Will he sign?

A very funny little piece over at Decision '08. This blog is tracking (among other things) how long it will take Kerry to finally sign the form releasing his military records as he promised.

Kerry Campaign: Initial Phases Going Smoothly

In a hastily organized news conference, a spokesman for the Perpetual John Kerry for President Campaign said the initial phases of "Operation Sign Form SF-180" were going better than expected. Specifically, in the 90 days since Kerry promised on national television to sign the form releasing his military records, the following milestones have been achieved: ...

Fili-busted!

At the heart of this is the issue of how federal judges are appointed. According to the Constitution, the President nominates and the Senate either approves them or votes them down. The Senate as a whole can approve or deny a candidate, but a minority is nowhere granted the ability to defy the majority. In this matter, as with most every other I can think of, the majority rules. Isn't that the central concept of democracy? Not according to quite a few anti-Bush people holding public office or positions of public trust. The MSM and vocal democrats (is there a difference?) have pulled no punches in claiming that filibusters are a time-honored component of our democracy. Oddly enough, many of the same people who now want to protect the filibuster are on the record as denouncing the practice when the shoe was on the other foot. Senator Joe Biden:

The Washington Times notes that, in an appearance on ABC's "This Week," Biden flatly denied having said in 1997 that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down Senate floor vote. Yet according to the Congressional Record, Biden stated just that on March 19, 1997:

I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune:

...we quoted a Strib editorial dated September 30, 1994, which said: "[Reformers] should crusade for changes in Senate procedures that would prevent an obstructionist minority from delaying action indefinitely." Today we got an email from Jim Boyd, titled "Oops." It said:

John: Re. the filibuster: I was looking only at the one 1993 editorial about filibusters. There was a second editorial in 1994, in which we endorsed a Don Fraser proposal for revising senate rules. We'd missed the second one in a search we did before running our Sunday editorial. We found it about half an hour ago. I think you actually have caught us in a contradiction. We can change our mind, as we did on light rail, but in this case, we really didn't. We simply missed the precedent and, like a court, if we make such a shift, we owe readers an explanation for why we did it.

And, to nobody's great surprise, the New York Times. Watching the NYT talk out of both sides of their mouth is too good to pass up, so forgive the long excerpts.

... Free Republic has posted the text of the still-timely January 1, 1995 New York Times editorial: "Time to retire the filibuster." Here is the Times's 1995 teaching:

The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last season of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. ... One unpleasant and unforeseen consequence has been to make the filibuster easy to invoke and painless to pursue. Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes. Mr. Harkin, along with Senator Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, now proposes to make such obstruction harder. Mr. Harkin says reasonably that there must come a point in the process where the majority rules. This may not sit well with some of his Democratic colleagues. They are now perfectly positioned to exact revenge by frustrating the Republican agenda as efficiently as Republicans frustrated Democrats in 1994. ... The Harkin plan, along with some of Mr. Mitchell's proposals, would go a long way toward making the Senate a more productive place to conduct the nation's business. Republicans surely dread the kind of obstructionism they themselves practiced during the last Congress. Now is the perfect moment for them to unite with like-minded Democrats to get rid of an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.

The Free Republic thread includes Senator Cornyn's March 10, 2005 letter to the editor regarding the Times editorial earlier that week. We yield the floor to Senator Cornyn:

"The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6) supports the "historic role of the filibuster," which is a curious position for a newspaper that 10 years ago said filibusters were "the tool of the sore loser" and should be eliminated ("Time to Retire the Filibuster," editorial, Jan. 1, 1995). Federal judicial appointments have certainly been controversial, but surely all Americans can agree that the rules for confirming judges should be the same regardless of which party has a majority. Now you praise the filibuster as a "time-honored Senate procedure." In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, you called it "an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose." You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as "nuclear," even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd.

Rhetoric aside, what is the right thing to do? Outside of Those In High Places, it seems most people think the candidates should be voted up or down. So does Senator Bill Frist, majority leader. In his speech before the Senate today (full analysis here), Frist called for new Senate rules disallowing filibuster of Judicial nominees either on the floor or in committee.

• The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.
• When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, [the Senate] will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.
• [T]hese proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.
• The filibuster -- as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress -- will remain unchanged.

The 100 hours rule allows for one hour of debate per senator, a fair compromise for a body which only has the role of "advise and consent". The speech and analysis both make reference to the fact that Democrats have a few grudges on account of Clinton nominees who were blocked in judicial committee. Neither side is without blame here, though filibustering in the Senate takes it to a new extreme. Especially interesting is PowerLine's analysis of the political impact of presenting this offer.

Will the Democrats accept? I think they might, since they know (at least, I think they know) that the Republicans have the votes needed to change the Senate rule and ban the filibuster with respect to judges. For the Democrats, it comes down to a political calculation. The first part of the calculation is, if they reject the compromise and force the Republicans to proceed with the Constitutional option, do they gain or lose votes? Notwithstanding their bravado, my guess is that the Democrats fear they will be the political losers if they go to the wall for the principle that a minority should be able to block a judicial nominee from receiving a vote. But the calculation has a second stage: whatever the general public may think, do Democratic Senators risk losing the support and enthusiasm of important elements of their base if they stop short of doing everything possible to block President Bush's judges? I suspect that they do. Among the Democrats' richest and most fervent supporters, this may be the number one issue. So Senator Frist's proposal puts the Democrats in a very difficult position.

There's no doubt it's fortunate for the Republicans that this situation is currently playing in our favor, but Frist's proposals make sense for the long run as well as the short term. The Democrats are between a rock and a hard place, and Frist's proposal has done much to force them to fish or cut bait: go on the record supporting the indefensible filibuster, or play ball and let the nominees come to a vote. Before I run out of cliches, I'd better end with sober news from the analysis of Frist's speech:

Frist said previously that he would not accept any offer that lets Democrats filibuster past or future judicial nominees. And [minority leader] Reid said he would not accept any deal that keeps Democrats from blocking future nominees.

Quick shot: Welfare joke

A guy walks into the local welfare office for his monthly check. He marches straight up to the counter and says, "Hi. You know, I just HATE coming in here drawing welfare month after month. I'd really much rather have a job." The social worker behind the counter says, "Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur-bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter. You'll have to drive her around in his Mercedes, but he'll supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours, meals will be provided. You'll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips. You'll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage. The starting salary is $200,000 a year." The guy's jaw drops. "You're kidding me!" The social worker says, "Yeah, well, you started it." (tip o' the virtual fedora to Kevin P.)

Rumsfeld at Camp Liberty

Fox News reports Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with troops in Camp Liberty earlier today.

Rumsfeld also gave a pep talk to a few hundred soldiers at Camp Liberty, headquarters of the 3rd Infantry Division. He also pinned Bronze Star medals and Purple Heart awards on several soldiers and participated in a mass re-enlistment ceremony for about 100 soldiers gathered in a mess hall. "The role you're playing is a critically important role in the global war on terrorism" he told them.

I haven't heard yet whether Chris was present for this, though he's certainly in the neighborhood. Most of the media has glossed entirely over the big news in Iraq this past week. Iraqiis have selected a new interim President, Jalal Talabani, and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and a democracy is taking shape. We're witnessing Iraq's 1776, and yet most news media are talking about a single contractor kidnapped in Bagdad. It's not just pathetic, but almost criminal.

Twisting the news

OK, class, today we're going to talk about how the news media craft the news to advance their own political agenda. Turn in your browsers to this story at Yahoo! News about Florida bill S436. Read the article first for the content of the bill, then read it again for tone and bias. Please look up when finished reading. OK, everyone ready? Let's examine the article paragraph by paragraph.

Florida eyes allowing residents to open fire whenever they see threat MIAMI (AFP) - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law.

Notice the emotion-grabbing words "open fire against anyone". Also, by using the words "anyone they perceive as a threat", they seem to be leading one to wonder if each person can decide for themselves, including all the loonies out there. The current law does say you must try to retreat, unless (a) you are in a place you have a right to be, such as your home or vehicle, or (b) retreating would increase your risk of death/bodily harm.

Outraged opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to open fire first and ask questions later, fostering a sort of statewide Wild West shootout mentality. Supporters argue that criminals will think twice if they believe they are likely to be promptly shot when they assault someone.

More alarm words, "Outraged opponents", "encourage Floridians to open fire", "statewide Wild West shootout". These phrases are design to make you feel empathy for these opponents. On the other hand, supporters are "arguing", but we still see the words "promptly shot", again suggesting that the law allows fire-at-will for everyone. In my journalism class, I was taught that "said" is the only truly neutral word for attribution of quotes. Any other word (argued, urged, revealed, pleaded, maintained) expresses some bias of the author. This relates back to the one, main responsibility of a reporter: to report. Not to interpret, not to select what news is convenient or which voices are reported, but to accurately record all that was said or done. A reporter should never be talking in his own voice, but only repeating what others have said. It's also more natural to state the supporters point of view first, but this can be a matter of editorial preference.

Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who has said he plans to sign the bill, says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue."

Notice how they emphasize that Governor Jeb Bush is a Republican? To many journalists, this is an insult only slightly lower than "Conservative" (or worse yet, "Conservative Christian"). They can't actually say it in so many words, but they can arrange their words in order to lead you to that impression. The author has already done their best to imply that the bill, if passed, will lead to gunfire in the streets. Now he is trying to show that Gov. Bush is too out of touch with reality to see this.

Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant." But it also states that if a resident is confronted or threatened in a public place, he or she must first try to avoid the confrontation or flee before taking any violent step in self defense against an assailant.

Notice, class, that the second paragraph above is a sentence fragment. This is a grammatical error often used to add emphasis. Putting the fragment in a paragraph of its own brings even more emphasis. In this case, the author doesn't want you to miss his point and his point of view. His point is that the current law is "sensible" because it requires people to think before they shoot, and the new law will permit people to shoot anyone, anywhere and say it was because they felt threatened. It's a bit disingenuous to talk only about the "violent step in self defense", when the text of the bill clearly states that the force can only be used to protect against threat of death or bodily injury, or a "forcible felony". The text of the bill says the person using defensive force "is justified in using force that is likely to cause death or bodily injury against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force." (Emphasis mine). If he's only threatening to slap your face, you aren't justified in shooting him.

The bill, supported by the influential National Rifle Association, was approved by both houses of the Republican-run legislature on Tuesday.

By invoking "the influential National Rifle Association" and the "Republican-run legislature", he has, in his perspective, put the last nails in the coffin. By saying "Republican-run", he might as well have said "mafia-run" in some people's minds. He omits some details which would better allow the reader to evaluate the story for himself.

• What does it mean that the NRA supported the bill? Were they lobbying for this particular change, or do they simply support bills of this type as a matter of policy? The reader may tend to assume from this article that the NRA was the "silent hand" trying to get this bill passed.
• What was the vote in each house? Did the bill win by a landslide or a narrow margin? Was the bill opposed widely but pushed through, or was there a small but vocal "fringe" opposition?
• How many Democrats and Independents in each house voted for this bill? How many Republicans voted against it?
• For that matter, what does Republican-run mean? Are the houses split 51%/49% or 80%/20%? Do the parties work together well and get things done, or is the Florida legislature a logjam for anything except what the Republicans want? Are bi-partisan bills the exception or the rule?
• How many other states have passed a law like this? What effect has it had on crime, the murder rate, and victim survival?

It is important to remember that this is a newswire story, so space is limited. Not all the details above can be included in a 200-word story. It is dishonest, however, to include only the facts which paint the picture in an unfair light. For instance, by referring to the "Republican-run legislature", he makes it sound as if the vote was largely along party lines. In fact, the vote was almost 5:1 in favor in the Senate (94 Yea, 20 Nay, 6 not voting) where the bill originated, and all but unanimous in the House (39 Yea, 0 Nay, 1 not voting). According to another document on the same site, the Florida House contains 14 Democrats, 26 Republicans. To be sure, that's a 2:1 ratio, but it didn't look like there was much of a fight - after only a week on the floor, everyone present voted for the bill. I couldn't find a similar breakdown by party for the Senate, but I have to believe there are more than 26 Democrats (20 Nay, 6 not voting). Consider the story if it were instead written as below. Note that this story is still not without bias. The point of this exercise is to examine how the same facts can be used to paint a different picture.

Florida extends self-defense laws to include personal assaults MIAMI (AFP) - Florida's legislature has approved a bill that extends the current self-defense laws related to property to include personal assaults, permitting people to use appropriate force to defend against threats of death or bodily injury. Supporters say S436 will close a loophole in current state law which has permitted victims of violent crimes to be sued by their attackers for using force to defend themselves against violent crime. Opponents say the law will encourage Floridians to carry and use firearms indiscriminately. Current state law allows residents to "shoot to kill if their property, such as their home or car, is invaded by an unknown assailant," but does not include similar provisions for personal assaults. If passed, the bill will create a presumption of reasonable fear of death or bodily injury in certain circumstances, and allow the victim to meet force with force to protect against such attacks. The bill was approved by both houses of the legislature on Tuesday, with wide bipartisan support. Florida Governor Jeb Bush says it is "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue", and has said he plans to sign the bill.

This alternative version is only 193 words. Apart from the "Supporters say" line, it's all based on facts from the Florida Senate website, or facts from the original article. (Sorry, I didn't invest the time to look up a supporter to get a real quote, but I think this one is pretty reasonable.) For your homework, please write your own 1500 word essay on bias in the news media, as I have done here.

6:44 a.m.

That, for the record, is the last possible moment I can back out of my driveway and still catch the 7:05 train out of Dune Park each morning. I know this because today I cut it closer than I ever have before. I did this with stops at two lights that usually aren't red, and followed a state police car up most of 49 (not that I drive much over the limit anyway). As I drove past the station to the parking lot, the train was already halfway into the station, and I'm sure it stopped rolling before I did. Jumping out of my car, I set a new land-speed record for the rarely publicized "quarter-mile while carrying a 25 pound laptop bag and coffee mug" event. The conductor actually commented that I wasn't even breathing that hard. I guess he would know - I'm sure he sees people at about every station. You know, if I hadn't picked up the state patrol, the lights were right, and I had a few less things in my bag, maybe I could shave a few more seconds off my time...

The Truth About Hillary

Tip o' the hat to Kevin again for pointing out this newsflash from Drudge Report:

A book battle has broken out on Publisher's Row over the ultimate Hillary-attack! The project being billed as "Hillary in the Raw", like you've never seen her before, is set to drop in September by liberal Ed Klein, former NYT MAGAZINE editor, VANITY FAIR, PARADE contributor and author of multiple works on the Kennedys. "The revelations in it should sink her candidacy," a source close to Klein warns the DRUDGE REPORT.

The part that catches my attention is that they're referring to this as "Swift Boat tactics". By that I assume they mean "presenting facts we'd rather never saw the light of day".

Brain trust: Presidents 41, 42, 43

President Bush invited his father and President Clinton to ride in Air Force One to the Pope's funeral. While he had them all in the plane, he used the time to discuss foreign policy and a few other things. Story at the Washington Times. There's really not much downside for a sitting President to meet with his predecessors from time to time, as long as it's not too often. Of course, the liberal media didn't pass up the chance to accuse GWB of leaning on his father too much, an ongoing theme. There's also a tidbit here of note related to the Social Security debate. A number of vocal democrats are spouting rhetoric (my blog--my spin) about "dismantling" social security, when GWB has made it clear he wants to protect it. One of the straw men they like to use is the meme that Bush is insisting on Personal Savings Accounts (he's not insisting on anything but dialog at this point), and that PSAs are a bad idea. Lo and behold, this idea first belonged to Saint Clinton.

The president also praised one of Mr. Clinton's domestic policies -- trying to reform Social Security. Both men have proposed personal savings accounts as part of the solution, an idea that is vociferously opposed by congressional Democrats. 'I was telling President Clinton I remember watching one of his town hall meetings in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on this very subject,' Mr. Bush said just hours after bidding farewell to his predecessor at the Rome airport. 'And I thought it was a very impressive presentation,' he added. 'By the way, a lot of the language happens to be pretty close to some of the town hall meetings we've had.'

Last post wasn't emailed

Not sure why, but blogger didn't send the email notification of my last two posts: Reuters: Church should think about humanity, not the Bible, April 8 The DNA crystal ball, April 7 If this doesn't go out either, I may just start sending my own notifications. While I'm thinking about it, if you do think I say something worth forwarding, please forward a link to the article rather than the whole article. The link called "Permalink" at the bottom of each entry is a permanent link to each individual article.

Reuters: Church should think about humanity, not the Bible

I happened across this video report from Reuters on Tricia's homepage. Since the video may not be visible for long, I've typed up a transcript. The headline was "Change called for in church attitudes".

[Various shots of Pope John Paul II walking and speaking and crowds] Reporter: He's been hailed as a force for peace, but to many, Pope John Paul was also an obstacle to progress. While he championed human rights, he opposed homosexuality, women clergy and abortion. He also refused to endorse the use of condoms, despite being a weapon in the fight against AIDS. [Cut to video of a woman speaking with an African accent apparently behind a desk] Woman: I think need to get in touch with Africa know the reality on the ground, and defend humanity rather than what is in the Bible. [Closeup of a booklet about AIDS, pan back to show one person explaining to another, handing out of condoms in a poor village] Reporter: The Catholic Church even claimed artificial contraception could be a cause of HIV. [Cut to man speaking with a British accent] Man: People will not continue to put up with a church that endorses patriarchy and homophobia. They will not continue to tolerate a church which is refusing to give a leave while endorsing the use of condoms. [Long shot and closeups of "Kenya Network of Women With AIDS", woman interviewed earlier behind a counter with two other women shuffling papers, rack of pamphlets with titles "Talking about... condoms", "Talking about... The Facts on AIDS", "Talking about... Living with HIV & AIDS", same woman now pointing at papers and talking with a man] Reporter: Africa is one of the few places where the church is expanding. Many there hope the Pope's successor will be a modernizer. They say conservative doctrines have increased poverty, disease, and the population. They're praying those attitudes will be buried with the Pope. Sonya Legg [sp?], Reuters

I Googled for Kenya Network of Women with AIDS and determined that the woman interviewed is likely Ms. Asunta Wagura, Executive Director of KENWA. From a quick scan of their site, it doesn't appear they have any affiliation to the Catholic church or any other church. Nor do they have anything in their mission/approach that suggests they recommend church involvement as part of the support for women with AIDS. A cynical reader might wonder if Ms. Wagura was trying to drum up funding from the Catholic Church or from Catholics by this interview. Reading over the site, I find even that hard to believe - they write an awful lot about how governments and states must fund and encourage and foster. I couldn't find the word "Catholic" or "church" on any of a few likely pages from that website, though they're obviously interested in raising funds from individual donors as well. My suspicion is that she was just someone willing to speak against the church on this topic, and the reporter was able to get the story she wanted. Perhaps that's even a bit too cynical, but it's hard to see this as anything but a slam on the church.

The DNA crystal ball

A company called Genelex now offers a DNA screening service which will, for the low, low price of $395, tell you what you're in for later in life. The report suggests what your genetic makeup may have in your future, and also suggests appropriate changes in lifestyle to prepare for the future. I'm intrigued to see what people think about this. Is it, as the Washington Post article suggests, people playing God? Or is it simply a case of using what we know to discover problems sooner, much like the X-ray and ultrasound. Much like expectant parents, we may all soon be asked "are you going to find out?" Would you rather know if cancer, high-blood-pressure or glaucoma is (or may be) in your future, or would you rather wait and see how it develops? I guess the next question is whether parents will request these for their unborn children. One of the common tests today is amniocentesis (sp?), which is primarily used to discover Downes Syndrome children. (Check my facts, this is as best I remember from two years ago.) Our doctor advised us not to opt for the test unless we would consider aborting if the test came back positive. We wouldn't, and we didn't, but some would and some do.

Which paper do you read?

My Dad sent me this joke, though as with any joke, there is some truth in it.

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.
2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.
3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country and who are very good at crossword puzzles.
4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.
5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country -- if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.
6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.
7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.
8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.
9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.
10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country ... or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy provided, of course, that they are not Republicans.
11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.
Add your own!
12. The is read by people who
    

(No, this doesn't save anywhere. Please add comments through the webpage if you have any ideas.)

ABC's "Primetime Live" pushing homosexual agenda?

My coworker, Kevin, tipped me off to a news story at Cybercast News Service suggesting that very thing.

The segment has been variously described as one examining different parenting styles and peer groups of different types of families. ABC News has not yet set an air date for the segment, but the mother in one of the families featured in the segment fears producers attempted to misrepresent the nature of the segment and steer it toward one promoting the homosexual agenda. "We were set up," Susan Farinholt of Stephenson, Va., told Cybercast News Service. According to Farinholt, whose family was among four participating in the story, she was told the focus of the report was going to be on "the pros and cons of being in the same peer group."

The Farinholt family, Roman Catholics, Matthew, Sharon and their seven children, were interviewed (no friends allowed), then invited to spend a weeked with three other families: another Christian family, a homosexual couple, and a self-identified "hippy family", consisting of an unmarried man and woman raising their children outside of marriage. During the weekend, the Farinholts were invited to attend the birthday party of the homosexual couple's two-year-old. They initially declined, but producers persuaded them to go.

While visiting New York, the Farinholts attended a birthday party for the homosexual couple's two-year-old child under the watchful eye of cameras from "Primetime Live." "That's when we realized what was really going on," Farinholt said. Also attending the party were several women friends of the male couple, Farinholt said. At one point while the women were speaking with the Farinholts, Sharon said "a producer came over and started talking about homosexuals being allowed to be married and saying we didn't agree with it." Farinholt said others identified as a female minister, a male minister and a rabbi also attended the birthday party. "We realized real quickly that we'd been set up," Farinholt said. "This was very one-sided. We had not been allowed to include any of our friends or family, extended family or anybody else we do things with, yet they were able to have this party where they could highlight all of their friends and how well everybody got along." The Farinholts then went to producer Kate Harrington saying "this was wrong, that we were told we were just going to come and observe, and you're bringing up this debate at a two-year-old child's birthday party. So we decided to leave," even though it meant doing so in front of the cameras.

This wasn't enough for ABC, apparently, because the production staff pressured the Farinholts to take an interview with anchor Cynthia McFadden. McFadden seemed to be pressuring them to say something inflamatory about the homosexual couple.

"She just kept going back to it," said Farinholt. "'OK, we've got two unrepentant homosexuals here, so you're saying that they're going to hell.' She kept trying to leave it at that."

With Memogate II still in full swing, this doesn't do much for ABC's credibility.

At least we won't have to worry about gas prices anymore

According to a scholar of the Koran, the United States will cease to exist in 2007. A major terrorist attack? Fire and brimstone? No, a tsunami bigger than the one we just saw.

"The tsunami waves are a minor rehearsal in comparison with what awaits the US in 2007," the researcher concluded in his study. "The Holy Koran warns against the Omnipotent Allah's force. A great sin will cause a huge flood in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans."

Sadly, it's not his desire to preserve life that motivated him to announce his findings:

He said he decided to publish the findings of his research "out of a sense of responsibility because what is about to happen is extremely shocking and frightening." His fear, he said, is that the world economy, which relies heavily on the US dollar, would be deeply affected by the collapse of the US. "It would be fair to say that the world would be better off with a US that is not a superpower and that does not take advantage of weak nations than a world where this country does not exist at all," he added."The world will certainly lose a lot if and when this disaster occurs because of the great services that American society has rendered to the economy, industry and science."

"If and" when? I guess the Koran may not be entirely clear on this point after all. Also worth noting that the author is "a" scholar of the Koran, not necessarily a world-renowned scholar. There may be some dispute on his findings. An interesting read, though.