Dick Cheney Does Not Support Gay Marriage. He Supports His Daughter's Gay Marriage

So Dick Cheney has come out in support of gay marriage. Big fucking deal. If anyone thinks that, at his core, Cheney actually cares about homosexuals and their civil rights or lack thereof...I have some cabins in the mountain region of Pakistan they might be interested in buying.

Earlier this week Cheney said he doesn't have "any problems" with same-sex marriages, adding "I think, you know, freedom means freedom for everyone. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish," and said the issue should be handled at the state level.

Cheney's sudden love and respect for gays is 100% about his daughter Mary, period. Do you honestly think that before she exited the closet, and dating back to his Bush 41 and Nixon days, that he was a passionate proponent of gay rights? If so, I suppose you also think Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay hang out together watching "Project Runway" while feeding each other fondue?

To be sure, what we're witnessing here is classic self-serving, hypocritical, double-standard, Republican "do as I say not as I do" rationalizations:

"I'm against gay marriage until I learn that my kid's gay"

"I'm anti-abortion until my kid needs one"

"I'm against stem-cell research until it's my relative being ravaged by cancer"

I'm a military hawk until my kid dies in battle"

I'm against plug-pulling until it's my loved one who's rotting in a vegetative state"

I'm pro-guns until it's my husband, wife or kid who gets shot by one"

"I'm all about family values until I'm caught cheating on my wife"

Cheney's support for gay-marriage is the most disingenuous advocacy ever. He's a rabid conservative on every single other social, environmental and fiscal issue, and is no more a genuine fan of gay-marriage than I am a proponent of Joey Buttafuoco-style hetero unions.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

"Forget Twitter, I'm on the CB!"

Those were the hilarious words shouted Monday night by the actor Will Ferrell during a silly bit on Conan O'Brien's debut as host of NBC's The Tonight Show (which was a solidly funny and successful debut, btw). But it got me thinking: how cool would it be if instead of typing away in such an impersonal manner on Facebook and Twitter, millions of people used CB radio's and even the phone!

For those of you young people out there who are a bit confused right now, CB radios were a big fad in the 1970's. We had 'em in cars and in our homes, and people would actually shape their lips and tongues into various positions to form words in an effort to communicate through actual spoken language. I know, I know, crazy, right? And that other piece of equipment I mentioned, the phone, is also used for verbal communication purposes. Think of it as sort of a Facebook or Twitter with sound. All those silly "status" comments you make to each other--and to no one in particular--can actually be made live...and get this, the other person on the phone can actually respond right back to you in, like, a conversation! It's really cool! You don't even have to make any additional purchases either. That little gadget you carry around for all that texting, picture-taking, web browsing and music downloads? It has a frickin' phone in it too! I'm serious, you can actually talk on that damned thing. I know...it's insane. It's like getting a whole other "app" for free!

Seriously, kids, talking to someone is actually a lot of fun. You'll get to hear tone, inflection, humor, sarcasm...and can have a solid back and forth which you might just find quite engaging. Now go ahead and try it, and let me know what ya think!


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

Message to Republicans: Attacking Sotomayor is Another Nail in Your Coffin

It's been utterly fascinating to witness the speed and consistency of the vitriol heaped on Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's choice to replace David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. Since Obama made his nomination public last week, the right wing attack machine's kicked into high gear, acting like a collective bunch of rapacious vultures circling above Sotomayor like she's some fly-infested roadkill.

Sotomayor's critics are waging a multi-front war, consisting mainly of charges of racism and judicial activism, despite the fact that nothing in the jurist's record of roughly 400 decisions supports either claim.

At the core of the controversy is a statement Judge Sotomayor made during a 2001 lecture at the UC Berkeley School of Law:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

Probably not the best choice of words, as Sotomayor herself has now admitted, but hardly the basis for the unconscionable label of racist being slapped on her by the right. Leading that charge is former House Speaker, liar, philanderer and scandal-plagued book author Newt Gingrich:

"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old," Gingrich said, adding, "A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

But there's no "there" there. Both Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito have made similar comments about their ethnicity and how it's shaped and influenced them, as it should. Can someone tell me the difference between Sotomayor's comment and a statement Alito made during his 2006 confirmation hearing?: "When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account." Funny how we didn't get charges of racism levied at Alito from our hypocritical Republican pals. The notion that a liberal Puerto Rican woman from a poor New York City upbringing is racist is an absurd and reprehensible accusation. And it shows not only how desperate Republicans are to undermine the Obama administration, but the shameful levels they'll stoop to in doing so.

Obama himself kicked up the dust earlier in the month when he stated the virtues he believes which are important in a potential SCOTUS justice:

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

Conservatives were quick to raise the red flag on the president's "empathy" comment, claiming it demonstrated a radical view of the role of one who sits on the High Court's bench. First of all, the word "empathy" is not a pejorative term to be feared, but rather a human emotion/virtue to be appreciated and admired, especially in the context of making critical decisions which profoundly impact the lives of individuals as well as businesses and governments. We saw what eight years of cowboy arrogance did for the country. Besides, empathy is not a term that only President Obama has introduced into America's judicial lexicon. George H. W. Bush Sr. used it in the same vein when explaining his choice of Clarence "Sexual Harassment" Thomas back in 1991.

Sotomayor's detractors argue, albeit in shameless partisan fashion, that she's not just racist, but one who'll serve the court as a liberal activist not a strict constructionist who will interpret law and not make it. It is truly ridiculous, naive and unrealistic to think that there's some black and white roadmap that all justices typically follow when hearing and deciding cases. If that were true, there'd never be dissention, never be split votes. The SCOTUS judges would always see things through the same lens and vote unanimously. As we know, that's not what happens. Obviously, the law is gray. And often very gray. With much of it open to the injection of one's personal views and life experiences. Therefore, it's a bit disingenuous, yet not terribly surprising, that "empathy" is at the heart of the Sotomayor controversy.

Then there's the attempt to impugn Sotomayor's qualifications. One media wingnut groaned that "there's got to be more of a reason for her getting the appointment than that she's Hispanic and came from a poor family." What a nitwit. Sotomayor brings more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Funny how our sore-losing bigoted friends on the right overlook this little factoid when attempting to minimize Sotomayor's credentials and overall merit.

Let's face it: what's really at issue here is that rich white men are pissed off at the thought that her appointment was the result of her being Puerto Rican and because she grew up poor. Pretty ironic coming from a segment of the population that holds most of the power in the business, financial, entertainment, political and judicial sectors. They're pissed because this sort of entitlement is usually reserved for them. If a top job's gonna go to someone because of their race, doggonnit it's gonna be them! In case you haven't noticed, rich white men don't like it when their privilege and power is usurped.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

Shame on You California

The California Supreme Court had an opportunity Tuesday to do the right thing and overturn the thinly-passed Proposition 8 gay-marriage ban which the state's Homophobes voted into law through a ballot referendum last November. To no one's shock or surprise, they upheld the controversial decision, even as many other states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey and New York have moved to legalize such unions. Clearly, not everything progressive originates in The Golden State. This time, California can bask in its regressiveness (Prop 8 was an answer to an earlier Supreme Court ruling last May to allow same-sex marriages). So, "the will of the people" wins, and logic, fairness and tolerance loses.

But Tuesday's court decision wasn't a total bust. They did throw homosexuals a bone (pun intended) by grandfathering in the roughly 18,000 gay marriages that took place between June and November. The fact that 36,000 gays will be able to live with straights in peaceful, non-institution-threatening harmony, as one big happy California marital family, is itself inherent proof that the ban is truly a whole lotta nonsense about nothing and worthy of absolute repeal.

I still don't get why, when we're fighting two wars, terrorists, an economic meltdown and a need for universal health care, certain people seem to care more about whether gays and lesbians legally marry. Is this really an issue? In trying to understand the motivation behind the opposition, I once again turned to my Republican pal Bryant, my right-wing muse and trusty barometer of all things politically irrational and illogical, who also happens to live in California. Bryant and narrow-minded, intolerant folks like him use as their biggest argument that the legalization of same-sex marriages threatens the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. But, through their intensely vocal opposition, they often fail to mention that some of them, like Bryant himself, have actually been married as many as three times. Kind of an odd little factoid for someone who passionately defends the institution they claim to hold so dear and wish to protect from all those domesticated queer folk. The hypocrisy, the blatant double-standard, is infuriating.

There can be no sanctity in hetero marriages when people like Bryant piss on the 'sacred' institution by getting divorced whenever they feel like it. The phrase "till death do us part" is not a cherished vow to these people, but a cliche catchphrase that's honored until they no longer have any use for it. These liars break their vows every day and then stand in judgement of gays, claiming to be better than them; more deserving of the great institution of marriage. I'm sorry, but the whole "do as I say, not as I do" bullshit is enough to make you puke.

And if it's not the "sanctity" card these homophobes are playing, what is it then? Is it simply a personal bias against gays? That they just don't believe in homosexuals getting married? Well, there are lots of ignorant bigots who don't believe in interracial and interfaith marriages either. How about we start passing laws and voter referendums banning these unions too? Where do we draw the line?

The nation's gay-bashers need to stop being such narrow-minded, frightened little twits. Don't worry boys, legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean some stealth homo's gonna sneak up on ya and suck your dick. Truth is, these amped-up testosterone-drunk assbags would probably like it, which is why they and so many other "straights" are always so preoccupied with what a couple of queers do to get off. As I like to say, those who bash the hardest are the ones with the biggest closet.

To be sure, there's nothing American about discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, religion, gender, age or sexual orientation. Banning same-same sex marriage is morally wrong, it's unconstitutional and, as so many progressive states have shown us, it's just a matter of time before there's a happy ending (pun intended) to this story.



On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

Dick Cheney is America's #1 Terrorist

During the eight miserable years of the Bush administration, then-vice president Dick Cheney lied, deceived and stretched the truth as he and the president sought to ram their extreme right-wing war-mongering agenda down our collective throats. And heaven help anyone who got in their way:

"If you're against the president and his policies, you're unpatriotic and rooting against America."

"If you're against the Iraq War, you're against the troops."

And now in the face of President Obama's plan to shut down the controversial prison at Cuba's Guantanamo Bay, Cheney's classic irresponsible and reprehensible partisan rhetoric is running on overdrive. He's an un-lean, mean 24/7 Obama-bashing machine who's giving us "If you're against the Bush/Cheney torture and Gitmo policies you're rooting for the terrorists." This posturing is beyond despicable. And if it's at all possible, he's an even bigger dick than ever.

What Cheney's trying to do, and perhaps successfully, is set the stage so that in the event a terrorist attack does occur again on U.S. soil, he and the other shameless partisan hacks can place the entire blame on Obama's reversal of several Bush/Cheney "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding. As a precursor to that, Cheney's ratcheting up the rhetoric that Obama is a weak commander-in-chief, incapable of keeping America safe. Forget the fact that the worst terror attack occurred on Bush/Cheney's watch. Forget the fact that it was eight years between the first and second World Trade Center attacks, yet the Busheviks boasted of anti-terror success after just 6 or 7 years as if passing that mark somehow meant the threat was beyond us. Forget the fact that just three months into his presidency Obama deftly ordered Navy snipers to kill Somali pirates who had held an American cargo ship captain hostage. But as in the past, the truth doesn't matter to Cheney, as he marches on to redeem himself from his perch as the most unpopular vice president in history.

Now let's consider the concerns about closing Gitmo. LA mass murderer Charles Manson has been locked away for almost 40 years in a California maximum security prison. Other serial killers like John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahlmer and Ted Bundy, or the Oklahoma terrorist Timothy McVeigh, also rotted in the United States prison system before they were either executed or killed by fellow inmates. The deranged "Son of Sam" killer David Berkowitz is serving a life sentence without parole. And locked away in a high-tech prison in Florence, Colorado, known as the toughest slammer on Earth, is Unibomber Ted Kaczynski and radical Islamic terrorists Ramzi Yousef, Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Guess what? Not one of these butchers have busted loose.

But according to Cheney's convoluted, disinegnuous logic and rationale, no matter how many innocent people these evil monsters have killed, maimed and tortured--and there are thousands--they must be a bunch of pussies to be incarcerated for so long without successfully escaping in the grand Houdini-like fashion that Cheney would like us to believe will occur if we close the controversial jail and import the suspected terrorists into America's prisons. C'mon people, nothing could be more idiotic.

It's ludicrous to think the United States government lacks the overall resources to securely imprison Gitmo's detainees. Are we really supposed to believe that somehow these prisoners will ultimately end up walking the streets of small-town America? Are we really supposed to believe that while Manson, Kacynski, Yousef and countless other murderous beasts rot like caged animals in U.S prisons, this new breed of Gitmo uber-terrorist is too strong, too wily, too dangerous to be incarcerated on American soil? The suggestion that we can't transfer and successfully imprison Gitmo's detainees is not only preposterous, it's offensive to any American with even half a brain. This is simply another shameful Republican politicization of one of America's darkest days. It's a desperate attempt by a near-dead, fear-mongering party to once again lie to the American people about a threat that doesn't exist. Fear, fear and more fear. Where have we seen this routine before?

And if Dick Cheney truly wants to keep the country safe from terrorists, he should stop trying to scare the crap out of everyone. He's the worst terrorist of all.


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

A Message to America's Homophobes: No One Really Gives a S**t Anymore if Gays Get Married!

State legislatures have been passing gay-marriage bills left and right over the past few months. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa have all moved to allow gay couples to engage in the same revered institution normally reserved for such upstanding heterosexuals as OJ Simpson (murderer), Joey Buttafucco (hired a murderer, albeit a sloppy one) and Peter Cook (Christie Brinkley's uber-philandering ex). Other states like New Jersey and New York are also considering similar bills.

In New York this week, as the State Assembly voted to legalize gay-marriage, Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a staunch opponent of the measure, frustratingly wondered where the opposition was hiding: "Wake up! Where are you? "It’s the bottom of the ninth, two outs, and you’re losing — big time."

Now let me be the first to acknowledge and appreciate the unintentional appropriateness of Hikind's analogy involving a game men play where balls and long phallic-looking objects are grabbed and passed around for hours. But more important, the answer to Hikind's question, "Where are you?" is simple: people are too busy worrying about their jobs, their incomes, their savings, their homes and whether or not they'll have adequate health care. They're also worrying about the effect the prolonged recession is having on the crime rates in New York and other cities across America. In short, what two gay dudes or lesbians do to commit to each other is just not an issue anymore to most thinking people. It's just a matter of time before the entire nation--with the exception of a few small, densely populated narrow-minded die-hard bastions of homophobia--accepts and legalizes same-sex marriage and finally puts this issue to bed (pun intended).

Why Republicans May Never Again Control Washington

You can stick a fork in the once mighty right-wing GOP. The Republican Party, to quote the hilarious Billy Crystal character in the magical film The Princess Bride, is "mostly dead." The majority has clearly swung to the center, becoming a much more moderate representation of the party. Statistics now show that more Americans have abandoned religion and the hot button social issues that used to be conservatives' bread and butter campaign themes. What's more, the evangelical wing, the party's core base just a few short years ago, has shrunk to negligible, insignificant levels.

It's 2009, and we have a black president, a black chairman of the Republican National Committee, a female House Speaker, and gay marriage laws being passed around the country. How sweet it was to see President Obama acknowledge RNC head Michael Steele at the recent White House Correspondents Dinner with a jovial "Wassup, Michael!? Michael Steele is in the hizzy!" This is definitely not your father's America. Finally.

The nation is reeling from the worst financial crisis in 80 years, and it's mired in two wars which are sapping our financial and emotional resources as we struggle to keep the country safe from terrorists.

And then there's President Obama, who tackled the controversial subject of abortion head-on in yet another brilliantly delivered speech at Notre Dame last weekend--as he did with race back in 2008--and which proved, by the overwhelming support of students and faculty alike, that the staunchly conservative pro-lifers who tried unsuccessfully to undermine his appearance are in even smaller, more insignificant ranks than ever before.

Obama is also doing more to bridge the nation's great political divide than any president in history. My dear friend Bryant, a die-hard Republican, and who for years I've used as a barometer to measure the pulse of the fringe wing of his party, sent me an email Monday acknowledging Obama's bi-partisan efforts, but somehow the real meaning and intent of them was lost on him:

"...Obama's at least smart enough to sense that we live in a center right country. That’s why he kept Gates. That’s why his speech at Notre Dame called for each side in the abortion debate finding common ground with the other side. That’s why he appointed a Republican as ambassador to China (Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman)."

What Bryant, and others like him, have failed to grasp is that our president--an inexperienced 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, who Republicans have called the most liberal Democrat ever--managed to get himself elected by bringing a new message of hope, change and bi-partisanship to our sick nation. These are themes on which he campaigned. Promises he made to voters. That Bryant reduces this to some cheap political triangulation strategy--something to be mocked--once again proves that the extreme right-wingers out there still do not understand how and why they lost the White House and both houses of Congress last November, or why they're about to hand Democrats the Senate's first filibuster-proof majority in 30 years. Clearly, if we're judging the nation's political leanings by the actions of voters, this picture is hardly one of a "center-right" country.

The more Republicans fail to see why they lost, and why Democrats won...and the more they continue to waste time, energy and financial resources on abortion, guns, God and gays instead of focusing on what voters really want, which is an end to war, recession and the incessant partisan bickering that ravaged our political system under Bush/Cheney, they will never again hold power, and their party will go from mostly dead to all dead.

Nancy Pelosi and the Republican Orgasmathon

It had to happen. It was just a matter of time before someone, somewhere in the Democratic party would trip up and provide the GOP with the kind of controversial fodder they've been fantasizing about. And to Republicans, the Nancy Pelosi saga this week is the stuff partisan dreams are made of.

Seems House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can't remember being briefed by the CIA back in the Fall of 2002 about the specific use of torture on terror suspects in U.S. custody, in particular the technique known as waterboarding. Yeah, she remembers meeting with the spy agency, but claims waterboarding never came up. The issue here is that Pelosi's been very critical of the Bush administration's use of the illegal torture tactic, so it's important to know if in fact she knew it was taking place and when. Adding to the complexity of this mess is the fact that she's admitted to knowing about it through briefings just 6 months later, but kept quiet because she felt "powerless" being in the Democratic minority at that time. That is perhaps the most lame excuse since "the dog ate my homework."

I'm no fan of Pelosi. I think she's terrible as the face of House Democrats. She's shrill, combative and speaks like a teenager trying to explain why she's late for class. There are some people who project sincerity and integrity, but Pelosi's just the opposite. She comes across as a duplicitous partisan hack. A female Tom Delay, yet lacking the gravitas and efficiency. Whereas Delay was ruthless and resolute, Pelosi's simply an ineffective trainwreck. If she's found to be lying about what the CIA told her and when--current and former CIA Directors Leon Panetta and Porter Goss respectively claim she in fact was briefed in 2002 about the waterboarding of terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah--then she should be prosecuted along with Bush, former VP Dick Cheney and everyone else who authorized the use of illegal torture tactics.

But let me stop being the objective Democrat for a second and acknowledge the orgasmic excitement rippling through the Republican Party right now over the Pelosi saga, which right-wing radio and TV host Sean Hannity said is "blossoming into a Watergate like cover up and scandal." On his radio program, a near-hyperventilating Hannity repeats the mantra "what did she know and when did she know it" every three minutes, literally.

Really Sean? Watergate? That Pelosi may have lied about being briefed on the illegal torture tactics being used by the opposing party which then-controlled the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court is of the same scale and magnitude as the President of the United States authorizing a burglary of the opposing party's headquarters in an effort to rig a presidential election and then covering-up this illegal act? You see Sean, this is why no one takes Republicans seriously, and why you guys can't get elected anymore.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has moved front and center in his harsh criticism of Pelosi:

"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime...I think Speaker Pelosi's in enormous trouble. I think that lying to the country on national security matters and lying to the House is a very, very dangerous thing to have done."

And if it's one thing Gingrich is an expert on it's lying. Just ask his first wife, on whom he cheated while she lay suffering from cancer. What's more "despicable, dishonest and vicious" than that? But when it comes to politics, Gingrich, like many other high-ranking Republicans, suffers from selective memory and blatant double-standards.

Note to Newt: Bush and Cheney lied to America for eight years about national security matters, and perpetrated countless war crimes, and have yet to be punished. Wanna talk about what's truly dangerous? How about lying about WMD and terrorist connections so you can justify invading Iraq, which has resulted in 4300 U.S. troop deaths and tens of thousands of other fatalities, not to mention the hundreds of thousands maimed and wounded. Where's your self-righteous outrage on all that, Newt? Spare us the sanctimony. And be careful what you wish for. Just as the unprecedented personal war you and your band of 1990's 'revolutionaries' waged on Bill Clinton forever changed the tenor of politics and backfired massively on Republicans, so too shall the Pelosi Crucifixion.

It's actually fun to watch and listen as Republicans sink their teeth into the Pelosi scandal. They're a beaten, battered, disenchanted, delusional lot who see Pelosi's foot-in-mouth disease as their ticket back to power. As if the alleged actions of one Democrat is enough to bring down the entire party in the 2010 midterms. Forget the fact that, even if it's true that she lied, who gives a shit? is this really a story? Again, if she lied, she should be punished. And if the Obama administration eventually prosecutes those who knew of and/or authorized illegal torture tactics, then she too should be prosecuted. But the bigger story here, the real story, for Pete's-sake, is how these blood-thirsty Republicans seem to be forgetting just what the hell Pelosi may have been lying about in the first place.

While right-wing stooges like Gingrich, Minority Leader John Boehner and Hannity would love to divert all the attention onto Pelosi, the real scandal isn't about what she knew, but whether a United States president, vice president and their legal advisors cooked the books so that America could commit illegal acts of torture. What these disingenuous Republicans need to understand, through their shouts of "prosecute Pelosi," is that if she goes down, so do Bush, Cheney and the rest of the torture-mongers who conceived of and perpetrated these "enhanced interrogation techniques." Pelosi's crime, one of stupidity perhaps, pales by comparison.

How the Internet is Killing Our Economy

The United States is facing the most challenging economic crisis since The Great Depression of the 1930's. And if you ask me, the greatest technological invention ever, the Internet, is in no small part responsible. In fact, I believe the Internet is not only killing our economy, it's shredding our social fabric as well.

To be sure, the Internet is an incredibly useful medium. It's been a genuine paradigm shifter, altering the way we communicate, research, travel, shop and organize, educate and entertain ourselves. It allows us to do all of these everyday tasks faster, more efficiently and more cost-effectively...often times even free. And therein lies the gargantuan problem of the Internet.

As someone who's formed and runs a few businesses, I can tell you firsthand that free is not good. Free never shows up on a P&L or a balance sheet. Free doesn't fatten the company's coffers and allow for growth and expansion. And you can't pay bills with free. In short, and to use the vernacular of my 16-year-old son, free, in business, sucks.

Yet, the Internet is all about free. We can get our newspapers and magazines for free. We can watch televisions programs free. We can download movies and music free. We can book our own travel, send free mail, make free phone calls, send free greeting cards. We can, thanks to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter to name a few, even socialize for free, never having to leave the house or spend one red-cent actually socializing the way truly sociable folks used to.

Think about all the businesses, all the people, who've been slammed by this economic black hole called the Internet. Consider how much money has literally been sucked out of America's GDP by this rapacious beast which resides in our laptops, PC's, iPhones and Blackberries. Look how it's destroyed the music business, travel agencies, the publishing industry. It's killed the movie after-markets, like DVD. Look at the strikes it's caused in Hollywood, because somehow studios think that viewing content on a computer screen instead of a TV screen somehow gives license to screw writers out of their residuals.

Think of all the money not spent in cafes, bars, lounges, restaurants, clubs, video stores, and book stores because of the proliferation of impersonal, intimacy-starved social-networking sites and free-content sites. Somehow, when it came to the Internet, businesses decided the only way to truly attract a scalable audience was to give them everything free. But now that the economic shit's hitting the fan, our corporate titans may be coming to the long-overdue realization that capitalism and free are about as successful a marriage as Karl Rove and Queer Eye's Carson Kressley.

Just this week one of those corporate uber-moguls, Rupert Murdoch, announced that his News Corporation will begin charging for content on his newspaper websites within a year in a direct answer to what he calls the current "malfunctioning" business model. Citing the enviable success of the Wall Street Journal's growing online subscription revenues, Murdoch said that newspapers were experiencing an "epochal" debate over charging consumers for content. Murdoch's a guy who likes to make money. I'll bet he'll make it all work and have the last laugh. Hopefully, others will follow suit.

I'll say it again: free sucks. Nobody can make money by giving their products and services away for nothing. There can be no profit without revenue. And without revenue all you have is expense, which leads to bleeding red ink. The more people like Murdoch who wake up and smell the cyber-coffee, the sooner our economy and our once-thriving capitalist society can get back on track. When companies and individuals make money, they spend money. Just because a business operates online doesn't mean all that good old fashioned Wharton Business School stuff doesn't apply. Let's keep all the speed, the ease, and the efficiency of the internet, but how about making people pay for it all, just like everywhere else? Duh...

What? "Political Self-Preservation?" Shocking!

Everyone knows that politicians are altruistically-motivated, selfless do-gooders whose unadulterated patriotism compels them to volunteer to serve country and countryman. So it came as an absolutely stunning shock Tuesday when Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector announced he was switching his party affiliation to the Democrats in a move designed to win re-election. I'm still reeling from the rarity of such a self-serving act by a politician.

Republicans were quick to pounce, labeling Spector's tact nothing more than "political self-preservation," as Texas Sen. John Cornyn said.

RNC Chairman Michael Steele, another shining example of that unbridled selflessness that permeates the Republican Party, said Spector "left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record." Now when has a politician ever done that, huh?

And in an admirable call for balance and bi-partisanship, Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell warned: "The danger of that for the country is that there won’t automatically be an ability to restrain the excess that is typically associated with big majorities and single-party rule." Translation: the party of "no" just became the party of "zero power."

These jilted Republicans also attempted to minimize the significance of Spector's defection--which would give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority once Minnesota's Al Franken gets confirmed after his legal battles with incumbent Norm Coleman end this Summer--by calling it an isolated regional case:

"This is not a national story," McConnell said. "This is a Pennsylvania story about his inability to be renominated by the Republican Party or be elected as an independent. He made a totally political decision."

Ever the reliable delusionists (or liars...take your pick), I guess they're forgetting that Republican incumbents across the country got their collective asses kicked last November. Or that Bush and Cheney's abysmal approval ratings were lower than the age of the average MTV viewer. Or that the approval ratings of Republicans in Congress right now is half of that of the Democrats. Or that Maine's moderate Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins could quite possibly be the next to defect. Yeah, Spector's exodus is just a lil ole Pennsylvania problem, Mitchy.

The real kicker here about Spector? He's actually the kind of politician we all can and should respect. He votes his conscious and his principles, not his party. Yet the Republican leadership hates him because his voting record with the GOP is 65% not 100%. Forget that he's voted for the Iraq war, supported Bush's Supreme Court nominees and tax cuts, supports school vouchers, supports gun ownership and opposes gay marriage. That's not conservative enough. That he's pro-choice and voted for Obama's stimulus package makes him a traitor to the party in their myopic, lockstep-marching eyes.

Spector's no dummy, and he knows the highly effective and stauchly conservative Club for Growth will lavish support and money on a much more radically right-wing 2010 GOP primary opponent. So he's outsmarted and outmaneuvered them. And they will lose again.

To be sure, the GOP is a dying party. To the benefit of Democrats, it's been hijacked by the far-right-wing fringe hellbent on ramming its conservative social dogma down the throats of Americans while alienating and losing its moderate faction. Just as Ronald Reagan famously said in 1962 when he switched parties, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me," Spector too had felt abandoned by the party, saying the GOP had "moved far to the right" and his political philosophy became "more in line with Democrats." Let's hope there's a lot more like Spector who start feeling the love across the aisle...

What Obama's Done for America's Confidence

What is a recession? What constitutes a bear stock market? In both cases, it's nothing more than perception. It's the collective belief by consumers and businesses alike that things are bad and getting worse. And it's mostly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Americans stop spending, corporate profits turn to mounting losses, and massive layoffs follow. And it's a vicious cycle. We therefore create the very things we fear most. When that happens, nothing can turn it around except a very different perception. The shifting sentiment that things are looking better.

Which brings us to a new ABC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Monday indicating that 50% of Americans now believe the country is headed in the right direction, versus just 8% in October, before the presidential election and three months before Barack Obama took office. Additionally, the Consumer Confidence Index released Tuesday showed a significant increase to 39.2% in March vs. 26.9% in February. Throw in Obama's approval rating, which hovers around 65%, and it's a pretty safe bet that Americans are starting to feel much better about the nation's leadership and the overall direction of the economy and the country.

When consumers start feeling better about things, they spend. It starts with little things like clothes, toys, books, etc. They take extra trips to the mall. Then they slowly return to big-ticket items. They buy electronics, cars, houses, take vacations. And when they spend, it fattens corporate earnings. And that leads to job growth, reinvestment and spending on capital improvements. Pretty soon, recession turns to prosperity. Of course, I'm over simplifying, and an economic recovery can take a long while to achieve any appreciable measure of growth. But all signs point to a bottoming, and that would mean the crawl back upward begins. Whether we experience a V, U or L-shaped recovery is anyone's guess. But it would appear that a recovery, however slow, is at least underway.

Obama's critics can bark as loudly as they wish and continue playing the partisan rhetoric game, but the simple truth is that his first 100 days have achieved major progress in turning around the economy, restoring consumer confidence, and curbing the hemorrhaging in both the banking and housing crises. Not bad for 100 days..

Obama and Chavez: What's Wrong with this Picture?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Let me repeat that one more time for our Chicken Little Republican friends. There is nothing wrong with this picture. And more importanly, the sky is not falling.

It's the handshake heard 'round the world. The infamous image of a smiling President Barack Obama greeting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez last week at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago. The handshake that sent conservatives into hissyfit high-gear.

Republican Sen. John Ensign (NV) said Sunday that it was "irresponsible" for Obama to be seen "laughing and joking" with the Venezuelan president. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said "This does look a lot like Jimmy Carter. Carter tried weakness and the world got tougher and tougher because the predators, the aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators, when they sense weakness, they all start pushing ahead."

In dismissing this irresponsible rhetoric Obama pointed to his victory in November which signaled that Americans wanted change; change from eight years of the Bush administration's reckless foreign policy. He said voters elected him to enjoin both friends and enemies alike into the peace process.

In discounting the "weakness" claims, Obama said "The American people didn't buy it. And there's a good reason the American people didn't buy it, because it doesn't make sense....It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interest of the United States."

You see, Republicans don't understand diplomacy. Engagement. Negotiation. The political mastery behind Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly but carry a big stick" brilliance. To the contrary, they subscribe to the Speak like an obnoxious bully, carry a big stick, and beat everyone over the head with it philosophy. They simply don't get the strategy behind thinking before you speak, measuring your moves, not tipping your hat. They don't know what it means to talk smart rather than talk tough. That's because they're used to a petulant, testosterone-deprived, arrogant, simpleton cowboy-wannabe who lived in a black and white world, pissed off friends and enemies alike, and alientated us from the entire world.

Sure, why don't we just insult everyone. Lump them all into this Axis or that Axis. Cut off talks. Threaten. Refuse to meet. Re-adopt the wildly successful You're either with us or against us philosophy of diplomacy. Let's keep invading countries and be at war with everyone. Fuck the world and fuck Peace on Earth. Fuck Iran, fuck North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and everyone else. Fuck everybody. We're the goddamn United States, baby. George Bush taught us that. We don't need anyone. Who the hell is this Obama guy thinking we should actually act like statesmen and strive towards a new and lasting peace. What a pussy.....

Twitter Dumb and Twitter Dee

If I hear the word 'Twitter' one more time I think I'm going to go virtual postal. Same goes for Tweet, Tweeted, Twittering and Tweeter.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how much I hate Facebook, that colossal online abyss of narcissism and inanity. Well, I think Twitter--the micro-blog of 140-character vacuousness--annoys me even more.

Full disclosure: I am neither a 'Twit' (my name for Twitterers ) nor have I ever been on the ubiquitous site. And I don't need to be. I am simply sick and tired of how it's invaded the American lexicon, and culture, like all of these other internet sinkholes that continue to shut people off from each other while claiming to be "social networking" sites. Pretty soon moms will be tweeting their kids to come pick up their dinner plates so they can head back to their laptops for more of this incredible "socializing."

More disclosure: I'm on Facebook, where I've been known to be quite a shameless promoter of the various business dealings I'm involved with, which include those of a charitable nature. I believe sites like Facebook and Twitter do offer great business networking value. But unfortunately, it's become far less a business tool than a tool for extending one's Warholish 15 minutes to insufferable levels.

Last week we saw the inanity reach epidemic proportions with the self-described "Twitter Feud" between the actor Ashton Kutcher and cable news giant CNN over who could pile up 1-million Twits quicker (Kutcher won). This utter non-story quickly sucked up lots of valuable media time, with Larry King devoting almost his entire hour to it Friday night.

Does anyone really care how many Twits Kutcher has...besides of course, Kutcher himself and his loyal Twits? Is this really news? It's a sad commentary when, with two wars, terrorism and a devastating recession, Facebook and Twitter is where young people's passions get channeled and focused. It's unsettling how today's youth is so desensitized, disaffected and self-consumed. And it's not just kids who are addicted to this too-cool communication form. Hearing some age-loathing 50-year-old describe his Twittering is about as painful as listening to him gush about the latest Death Cab for Cutie concert.

Kutcher, whose Twitname is @aplusk (the kid's clever, huh?), was joined on King's program by rap and fashion mogul P. Puffy Daddy Diddy, or whatever he calls himself these days. The Puffster, when asked by King (btw....is there anything more embarrasing than Larry King describing his own hipster Twitting?) why he Tweets, His Diddyness lamented that, "People know me for the persona of the Hamptons, bling, who I'm dating, and there's more substance to me than that." Twitter, he said, allows him to cut out "the middleman;" the media, which he blames for his self-admittedly shallow public persona. So let's get this straight. He's not shallow because he's a jewelry-heavy, model-datin', Hamptons-hangin' bad boy; he's shallow because the press covers it all. Yup, this sure sounds like a problem that non-stop Twittering can fix. And I'm sure his 600,000 followers will eagerly soak up all his words of wisdiddydom. Actually, in fact, I just realized there is something more embarrassing than King talking about his Twittering: Diddy whining about how nobody understands him.

And then there's Mr. One-Million himself. "At the end of the day we all have ego," said Kutcher, the self-proclaimed Twit "Jester" in a ginormous "duh" revelation. In explaining that everyone has their own "Twitter DNA" (huh?), he defines Twitter as "an ego stream," and then modestly declares that it'll be a good thing if people like him can use Twitter to "change the world." Can you say, self-important? This coming from a guy who's biggest claim to fame is Punking his celebrity pals and having stepkids almost as old as he is (ok, I exaggerate, but I have comedic license). I'm just not exactly sure that we've seen any "world-changing" initiatives coming out of Kutcher or anyone else on Twitter. But we sure as hell have seen a lot of that ego he talks about.

Ok, I'm done ranting. I'm gonna go scr@tch my ass now. Hey, maybe I should Tweet that.

Tea Parties: GOP Once Again Manipulating the Average Joe

During the eight miserable, ineffective and wasteful years of the Bush administration, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove, the president's chief political advisor, deftly crafted a successful strategy of turning the "little guy" on himself. That being, to divert and distract these Average Joes away from the real issues that effect them--unemployment, wages, health care, education--and instead drive them to the polls through hot-button issues including abortion, gay-marriage and life-support (Terri Schiavo). For a long while, it worked. The little guy consistently voted against his own self-interests.

But the little guy's not completely stupid, and the inevitable backlash began with the 2006 midterm elections where Democrats won a small Congressional majority, and kicked into high gear last November, with Barack Obama's presidential victory and the Democratic landslide in the House and Senate. Dejected, the GOP crawled away a broken, dysfunctional family. A tarnished brand. But as this year's tax season rolled around, conservatives issued a rallying cry in the form of "tea parties," those ill-founded, embarrassing, scantly attended protests that were held Wednesday across the nation. Though touted by organizers (most likely GOP funded and supported) as being attended by "Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and Independents," judging from the crowds and the signs they waved, it was pretty clear this was a decidedly anti-Obama movement. And that's the insane part.

What the demonstrators are protesting is what they believe to be higher taxes and wasteful government spending, in particular the $787-billion stimulus plan and the $3-trillion bailouts of banks, Wall Street and the auto industry. But the not-so-comic irony here is that the Obama administration has yet to impose one single tax increase on anyone. To the contrary, it's giving income tax cuts to 95% of Americans, and gives additional tax cuts and credits for small businesses, tuition payers and home buyers. The only individuals that could be hit with an actual tax increase are those whose annual incomes exceed $250,000. An increase, mind you, that's still a full 10 points less than the rates during the Reagan presidency. But I didn't see any seemingly rich dudes in NY, Chicago, DC and elsewhere parking their Benz's and raising any protest signs at these rallies. The crowds, though small, were filled with the same types who've been used and abused before: low and middle-income taxpayers who ironically stand to gain the most from Obama's tax policies. And once again, they've somehow been manipulated by the GOP through lies, misinformation and perhaps even racial bias.

I nearly cringed when I saw on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show a few people in the crowd jeering one of the guests being interviewed, a woman from a progressive/green organization, who supports taxing the rich. It was as if the poor and middle class in the crowd had been brainwashed into defending those mistreated rich folk at the hands of the elitist Obama.

In case anyone hasn't noticed, there are many recent signs that the economy may finally be turning around. There's been several positive indicators in the banking, home, retail and auto sectors. The credit markets are opening up. The stock market's had the best rally since the Great Depression. And, there hasn't been one bank/Wall Street failure since the bailouts. Maybe, just maybe, the government's fiscal policies which began in the Fall under George Bush and then expanded under Obama are working? And maybe those misguided protesters--the ones out across America yakking about Obama as if he was the biggest socialist since Karl Marx--should realize that these same policies are the ones that will help create jobs; protect savings; make home-buying more affordable; make tuition easier to pay; create universal health care; make the US more energy efficient; and, overall, resuscitate this ailing economy.

But the GOP sees opportunity here to revive its heretofore comatose, dispirited base. What a better, time-tested, tried-and-true conservative cause-celebre than taxes? It's the Republicans trying to create something out of nothing. But will this populist approach work? Will the newly-energized "Contract with America" folks like Newt Gingrich succeed in creating a groundswell of support over this issue and thus breathe new life into the near-dead Republican Party? A new Gallup poll released this week shows that 53%of Americans approve of big government spending to fix the economy, and 48% think that the federal income taxes they pay are "about right," indicating the lowest anti-tax sentiment in 50 years. And President Obama enjoys impressive overall approval ratings. Judging from yesterday's meager turnouts--so weak they should be called "Decaffeinated" Tea Parties--it appears these tea-baggers are nothing more than a fringe minority.

Ostroy on FoxNews.com's Strategy Room Thursday at 2PM with Host Alan Colmes

Back to Fox News Thursday for another round of spirited political debate on the Strategy Room. I'll be on the 2PM hour with host Alan Colmes. Man, I wish Hannity were there too. Would love a crack at that guy! Watch it live at www.foxnews.com/strategyroom.

Ostroy on FoxNews.com's Strategy Room Tuesday at 10am

I'll be on FoxNews.com's Strategy room again tomorrow morning (Tuesday) at 10am. Join us for a lively roundtable discussion of the hot political topics of the day. Watch it live at www.foxnews.com/strategyroom.

Here's a Little Challenge for Iowa's Homophobic Republican Legislators

Last week Iowa's State Supreme Court ruled that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, paving the way for gays and lesbians to legally marry. It's been hailed across the country as a bold, landmark measure that could ripple throughout other states.

Of course, the ruling has caused outrage and protest among conservatives, those god-fearing upholders of the great institution of heterosexual marriage. And in response to the Iowa Court's action, the state's House Republicans are vowing to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and threatening major political consequence to opposing Democrats (who just happen to control both the House and State Senate).

But before these narrow-minded, sanctimonious hypocrites go off full-cocked (pun intended) to amend the state's Constitution, perhaps they'd accept a little challenge. How about taking lie detector tests in which three key questions are asked:

1. Have you ever cheated on your spouse?

2. Have you cheated on your spouse more than once?

3. Have you ever engaged in homosexual activity?

Since the primary justification (and fear) behind banning gay marriage is that it threatens the sanctity of heterosexual unions, I believe we have a right to know how many straight and closeted gay Republican philanderers--along the likes of Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Vito Fossella, Larry Craig and Mark Foley--there are in Iowa's chambers before we allow them to pass judgement, and law, on others' morals.

In fact, let's roll the dice and make a bet with these right wing frauds: if, as expected, more than 25% of them fail the lie-detector test not only is the court's ruling upheld, but this issue is put to bed (pun intended) in Iowa forever. If not, they get to keep fighting for their constitutional amendment. On one thing everyone can agree: it'd be pretty hard to "protect" the sanctity of an "institution" that at least 25% of them piss on every day.

So c'mon, Iowa Republicans, are you ready to prove that you practice what you preach? We won't hold our breath.....

Ann Coulter Needs to Shut the F**K Up (...and Other Random Thoughts)

It's time. Once and for all, Ann Coulter needs to shut her trap and simply disappear. For when she opens her mouth, nothing but outlandish, irresponsible, incendiary projectile vomit spews forth. She's a one-woman broadcast cesspool with a maniacal cackle and obnoxious permanent smirk. A vile, bigoted, narrow-minded, hate-filled, mocking, rabble-rousing contemptible miscreant who's infinitely more anti-American than any of the alleged "radicals" who reap her psychotic wrath. Her idea of patriotism is to incessantly trash our new president and commander-in-chief on his military leadership during wartime. Her idea of being a "great American" (a label staunch conservatives like Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh bestow on each other) is to proudly wear her homophobia and racial and religious intolerance on her sleeve like a badge of honor. Some say she's really smart and it's all just a big ruse to sell books and make money. I say she's evil personified regardless, and a danger to society. Yes, a danger, because there's a legion of massively uninformed, highly-impressionable folks out there all too eager to hang onto her mean-spirited lies, misinformation and character assassinations as if they were the truth.

JOE BIDEN, GEORGE BUSH AND KARL ROVE
Vice President Joe Biden, in boasting of President Barack Obama's recent 8-day overseas diplomatic trip, suggested to Fox News' Megyn Kelly that former President Bush was not an effective commander-in-chief: ...."I remember President Bush saying to me one time in the Oval Office...Joe, he said, I'm a leader. And I said, Mr. President, turn around and look behind you. No one's following. People are beginning to follow the United States again as a consequence of our administration."

And that little anecdote got the panties of that Republican arbiter of truth, Karl Rove, in a snit: "I hate to say it, but he's a serial exaggerator. If I was being unkind, I'd say he's a liar." We should all take what Rove says quite seriously, as exaggeration and lies is his specialty.

DID OBAMA BOW TO SAUDI KING?
The right-wing attack-machine is in full throttle this weekend over the "controversy" of whether President Obama "bowed" to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah during the recent G-20 Summit. One little bow? Is this really worse than the Bush family's decades-long ass-kissing orgy with the Saudi's? Let me remind my flame-throwing counterparts on the right about Dubya's make-out and hand-holding session with the Saudi Prince shortly after 9/11. Enjoy:



"PIRATES" HOLD AMERICAN HOSTAGE
A serious melodrama is unfolding off the coast of Somalia as Capt. Richard Phillips is being held captive on a boat. But can we please stop referring to the armed Somalis who've kidnapped him as "pirates?" This term conjures up Johnny Depp-like images of swashbuckling charmers with eye-patches shouting "Aye, Matey, where's the whiskey?! Arggggg!" Let's call them what they really are: vicious blood-thirsty terrorists.

IRAQ: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED?
Five American soldiers were killed in Iraq Friday in a suicide-bomb attack in the northern city of Mosul, the deadliest attack against U.S. troops in over a year. The increase in deadly violence threatens the June deadline for withdrawal of American combat troops from cities, part of a U.S-Iraqi agreement which took effect this year. The top U.S. commander, Gen. Raymond Odierno, warned this week that we could instead see an increase in U.S. troops in Mosul and Baqubah, and expressed concerns about the escalation in Sunni-militant-led violence among Arabs and Kurds in the north. He also cited the "very dangerous" threat from Iranian-funded militants. Given that we can't fully pull out our troops for at least another 16 months and the odds are, as the good General says, we'll have to increase our troop strength shortly in some major northern cities, it's unbelievable how the Republicans and Bush apologists still get away with their claims of success for the surge and for the war itself. Any idiot can see how fragile Iraq's Democracy is, and that without our troops, the country will likely fall like a house of cards.


On another note, check out the Second Annual Adrienne Shelly Foundation eBay auction. There are 39 amazing items up for bidding including 20 private lunches with major celebrities including Paul Rudd, Jeremy Sisto, David Schwimmer, Rachel Dratch, Edie Falco, Jon Hamm, Lily Taylor, Gina Gershon, John Slattery, Rosanna Arquette, Nathan Fillion, Keri Russell and Kevin Smith. There's also movie walk-ons (wanna be in a film with Bruce Willis? Drew Barrymore?), VIP television show tickets (Rachael Ray, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Ellen DeGeneres), a signed Meg Ryan original photograph, movie premiere/party tickets, Sundance and Tribeca Film Festival VIP packages and more. It's all for a great cause, so check it out and place some bids if you can. Click here to be directed to our eBay Store.

Celebrities Come Out Big For Adrienne Shelly Foundation eBay Auction

Most people know me here as a guy who frequently rants about the latest Dick Cheney drivel, the Republicans being the "Party of No," or how ludicrous it is to award million-dollar bonuses to Wall Street's TARP babies. Throw in a little Obama euphoria and that's me in a nutshell. But what they don't often know is that I also run a non-profit foundation that supports women filmmakers with scholarships, production grants, finishing funds and living stipends, and that this foundation carries the name of my late wife, Adrienne Shelly, who was brutally murdered in 2006.

Adrienne wrote, directed and starred in Waitress, the critically-acclaimed box-office hit of 2007. But it was not the first feature film she wrote and directed. There were two others. She struggled, like most filmmakers--especially women filmmakers--to get their work produced. And it is in her honor that the Adrienne Shelly Foundation was founded to help other very talented women get their films made.

On Monday we launched the Second Annual Adrienne Shelly Foundation eBay auction. There are 39 amazing items up for bidding including 20 private lunches with major celebrities including Paul Rudd, Jeremy Sisto, David Schwimmer, Rachel Dratch, Edie Falco, Jon Hamm, Lily Taylor, Gina Gershon, John Slattery, Rosanna Arquette, Nathan Fillion, Keri Russell and Kevin Smith. There's also movie walk-ons (wanna be in a film with Bruce Willis? Drew Barrymore?), VIP television show tickets (Rachael Ray, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Ellen DeGeneres), a signed Meg Ryan original photograph, movie premiere/party tickets, Sundance and Tribeca Film Festival VIP packages and more.

It's all for a great cause, so check it out and place some bids if you can. Click here to be directed to our eBay Store.

As a side note, Adrienne wrote a script after Waitress called Serious Moonlight. It's a film I'm producing with Waitress producer Michael Roiff, and it has its world premiere April 25th at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York. Directed by Cheryl Hines, it stars Meg Ryan, Timothy Hutton, Justin Long and Kristen Bell. How wonderful that movie audiences will get to see another Adrienne Shelly-penned film.

Ostroy On Monday's FoxNews.com Strategy Room

It's back into the studio Monday at 1PM for another round of hot political talk. We never really know what's gonna be discussed ahead of time, but you can be sure it'll include North Korea's missile test, Obama's European trip, General Motors, and the new Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bonuses. Watch it live at www.foxnews.com/strategyroom.

Fannie and Freddie's Fuzzy Math: $100 Billion in Losses = $210 Million in Bonuses. Bring on the Outrage

Back in January, President Barack Obama said it was "shameful" that near-bankrupt insurance giant and bailout-baby AIG was awarding $400-million in "retention" bonuses to the very same reckless Wall Street cowboys who damned-near sank the entire U.S. financial industry with their ultra-high-risk credit default swaps and derivatives shenanigans.

In the ensuing weeks and months, Obama's personal outrage turned into a massive anger-fueled populist movement that called for everything from an immediate return of the bonus money to criminal prosecution of those who took it. How dare they was the overriding sentiment in Washington, Albany (NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo demanded a return of the money against threats of publicly naming the executives), the media, and in living rooms across America. Legislation soon followed, with a 90% tax on the bonus money. There, that'll show 'em.

And now comes the news that failed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--which own or insure more than half of the nation's mortgages--are about to hand out $210-million in bonuses of their own, also to "retain" the high-priced failures who've nearly destroyed them, and who for some reason they can't seem to live without. The bonuses will cover 7,600 employees and are as high as $1.5 million. Yes, these are the same two behemoths who combined lost $100 billion last year.

The kicker here? The Fannie/Freddie bonuses have been defended by the companies' Federal regulator, James B. Lockhart III of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who intends to approve the payouts. Lockhart is a Bush man, appointed by the former president in 2006. Obama has the power to name a new chief regulator, but he so far hasn't, which is a mystery. So what we're left with then is a de facto endorsement of these outrageous bonuses by the Obama administration, and therefore an inexplicable contradiction of its prior public thrashing of AIG.

Lockhart, the taxpayer-paid G-man, incredibly espouses the same hogwash regurgitated ad nauseam by the Wall Street brass themselves: "These payments send a signal that we think people are important and we want to keep them. If the bonuses are rescinded, it sends the exact opposite signal, and it would be extremely dangerous for the American economy to lose these workers at this point."

Excuse me? I'll tell ya what signal it sends. It says we in this country don't know what the fuck we're doing. It says to the world that we let a bunch of greedy gamblers create insanely high-risk financial instruments which erased trillions in investor equity and then saved their sorry asses with taxpayer-funded bailouts. Oh, and we then gave them million-dollar bonuses as rewards for manufacturing this unprecedented shitstorm. How's that for a signal?

Citi Field, Shmiti Field. I Want Shea Back

So in just a few short days the NY Mets baseball team will have its first 2009 home game in its brand-new stadium, Citi Field. Though many of my Metsy friends are ecstatic and can't wait to pay the higher ticket prices, I say bah-humbug. I could care less about the new park and have no intention of ever going. Ok, that's me belly-aching today, and I'm sure there'll be a game or two I'm dragged to, but my heart just ain't in it. In fact, I find the whole commercial motivation behind Shea's demise offensive and disheartening.

For the record, I have been a mad-crazy Mets fan for 40 years ever since Cleon Jones, Tommie Agee, Tom Seaver, Buddy Harrelson, Jerry Koosman and my favorite, No 22, first-baseman Donn Clendenon, were among the "Amazin's" who gave us that miracle season in '69. I never looked back. Which is why I feel tearing down Shea was sacriligious.

Baseball is America's pastime. It's how and where lifetime memories are made. Memories that include family, friends and co-workers. What's baseball without a strong sense of nostalgia? Will any of us be able to peer across Citi Field and remember their first game with mom and dad? Will any of us be able to spot the seats we sat in the first time we went to a game alone with our teenage pals? Or that great date we were on? Or the night out with the office boys? Or the annual games with our childhood friends? Or when we took our own sons and daughters for their first game? Or what about sitting in a place that saw two incredible World Series Championships? Or where those four kids from Liverpool created musical history? That's what Shea means to me. Citi Field, you say? No thanks.

Yes, baseball is apple pie. It's not sushi or some trendy gourmet Danny Meyer restaurant. It's about enjoying the game, not shopping is some new ritzy store. Baseball is an American tradition for the massses. It's supposed to be where a family of four can spend a glorious Summer afternoon without needing an AIG-like bonus. Those days are gone.

Call me crazy, but I like life simple. For me, happiness was a hot dog, a cold beer, sunshine and my Shea memories. I enjoyed the crappy seats, the bad angles, the lousy food, the joy that was orange and blue. All I needed was my Shea and my Mets.

Adding insult to injury, couldn't they have at least kept the name Shea instead of bestwoing this honor on some near-bankrupt, TARP-fund-guzzling dinasaur? Citicorp will be shelling out $400 million over 20 years for the right to hang its tarnished shingle over the new stadium. To me, a life-long Mets fan and taxpayer whose money is part of Citi's $45 billion government bailout, it all just stinks.

I Hate Facebook

I hate Facebook. There. I said it. And it feels damned good. I know it won't make me popular. In fact, I'll probably be cyberflogged over it. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Any of it. Oh sure, it's fun once in a blue moon when one of my childhood pals miraculously unearths a 40-year-old photo and "tags" me, but then that fascination quickly turns to horror as I realize my embarrassing pre-pubescent shot is now online for all to see. Couldn't it just simply be scanned and emailed to me the way technogeeks did things back in the olden days, ya know, the late 90's?

Oh, Facebook. You cyberland of rampant narcissism and wasted time. What started out as a social networking site for college kids has somehow turned into a cesspool of self-absorbed way-too-old-to-be-fucking-around-on-Facebook adults who think that the rest of us actually give a shit about what they're drinking, eating, thinking, reading, watching, and/or are listening to every five minutes. They post their top 5 records, movies and TV shows. They post "25 Random Things About Me" lists. And they tell us constantly what they're "fans of." One person is a fan of "grilled cheese." I kid you not. What have we come to when grilled cheese has its own Facebook page? Someone clearly has way too much time on their hands.

I think I've figured out Facebook's major appeal. It offers uber-narcissists an opportunity to have their proverbial 15 minutes every five fucking minutes!. The site is overcrowded with attention-starved grown-ups essentially screaming "look at me...look at me!" all day long. They change their profile photos as often as I change my underwear, and they've somehow convinced themselves that their lives are infinitely interesting all the time. The "audience factor" is just way too attractive to these folks. It's drunken karaoke without the booze and the bad singing, but with all the requisite self-indulgence.

Case in point the "What's on your mind" section, formerly the "status" box. It's full of pretentious, inane ramblings like "Bob is making some soup," "Annie is dry-heaving right now," "Louie is sitting in traffic, pondering the meaning of life," "Joe is hungry," "Debbie is tired," "Maggie is perplexed," "Phil's ass hurts from yoga," "Archie's dreaming of Tulsa," "Seth is a fan of Fellini," "Leslie is drinking her morning OJ," "Dan is contemplating a nap," "Ellen is feeling empowered," "Jack is boarding a flight home from LA," "Susie is feeding her brain!" Oh...my...god. Somebody please get me an ice-pick to jab into my skull.

Let's face it, there's probably two or three of our really best pals who actually do care what the hell we do all the time. That's why they're our BFF's. And they're the ones who will normally respond to the riveting "Ed is drinking some coffee" post with something equally fascinating like "Decaf or regular?" But the rest of your 5000 Facebook friends really don't care about these non-stop musings, as evidenced by the fact that virtually 99% of them have zero replies. I mean honestly, what can you really say back to "Rufus is rubbing a London Broil?"

Now in the spirit of full disclosure, I am a citizen of the Facebook nation. I was lured there by a dear friend with promises of mega-business-networking benefits, and I must also confess to periodically using the site for shameless self-promotion to my vast empire of 165 friends. But if I am indeed a Facebookian, it is citizenship in the vein of Che Guevara, Abbie Hoffman and Thomas Paine. I'm a radical. A dissident. A conscientious objector in the Armed Forces of Facebook. I might even call myself a revolutionary, for I'd love to stage a coup and turn Facebook the vainglorious social-networking site into Facebook the bastion of selflessness and redeeming social value. Just think of how incredibly impactful Facebook could be if its typically self-involved members would harness all of this cyberpassion and energy and channel it instead into educating our children, healing the sick, helping the poor and saving the environment.

I realize that I'll likely lose a few 'friends' over this blasphemous diatribe, most likely those in my Facebook tribe. Some might even de-friend me, a sure sign that I've been branded a social-networking-outcast. But my real friends, the ones I've known for a zillion years, the ones I see all the time, the ones who I actually hang out with outside of cyberspace and have real live actual relationships with, the ones who'll come over at 2am at the drop of hat if I needed help, they'll totally get it. Know why? With the exception of one or two folks whom I absolutely adore and apologize to in advance if I've offended, none of them are on Facebook.

Obama's Iran Strategy is Not Appeasement

Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines appeasement as "to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles."

The cries of appeasement from hard-core right wingers over President Obama's olive branch to Iran this past week are unjust, misguided, myopic and just plain foolish.

Let's take a step back for a quick moment for a little historical context. The political figure whose name is most synonymous with appeasement is former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (1937-1940), in particular for signing the Munich Agreement in September 1938, allowing Adolph Hitler's Germany to annex the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia. The co-signers were Germany, France and Italy. The cowardly treaty, which unofficially became known as the Munich Dictate or Munich Betrayal, made everyone happy of course except the Czechs, and it also infuriated Hitler, who felt pressured into participating in the sort of bourgeois diplomatic ritual he utterly despised. He held Chamberlain in contempt as a result. Appeasement didn't stop Hitler. In March 1939 Germany invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia and began its march across Europe. It began its Blitz of England in September 1940. Chamberlain and "appeasement" are infamously and inextricably tied forever.

To draw parallels between Chamberlain's foreign policy failures and Obama's attempt to engage our enemies is patently unfair and irresponsible. To understand why, it's critical to have some modern context. We've just been through eight years of disengagement by the Bush administration. We had a reckless, testosterone-starved Jesus-driven cowboy march into the White House declaring Iran, North Korea and Iraq the "Axis of Evil". From virtually the get-go, Bush's foreign policy strategy could be summed up in just a few short words: U.S. good, everyone else bad, enemies really bad. Therefore, you don't talk with your enemies, you don't negotiate with your enemies, you don't enjoin your enemies. Instead, you antagonize your enemies, you motivate and inspire your enemies, and you embolden and strengthen your enemies through big-stick rhetoric and cowboy swagger. Oh, and you bomb the shit out of them for no justifiable reason (that would be Iraq for those of you who are having trouble following this lefty diatribe). And in the process you damn-near alienate every one of your allies and severely tarnish America's reputation for diplomatic greatness. Might even say you make America hated throughout the world.

So it's no shocker that perhaps it's time for a new strategy. A policy of engagement, whereby the united States uses its diplomatic powers and not just its military muscle. A foreign policy centered on the negotiating table and not some arrogant frat-boy's bully-pulpit. Thankfully, we now have a president who gets it. A president more interested in world peace than proving to his daddy that he's not the colossal fuck-up he always thought, or that the history books will soon surely prove.

What Obama did last week was brilliant. All of it. From going on the Jay Leno program and speaking directly to the American people (pissing off the mainstream media, which tends not to like being marginalized or circumvented) to addressing the Iranian people who, by the way, are 70% under the age of 30 and are much more Westernized than you would think. Obama bypassed Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah Komenei much in the same way he did his end-run around the American press. Oh this Obama guy's smart, alright. He didn't beat the Clinton machine and become the country's first black president, at 46, because he lacks vision.

And that vision says, let's talk to the enemy. Let's engage them. Let's bring pressure on their governments by opening a dialogue directly with their people. Let's negotiate, but let's not forget our goal of protecting America, nor our unyielding commitment to use force when all else fails.

As John F. Kennedy famously said, "Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." Amen.