Now that the mullahs in Iran have proven the superiority of the Islamic revolution with a violent crackdown on protestors, they are upping the ante by demanding an apology from just about everybody before any talks about their nuclear development work can commence.

A clever Persian ruse.

How more pathetic can you possibly get, and more importantly, what gullible, fickle audience could believe that Iran's recent troubles were caused by anybody but themselves? Now by demanding an apology, they can buy even further time as they seek to inflame the scores of morons in that country who probably believe Mir Hussein Moussavi is really a British/Zionist/American agent.

Just as the world is condemning the coup of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya as it invokes the ugly ghost of such coups in the past in Latin America, so the Iranian response to the world reeks of how insular and reactionary the leaders of the Middle East can be. For domestic consumption, it's all colonialism, it's all America's fault, it's especially Britain's fault, brought to you courtesy the Zionist media.

For me, the attitude of the mullah thugs and their chimp Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reminds of the reactionary stance coming out the of Khartoum Conference of 1967: no, no, no. It's a policy that got the Arab states, um, not much in way of dealing with Israel and will get Iran similar results if they insist on proving what assholes they truly are by acting so childish and petulant.

If this was happening under Bush, I'd have no sympathy, but I do feel sorry for President Obama who surely must be stuck between a rock and a hard place (courtesy Bush's mess in destroying Iraq and making Iran so belligerent): pissant North Korea is threatening to shoot everybody and Ahmadinejab has been given a mandate by the (unelected) Council of Guardians to run amok and further degrade Iran's status in the world as a dangerous state hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons. (And please, if there are still people who think they are not, you're even dumber than the sorry Iranian reactionaries who truly believe the bullshit their government tells them.)

And summer has only just started.

Well, there it is.

Interviews released by the FBI with formerly alive dictator Saddam Hussein revealed that he was indeed lying about having weapons of mass destruction to offset the threat from Iran.

Anybody with a fucking brain at the time could have seen this. Why would any country openly admit to being vulnerable when they share a border with a bitter enemy with whom they've fought a war? It boggled my mind at the time why no one (at least openly) couldn't see what a threat Iran would be by deposing Saddam Hussein and leaving Iraq just ripe for the picking.

Oh, guess what? That did happen, thanks to the bungling of the stupidest president in U.S. history, George W. Bush.

Why do I say that? Well, let's look at the consequences of our Iraqi Expedition. We went to war under false pretenses, destroyed the country's infrastructure and then stupidly unleashed an insurgent movement that got even more people killed. The Shia, formerly oppressed and now seeking revenge, found themselves in a prime position of power, something that the mullahs in Teheran certainly noticed, licking their bearded chops in delight. With Iraq in shambles, it was the perfect time to increase the Iranian sphere of influence. Don't forget, chimp-in-chief Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the face of the hardline rejectionists who probably pissed their pants with glee at the prospect of America doing their dirty work for them. A hated enemy is gone, the country is weak, and the ratcheting of anti-U.S. sentiment as foreign policy increases exponentially and proves to be excitingly popular. So what are we left with? An Iran that is on the path nuclear weaponry and a strengthened fundamentalist hardline that has no problems cracking the skulls of its annoying opponents to consolidate their power.

It was a gift from heaven, no doubt. Perhaps that's why the mullahs directed their hatred towards Britain lately as a way of thanking America for the incalculable benefits of making sure there is no state to challenge their power.

In a weird way, this validates the claims of the Israelis who keep flitting around screaming, "Danger, danger!" and nobody is listening to them. Iraq is a weak state that can't govern itself. The other Arab countries are about as feckless as ever, probably secretly desiring an Israeli strike against Iran because collectively, they can't do much of anything to stem the growing tide of resurgent Iranian prickliness. And this masterpiece of the absurd has been brought to us by George W. Bush and his wickedly stupid cabal of neoconservatives who apparently got just about everything wrong in their plan to remake the Middle East. They've opened the door to Iranian supremacy in the region and now the mullahs are forcing us through it.

Way to go, assholes! Way to go!

Wow, what a weekend.

Just when you didn't think it could even more drawn out with our Media Glitterati rising to the occaison and plastering the airwaves with updates about the death of Michael Jackson (he's still dead, by the way), Sarah Palin told everybody she was quitting as governor.

In typical Palin fashion, it was a rambling speech that was also an extended complaint about her enemies, the media, and whatever else she managed to throw out of her mouth.

Heads were being scratched all over the press corps.

One person had the temerity to describe it as a "brilliant" move, but the more I read the current Vanity Fair article about her ("It Came from Wasilla") the more I admitted that she is unstable, untested, untried and deeply ignorant about how American government works. I know there are scores of Sarah Palin fans who find that alone to be proof of her genius, except at some points, there must be tangible evidence of said genius that settles any contention beyond reasonable doubt she's got some master plan and it a cutting-edge type of politician. You can call yourself an outsider all you want, but sooner or later, the proof about how superior your philosophy is needs an example, and she's never delivered.

Instead, we've all had to endure the lame, white trash soap opera that is her and her family's life played out on television and print. While I admit feeling a bit sorry for her, I also can't help feeling that she's brought so much of it on herself because of her inability to deal with the (unfair) scrutiny of her existence by the media.

And this is the person John McCain wanted to assume the presidency if he died? Really? I don't think the absurdity of his choice could have been more dramatically illustrated had it not been for the past few months.

So, now we have two freakshows to deal with: Sarah Palin and Michael Jackson. As for the latter, you just need a big tub of popcorn as the media unleashes all of its power to cover the death of an entertainer who more than likely had too many drugs in his system. Of course, when death hits a celebrity, all is forgiven and the moment becomes more about us than the recently deceased. After all, with Al Sharpton bitching that the media was running too many unflattering stories about Jackson's predilection for little boys, what he really meant to say was the everyone wants to forget collectively anything bad. Michael Jackson is no longer someone who didn't want to be black, but a hero of the African-American community. I can't deny that part to what he contributed to music, but he stopped being black when his skin got whiter and whiter. Plus, what do we think of his very white children?

So, we're just a couple weeks into summer and we've got a long way to go, but at least we can be entertained with the dueling freakshows of Sarah Palin and Michael Jackson. That's entertainment.

The Republicans want the hit job confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor to be a "teaching moment" for America about activist judges, interpreting the law and the like.

Bullshit.

While politicians of both parties have never found a microphone they didn't like, the Republicans are not in the business of teaching anyone. What they want is to use the drawn-out confirmation hearing as a way to piss, moan, bitch and generally make Ms. Sotomayor look like a potential loose cannon who will bully the other members of the Supreme Court into her crazed, out-of-control liberal tendencies in hearing and ruling on cases.

Listening to the opening remarks by Senator Jon Kyl (R-Handjob), it became quickly apparent that grandstanding would be the order of the day (not a far leap for these jerks) and that Republicans are really, really, really just concerned with the proper interpretation of the law. Now, Mr. Kyl is a former attorney—which if he was a Democrat would make him a pedophile as well—so that makes him an authority on all legal matters and I suppose his 10-minute vagina monologue was just his way of telling his constituents about deeply he cares about Supreme Court rulings. Or, if I was cynical, I would see it as a crass attempt at preaching to the choir who already hate this woman because Republican talking points have duped them into accepting what a danger she is to Western civilization.

Not to be outdone, the distinguished shit from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham (R-Pissquik) trotted out how much Republicans really do like brown people, and wanted to use Miguel Estrada's background as an Honduran immigrant to show all the Latinos in the U.S. that conservatives only dislike Mexicans, not anyone else from Latin America. The demonstration was so obvious and vulgar that I changed the channel to something else.

But, the farce will continue as senators will "clash" and get "partisan" over Ms. Sotomayor. This really isn't about her at all, but rather burnishing street creds among easily-duped fucks for whom Supreme Court rulings don't affect at all. However, if a string of asshole conservatives and their radio-hate friends want to stoke up their "base," well, they have their work cut out for them. I remember reading that these confirmations used to be informal affairs that could be accomplished in an afternoon. Now, we have to endure days and days of political theater for politicians to stake out positions they've already done time and again.

I have but one question to pose to our Media Glitterati: if Walter Conkrite is a goal to which you should aspire, what is taking so long?

It's been puzzling me why I am seeing so much media adulation over Conkrite as being a standard bearer of what news really is, or descriptions of him being such an authority figure by media folks who don't even seem to want to follow in his footsteps. If he was that influential, then why is news so corporate, so boring, so entertainment focused?

Standards are to what one wants to reach and surpass, not mourn and say, "Gee, he was really good and set a standard. Now, let's get back to Michael Jackson coverage" or some such variation. Conkrite retired in 1981. That's over two decades ago, and now you're talking about how he set a standard and how there will never be another like him? Why not?

Whenever our Media Glitterati does any soul-searching, it's usually about as superficial as any news report you can catch on the tube. After all, of all the journalists who helped hype our Iraqi Expedition, who among them has retired in protest? Who among them has stepped forward to admit they were wrong, they swallowed the Bush Administration's line all the way and did nothing to let the American people know the true nature of this diastrous war?

Nobody.

Lionizing Walter Conkrite or Edward R. Murrow serves no function. It hasn't changed anything but allows television journalists to pat themselves on the back and know that in their hearts, their saints have forgiven them for their many misdeeds. They can shoot their mouths off all day long about the impact, integrity and quality of Walter Conkrite but in the 20 years since his retirement, there's been no pushback to the devouring of news outlets by one, two or three giant corporations, or the merging of the news and entertainment divisions. If Conkrite meant that much to you, why is broadcast journalism in the state it's in right now? And how is this one man's death going to change it?

It isn't, it won't, but gives our hapless media fucks an opportunity to act reflective and repentant. Who doesn't like that?

When in doubt, you can always write hit piece on Hillary Clinton.

It's the standby of lazy media fucks everywhere, particularly from The Telegraph, a newspaper that tried to outdo its American counterparts in tearing Hillary apart for just about everything. Blogger...oh, excuse me, "commentator" Nile Gardiner has decided that after barely six months as secretary of state, Hillary is washed out, a waning star and effectively marginalized by the so-clever Barack Obama who apparently has nothing to do in his political life but outflank her.

Oh, and for good measure, he compares her six-month tenure to the career of former secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice as if that is a good thing, deliberately ignoring the inglorious and shameful performance of those two with barely a mention of their contributions to our Iraqi Expedition. The reason? Well, it's obvious: piss on Hillary. That always suffices when there's nothing left to write about.

And let's consider for a moment the contention that Obama has successfully marginalized her. This is a man who continues to want to play nice with the fascist dogs, er, Republicans on the Hill who can't scream "No!" loud enough and might be starting to succeed in casting enough doubt on his health care plans, but he can continue to fight with Hillary to put her in her place. What's the priority here? Health care reform? Economic disaster recovery? The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? No, it's marginalizing Hillary Clinton. This is the success of Barack Obama that impresses Mr. Gardiner to no end?

Of course, writers do not often choose their headlines, but honestly, an article entitled "The Decline and Fall of Hillary Clinton"? Six months into the job? If you write her obit now, what will you bitch about next week?

With apologies to those are genuinely mentally challenged, leave it to our Media Glitterati to dumb things down even more with a countdown clock.

With the news on 24 hours a day, and newsreaders saying the same crap for most of that time, you might think that it would suffice to say, "Tonight at 9 p.m. Eastern, the president will hold a nationally televised press conference about health care reform. Tune in to this station!" But no. At least one news channel has seen fit to include a countdown clock in its already crowded lower third of the screen just in case you want to watch the minutes and seconds tick by.

Now, the networks originally were not going to show the press conference because it would interfere with their top-rated shows for morons, like "So You Think You Can Dance." I think as of this post, some have relented, but in any case, it's good to know we have our viewing priorities straight. I am concerned about health care, but please, must I miss my favorite "reality" show?

In any case, I've seen countdown clocks on other networks, usually Spike or FX, but we can excuse them because we know they exist to cater to already stupid men. (But that still doesn't remove the oddity of seeing a show with a countdown clock. Does no one have access to the TV Guide anymore? Isn't there an app on the iPhone to keep you apprised of when you need to see vapid television programming?) But news organizations needing a countdown clock to a press conference has to take the cake (this week) for unabashed stupidity: are viewers really that retarded? Well, okay, yes, but I can't take these hapless media fucks seriously if they want to follow in the steps of the aforementioned TV networks and treat a press conference on health care as some kind of entertainment.

Ah, there's the rub: it is entertainment. How could I forget the happy marriage between the news and entertainment divisions? I guess the joke is on me.