, there is no, you can't have war on a tactic.  Secondly, these guys have already trashed the fourth amendment twice and we didn't know about for five years.  It was only because the media got involved that we know about it all.  Third, I love Chris's [Baker] position.  The government determines national security, the government then tells the newspapers whether they can publish it or not."

BAKER: "No, no, no."

WARD: "Absolutely.  Tell me where I'm wrong at that Chris..."

BAKER: "You’re absolutely taking my words out of context…."

WARD: "Well, then you explain to me where I’m wrong."

BAKER: "…which is typical of (unintelligible) ya shut up for two seconds?  I will."

WARD: "Hey, Chris, did they…did you want them to tell the New York Times not to publish?"

Average:

0

What exactly IS Ann Coulter?

I've come across reports stating that she is an alien, that she is a certifiable nut, that SHE is actually a HE, not to mention the many curse words that have been associated with her.  But before we decide what she/he is, we need to go over the evidence.

Ann Coulter has most recently found pleasure in calling the widows of 9/11 'harpies' and claiming that they were enjoying the deaths of their husbands.  Coulter also has a new "book" out, Godless, the Church of Liberalism.  Coincidence....?  Of course, this is no surprise.  What better way to get more sales then by saying something to shock and awe everyone?  But Coulter doesn't have a sex tape (thank God!), she doesn't drop a baby (or eat one for that matter).  She finds attacking widows much more productive.

Thank (insert religous figure here)!

Unless you've been living in the closet (pun intended), then you know about the attempt of the Christian-Right to once again ban gay-marriage, and the fact that the amendment to ban it did not pass.  In truth, there wasn't much of a chance anyway, but nevertheless it feels good for the good guys to win something for once.  But the mission wasn't to pass the amendment, they merely wanted to scratch the itch that the high majority of Christian conservatives have.  Whether or not they were succcessful well...only the future will tell.

Liberal

A term that has been casted upon the progressive thinker of the Democratic Party.  One that I hold dearly as an emblem to who I am.  It is a common occurence these days for the title of 'liberal' to hold dissondant connotations.

To Republican pundits, the term 'liberal' means one who is soft on foreign policy, against local government, unconcerned about the welfare of the average American.  It is a dirty word used to label people as elitist, as flip-floppers.  Democrats run from it like the plague.  Republicans embrace its new found meaning as a weapon.