CONSPIRACY FRIDAY

I was watching this show last night on The History Channel called 9/11 Conspiracies in which they lay out the various September 11 conspiracy theories and then get experts to refute them. I'm not really a big conspiracy guy -- although, I wouldn't put anything past the Bush/Cheney/Rove axis of evil -- but I have to admit that the movie Loose Change does make some intriguing arguments.

Anyway, one of the conspiracy theories floating around out there is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane. Now, I thought The History Channel special did a pretty good job of showing why most of these theories don't really add up. However, in the case of missile hitting the Pentagon, they didn't address what I think is pretty damning evidence. Watch this video and pause at 2:57 ...



Now, watch this and pause at 1:45 ...



Am I crazy or is that not a long, skinny white thing that hit that building? That is not the front of a plane.

LOU CANNON: MOSTLY RIGHT

I have a great deal of respect for journalist Lou Cannon, and his opinion pieces for the Los Angeles Times regarding Wendy McCaw's various evil-doings have been spot on. Having said that, I feel the need to respectfully disagree with a couple comments he made in his recent letter regarding the current NLRB hearings. Let's start off with this one ...

While I found most of Mr. Steepleton’s testimony unbelievable, I rise to his defense on a matter for which he has been criticized in various media and blogs. These critics question whether it was possible for Mr. Steepleton to have been unaware of his wife’s union activiites at the paper. I have known couples—often when one spouse was in politics and the other in the media or when the spouses belonged to different political groups—where job discussion was off limits. In fact, it would have been prudent for the Steepletons NOT to have discussed the union or anti-union activities of either one of them. I don’t know the Steepletons, and he strikes me as an editor who is truly out to lunch, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt on this point.

While I might normally agree with this assessment (I mean, James Carville and Mary Matlin must have this rule), I think the difference in this case is the assumption that Scott Steepleton actually has scruples. Mr. Steepleton has clearly shown that there is no line he will not cross in defense of the Santa Barbara News-Press. Based on his sleazy and dishonest actions over the last year as well as his previous court testimonies, why would anyone possibly believe that this is the road he dare not tread? And if that's not enough to convince you, consider this: Wendy McCaw's mission to root out union supporters has no bounds. Would she really allow Scott's wife to be promoted if there was any doubt as to where her "loyalties" lie? No, Scott Steepleton does not deserve the benefit of the doubt on this -- or any -- point.

Here's the second comment by Cannon that piqued my interest ...

When, green as grass, I covered my first trial 50 years ago, my city editor at the Merced Sun-Star warned me not to confuse the attorney with his client. It was good advice, which I appreciated many years later after coming to know Edward Bennett Williams. I don’t think that Barry Capello is quite in that exalted league, but his performance at this hearing has struck me as exceptionally thorough and professional in every respect.

Again, I generally agree with that sentiment here, but let's not kid ourselves ... It's not like Mr. Capello is some objective, outside lawyer with no previous knowledge of the situation. He's a Santa Barbara resident for god's sake! Certainly he has kept abreast of the situation and is aware of the facts leading up to this hearing. And yet, he's chosen to be a McCaw champion at the expense of his community. As Blogabarbara pointed out back in March, Capello made some interesting statements to The New York Times. Here's one of them:

“The meteor has hit. We’re watching the end of the industry,” he said. “Journalists think they can write what they want when they want. I don’t know if that can survive in this age.”

Gee, it's kind of hard not to confuse the attorney with his client when they both have the same talking points. Barry Capello either lives in the same clueless rich, white bubble that Wendy occupies, or he checked his morals at the door to defend this client. He may be thorough, but professional is pushing it a tad in this blogger's opinion.

I LIKE YOUR LOGO

It didn't seem to garner much media attention, but last week, 6 of the 8 Democratic Presidential hopefuls went on LOGO (the gay and lesbian cable channel) to discussed issues important to the GLBT community. Since I enthusiastically watched the entire program, I thought I would give a quick assessment of how I thought the candidates performed ...

JOE BIDEN - Absent. What statement does that make? Anyone know why he declined?

CHRIS DODD - See Joe Biden.

DENNIS KUCINICH- Kucinich was on fire in this one. Except for Gravel, he is the only candidate to fully support gay marriage, and the crowd loved him. And he loved them ... literally mentioning the word "love" several times. At one point, he was even asked if there was anything about him the gay and lesbian community wouldn't like. His answer was obvious.

MIKE GRAVEL - I tend to like most of Gravel's positions, but he has been pretty bad in the debates thus far. He has a tendency to babble and can't seem to articulate his thoughts very well. But I have to say that he was excellent in this more intimate forum. He was genuinely happy to be there and wasn't as over-the-top angry as he usually is. It's cool to see an old school politician support gay marriage with no hems and haws.

BARACK OBAMA - Obama reminded everyone several times that he was the first candidate to accept the invitation from Logo, but that aside, he was no competition for Kucinich. That being said, he did fine. His position is basically to support full civil unions for gay couples and that marriage should be left to the church.

JOHN EDWARDS - I think Edwards did the best amongst those who do not support gay marriage. He does, however, emphatically supports civil unions and full equality under the law. Even though he doesn't support gay marriage, he's the only candidate who's completely open and honest about it. And he makes a point to say that his religious beliefs shouldn't be forced on others.

HILARY CLINTON - I have some problems with Clinton, but I continue to be impressed with her skills as a politician. She pretty much has the same views as Edwards, but it took some prodding for her to quietly admit that she's "not there yet" in terms of gay marriage. But I don't think she hurt her cause at all with her performance here.

BILL RICHARDSON - I saved Bill for last, because he was truly horrendous. My opinion is that he's generally been pretty bad in the previous debates, but he really tanked this one. When questioned about his stance on gay marriage, I've never seen someone dance so much in my life. And this wasn't some polished political dance. No, this was a nervous, deer-caught-in-the-headlights kind of dance. If you don't believe me, I challenge you to go to YouTube and see for yourself. It's rather uncomfortable to watch. Also, at one point in the discussion, the questioner actually got him to admit he thinks being gay is a choice. My god, man, did you prepare at all for this thing?

So, here's my conclusion on the whole event ... Kucinich and Gravel have the most progressive stance on gay issues (as they do for most issues), so they won't win. The rest of the candidates -- who showed up -- have identical positions: civil unions with full equal rights, but no gay marriage. So, if a Democrat wins in 2008, that will be the best we can hope for. But hey, it's got to be better than a Constitutional ban against gay marriage, right?

By the way, the Republicans were also asked by Logo to participate in a similar forum. Anyone want to take a guess as to how many accepted?

THE WSJ AND MURDOCH: A MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN

I think it's funny how concerned people are at The Wall Street Journal about losing their integrity under Rupert Murdoch's rule. Take, for example, this item from Studio Briefing ...

Paul E. Steiger, the former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal who oversaw the newspaper's coverage of the deal that resulted in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp taking over the Journal's parent company, Dow Jones, has told a convention in Miami that he feels "conflicted but hopeful" about the deal. Speaking to the Asian American Journalists Assn., Steiger said, "There is no question Rupert will be the boss." He indicated that he was well aware that Murdoch has used his media holdings in the past to further his business interests. Nevertheless, he said, "Any hint of that at The Wall Street Journal would destroy its value." There has been considerable speculation that Murdoch will use the Journal to boost the Fox Business Network, which is due to launch in October. Currently the Journal has an exclusive deal in place with rival CNBC that is not due to expire until 2012. The London Financial Times commented today (Monday): "Preparations for the channel are going ahead without taking Dow Jones into account ... but, longer term, it is assumed the deal was taken into Mr Murdoch's bid calculations."

It's interesting to me that nobody is really asking why Murdoch was so interested in buying the WSJ in the first place. Could it possibly be due to the fact that The Wall Street Journal editorial pages are the most right wing print in existence? Maybe all these folks worried about the publication's value should have thought about that when they were making it such a good fit for Fox News!