March 31, 2002 (first edition, 12:00 NOON) - NEW YORK/CHICAGO/WASHINGTON (APJP) - For a second week, growing turmoil in the Middle East overshadowed political issues -- with the slight exception, of course, of the Beltway Bloviators touching (indirectly, mind you) on His Supreme Shrub-o-lationists's decision to take a vacation and bury his head in the sand as Israeli tanks invaded Palestinian Authoritarian and martyr-wannabe Yassir Arafat's compound. He did take time to impose his religion on all of us yesterday with his empty, Peronesque Saturday radio address.

Mind you, this was an enormously eventful week for politics and government. Campaign finance reform passed the Senate, forcing the Chimp-in-Chief to break yet another promise to the ultra-reactionary right and sign the legislation into law -- without benefit of ceremony to underscore yet another massive policy defeat for President Gameboy and his junta of Hoover Institute handlers.

And Enrongate re-entered the headlines in the form of former Enron official and current Army Secretary Thomas White's latest adventure -- his use of a military jet to travel to Colorado in early March and conduct personal business (the sale of a house), an incident that will be investigated by the Pentagon's inspector general.

But with the Middle East descending further into chaos, we could forget about very much in the way of political talk this week. Besides, it's also Easter --so "Bishop" Tim Russert devoted most of Meet the Press to the crisis in the Catholic Church following decades of covering up the crimes of pedophile priests.

Here's what we saw.

This Weak
Arafat chance!

We decided to take a look at ABC's soon-to-be-overhauled, third-place Sunday pundit show, This Weak.

There were no major surprises, only another affirmation that This Weak remains the worst of the weekend political spin shows, for the usual reasons: glacial pace, George Will, obvious questions that hardly scrape the surface of the news or issues, George Will, B-list guests, padding, and reasoned analysis replaced by irrelevant neo-fascist blather from George "I'd Rather Watch Baseball" Will.

Sam Donaldson and the soon-to-be-retired Cokie Boggs Roberts (not too soon for us) seemed shocked and aghast that there'd been yet another suicide bombing in Israel, this one in Haifa. Good God -- Israel has Yassir Arafat cornered in his own compound and arrested some 70 of his lieutenants. You expect anything less than retaliation from nutcase suicide Jihadists? We're surprised that there weren't a dozen such bombings in the last two days!

Cokie welcomed Ra'anan Gissin, Israel's current equivalent of Ari Fleischer -- and in response to Cokie's question about Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon seeking to expel Arafat, Gissin demonized Arafat in an angry rant (and truth be told we really can't blame him). Gissin pretty much admitted that there is a state of "all-out war" between Israel and Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Can peacemaker Anthony Zinni do anything? Gissin said Zinni is welcome in the region, and Israel will continue to fight Palestinian terrorists (translation: no, Zinni can't do a damn thing right now).

Cokie then turned to Hasan Rahman, Palestinian representative to the US, and said that Smirk and company have demanded that Arafat denounce the suicide bombings in Arabic. Hasan said he had -- and that there could be peace (huh?). Cokie said that one Arab newspaper said that Zinni has gone from being a peacemaker to what they label a co-warmonger with Sharon. Hasan distanced himself from the notion -- while accusing the US of siding with Israeli policies that hurt Palestinians and maintain a state of siege.

Cokie then welcomed the peace advisor to the Saudi royal family, Adel al Jubair. Al Jubair said the occupation of Palestine must end -- it leads to despair and suicide bombings; the Saudi peace proposal is dramatic, and the ball is in Israel's court. Cokie said that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the peace plan is dead while Israel has tanks crammed down Arafat's throat. Al Jubair said that it's not dead -- but couldn't really be too optimistic about prospects given the present stand-off.

Then Sam welcomed two former national security advisors, Samuel "Sandy" Berger and Zbigniew "Zbig" Brzezinski. Berger said Palestinians must understand that terrorism will not work against Israel, Israel must understand that their current strategy is not stopping suicide bombers, and there is a huge opportunity in the Saudi plan -- but Arab nations must use their influence to get both parties to the peace table. Brzezinski said that there must be absolute clarity by both parties as to their requirements for peace: Arafat has been evasive, Sharon has been brutal, and the US has taken a position of "strategic incoherence."

Now that was the statement of the week -- the one that the pundits and politicians have been afraid to say. Zbig hit it big, summing up in two words the net outcome of fifteen months of the misadministartion's carte blanche to the oil industry, Team Shrub's aloofness and isolationist bent in the international arena since the Texas Twit was sworn in, Colin Powell's actual attempts at diplomacy despite sabotage by the Wolfowitz-Perle faction, General Zinni's earnest but ineffective presence, and Dick Cheney's failed mission to the Middle East to try and drum up war against Saddam Hussein as the region spiraled further into violence and revenge around him.

This is what happens when our un-elected leaders make "energy policy" a higher priority than foreign policy: strategic incoherence. When will the spineless Senate Democrats pick up on this message?

Brzezinski was not done: he added that the Arab proposal of a few days ago has not been seized on by Smirk -- instead, he has seized on outrage. Berger said that the US must put some political capital into the process ("We must put political chips on the table") and promise to bring support to the region if Arabs put pressure on Arafat. Condemnation, he added, does nothing; influence does. Brzezinski said that there's a strong possibility Arafat will be killed, based on Sharon's previous conduct (i.e. the way he ruthlessly conducted the Lebanese campaign two decades ago), and the US must realize that there is more at stake here than just the Israel-Palestine struggle, namely the war on terrorism, which is starting to look to Arab nations like a Smirk-Sharon war against Arabs (got news for you, Zbig -- it's not just Arab countries who see it this way). Neither Israel nor the Palestinian Authority will come up with a reasonable solution, he concluded; it's up to us. Berger is concerned that Americans will become combatants -- then blamed Arafat directly for the present mess, saying it is up to him to solve the problem.

The hand-wringing round table, during which Sam and Cokie were joined by the twin Georges (Stephanopoulos and Will), offered little of real interest. There was a consensus that Smirk was disengaged and not helping. Sam made a key point: if we look to be supporting Israel, we inflame the Arab world (a sad truth, in that neither side is exactly angelic). Steph fretted about 18-year-old girls becoming suicide bombers (without offering any view of how to stop the cult of death); Cokie rightly slammed Arafat for praising these so-called "martyrs." Steph praised the Saudi initiative -- and said that Smirk's rhetoric about peace yesterday "rang hollow."

Watch out, Steph -- this Junta doesn't abide such "disloyalty" from the press in time of undeclared war!

Sam suspects that Sharon is ready to pull the trigger on Arafat; Will said they won't because Arafat is the inciter of violence (can anyone say non-sequitur?); Sam called both sides incoherent; Will even had to admit that the Israeli government was ruthless.

Steph then conducted a segment on the death penalty and the decision by the Justice Department to seek it in their case against Zacharias Moussaoui, the so-called "fifth Sept. 11th hijacker". Eric Holder, former deputy Attorney General under Clinton, did a reasonably good job of spelling out a possible death penalty case -- and the real problems in proving the case. David Bruck of the Death Penalty Research Council said the government's biggest problem is that Moussaoui botched his hijack job -- and the danger is that the horror of Sept. 11 is being used to throw out the rule and letter of law. Pushing the rule of law, he said, is one thing -- ignoring it is another. It is obvious that one goal of Sept. 11 was to prompt America to throw out the rule of law, and if we go too far, he concluded, we stand to damage our freedoms.

Wake up, David! Suspension of habeas corpus. Refusal to make lawyers available to suspects. Holding people in secret custody. Jesus John Ashcroft has already done his part to aid Osama's plan to destroy our country.

Bruck slammed the death penalty itself and then asked the magic question: how are we advancing a war on terrorism by helping Moussaoui become a martyr?

It was good to see Steph get a segment of his own. It acted as a counterbalance to George Will's weekly segment of bow-tie brown-shirt blather, which (you guessed it) we completely ignored anyway (especially given that this particular Sunday it was about -- yawn -- baseball).

The second roundtable (following the useless "week in review" segment) did tackle Smirk's invisible signing of campaign finance reform (Cokie joked about Smirk having said parts were unconstitutional and signing it anyway, and Sam needled Dim Son for breaking another promise). Steph noted a new law that grants Medicare coverage for Alzheimer's for the first time -- and said that Smirk's favorable war approval does not "bleed over to other issues." Cokie seemed to think that Social Security is a "tired" issue --showing both the arrogance and naiveté that have characterized her sorry tenure at This Weak. It'll be nice to see her out of there. Sam talked about Smirk's "out among the people tactic" and Cokie seemed to praise Smirk for somehow being in touch with America (which only goes to show how out of touch that doyen of Beltway insiderism Cokie truly is).

When talk turned to the Oscars, we changed channels.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

McLaugh-In
Biometric brouhaha and payoffs for GE!

We joined this week's installment of America's daffiest political encounter group in progress as the result of a temporary cable outage.

The Group was expounding upon the proposal that some sort of national identification card be issued, including a chip containing some sort of biometric data (no doubt to be developed and marketed at least in part by McLaugh-In sponsor General Electric -- they bring good things to invasion of privacy). For the most part, the gang seemed to think it's a great way for "authorities" to know who they are really dealing with, but they fought over whether such a card should be issued to foreigners. John really, really, REALLY wants them for all citizens (a dead giveaway that GE must be gearing up for production of some sort of prototype to get John Ashcroft's mouth watering).

Can America get control of all those foreigners using an ID card with biometrics?
Larry Kudlow: No.
Eleanor Clift: It must happen.
Tony Blankley: I'll take 'em.
Jim Warren: Sadly, it's inevitable.
John: We must have the card.

Issue two: Gore-bashing! John decided to mock Al Gore for getting back into the political fray. Is he running? Eleanor mentioned the faux Tipper "run" and thinks Gore wants to run; the feelers on Tipper were a move, she said, to get Tennessee on Gore's side. John claimed Lieberman wants Gore to announce by the end of the year. Tony dissed Gore's supposed lack of approval within the Democratic party, and said Hillary Clinton is the supposed number two. Tony then LIED, saying that Democrat activists don't want Gore because -- catch this -- "he lost."

He won, Tony. Even with tens of thousands denied the vote in Florida by the machinations of Kathleen Harris, Clay Roberts, Jeb Crow and ChoicePoint. Even if you threw out votes by so-called "illegal aliens" in Florida -- most of whom were Miami-based, Castro-hating Cubans who voted for Bush!

John, Jim and Larry then bashed Al Sharpton for running. Come on, kids -- few take him seriously outside of New York City, and your piling on looks, well, a bit racist.

The gang touched on John Kerry's military service in a bungled attempt to stick up for GOP chicken-hawks.

How strong are Bush Republicans in the 2002 elections?
Larry: We don't know.
Eleanor and Tony cited possible war fatigue.
John: Bush is not vulnerable at all!

Issue three: the Pentagon budget of the future? John claimed that Smirk told the Joint Chiefs to hold off on defense appropriation ideas until the quadrennial review was complete. Now it's here -- and Smirk's promised "revolution" seems to have fizzled and Clinton's priorities are still in place! Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has upheld Clinton's weapons progrms!

Horrors, John! GE must be SMARTING over the utter failure of their dimwit Smirk Puppet to ram funding for more boondoggles to be designed and built by GE down the Joint Chiefs' throats!

Larry said that defense refinancing is the big issue -- and the war will be costly. Jim Warren said that the US is the best, most capable military -- armed to the teeth and over capacity. Eleanor slammed GE when she accused the panel of surrendering to defense contractors!

Predictions:
Larry: US troops go into Pakistan to take on Al Qaeda -- and the Pakistani Secret Service!
Eleanor: Bob Ray will not get the GOP nomination as candidate for the US Senate in New Jersey.
Tony: Smirk will increase the military head count.
Jim: Anti-tax-haven legislation will die in the House.
John: The US-North Korea nuke plant deal put in place by Jimmy Carter is dead -- bad news for the peninsula.

-- JJ Balzer

Meet the Priests
This Easter morning, we're treated to yet another episode of "Catholicism Today" with your host, Tim Russert. Everything you've always wanted to know about the politics of the Catholic Church, and then some.

Religious insanity. It's everywhere, and getting worse. Hard to avoid it on this Easter morning, but frankly, I kind of prefer Easter bunnies, baskets with fake grass, and pastel colored "Peeps."

The fact is, nearly every major crisis on the world stage today is due to religious zealotry and fundamentalism. (God save us from religious slaughter, oppression, abuse, and destruction in your name.)

Today's show dealt with just two instances, one domestic, and the other international. Namely, pedophile priests and the carnage in the Middle East.

Tim Russert, who assumes Catholic issues are of great interest to every American, seems to have planned a show dealing with the long-standing epidemic of sexually predatory Catholic priests. But due to recent events, he also touched on the religiously inspired bloodbath in Israel.

Tim summoned an NBC correspondent in Ramallah (I think I stayed at a Ramala Inn once.) replete with the obligatory on-camera flak vest, even though no doubt it would be absolutely safe to take it off for the less than a minute he's on-air. He reported Arafat was still "isolated" in a dining area of his headquarters, surrounded by fifty bodyguards. The Israelis having destroyed and broken into most of the compound, had come within feet of the room, and Arafat and his men were vowing not to be taken without a fight. Your tax dollars at work, folks.

Then Russert got the first idiotic question out of his system by asking, "Why doesn't Arafat just get on the phone and call off the bombings?"

I'll give you a moment to let the breathtaking idiocy of that question sink in.

I guess Tim assumes that there's a rigid command and control structure within Hamas and Islamic Jihad and that Arafat has complete and utter authority over people not only willing, but eager, to give their lives to this struggle. Sure Tim, a phone call would be all it would take. I can just hear Yassir now:

"Uhh...yeah, guys? Like, hey, cut out the bombings, OK? It's really not helpful now that I'm completely surrounded and held in this room with no way out."

"OK boss, done."

Why Russert swallows this ridiculous propaganda that Arafat has an iron grip on all Palestinians that want to blow up Israelis is beyond me. It also never occurred to Russert that if Arafat could halt the bombings, I'm sure old Yassir would have used his "lifeline" call by now.

The correspondent replied to this question by explaining that the Israelis have systematically destroyed the Palestinian security apparatus, tearing down and destroying all communication facilities and shutting down police stations. Arafat points out that it's not really reasonable to demand that you take tight control over your organization, when the people making that demand are the one's that have systematically dismantled and destroyed that organization.

They reduce Arafat to one guy and some bodyguards confined to a room with a telephone that's no doubt monitored, and then demand that he use his "power" to stop the bombings?

Having disposed of that, Tim moved on to the Catholic round-table. To his credit, Tim is bringing up a more-than-thorny problem with the Catholic church -- and on Easter Sunday no less.

He began with his usual cavalcade of media cites, as if the media are the font of all truth. He showed several magazine covers dealing with this issue, then displayed a USA Today poll that said that 72% of Catholics say the leadership has done a bad job dealing with sexual abuse by priests, and 74% saying that the Church is more concerned with its own image than solving the problem.

Father Donald Cozzens, former Vicar of Priests in the diocese of Cleveland, merely stated the obvious: that the problem was with priests molesting innocent children, and that this is creating an erosion of trust in the priesthood and the higher ups in the Church.

Even a dimwit like myself can figure that out.

Russert asked Father John McCloskey of the Catholic Information Center how the Church responds to this. McCloskey suggested the obvious: that they admit that there had been "huge mistakes" made in the way this has been handled. He says that there are a lot of dioceses in this country, and that some have handled it well, and others have not. He suggests taking care of the victims (evidently by paying them off) and making sure it doesn't happen again. He also mentions that the majority of priests are happy in what they're doing and have somehow managed to avoid predatory sexual practices on minors. That is a comfort.

"How do you make sure this doesn't happen again?" asked Tim.

McCloskey suggested a more "meticulous" selection process for priests to somehow find those who are cut out for a celibate life.

The mind boggles as to how you'd realistically and accurately determine that.

Russert then quoted the Pope's letter addressing this. The Pope basically said that there have been some bad, bad priests and they're giving a bad name to the many good priests. He called on people to "embrace the mystery of the cross and to commit ourselves more fully to the search for holiness."

I hope that works.

Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University felt that the pope's statement was inadequate. Timmy asked him why, and McBrien explained that the statement didn't go to the heart of the matter. He said that it wasn't a question of a few bad apples in the barrel, but the nature of the barrel itself and the process of selecting which apples to put in the barrel.

McBrien said that the Pope only made a glancing reference to the victims of this horrible abuse, while taking pains to mention the many priests who have and continue to do good work. He also faulted the Pope for not even mentioning the bishops that have served to cover up this behavior, and the attitude that the institutional church is to be protected at all costs. In doing so, he explained, the Church, by putting itself ahead of the children and their families, has ironically "exposed the institutional church to much greater scandal" than if they'd simply "come clean" with the situation.

Ray Flynn, the former ambassador to the Vatican (are there any non-Irish Catholics? You'd never know, judging by Tim's panel), was asked if the Church had done enough in giving guidance to American dioceses in how to deal with this epidemic. Not enough, in Flynn's estimation.

Father Thomas Doyle (whew! almost thought they'd sneak in a non-Irish panel member), a former canon lawyer who had written a manual seventeen years ago identifying and warning of this problem, had predicted that the Church would have to pay over a billion dollars in settlements. Tim, noting that everything in the report had come true, wondered how it was received when Doyle sent it to American bishops seventeen years ago. Doyle reported that when he first attempted to get it submitted, it was met with stonewalling by a committee, and as a result many Bishops didn't even know it existed. It was finally sent out in late 1985 -- and Doyle said he had no idea how it was received because he got no feedback whatsoever.

Russert asked him what has happened in the intervening 17 years, and Doyle thought the Church had changed its attitude towards these allegations. Doyle painted a great analogy when he said yes, he certainly did think the American Bishops had changed their attitudes. What had brought this about, according to Doyle, was "two shotguns trained on either side of their collective heads": one representing the legal system, and the other, the press. (That'll do it.) This pressure is what has forced the Bishops, begrudgingly and unwillingly, to finally face the issue. Doyle also agreed that the Pope's statement was "woefully inadequate" and represents an attempt to shift the blame. He feels that predator priests are seriously sexually disturbed individuals and to treat it as a matter of sin and evil is simply missing the point.

Should the Pope and crew issue specific guidelines as to how this situation should be handled regarding the police, victims, and others? Father McCloskey -- again, going out on a limb -- thought that might be useful.

McRussert quoted a member of the US Conference of Bishops as having said that all these cases of abuse are old cases, and that the screening process for priests has improved. Father McBrien replied by saying that may be so, but we don't know, and that there are surely new cases out there that haven't been uncovered. He also noted that the cover-up, the stonewalling, and the irresponsibility of the Bishops isn't old, that it's gone on as recently as Christmas of last year.

McTimmy then quoted a lengthy passage from Father Cozzen's book, The Changing Face of the Priesthood, which noted that of all the many priests he'd talked with that had been caught molesting children, the thing that stood out to him was that there was no remorse or guilt or moral struggle about what they'd done or concern for the victims, but rather they were focused entirely on what damage it would do to themselves and their careers, with no concern for the damage they'd done to others.

Cozzen stood by his statements.

O'Russert then read another passage that dealt with the phenomena of priests focusing their sexual abuse overwhelmingly against young boys, rather than girls. Most sexual abusers tend to be married men who prey on girls, but that in his experience in the Catholic church, 95% of priest abusers targeted teenage boys as their victims. He suggested that little attention has been paid to this fact. Cozzens theorized that this is to avoid calling attention to the disproportionate number of gay priests. He stressed emphatically, however, that gay men are no more likely to abuse young people than heterosexuals. The term for these people, he explained, is "thebophiles." This is a predator that focuses on teens that have reached puberty, rather than pedophiles that focus on children of even younger age. Cozzens said that the question ought to be asked why the victims are almost exclusively male; he added that he estimates from his research and experience that the number of gay priests is between 30% and 50%.

Flynn stepped in to quickly point out that not ALL priests are sexual predators (I think that goes without saying). Doyle then said he didn't want to spend his whole life discussing this issue. (Okay...we'll just drop it and hope it goes away! Good idea! Sounds like the Bush Middle East policy!)

McCloskey feels the percentages are 2 to 3% (someone is really deluded here -- who knows whom?).

McBrien says there is absolutely a relationship between the percentage of gay priests and sexually immature men entering the priesthood. He thinks that many conflicted men enter the priesthood thinking that it will help them deal with their sexual confusion, and that they also enter it to give themselves cover for not being married.

Doyle then stepped in to say he agreed 100% plus with McBrien that there needs to be something done, and done soon. He said that while everyone is focusing on the priests, he'd like to mention the victims, who number in the thousands, and who have gotten glossed over in the Church's response. He reminded us that these people have suffered not only from the physical aspect of the abuses, but the spiritual damage done to them at the hands of Catholic priests. Not only that, but the Church has cast them as enemies.

McCloskey got the last word by saying that he was "amazed" that anyone would say that the Pope was not compassionate. He said that the Pope is the "most compassionate person we've ever seen in the last 25 years in the Church" and noted that the Pope can't deal with a problem of this size in just a few paragraphs.

Timmy kicked off the next segment with more of the USA Today poll saying that 74% of Catholics wouldn't be willing to accept a priest that had abused young people as their parish priest, even if he had been "rehabilitated" (big shocker there -- they tried to throw a brilliant politician out of office for a piddling BJ, let's hope they wouldn't accept a child molester as their priest).

And more revealing was the poll showing that fully 75% favor allowing Catholic priests to marry.

Flynn started off in denial mode by saying that as a lay Catholic, he just wants to get this settled, and get back to the business of the Church. He said, "People don't join the Catholic Church to argue politics." (No, you bozo, but when the Church is corroded with sexual predators, you better damn well expect it! It's clear that there are many Catholics that are still extremely uncomfortable with ever questioning the leaders of the Church.)

Russert brought up the fact that in Eastern Rite Catholic churches priests are allowed to marry, and are no less Catholic than the Western Rite, which forbids priests to marry. He also quoted an article in USA Today noting that many married Protestant and Episcopalian clergymen who converted and subsequently were ordained as priests have been permitted to continue to be married.

"Is this the future of the Church?" asked Tim. "Yes," replied Father McBrien, "it's the past, the present, and the future, of the Catholic church."

Why was marriage forbidden at some time in the past? McBrien brought a little historic perspective on the issue, explaining that it was because there was corruption in the priesthood with priests leaving church property in their wills to their family and nepotism among priests and bishops who had been promoting their sons into the hierarchy. But he noted that this is a different era, and that is no longer necessary. Celibacy is more of a problem in and of itself than the problems it was designed to eliminate in the 11th century.

McCloskey said celibacy wasn't the problem. He argued that if priests married, this wouldn't eliminate sexual predators, and that there are millions of men committing adultery, so, should we eliminate marriage? This, of course, is a silly argument.

McCloskey says celibacy is a "gift." I suppose at certain times, considering problems we've had with members of the opposite sex, we've all briefly thought that might be true. But hopefully, we got over it.

In his zeal to defend priestly celibacy, McCloskey even went as far as saying that it is "the crowning jewel" of the Catholic Church. Yikes!

Doyle returned to say that he thought the Church was "pretty shaky" right now, and noted that some have the capacity to be celibate, and some don't. But simply taking vows and making promises does not bring about a metaphysical change within someone. (Ask Liz Taylor or Larry King.) He feels that celibacy should be optional, and that it would create much more healthy priests as well as attract more suitable candidates to the priesthood. He notes that ministers of other faiths are married and just as devoted to their congregations and just as devoted to service as any celibate priests.

Continuing his hand-wringing over the fate of the Catholic church, Father Tim continued to discuss whether the Church could still manage to recruit quality non-pervert priests.

McCloskey worries that the children of anyone that questions the Church leadership will not be Catholics. His rock-ribbed attitude is that if they leave, too bad, but the Church will stubbornly refuse to change, even if it means the decline of the Church.

Cozzens notes this and says it's a very, very serious problem to have this "let them go" attitude and to be closed to different attitudes. He said church members are family, and you don't just "let them go."

Flynn made the good observation that this is a generational issue. This is true. I'm sure that the older Catholics wish things to remain the same, while the younger members are longing for a change that brings the Church into at least the 18th century.

I can't help thinking that open discussion of the issue of celibacy and other problems in the Church can't help but be beneficial, despite the fact that the Church has had to be forced at gunpoint, as it were, into doing so.

And thus concluded yet another interesting peek into problems that have no relevance whatsoever for the millions of non-Catholic viewers of Timmy's show.

POSTSCRIPT: It's been brought to my attention by a few alert readers that the story of "religious police" forbidding rescuers from saving fire victims at a girl's school in Saudi Arabia due to their not being properly covered from head to toe that Kate O'Beirne reported in her "Outrage of the Week" last week was indeed reported in the British press.

I had cast asparagus - er, aspersions on this claim and doubted its veracity. The fact that it appears true does not take away from the fact that Ms. O'Beirne's demand that our government stop Saudi Arabia from "exporting" this type of thing to the world and the U.S. is a ludicrous notion.

-- Dash Riprock

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer.  He lives in New York City.

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is recording/video producer and media marketing guru.  He lives in a heavily fortified apartment compound in Manhattan.

Dash Riprock is a freelance smart aleck based in Moline, IL and an ordained minister in the Church of What's Happening Now. He can be contacted at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com <mailto:dashriprockapj@hotmail.com>