Stewart: Thumbs Up

The reviews for Jon Stewart's stint as host of the Academy Awards are decidedly mixed.

Andy Dehnart of MSNBC gave him a thumbs down as host, not so much because Stewart failed, but because Hollywood has the "inability to laugh at itself."

Ted Johnson of Variety wasn't thrilled with Stewart's performance, criticizing him for playing it too straight and delivering "one liners that could have easily have been said by consummate emcee Bob Hope."

Johnson did see some positives.

As the night wore on, he got more comfortable, and reverted back to his own kind of humor. After what seemed like the umpteenth clip package saluting such things as biopics and film noir, Stewart finally laid down the gauntlet and said, "Holy crap! We are out of clips."

Nevertheless, Johnson concluded with the admonition, "[I]n a year in which the niche pic reigned, he'd be well served not to forget his own niche." Basically, it was a thumbs down.

Not all the reviews were negative.

Gene Seymour of Newsday gave Stewart a thumbs up.

I do, too.

Although Stewart was an Oscar virgin, he has hosted big events before. In 2001, he played host at the Grammys. It's not like this was his first stab at the emcee role.

Stewart did seem somewhat uptight at the beginning, but it didn't take long for him to loosen up.

Seymour writes:

Stewart did exactly what a contemporary Academy Awards host is supposed to do. He's supposed to keep the zingers coming fast enough to work the room while nudging and winking at those of us watching at home.

Stewart makes his living as host of "The Daily Show," doing snarky double-takes at pretense and hubris. If you can't do that at an Academy Awards ceremony, where pretense and hubris cuddle up and blossom every year, you may as well go home and watch it on TV yourself.

Nowhere was this more apparent than his cappers to the interminable, time-filling montages in tribute to "noir" movies, "message" movies and epics. You and I can say "as if" to each such montage and no one would care. Stewart responds to clips of movies about racism, sexism, war, religious persecution and injustice by saying, "And none of those problems ever occurred again."

He even capped the whole conceit in a nice wrapper by saying, "I can't wait till later when we see Oscar's salute to montage."

You also had to love his whole serial shtick on the Mafia 3-6's's score of the best original song, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp." "If you're keeping score," he quipped, "Martin Scorsese: Zero Oscars. Mafia 3-6: One."

He also said that the Mafia 3-6 posse was obviously going to throw down against violinist Izthak Perlman's gang after the show and that it would come down to a "dredle off."

Some memorable one-liners from Stewart's night

On "Capote": "The movie that showed the world that not all gay people are virile cowboys; some are actually effete New York intellectuals."

On Steven Spielberg's serious films: "Schindler's list ... Munich ... I think I speak for all Jews when I say I can't wait to see what happens to us next."

On presenters: "Bjork couldn't be here tonight. ... She was trying on her Oscar dress and Dick Cheney shot her."

On "Walk the Line": "'Ray' with white people."

After a photo montage showing suggestive scenes with men in early Westerns: "Charlton Heston is cut. Guy looks like he's been lifting 20 commandments."


Hollywood's brightest may have been expecting more anti-Bush humor, calls for impeachment, that sort of thing. Maybe their tepid response to Stewart's performance was the result of profound disappointment, like a kid not finding that long-awaited special gift under the tree on Christmas morning.

I think it was smart for Stewart to steer clear from the stuff that would alienate segments of the audience. I suppose that was a decision made by the show's producers, to keep it somewhat apolitical. With box office totals dropping, it certainly wouldn't be a good idea to turn even more people away from what Hollywood has to offer.

The ratings for Oscar telecasts have tanked. It would be self-defeating for Stewart to deliver a monologue that would tick off viewers at home, and prompt them to turn the marathon awards show off after its first few minutes.

As it was, the field of nominees were from mostly small films with relatively small audiences. There was no Titantic among them, no film that would cause the masses to tune in out of interest in seeing their favorite movie round up the awards.

Producers probably didn't give Stewart the option of going off on the Bush Administration. He needed to appeal to a broad range of viewers and that wasn't going to happen if he mercilessly slammed Bush and Co. in front of a global audience.

That was a let down to those hoping for Stewart to engage in a Bush bash fest, but too bad. They can wait for The Daily Show to hear that stuff. It's unfair for the anti-Bush bunch to charge Stewart with selling out. He did his job.

Dehnart of MSNBC thinks Stewart will be added to the list of failed Oscar hosts, including Chris Rock and David Letterman. I disagree. Last year, Rock was nothing special. Letterman was a disaster, possibly the worst Oscar host ever. I'm sure Letterman would agree. He was awful.

Billy Crystal has been the most popular host in the recent past because he managed to be topical and quick-witted without being partisan and hateful. That was the secret to his success.

Unlike Crystal, Stewart had to overcome the disadvantage of being the host of a program currently on the air that is fueled by politics. As a result, expectations for Stewart were certainly different and most likely worked against him in lib circles.

All in all, I think Stewart struck the right balance.

He wasn't great, but he was much better than Rock, and dramatically better than Letterman.

"Uma, Oprah... Oprah, Uma..."

Now that was bad.

You Bore Me, Oscar

It's been only a little over thirty minutes into the 78th Academy Awards and I'm bored out of my skull.

Are you tired of seeing Jack Nicholson's reactions, at least three shots already?

Here's something entertaining (or offensive) to read:

PREDICTIONS

Here's something to consider as you watch Hollywood's annual ultimate ego-fest.

George Clooney won the award for Best Supporting Actor. At first, his acceptance speech was self-deprecating and sort of funny. Then, he turned subtly political. He addressed charges that Hollywood is out of touch with the rest of the country.

He went on to say that the Hollywood community was the first to address AIDS, and civil rights issues, etc. If that's out of touch, then Clooney boasted that he's proud to be out of touch.

Yes, the Hollywood community is SO socially conscious. What would the rest of us do without the enlightened Hollywood elite to show us the way, to be our moral compass?

WE'D BE LOST!

There was a very self-congratulatory film montage of the different social issues that Hollywood has tackled.

After, Jon Stewart sarcastically commented that none of those issues were ever a problem again.

THAT was funny.

Read how these champions of the down-trodden sacrifice for the good of humanity.

Hollywood -- Celebrities who have it all - fame, glamour and riches - will stagger to their limousines after Sunday's Oscars under the weight of tens of thousands of dollars of free swag.

Whether they win or lose at the 78th annual Academy Awards, the stars won't exactly be going home empty handed.

Each of the 120-odd nominees and the galaxy of Oscar presenters are rewarded for the time, nerves and red-carpet exposure to pesky paparazzi with a "swag bag" of luxurious loot that was last year worth more than $100,000.

That figure dwarfs the entire production budgets of most of this year's best-picture nominees, a string of small-budget or independent films that cost between $6.5m (Crash) and $14m (Brokeback Mountain).

"The real race lies in who can give celebs the best free stuff," quipped the entertainment industry bible, Daily Variety, of the one-week run-up to the 78th annual Academy Awards.

Botox injections and plastic surgery

In their baskets of goodies this year, Hollywood's good and great will be treated to pampering ranging from vacations in Bora Bora, to sets of Tahitian pearls, to custom-made lingerie and even Botox injections and plastic surgery.

Other necessities that will be slipped into the groaning goodie bags are Swarovski crystal-encrusted Palm Treo smartphones, diamond rings, cameras monogrammed in diamonds, and custom-tailored Hugo Boss suits.

What started out as a thoughtful gesture by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences bosses in 1988, has become a multimillion-dollar industry that has spread all the way across Hollywood's frenzied annual awards season.

While the academy won't talk about what's inside the treasure troves of loot for the rich and famous or what it's worth, details of the sumptuous gifts leak out as donors frequently can't resist talking.

Charlize Theron-type pearls

Among the other bundles of gifts coming their way are laser eye surgery, dog biscuits in the form of Oscar statuettes, anti-ageing cream and jewels that makers hope will pop up on stars the next time they sashay before the cameras.

Gifts - such as a voucher for $20,000 worth of cosmetic surgery or the set of pearls that has been tailored to the look of South African best-actress nominee Charlize Theron - will also be highly visible marketing tools.

Other goodies, such as a $27,000 weekend in a five-star hotel in the famed desert gambling hub of Las Vegas, will add glamour and prestige to the hotel when an Oscar-nominated turns up to stay.

And the giving will go on after the Oscars, too, as stars showing up at music legend Elton John's Aids foundation party a few kilometres away will reportedly get sparkling baubles from one of the party's sponsors, Swiss jeweller Chopard.

Herbal hangover remedy

And one gift basket that will go to selected stars, a $52,000 "Everyone Wins at the Oscars" hamper, will make sure that even the morning after the Oscars feels good, too, but adding a herbal hangover prevention potion.

Distinctive Assets boasted: "Many people tell us they cannot even enjoy a glass or two of champagne or other spirits without suffering the next day.

"They thank us for our patented herbal extract because it really does prevent hangovers," said the entertainment marketing firm.

How do these social activists reconcile such material extravagance with their self-image as do-gooders?

How can they, in good conscience, take part in this practice of "celebrity gifting" and accept tens of thousands of dollars of freebies when there are so many suffering people in this country and around the world?

"A voucher for $20,000 worth of cosmetic surgery"?

Noooooo. That's not out of touch.
______________________________


There's another shot of Nicholson.

I really should have kept an official tally.

Abortion for Dummies

Over 47,000,000 lives have been ended since the Supreme Court rewrote the law of the land and legalized abortion in all fifty states.

Undoubtedly, women have appointments to end their pregnancies tomorrow, and the day after that, and on and on.

Listening to the pro-abortion crowd, you'd think that wasn't the case. They really seem to be disconnected from reality. Personally, I think that's where much of the abortion debate gets stuck.

Killing a baby developing in the womb is defined as empowering rather than an atrocity.

The fact is abortion proponents fail to be intellectually honest. Ignorance is bliss.


Feet of a 10-week-old FIRST TRIMESTER fetus

In light of a recent move by the South Dakota legislature to restrict abortion in the state, Chicken Little pro-abortion advocates are in a dither. They feel threatened.

The big question: "How will we kill our babies?"

Molly, at Molly Saves the Day, offers some self-help suggestions.

Yes, feminist Molly is full of helpful hints to get rid of that annoying pregnancy.

She states that she does not endorse these methods. Nonetheless, she says she will be compiling a manual on how to get the job done.

Molly writes:

I will be incorporating all helpful suggestions for editing and adding to the abortion manual once I have written about all three procedures and allowed a bit of time to pass (less than a week, though -- this needs doing pronto) in order to make sure all suggestions can be incorporated.

Thank you to everyone for asking for clarification. As I have continued writing, it has become clear to me that when this is printed, to include illustrations and everything, it will likely be in a pamphlet of at least 20-30 pages. This means that finding people to print it and distribute is paramount: whether or not you live in SD, distribution of this pamphlet will give men and women a hint of what a post-Roe United States would look like. As you can see from the controversy the post has already generated (the worst trolls are being moderated into oblivion, including one who advised that pregnant women kill themselves), this is an incredibly consciousness-raising idea, one that needs to spread as quickly as possible, particularly in areas that already have unenforcable anti-abortion laws that would be enforced again if Roe was to fall.

I will have directions for vacuum aspiration abortion posted tomorrow. Instructions -- and many, many words of caution -- for inducing later term miscarriages will also be published.

Thank you for your support and ideas. They will all be incorporated and addressed in the final PDF versions of the instructions.

I wonder if Molly knows that Mississippi is following South Dakota's lead. She doesn't seem to be aware that her "Abortion for Dummies" might be needed there.

Anyway, she claims that her pamphlet will give people an idea of what a "post-Roe United States would look like."

To the contrary, I think her pamphlet may give people a hint as to what the Roe v. Wade United States looks like.

Whether it's a "do-it-yourself" abortion or one performed at a legal, accredited clinic, the procedure has the same results.

The baby's heartbeat is silenced. The life is ended. From an abortion advocate's standpoint, that's a good thing.

Although Molly sticks in her little disclaimer, saying "don't try this at home," she's putting her how-to pamphlet on the fast track.

Molly, like so many in the pro-abortion movement, are inconsistent.

"We respect life, so we must make sure that unwanted babies aren't allowed to live." *

"Don't give yourself an abortion, but here's how to do it."

"We value life, but not the lives of the inconvenient."

So many contradictions...


*Unfortunately, not all babies are wanted by their biological mothers, but ALL babies are wanted by someone.

Personally, I think a pamphlet that accurately details, with illustrations, what happens when a life is aborted would be great.

However, to be complete, it must include a section on the stages of fetal development, so the woman is fully informed about exactly what she is doing.

The truth will set you free, right?

Storm Warning Cancelled

I've had a really hectic week. It's taken me a while to get to this, but it's so good that I wanted to mention it.

This item perfectly illustrates how out of touch the Left is with mainstream America.

This face of the Democratic Party is the one that they want to hide from Red State America. Dem leaders don't want to have their base on display and with good reason. They need to mask the truth.

When all is said and done, I think the vocal radical Left will be directly responsible for keeping power out of the hands of the Democrats.

With stuff like this, the Dems can kiss 2006 goodbye.

The far Left extremists had planned a demonstration called "Take the White House by Storm."



The plan, as explained on the United for Peace and Justice website, gave details on the March 15 movement to topple the Bush Administration. These fringe wackos were granted Lefty legitimacy when the Grand Bloated Puba Michael Moore aligned himself with the protest and promoted it on his site.

After gaining national notice, the extremists have retreated. Their intentions to overthrow the government on March 15 are no longer being advertised on the websites.

At United for Peace, information on the event has been replaced with a page running this disclaimer:

Events listed are not necessarily endorsed or organized by UFPJ.

UnitedforPeace.org is a nonpartisan resource for anti-war and social change activists. The information and events on this site are not necessarily endorsed by members of United for Peace and Justice. Please see our editorial policy for more information.

Michael Moore also replaced the specifics about the "Take the White House by Storm" event with a simple link to the United for Peace site.

Too late.

The nutjobs were exposed and the truth documented. Removing the information from the militant Lefty sites didn't make it go away.

Jim Kouri gives this account:

While few expected them to actually go through with it, an anti-war group, United for Peace, has backed down from their threats to overthrow the Bush Administration and turn the country over to representatives such as Amnesty International. The "attack" on the White House was scheduled for March 15.

The threat gained traction when left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore showed support for their goal on his own website.

According to journalist Sher Zieve, on its website, the United for Peace statement had read: "The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in" and "TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM — Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation."

...However, now they have removed their threatening statements from their website and replaced their "Take the White House by Storm" with a regular protest and peace march scheduled for March 15.

According to the United for Peace website, they are affiliated with the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (headed by Rev. Jesse Jackson), the National Organization for Women, Friends of the Earth, US Labor Against the War, Climate Crisis Coalition, People's Hurricane Relief Fund, National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink and other radical organizations.

While United for Peace removed their vitriolic statements from their website, no one told Michael Moore who did not remove them from his:

(Kouri obviously wrote his post before Moore took a cue from United for Peace and went along with the disappearing act.)

Storm the White House

Multi-Day Event, Beginning March 15, come when you can and stay as long as you can — we are taking over the White House until they leave.
Wednesday, March 15th 2006 12:00 AM
Washington, DC USA

TAKE THE WHITE HOUSE BY STORM — Stop Genocide, Torture and Occupation

U.N. SOS — We need your help to end the reign of international criminals.

It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators. Murder for occupation and theft of land is illegal. Murder of journalists is criminal. Remove the traitors who have stolen the U.S. budget and used it to commit international crimes against humanity.

If we were being bombed and our journalists were being murdered here in the U.S. by a foreign country's military, we would hope that the people of that country would stop what they are doing and go to their president's office and demand that it was stopped. If we were the ones burying thousands and thousands of our family members and watching the destruction of the homes, schools, churches and offices that we had worked for decades to build, we would hope that someone, somewhere would care enough to do something for us. We must stop the criminals in our government NOW. There is no meeting with Congress that is going to change what they are doing. We must put the power of the people into action and stay there until they leave!

Inviting everyone to the White House for a protest rally to show that we do not accept the criminal government, illegal wars and the permanent occupation planned for Iraq and Afghanistan. For Nat Turner, For Martin and Coretta, For all the Torture and Assassination in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and many others — We will not allow the Slave Holders that Still Prevail in this Country to Rule us any longer. Imprisonment and torture based on race, religion, resources or region is no different than the slavery we sought to abolish years ago. The Administration is Criminal and if they will not step down, we must storm in, show them how many of us do not accept a criminal government. How can we stand by and watch them kill our brothers, sisters, journalists and friends for their dollars?

We are calling on all citizens and governments in every country to stand with us. We are calling on all Member Nations of the U.N.; All Representatives and Justices in the World Court and International Criminal Courts; All Human Rights Advocates; All Soldiers and CIA agents and government officials who have been blackmailed or are in fear of the dictators to join us in ending this reign of corporate terror in our government.

The World Criminal Courts need to incarcerate Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for admitted crimes and known crimes of international scope. The Political Cooperative will put a new, temporary government in place that is comprised of people from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and all the organizations that have finally made us aware of the truth of the savage practices and illegal policies of our government in assassinating our own officials as well as people throughout the world who oppose their criminal activity. We need all of you to save U.S. victims and global victims from their ongoing criminal activity.

We are calling on the military, police, citizens and religious organizations to stand with us and help us to bring democracy back to the United States and by doing so, free the world from the wrath, occupation, theft, torture, blackmail and assassination by the Criminals in the United States Government. What they have done all over the world is much worse than what Saddam Hussein has done, so why are they not in jail too? They have admitted to international and national crimes, so why have they not been taken to Court too?

Location:

White House, Washington DC Starting March 15th, come for as long as you can and bring signs that say U.N. SOS and "Leave Now" or whatever you would like to say. Ride Share and Room Share Plans can be made here: http://www.citysites.com/travel/tiki-view_tracker.php?trackerId=3 1600 Pennsylvania Ave Washington DC 20500
__________________________________

My God, these people are nuts!

"It is our duty and the duty of the United Nations to rescue the people of the world from the U.S. dictators."

They redefine the word "extreme." Some are genuinely dangerous.

But don't forget -- THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS! Yes, these fine patriots support the troops who are carrying out all that "genocide, torture, and occupation" on behalf of war criminals Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

It's important to know what these militants are all about. United for Justice and Peace, Code Pink, NOW, etc., -- they're over the edge.

The "Take the White House by Storm" plot wasn't/isn't the brainchild of reasonable people with reasonable policy disagreements with the government.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing the government. All Americans have freedom of speech, including speaking out against elected officials and the policies they promote. However, these critics are not about expressing their views in a level-headed, positive fashion. These extremists are truly wackos.

Bottom line:

Backing off from their incendiary promotion to carry out a coup and put America's government in the hands of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch on March 15 in no way changes who these people are -- completely deranged total nutjobs. Really.

When Will They Ever Learn?

Where have all the journalists gone, long time passing?
Where have all the journalists gone, long time ago?
Where have all the journalists gone?
They've made up stories everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?

In the wide wake left by Jayson Blair, Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, Memogate, and the Hurricane Katrina hysterical false reports, to name just a few, wouldn't you think that "journalists" would realize that they can't get away with faking their stories?

THEY CAN NO LONGER PRESENT THEIR IMAGININGS AS REALITY.

THEY CAN NO LONGER CREATE STORIES CITING NONEXISTENT PEOPLE.

THEY CAN NO LONGER CREATE STORIES BASED ON FAKE POLLS.

THEY CAN NO LONGER EDIT VIDEO TO MISREPRESENT REALITY TO CREATE STORIES.

When will these geniuses learn that they will get caught?

Nick Sylvester of the Village Voice is the most recent member of the press that I know of (though it's become such a common occurence, there may be more already) to go down in flames.



I feel uncomfortable citing the Associated Press for this, given its fabricationitis, but according to David B. Caruso:

The Village Voice suspended one of its editors after he admitted fabricating material for this week's cover story, a look at "The Secret Society of Pickup Artists."

The weekly alternative newspaper published an editor's note on its Web site Wednesday night announcing the suspension of senior associate editor Nick Sylvester.

In an article about the effect that Neil Strauss' book "The Game" has had on the singles scene, Sylvester closed with a description of a night in which he and three television writers from Los Angeles tested strategies for picking up women at a Manhattan bar.

"That scene," the Voice wrote, "never happened."

It attached a note from Sylvester, in which he said the account was "a composite of specific anecdotes" shared by two of the alleged participants. One of the people supposedly present, the comedy writer Steve Lookner, wasn't involved at all, Sylvester acknowledged.

"I deeply regret this misinformation, and I apologize to Lookner for his distress, which I certainly never intended," Sylvester wrote.

Of course, Sly regrets the "misinformation." It may cost him his job. Would he be regretting his lies if it didn't?

I doubt it.

Would any of the lying journalists regret their "misinformation" if they were able to successfully pass it off as truth?

Voice Managing Editor Doug Simmons said the paper was still reviewing the accuracy of the rest of the story and planned to publish a second statement in its next edition.

Simmons said Sylvester, who also wrote for the online music magazine Pitchfork, joined the Voice staff in 2005.

Pitchfork Editor-in-Chief Ryan Schreiber said Sylvester resigned Thursday after the magazine asked him to quit.

Pitchfork had the integrity to remove Sly from its staff. Good for them.

The Village Voice apparently is hesitating to give Senior Associate Editor Sly the boot. Big mistake.

I think that a news publication's credibility isn't everything; it's the only thing. Without that, it has no value in the non-fiction category.

I'm afraid when a publication excuses a lying reporter it reflects on that publication's ethical standards.

In that case, one bad apple DOES spoil the whole bunch.

Editors who are willing to allow writers to pass off lies as factual reporting are blurring the boundaries of reality. They are willing participants in the active creation of an entirely new breed of journalism -- Fake Truth.

Unless stories, like Sly's, include disclaimers that the works contain composite characters and complete fabrications, then they should be resoundingly and firmly condemned by all in the field of journalism and society in general.
_______________________________

Here's a "must read, must heed" for journalists.

Reflecting on the lessons found in Groping for Ethics in Journalism by Ron F. Smith might give some of today's so-called truth-tellers pause before they choose to grope for falsehoods, and attach their names to their fiction while presenting it as fact.

TEACHER OF THE YEAR

According to the website of Overland High School in Aurora, it's "one of the most unique schools in the State of Colorado."

I'm not in a position to make any judgment about the veracity of that statement, but there's no question that it's become one of the most newsworthy schools in Colorado in recent days.

Overland's website enumerates the many reasons that make it such a special, special place.
Here are a few:

• First, Overland is perhaps the most diverse school in the state. We have students from all over the world, 130 different countries. There are 52 different languages spoken by the students at Overland High School.

That is incredibly diverse. No argument there.

• Overland is a challenging and rigorous school. We have many programs that will prepare students for their future. Overland is serious about creating an environment that gives students the skills they will need to go to college. Our graduates are well prepared to attend the best universities in the state, as well the nation. Approximately 86% of our students attend college after graduation.
  

I believe Overland is "serious about creating an environment that gives students the skills they will need" for college.

If Jay Bennish's class is any indication, students already will be accustomed to the "hate America" Leftist propaganda that is so commonplace on college campuses. The students will be able to seamlessly make the adjustment to theses lib oases.

Very well prepared, indeed.

• The staff at Overland High School is second to none. Teachers are dedicated to providing the very best education for each child. The majority of our teachers have advanced degrees. Many of our faculty have specialized training in their specific content areas as well.

I don't want to make baseless generalizations about the staff at Overland, so I'll focus on Jay Bennish, a social studies and American history teacher there since 2000.

He's obviously extremely dedicated. Unfortunately, he's not dedicated to teaching the subject at hand. The lecture for his World Geography class is very short on geography.

Apparently, geography doesn't get priority in Bennish's World Geography class. He uses the time as an opportunity to indoctrinate students with his radical views. There just isn't enough time for him to deliver his political speeches and cover the course material, too.

But don't forget, the "staff at Overland High School is second to none."

Bennish sounds like a "second to none" Leftist nutcase, a frustrated lib hoping to convince his students to think like he does.

The Cherry Creek School District, home to Overland High School, deals with the controversy that was sparked when student Sean Allen taped one of Bennish's "World Geography lectures."

The district has posted the latest on their investigation into Bennish's actions, as well as a PDF file of the course summary for Accelerated World Geography.

This is interesting.

Course Objectives

1. Students know how to use and construct maps, globes, and other geographic tools to locate and derive information about people, places, and environments

2. Students know the physical and human characteristics of places, and use this knowledge to define and study regions and their patterns of change

3. Students understand how physical processes shape Earth's surface patterns and systems

4. Students understand how economic, political, cultural, and social processes interact to shape patterns of human populations, interdependence, cooperation, and conflict

5. Students understand the effects of interactions between human and physical systems and the changes in meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources

6. Students apply knowledge of people, places, and environments to understand the past and present and to plan for the future

Now, read how Bennish conducted his class on February 1, 2006.

Does it sound like he's teaching Accelerated World Geography and sticking to the course objectives, or does it seem like he's applying for a position as Howard Dean's speech writer?

You decide.

Full Transcript of February 1, 2006 Geography Lecture

Some jaw-dropping excerpts--

(Misspellings are from the Cherry Creek School District.)

You see how [Capitalism] is at odds with humanity, at odds with caring and compassion, at odds with human rights. Anytime you have a system that is designed to secure profit. When profit is the bottom motive, money. That means money is going to become more important than safety, human lives, etc.

Why are we invading Iraq? How do we know that the invasion of Iraq was for weapons of mass destruction, even if weapons of mass destruction had been found, how would you have known, how would you prove that that was not the real reason for us to go there? There are dozens upon dozens of countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one of dozens. There are plenty of countries that are controlled by dictators, where people have no freedom, where they have weapons that could be threatening to America. We’re not invading any of those countries.
_________________________________

Did anyone in here watch any of Mr. Bush’s speech last night? ...

[T]he implication was that the solution to the violence in the middle east is democratization. And the implication through his language was that democracies don’t go to war, democracies aren’t violent, democracies don’t want weapons of mass destruction. This is what’s called blind, naïve faith in democracy. Who is the probably the single most violent nation on earth? United States. We’re a democracy. Quote unquote. Who has the most weapons of mass destruction? United States. Who is continuing to develop new weapons of mass destruction as we speak? United States. So, why would Mr. Bush think that other countries of democracy won’t want to be like us? ...

Do you see the dangerous precedent that we have set by illegally invading another country and violating their soverenity in the name of protecting against a potential future attack? ...

It’s not just a speech to America; it’s a speech to who? The whole world. It’s very obvious, if you listen to his language and listen to his body language, and you paid attention to what he was saying, he wasn’t only just talking to us. He’s talking to the whole planet. He’s threatening the whole planet. He started off his speech with talking about how America should be the country that dominates the world. That we have been blessed essentially by God to have the most civilized, the most advanced, best system and that it is our duty as Americans to use the military to go out into the world and make the world like us. Sounds a lot like the things that Adolph Hitler used to say. We’re the only ones who are right, everyone else is backwards and our job is to conquer the world and make sure that they all live just like we want them to. Now, I’m not saying that Bush and Hitler are exactly the same, obviously they are not, but there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use. Very, very ethnocentric. Right? We’re right, you’re all wrong.
____________________________________

Do we really want the Middle East to unite as one cohesive, political and cultural body? No. Because they could what? Threaten our supremacy. We want to keep the world divided. Now do we really want to kill innocent people? I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that. I know that there are some Americans that do. People that work in the CIA, people who have to think like that, those kinds of dirty minds, dirty tricks, that’s how the intelligence mind works. Sometimes you do want to kill people just for the sake of killing them. Alright?
____________________________________

You need to understand something. That when Al Qaeda attacked America on September 11, they were not attacking innocence. The CIA has an office in the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target, the white house is a military target, the Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy. The FBI who tracks down terrorists worldwide has an office in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the world trade center are these huge multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East. So in the minds of Al Qaeda, they are not attacking innocent people, they are attacking legitimate targets. People that have blood on their hands as far as they are concerned. We portrayed them as innocent because they are our friends and neighbors, family and loved ones...

Now in no way am I implying you have to figure this stuff out for yourself. But I want you to think about these things. Think about this right here. Here is the real homeland security. Fighting terrorism since 1492. I mean to many Native Americans. That flag is no different than the Nazi flag or the confederate flag. It represents the people who came and stole their land, lied, brought disease, rape, pillage, destruction, etc. So it all depends on other people’s perspectives. And of course we’re going to see ourselves as being in the right, at least the majority of us, because that’s us.
__________________________________

Near the end of Bennish's "Geography lecture," he says, "I am not implying in any way that you should agree with me. I’m not even sure I’m taking a position."

NOT TAKING A POSITION?

I can buy that he's not saying that the students should agree with his drivel, but his claim that he may not be taking a position is absolutely ridiculous.

Cherry Creek School District believes that Bennish seems to have violated district policy, so he's been placed on administrative leave.

Sean Allen, the student who taped Bennish's "Geography lecture," should be hailed as a brave, principled individual.

He had the courage to blow the whistle.

Now, Sean is being vilified by Leftists because he exposed Bennish's abuse of his position of authority and power, as well as his violation of school district policy.

What Bennish did was inappropriate. There was no balance in his lecture, other than a few challenges from a student.

Some are trying to paint him as a victim in this matter. He's no victim. He was victimizing his students.

What Sean did was provide concrete evidence that Bennish was using his class as a platform to spew his "hate America" rhetoric. That is not what Bennish is getting paid to do.

Of course, Bennish has every right to be against Capitalism. He can blame America for the 9/11 attacks. He can view America as the Great Satan. Bennish can believe what he wants and say what he thinks.

HOWEVER, taxpayer dollars should not be used to support a teacher that fails to do his job -- teach World Geography. He went off on a political tirade, which is commonplace according to Sean Allen. He was not exposing students to another perspective in order to encourage them to think critically. Bennish was clearly advocating his anti-American views.

I think Bennish should leave Overland High School and teach at a school in Saudi Arabia.

The parents of students would love him over there. I think he'd have a shot at being awarded "Teacher of the Year."

WHAT'S THE FREQUENCY, DAVID GREGORY?

I hate to say it, but I told you so.

I told you that David Gregory is the Dan Rather of the 21st century.

I told you HERE,

HERE,

and HERE.

It's not easy to measure up to Dan Rather, one of the most bizarre members of the press that this country has ever known. He set the bizarre bar so high I doubted anyone would ever reach or surpass the seemingly unreachable Rather standard of oddity.

Then came David Gregory.

He is amply filling Rather's weird shoes. I wouldn't crown Gregory "king of the kooky" just yet, but he does have a lot of potential. He's a natural.

First, there's his strange manner of approaching the news, personalizing it by forcing himself into the center of the picture.

Think of Rather and Nixon. Their bouts were personal. Dan wanted to take down Dick.

Gregory behaves in a similar fashion in that he vies for media attention. He, like Danny Boy, wants to be the story, not report it.

Second, Rather has a lengthy list of goofy adventures and peculiar encounters. Gregory is hard at work compiling his own highlight reel of the truly bizarre. He added to it Thursday morning when he called in to Don Imus.

YouTube has video and audio of Gregory's debacle.

Drudge has the transcript and an audio clip.

From Drudge:

Gregory is traveling with the president in India.

IMUS: Let's go to the White House correspondent David Gregory.

DAVID GREGORY: I'm OK.

IMUS: You can calls us later if you want.

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: Are you drunk?

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: Are you all right David?

GREGORY: India is a wonderful language and i've been learning, where's my little sheet here. I've been learning some new phrases to come home. But any way, that being one of them and i just think it's nice.

IMUS: It is.

GREGORY: Thank you.

IMUS: Having a lot of fun there. What's wrong with you?

GREGORY: I just think it's funny. [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

CHARLES: He's drunk.

IMUS: He is drunk!

CHARLES: Oh god.

IMUS: Why don't you compose yourself and get back to us. You want to?

GREGORY: [Laughter] [Laughter] [Laughter]

IMUS: What are you in some harrem?

IMUS: What? David?

GREGORY: No, i'm fine.

IMUS: We need a camera.

Oh my lord.

IMUS: Somebody's got --

GREGORY: i was -- remember that movie "Arthur" with Dudley Moore where he just thinks funny things and that's what was going on. If i could find this sheet, actually i just found it. Anyway.

IMUS: You have any news? [Laughter]

IMUS: we got to go, we'll get back to you.

GREGORY: I'm sorry.

IMUS: That's all right.

IMUS: Well, call us back will you?

GREGORY: Anyway. There are serious things going on here which i know you're very interested in.

IMUS: We don't have any time for them now. Quickly.

GREGORY: Big deal between India and the United States. The upshot is we're going to provide nuclear know-how and fuel to india which they need for their economy to grow. But since they never signed the nonproliferation treaty it's a real turn around and critics worry that it sends the wrong message to other parts of the world.

IMUS: Ok.

GREGORY: I would add, i would add that this is how you say thank you.

IMUS: What is it again?

[Speaking foreign language]

IMUS: Well that's great. But we have to go. It's always nice to hear from you.

GREGORY: I'll call you after dinner.

IMUS: NBC Chief White House Correspondant from New Delhi, India. Clearly drunk.

So there it is.

Gregory made a fool out of himself.

Not surprisingly, NBC is struggling to spin the embarrassing behavior of its Chief White House Correspondent as suitable for the Imus broadcast.

The network denies that Gregory was drunk.

NBC News spokeswoman Barbara Levin insisted that Gregory wasn’t intoxicated during the conversation.

"Do you listen to Imus?" she said. "I mean this is what Imus does. I would just say my reaction is that this is an absurd accusation. Of course, David Gregory wasn’t drinking."

I don't think Levin listened to the segment. If she had, she couldn't possibly say it is "an absurd accusation." Given Gregory's conduct, it is definitely a legitimate accusation.

But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that Levin isn't trying to do CYA duty for Gregory. Let's assume he was sober. That doesn't make the situation too much better. It doesn't alter his weirdness at all.

Plenty of press members appear on entertainment shows. They joke around, trying to be funny; but they're never completely out of control and unable to speak.

The only one that appeared somewhat out of control to me was none other than Dan Rather. He could get pretty weird on Letterman. Still, his strange behavior just seemed strange, not artificially enhanced by a mood or mind-altering substance.

Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts of the Washington Post's "Reliable Source" defend Gregory, insisting that he was not under the influence.

We know drunks. Drunks have been friends of ours. David Gregory , we don't think you were drunk on Imus yesterday. (Jet-lagged, perhaps. Maybe the loser in a tickle fight. But not drunk.)

The NBC White House correspondent lit up the blogosphere yesterday morning when he called into Don Imus's MSNBC show from President Bush's India trip, and promptly burst into giggles. "Are you drunk?" the pugnacious host asked. "He is drunk!"

Gregory later composed himself enough to pronounce that the United States is "going to provide nuclear know-how and fuel to India, which they need for their economy to grow. But since they never signed the nonproliferation treaty . . ." -- well, that's all we needed to hear. A real drunk wouldn't even try "nonproliferation."

I believe the only one "lit up" was Gregory; but that's irrelevant.

What should be of concern to Gregory and NBC, is that the public persona of Mr. Chief White House Correspondent was transformed in a matter of a few minutes, thanks to an ill-timed fit of the giggles.

If Gregory wasn't intoxicated, why didn't he straighten up immediately? Why didn't he realize that it's not cool for it to appear that Imus cut a segment short because Gregory was in no condition to carry on a discussion?

The libs (I include NBC in that category) are shouting that Gregory was not drunk. The Right is citing empirical indications that point to the contrary.

In the end, who cares?

You can speculate about whether he was drunk or not, but why bother?

Drunk or sober, Gregory is not worth taking seriously.