Al Gore's big show

It is hard to imagine anyone who would be worse as an entertainer than Al Gore. The "man of wood" shows almost no expressions except when he is coached and, even then, it is apparent they are faked. So it is probably good for the Al Gore TV network that Al himself is not an on-air personality.

Now that he is, to some extent, an "entrepreneur" (a strange concept for a liberal), we can see how he performs in the real world. Apparently one of the first things to go was opposition to sexually-explicit materials most often associated with his wife Tipper's silly tirade against song lyrics. These days, however, sex means money in the till so it is apparently all right.

"To capture the elusive eyeballs of the iPod generation, Mr. Gore's channel has also been experimenting with some raunchy fare. In a segment titled "Hooking Up," women loosened up by tequila suck on lollipops as they muse about their sex lives. There's no nudity, but there are graphic discussions of "fingering" and under what conditions they will "put out." Another recent segment included a photo of sex toys.
That kind of material might alarm Mr. Gore's wife, Tipper, who once led a crusade against explicit song lyrics, but the former vice president has apparently taken it in stride."

It goes without saying that their is a liberal slant to the Gore network. Not a "deliberate" liberal slant of couse but more like the New York Times or the Washington Post -- since no conservatives are anywhere near the place, only liberal ideas are even considered.

"Despite the caveats, on balance the on-air segments do tilt left. Cartoon "pods" mock Mr. Bush and other administration figures. A commissioned video exploring military recruiting in high schools used hidden cameras to capture a uniformed recruiter giving a pitch that was portrayed as misleading. Anti-war "counter-recruitment" activists were featured, but the video showed no young people explaining the benefits of military service."

Joel Hyatt (of Hyatt Legal Services) and a bunch of other liberal fat-cats are backing the Gore network. I always considered Hyatt a true entreprenuer but might re-think that after discovering that he is a big liberal. Most entrepreneurs that have to work hard at building their businesses are not liberals as they dislike the high taxes on those who work the hardest. It is "get rich quick" folks like Hollywood types that tend to be liberals as they view that money falls off trees.

Gore's network also seems to share with its radio cousin Air America a taste for improper funding sources.

One investor that has generated controversy is the Yucaipa American Fund. President Clinton is an adviser to the fund, which is backed by California pension money and was described in press accounts as specializing in investments benefiting lower-income urban and rural communities. A critic of the fund, Peter Schweizer, said he doesn't believe the network is aiding the underprivileged. "That's the express goal they established," Mr. Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, said. "Of course, Current TV doesn't fit the bill."

The idea of Al Gore actually having to worry about meeting a payroll and dealing with staff issues is intriguing but unrealistic as it appears that Gore is not really that involved in day-to-day operations.

As stupid as they come?

Obviously nobody is going to mistake Britney Spears for a highly educated individual but that is not her role. You would think she could hire someone with some smarts to help her figure out what to say when required to comment on one thing or another. Caught mistreating her young infant, her first instinct was to blame someone else.

Now, after reflection, she has refined her story, claiming she doesn't want to become the next Princess Diana. It is hard to understand what that means; Princess Diana was killed because of riding in a vehicle with a driver who was highly inebriated. Spears can avoid that fate by the simple expedient of making sure whoever is driving her around is sober and, when you think about it, that doesn't seem like too much to ask.

But of course Spears is really trying to blame the paparazzi; she apparently can't understand the riding around with a drunken driver can result in a fatal accident while having photographers around does not.

But if the good Spears gains from the paparazzi (free publicity) is not worth the hassle, she can move somewhere when they don't hang out and then she can go about her business as she wants. Maybe she won't get as many cover stories in People magazine but that is the choice she has to make.

media blowout

The overreaction of the mainstream media to the Cheney hunting accident is truely astounding. After all, this incident had nothing to do with any official duties of Cheney or anyone else and the other individual affected is a private citizen.

Perhaps the very concept of hunting is so foreign to typical members of the dominant liberal media that they simply cannot fathom the idea of a hunting accident. Of course, the very concept of gun ownership is something that many liberals are uncomfortable with. To them, this incident is simply another reason to fear firearms. Of course, the reality is that hunting accidents, while rare, do occur and individuals who hunt have to accept that possibility in much the same way that anyone who partakes in any activity with any risk must accept that risk.

I don't think that anything Cheney did or did not do would have made any material effect on the media overreaction to this minor incident. If he had called an immediate news conference as the media suggest he should done, they would have accused him of ignoring the condition of the man who was injured. When Cheney did speak out, the liberals jumped on him for choosing for choosing Fox News.

Even today, five days after this minor incident, the media are still abuzz with it; NBC claiming that this incident will weaken Cheney's influence in the administration. The moonbat blogs are, of course, filled with various conspiracy theories.

The liberals media are like a pack of wolves just waiting to find anything to pounce on; anything that makes the President or members of his administration look bad. What a disgrace.

Is Michelle Kwan a good sport?

There have been a lot of stories about the circumstances surrounding Michelle Kwan's withdrawl from the Olympics. In most of the stories there is very little said about how Kwan actually made the U.S. team. The answer is that she used political influence to have the rules changed on her behalf. Under the rules in existence at the time the team members were to have been selected, she would not have qualified. What Kwan managed to pull off would be the equivalent of the number 3 ranked football team having the Bowl Championship Series rules changed to their benefit after all the regular season games had been played.

I don't believe that Kwan should be given any praise for giving up something that was not really hers to begin with. In fact, only by Kwan's claiming a new injury was the righful team member, Emily Hughes, able to participate in the competition (although not the opening ceremony and she will be some days behind the other competitors.) It is said the participation in the Olympics is a once-in-a-lifetime dream for many of the altheletes. Kwan was apparently ready and willing to have Emily Hughes' dream dashed in order for Kwan to participate a third time.