Dyinig Stars Leave Their Mark

Click here to go to this post

Legendary TV newsman Walter Cronkite dies at 92

Walter Cronkite, shown here on the anchor desk in 1969, was known as "the most trusted man in America." His name became synonymous with "news anchor" around the world: in Sweden, anchors are known as "Kronkiters," and in Holland they are "Cronkiters." CBS/Getty Images)

And America loses yet another icon...

The most trusted man in America--newsman legend Walter Cronkite--died tonight at 92 years old.

Cronkite was the newsman, the anchor. He showed his contemporaries and those who followed how it's done. He defined the role of the TV network news anchor.

He sat behind a small desk and a big microphone and reported events as they happened, without the bells and whistles of today's newscasts.

Cronkite was breaking news when these were broadcast via radio waves. He was researching stories and reporting them without the aid of the high technology that today's reporters and anchors rely on--teleprompters, personal computers, cellphones, beepers, fax machines, the Internet.

I planned to gather a lifetime of facts and anecdotes to write my own story, but while working on it I ran into the one published just hours after his dead by the Washington Post and realized that this is the story I wanted in my blog.

So I inserted some photos, and here it is:

America's Iconic TV News Anchor
Shaped the Medium and the Nation

By Bart Barnes and Joe Holley

Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 18, 2009

Cronkite was America's preeminent television journalist during the 1960s and 70s who as anchor and managing editor of "CBS Evening News" played a primary role in establishing television as the dominant national news medium of that era, died last night at age 92.

CBS Vice President Linda Mason said Cronkite died at 7:42 p.m. with his family by his side at his home in New York after a long illness. He had been suffering from cerebrovascular disease, his family said recently.

Cronkite's career reflected the arc of journalism in the mid-20th century. He was a wire service reporter covering major campaigns of World War II before working in radio and then joining a pioneering TV news venture at the CBS affiliate in Washington. Later in New York, he anchored the network's nightly news program from 1962 to 1981, a period in which television established itself as the principal source of information on current events for most Americans.

In a statement last night, President Obama called Cronkite "more than just an anchor." He was "someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world," Obama said.

Describing him as "family," the president said Cronkite " invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down. This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed."

CBS was widely considered the best news-gathering operation among the three major networks, and Cronkite was a major reason why. With his avuncular pipe-and-slippers presence before the camera and an easy yet authoritative delivery, he had an extraordinary rapport with his viewers and a level of credibility that was unmatched in the industry. In a 1973 public opinion poll by the Oliver Quayle organization, Cronkite was named the most trusted public figure in the United States, ahead of the president and the vice president.

"He was the voice of truth, the voice of reliability," said Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University journalism professor and sociologist. "He belongs to a time when there were three networks, three oil companies, three brands of bread." He was the personification of stability and permanence, even when, in Gitlin's words, his message was "that things are falling apart."

In the decades before media outlets and media audiences splintered into numberless shards, Cronkite's broadcasts reached an estimated 20 million people a night. His name became permanently linked in the minds of millions of Americans with the major news events of his time: the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert and of Martin Luther King Jr.; the triumph of the first moon landing; the Watergate scandal; the return of American hostages after the Iranian Revolution; and a cavalcade of political conventions, national elections and presidential inaugurations.

Seminal Moments

Cronkite was often viewed as the personification of objectivity, but his reports on the Vietnam War increasingly came to criticize the American military role. "From 1964 to 1967, he never took anything other than a deferential approach to the White House on Vietnam," Gitlin said, but added, "He's remembered for the one moment when he stepped out of character and decided, to his great credit, to go see [Vietnam] for himself."

Walter Cronkite and a CBS Camera crew use a jeep for a dolly during an interview with the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, during the Battle of Hue City on Feb 20, 1968. (Picture courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration)

In 1968, after the surprise Tet Offensive of the Communist North Vietnamese, Cronkite went to Southeast Asia for a firsthand look at the war. His reports on the "Evening News" and in a half-hour special were instrumental in turning the tide of American public opinion against U.S. policy.

"To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past," he said, casting doubt in the minds of millions of Americans on official versions of the war. Cronkite's viewers were certain that he would never lie to them, and the White House and the Department of Defense did not command that level of credibility.

President Lyndon B. Johnson was widely quoted as having told aides, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

Cronkite took pride in being unemotional on the air, but the one occasion when he lost his composure, for the briefest of moments, became an indelible part of the nation's communal memory.

Walter Cronkite fought back tears when telling the nation that President John F. Kennedy had died on Nov 22, 1963.

"From Dallas, Texas, the flash, apparently official," he reported Nov. 22, 1963, while sitting at his newsroom desk in shirtsleeves, "President Kennedy died at 1 p.m. Central Standard Time . . . "

He removed his black horn-rimmed glasses, paused as he choked back a sob and then continued reporting about the whereabouts of then-Vice President Johnson, soon to be sworn in as president.

At the other end of the emotional spectrum, he exhibited almost a boyish glee when reporting on U.S. space triumphs.

"Man on the moon! . . . Oh, boy! . . . Whew! Boy!" was his description of the spacecraft Eagle's landing on the moon on July 20, 1969. "Boy! There they sit on the moon! . . . My golly!"

Walter Cronkite keeps his eyes on the monitor as NASA's Apollo 11 mission touches down on the moon on July 20, 1969. The journalist, who grew passionate about the space program, called the moon landing a career highlight. (CBS/Getty Images)

Known as "old ironpants" for his durability, Cronkite spent 27 of the next 30 hours on the air.

The Original Anchorman

News was a stepchild of the television industry in 1962 when CBS asked Cronkite to be its evening news "anchorman," a term CBS coined and a job Cronkite shaped for decades to come. At the time, network executives did not see television news as a profit center; it would take "60 Minutes," created in 1968 by Cronkite's former executive producer Don Hewitt, to change that belief about profitability. Nightly news programs lasted only 15 minutes, which permitted little more than a bare summary of the day's front-page news.

On Sept. 2, 1963, Cronkite and CBS made television history with the first half-hour edition of "CBS Evening News." It included an exclusive interview with President John F. Kennedy. Two weeks later, NBC expanded its nightly news program, with Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, to 30 minutes. ABC went to a half-hour format in 1967.

On Sep 3, 1963, the first broadcast of the "CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite" featured an interview with President John F. Kennedy in Hyannis Port, Mass. (CBS/Getty Images)

By 1968, Cronkite and CBS had established a dominance in the evening news viewer ratings that would remain unchallenged for the rest of his tenure as anchor and managing editor. He became the standard against which other television network anchors were judged, and his face became one of the most recognized in America.

So widely did Cronkite become known that eventually it interfered with his ability to cover politics, which had always been one of his passions. "I get off the bus in some small town and the crowd is around me rather than the candidate," he once said. "Not only is it embarrassing, it gets in the way of working. Instead of getting the crowd's reaction to the candidate, I'm dealing with the crowd's reaction to me."

His newscasts were based on a fundamental premise: "to tell it like it is without gimmicks," and he signed off each night's broadcast with the same line, "And that's the way it is."

The Competitive Journalist

Cronkite may have been a calm, unflappable presence on the air, but "he was always a hard-driving, fiercely competitive newsman off camera," David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times noted in 2003. The Times media critic recalled spending a day with him for a 1979 magazine profile.

"Throughout the day," Shaw recalled, "he was calling sources, prodding subordinates, asking questions, editing copy, deciding how stories would be played on that night's broadcast. At one point, when someone handed him a statement that had come in earlier from the Iranian Embassy, answering several questions he'd been pursuing, he exploded.

"He continued to fume and fret and drive and demand through the day, right up until 6:28, when he combed his hair, put on his jacket and -- two minutes later -- began the broadcast with his calm and customary, 'Good evening.' "

Cronkite said he never anchored a single newscast that left him fully satisfied. He watched NBC's nightly news program each evening after finishing his own, and his staff lived in mortal terror of the explosion of anger that would surely follow if NBC had a story or even a fact that had not been on Cronkite's show.

"I want to win," he once said. "I not only want to win, I want to be the best. I feel very badly if I can't be."

Birth of a Newsman

Walter Leland Cronkite Jr. was born Nov. 4, 1916, in St. Joseph, Mo. He grew up in Kansas City, Mo., and later in Houston, where his father served on the faculty of the University of Texas Dental School. As a junior in high school, he read a short story about the exploits and adventures of a foreign news correspondent, and he decided then and there that he wanted to be a journalist. He got his first look at television at the 1933 World's Fair in Chicago.

He attended the University of Texas at Austin, where he worked part time as the campus correspondent for the Houston Post, as sports announcer for a radio station and as a state capitol reporter for the Scripps Howard newspaper chain. He concluded after two years that covering the state capitol was more exciting than studying political science at the university, and he dropped out of college to become a full-time reporter.

Cronkite worked at the Houston Post for a year, then joined the staff of a Kansas City radio station, where he worked as news and sports editor. Later, he became a sports announcer for an Oklahoma City radio station, where he developed a reputation for imagination and creativity for his colorful re-creations of football games based on nothing but wire-service copy.

In 1939, he became a reporter for the United Press wire service and soon was covering combat during World War II. He covered the Battle of the North Atlantic, went along on the first B-17 bombing raid over Germany, landed with Allied forces in North Africa and waded ashore in the Normandy invasion of June 6, 1944. Later, he accompanied the Allied breakthrough at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge.

Cronkite was chief United Press correspondent at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, and then from 1946 to 1948 was the agency's chief correspondent in Moscow. He returned to the United States in 1948 and served as Washington correspondent for a group of Midwestern radio stations until joining CBS News in 1950, shortly after the Korean War broke out. He had hoped to cover the fighting but was instead charged with developing the news department of what was then WTOP-TV, the CBS affiliate in Washington.

Walter Cronkite began his career as a TV reporter for CBS in 1950 (CBS/Getty Images)

TV's Early Days

Although he came to the job with no TV experience whatsoever, he developed what he called "a gut feeling that television news delivery ought to be as informal as possible [and spoken] to that single individual in front of his set in the intimacy of his own home, not to a gathering of thousands.

Later, with the network, he covered Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's 1959 visit to the United States, the 1960 Winter Olympics at Squaw Valley, Calif., and the early space flights of John Glenn, Alan Shepard, Gordon Cooper and Walter Schirra.

When asked to anchor the evening news program, succeeding Douglas Edwards, Cronkite insisted that he also be named managing editor in an effort to emphasize that it was a news -- not an entertainment -- broadcast. Over the next several years, Cronkite worked with CBS News President Fred Friendly and others to build up a newsgathering organization that reached all parts of the globe.

As early as 1952, Cronkite had predicted that television would someday dominate American politics, and he was sensitive about the enormous potential of his broadcasts to mold and influence public opinion.

Retirement and Honors

In 1980, a year before Cronkite turned 65, CBS executives began to prod him to step aside to make way for the younger Dan Rather to lead the Evening News. At Cronkite's last convention, the 1980 Democratic National Convention in New York, the intensity of a farewell demonstration for Cronkite surpassed that of the reaction to Jimmy Carter's speech accepting nomination for a second term. Delegates gathered on the floor of Madison Square Garden chanting, "Wal-ter, Wal-ter, Wal-ter." It was a major national news event itself when Cronkite anchored his last "CBS Evening News" broadcast March 6, 1981.

Walter Cronkite led CBS Evening News for almost 20 years.

But Cronkite later came to regret having been pushed out of the anchor's chair before he was ready to leave.

Six weeks before stepping down, Cronkite received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. As a special correspondent, he covered the 40th anniversary of V-E Day, the 40th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, the funeral of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and the 25th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian uprising.

As the years passed, he lost some of his reporter's reluctance to express an opinion and gave voice to his conventionally liberal ideals. In 2006, he told a gathering of reporters that his proudest moment as a journalist was the night he delivered his editorial about the futility of the Vietnam War. Had he still been a network anchor, he said, he would have tried to deliver a similar editorial about the Iraq war.

Cronkite married Mary Elizabeth "Betsy" Maxwell, a columnist and women's editor for the Kansas City Journal, on March 30, 1940. She died three weeks before their 65th anniversary.

They had three children, Nancy, Kathy and Walter L. "Chip" Cronkite III. As a widower, Cronkite was the companion of opera singer Joanna Simon, the older sister of pop singer-songwriter Carly Simon.

He was deeply disappointed that outer space remained beyond his reach.

"He keeps looking into the sky at night and saying, 'I have to go there,' " his wife once recalled.

There will never, ever, ever be another one like him. Ever.

Walter Cronkite
1916-2009

Sources: CNN, Washington Post, AP
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Buy a truck and get a free AK-47 riffle

The AK-47 assault riffle and its variants and derivatives are used by armed forces, rebel groups and terrorist organizations worldwide. (Photo source unknown)

That's what I call guerrilla marketing.

Buy a pickup truck and get a voucher for a free AK-47 assault riffle as part of a promotion a truck dealership in Missouri is employing to boost pickup truck sales in August.

I find this amazing, but I'm not exactly sure why.

The owner of Max Motors in Butler expects people to object to the promotion, but he stresses that he's not handing out free guns.

"We're just not going to give people an AK-47 gun," says Mark Muller. "Felons buy cars, too."

Why do I find this funny?

"What we are going to do is we're going to give them a voucher where they can go to their local gun dealer, or we have local gun dealers we would strongly recommend where they can buy a gun and go through the proper background checks so the guns wind up in the right hands," he told KMBC-TV (Kansas City).

Alrighty then. Let's be objective here. He's not breaking the law, and gun ownership is a constitutional right in the U.S.--right?

Still...there's just something about this that screams, WTF?

This is not the first time Muller employs guerilla marketing to sell cars. Last year he gave away pistols, and "it went over very well" The AK-47 is an effort to top last year's sales.

"[The pistol giveaway] spiked our web traffic and we sold, we estimate, 35 extra cars during the promotion than we normally would have, and this year we're trying to sell an extra 100 cars more than we normally would," Muller says.

The retail value of an AK-47 is $450, but according to Muller customers can spend their voucher on the gun of their choice, KMBC reported.

How many thugs out there would love to have an AK-47 if--IF--they could afford it? Um...probably all of them.

Now a thug or a felon or a terrorist can bring any vehicle, trade it in, and drive his new pickup truck out of the lot with a voucher in hand for a free assault riffle, or whatever gun they choose whose price is equal or less the voucher's value.

A survey on the KMBC story's webpage shows that about twice as many people think the promotion not a good idea as those who think it's "a good promotion."

If I were reporting on this story, I would (a) call a few gun-control advocates and ask them what they think about the promotion, (b) talk to a couple of lawyers about it, (c) interview gun dealers in the area, and (d) ask Muller what gave him the idea of attracting potential customers with vouchers for guns.

Maybe pickup trucks and rifles do go together, after all. Missouri residents better readjust their driving habits...especially around new trucks, if you ask me.

The AK-47 is fixin' to be a favorite among felons in Missouri.

The AK-47 is a selective fire, gas operated 7.62mm assault rifle developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov about 60 years ago. Today, the AK-47 and its variants and derivatives, which are manufactured in many countries, are used throughout the world by armed forces, guerrillas, and terrorists.

Factbox (from military.discovery.com)

Type: semi or fully automatic assault rifle
Country of origin: Soviet Union
Caliber: 7.62 x 39 mm (.30 inch)
Cartridge capacity: 30 rounds
Muzzle velocity: 2,329 feet per second
Rate of fire: 600 rounds per minute

With over 75 million built worldwide, the AK-47 (a.k.a. "Kalashnikov") is a firearms legend that has probably inflicted more lethal results than any other single weapon system ever produced.

Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Stew of News - spooning and scooping 'em for ya

Girl's refusal to be child bride inspires nation, from ABC News -- awesome story

Coroner: Michael Jackson autopsy results in two weeks, from USA Today -- more waiting...

Marines under investigation after autistic man allowed to enlist, from ABC News -- heads are going to roll...

Ten elderly climbers die on Japan mountains, from CBS News -- elderly climbers ... um ... oxymoron?

Bite me! Why we love vampires, from Newsweek -- entertaining

America's 10 best undervalued places to live, from US News & World Report -- interesting

UK sex education takes U-turn: go ahead, touch yourself--an orgasm a day keeps the Prozac away

This story, published by the Associated Press, caught my eye for obvious reasons. I think it would be safe to assume that many people will be scandalized by it, especially here in the U.S. where Puritanism is alive and well.

I think it's an important story because it points to a notable and consequential shift in sex education.

Who would've thought that the birthplace of the infamously strict Victorian morality would later teach teenagers to masturbate their way to health and happiness.

Oh...it's a wondrous world.

There's no going back to Victorian times, if you ask me.

UK health booklet's message: Teen sex can be fun

By Gregory Katz (AP)

LONDON – Britain's National Health Service has a message for teens: Sex can be fun. Health officials are trying to change the tone of sex education by urging teachers to emphasize that sexual relations can be healthy and pleasurable instead of simply explaining the mechanics of sex and warning about diseases.

The new pamphlet, called "Pleasure," has sparked some opposition from those who believe it encourages promiscuity among teens in a country that already has high rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The National Health Service in the city of Sheffield produced the booklet, which has a section called "an orgasm a day" that encourages educators to tell teens about the positive physical and emotional effects of sex and masturbation, which is described as an easy way for people to explore their bodies and feel good. Like more traditional sex education guides, it encourages demonstrations about how to use condoms and other contraceptives.

Some professionals have hailed the new approach as a welcome antidote to traditional sex education, which they say can be long on biological facts but short on information about the complexity of human relationships.

The booklet suggests ways in which teachers can encourage sexual awareness and responsibility while teaching young people that sex is something that is meant to be enjoyed.

Steve Slack, who helped produce the leaflet as Director of the Center for HIV & Sexual Health in Sheffield, said one goal is to help young people learn to resist peer pressure and delay having sex until they are emotionally ready.

"Far from promoting teenage sex, it is designed to encourage young people to delay losing their virginity until they are sure they will enjoy the experience," he said.

Slack said some of the ideas in the booklet came from the Netherlands, which is well known in Europe for its liberal attitude toward sexual behavior.

But the pamphlet is condemned by some educators who believe it will lead to more casual sex among teens.

"Some of it is good sense, but I think it's wrong is to suggest that 16-year-olds should wantonly enter into having sexual intercourse for pleasure," said Anthony Seldon, headmaster of Wellington College, a school for teens. "I think this is medically wrong and emotionally wrong and will increase teenage pregnancy and impact negatively on the formation of a long-term loving relationship."

He said teens should be taught about the value of a long-term commitment, not simply about the pleasures of sexual intercourse.

Ruth Smith, news editor of Children & Young People Now magazine, said one goal of the new booklet is to help young people become more comfortable with their sexuality and to let them know they can speak out if they are abused or forced into a situation they don't like.

"Research shows young people feel pressured to have sex before they're ready," she said."This booklet is intended to give them the skills to discuss it. It's not a license to go out and have sex, it's saying if you do, do it, wait until you're ready and enjoy it. It makes them more confident and more able to say no."

She said the instruction guide will not be given to students but is intended to suggest ways in which teachers can start a conversation about sex.

"It's trying to find what works with young people," she said.

Source: AP

Florida thugs didn't need to kill Billings to rob them

It doesn't add up, if you ask me.

One of the top stories in the U.S. for the past week has been the murder of a Florida couple known for having adopted about a dozen kids, most of them disabled. At one time they had 17 children.

Melanie and Byrd Billings (left) where shot to death in their bedroom on July 9 by a group of Ninja-wanna-be thugs now in custody.

The only motive so far given for the killings is home invasion and robbery. (See Suspects arrested in murder of Florida couple, posted July 13.)

But that can't possibly be the whole story, can it?

First of all, the sheriff said that robbery was "a motive"--that is, one of possibly several motives--but he would not elaborate.

Today, it was reported that the so-called the "pivotal person" in organizing the crime, Leonard Gonzalez Jr., a 35-year-old self-defense teacher with a wife and kids, and six other suspects trained for the crime for a month prior to its execution, and that the surveillance video that captured them enter the property was supposed to have been disabled by one of them--oops.

Here's the thing:

Why rehearse for a month to break into a house, go straight to a bedroom, shoot two people, grab a couple of things and go? How hard is that?

More difficult–and requiring more thought and rehearsal–would’ve been to plan a robbery without anyone in the house noticing. Even if the Billings woke up, a couple of masked robbers could’ve held them at gunpoint while the others took whatever they came to get.

In other words: there was no need to kill the Billings in order to rob them.

That would make murder not a means to an end, but an end in itself.

Five or six of them entered the house, located west of Pensacola in Beulah, so they couldn't have been threatened by a sleeping 43-year-old woman and 66-year-old man.

So far investigators have found no links to drugs, mafia or any illegal activity in the murders.

Then...why?

I've been waiting for someone--anyone--on CNN or anywhere else to ask that question: Why kill them when killing them was not necessary to rob them? And so far no one reporting the story has--not that I've seen or heard or read.

It's driving me nuts! Can somebody please address this issue...pretty please?

Sources: Pensacola News Journal, CNN, AP
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Sotomayor shows she's a wise Latina at hearings

Senate judiciary committee chairman Patrick Leahy swears in U.S. supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

There must be an epidemic of obsessive-compulsive disorder affecting Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's either that, or they're stubbornly set on making the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor revolve around two words she said in a speech eight years ago: "wise Latina."

You'd think she said "serial killer."

In a 2001 speech at talks on Latino presence in the American judiciary system held at the University of California in Berkeley, Sotomayor said: "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."

I can see why some would have concerns about this comment, and why, therefore, they would have questions about it. Fine. But hasn't it gone a bit too far?

“No words I have ever spoken or written have received so much attention,” Sotomayor said at the hearings after being grilled about her wise-Latina remark for the umpteenth time.

“I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,’’ she also said. “I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.’’

Sotomayor went further: “My record shows that at no point or time have I ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of a case. In every case where I have identified a sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant why the law requires a different result.’’

I wonder how many times, in how many ways and with how many words will Sotomayor have to explain herself about a light comment that, as shown by her track record, in no way determines how she rules from the bench.

While I get where they're going with this line of interrogation (it's obvious), I don't get where they're coming from given how many others have made similar comments about their cultural backgrounds, trials and tribulations, and so forth without having to explain themselves.

A Time.com piece by writer Carolina A. Miranda addresses this subject:

It is no different from what Samuel Alito said in 2006 ("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 what countless other Congressmen and Supreme Court nominees and presidential candidates have said when channeling their own "I grew up in a van down by the river" youths. Our varied experiences shape us, they enrich us, they give us the ability to... empathize.

Yup. Justice Samuel Alito said this (and much more--uninterrupted for three minutes) on Jan 11, 2006, during his confirmation hearings. His remarks were much more extensive and provocative than Sotomayor's two words, yet he didn't get crucified for it. But when Sotomayor quips about being a "wise Latina," she's called a racist. Alito was nominated by George W, by the way. Pinocchio politics as usual.

In addition to the wise-Latina broken record--Sotomayor is also being repeatedly questioned about judicial activism, to which she has replied that the court's job is to apply the law, not to legislate.

Judges "can't change the law, we're not lawmakers," Sotomayor has said.

What part of that do they not understand?

I'm wondering if they're expecting her to slip into another personality dwelling deep within her psyche and give a totally different answer to the same question.

Whether or not a judge is an activist shows in his/her rulings--right? And the senators have had more than enough time to study these ahead of the hearings. The question had to be asked at least once, maybe twice, even three times. But, c'mon. Enough already.

Same with the New Haven firefighter reverse discrimination claim. This issue, too, has been discussed ad nauseam.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court last week overturned Sotomayor's decision to reject firefighter Frank Ricci's reverse discrimination claim in an appeals court. It was not unanimous, not 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, yet Republicans are using this case to argue that Sotomayor's decision shows she has a racial preference for minorities that could influence her rulings as a Supreme Court justice. That's a big stretch, if you ask me.

I'm not saying Ricci didn't have a legitimate claim; however, I find it suspicious that he has filed lawsuit after lawsuit throughout his career. Is it because he's being discriminated against over and over again, or is he the type of person with the time and resources to file lawsuits whenever he doesn't get his way?

I also find it a legitimate argument that the 35-year-old dyslexic man got his firefighting job in the first place by claiming discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"I don't think Mr. Ricci thought that his being hired was a case of reverse discrimination against those who weren't disabled," says Marge Baker, vice president of liberal group People for the American Way. "But you can't have it both ways. These laws can't be good when you use them to protect yourself and bad when they're used to protect someone else."

Sotomayor already has been questioned--numerous times--about her decision in this case, and she already has explained--numerous times--the basis for that decision. At this point, any further discussion about this case at the hearings seems like beating a dead horse to me.

I understand that the senators have to do their jobs (or at least give the impression they're doing their jobs). Fine. But time is wasted when senators can't come up with more intelligent, relevant questions, relying instead on those already asked and answered as well as those stemming from ulterior motives that require next to no thought or research on their part. Who do they think they're fooling?

I must add that I'm impressed with Sotomayor's conduct. Several senators have been rude, sarcastic, cynical, even hostile, and she just sits there, cool as a cucumber, with a neutral expression on is face or a slight smile, listening, measuring her words. That's experience. That's wisdom.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) congratulated Sotomayor on her demeanor, which was devoid of any of the sharp remarks she acknowledges that she sometimes employs on the bench, the Boston Globe reported.

“I must say that, if there’s a test for judicial temperament, you pass it with an A-plus-plus,’’ Feinstein said. “. . . You have just sat there, very quietly, and responded to questions that, in their very nature, are quite provocative.’’

What a contrast between Sotomayor and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)! Watching him interrogate Sotomayor and disrespectfully interrupt her when she would not reply to his questions with the answers he wanted to hear was embarrassing...and painfully annoying.

His is the kind of attitude and behavior that gives legislators a bad rep: unwise, pompous, big-headed, loves-to-hear-himself-talk, arrogant prick. Sorry, but I call it like I see it, and that's what I saw when Sessions did his thing.

Folks, Sotomayor is getting confirmed no matter how many times they salsa around with the "wise Latina." If there are no other questions, let's wrap it up, give her the robe and move on.

Sources: AP, WSJ, Time, Boston Globe, CNN
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Is There Anybody Watching?

Blog post about the endangered concept of privacy in the iGeneration. Click here to go to this post.

Obama taps rural Alabama M.D. for surgeon general

President Obama shakes hands with Regina Benjamin, his nominee for surgeon general, in the Rose Garden of the White House on Monday. (Charles Dharapak/AP)

Republicans must be fuming.

Just as Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor kicked off today, President Obama announced his choice for Surgeon General: Dr. Regina Benjamin, a family physician from rural Alabama.

Both are women. Both belong to minority groups. Benjamin is African American, while Sotomayor is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who moved to New York.

Need I say more?

Benjamin, 51, made headlines because of her determination to rebuild her nonprofit medical clinic in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. She's a country doctor who makes house calls and doesn't turn away patients who can't pay.

"For all the tremendous obstacles that she has overcome, Regina Benjamin also represents what's best about health care in America, doctors and nurses who give and care and sacrifice for the sake of their patients," Obama said Monday, noting her insight will help rebuild the country's healthcare system.

Her nomination for surgeon general requires Senate confirmation.

Ugh.

Listening to opening statements at the Sotomayor confirmation hearings today made me want to stick my head in an oven and set it on broil.

It proved, once again, that senators love to hear themselves talk--the more imperious and hostile the tone, the better. For three hours that's all they did. I don't know how the Capitol can accommodate so many swollen heads.

If my job required me to sit through these hearings, I would drive my car into a brick wall.

I would hope to end up comatose in a hospital room with no TV, just in case I wake up.

Sources: AP, USA Today, BNO
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

Suspects arrested in murder of Florida couple who adopted a dozen-plus kids, most of them disabled

The Billings family (Pensacola News Journal) Leonard Gonzalez Jr. and Wayne Thomas Coldiron have been charged with the murder of Byrd and Melanie Billings. (Pensacola News Journal)

Four days ago a couple with more than a dozen children, most of them adopted and disabled, was shot to death in their Florida house.

Yesterday arrests were made, with more to come, meaning we now have enough information to present this week's first candidates to the Sick Fuck of the Week award.

A surveillance video the couple used to keep track of the kids, shows a red van pull up, three men get out and head to the house at the time Melanie, 43, and Byrd Billings, 66, were murdered in their bedroom on July 9.

Discovery of the red van across town led to the arrest of 56-year-old Leonard Gonzalez (left), who reportedly was the getaway driver. He's been charged with tampering with evidence because he was in the process of painting or disguising the van. Shouldn't he be charged with accessory to murder? Bail was set at $250,000.

Sunday night, police arrested 41-year-old Wayne Coldiron and 35-year-old Leonard Gonzalez Jr., son of the van owner, (below) and charged them with murder, robbery and home invasion, holding them on $1 million bail each.

At the time, Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan described the murder as something out of a movie.

"This is like a movie script," he said. "The more we've delved into this and worked this case, the different avenues that it would go down. Just when you thought, 'All right, we're in a straight line at this point with this investigation,' it would take a hard right or a hard left, and it was almost as though you had another investigation that you were initiating."

At a press conference today, Morgan said investigators believe six to eight individuals were involved in the murder, including three black males, one of which is is flight and yet to be identified.

Regarding the motive, Morgan would only confirm one--robbery.

"We have a motive, but we believe that there are other motives, numerous motives...but at this time we cannot release that information," he told reporters.

Morgan said the mastermind of the operation is already in custody, but would not disclose his name.

What other motives could there be? What could the adoptive parents of a dozen handicapped children have done to provoke these sick fucks? One of the couple's biological children, Ashley Markham, said today the family doesn't know the suspects.

Could the wholesome-looking, generous couple had been involved in something sinister? It seems far-fetched, but you never know...

This case is already starting to look like a Law & Order...not that there's anything wrong with that. As you can see, I'm tuning in.

The Billings originally had 17 children, but three died over the years, Markham said. Each parent had two biological children, and the rest were adopted; the couple had no biological children together. Nine of the children were at home when the couple was shot and killed Thursday night.

The family lived in Beulah, west of Pensacola, near the Alabama state line.

UPDATE: A day after this post, on July 14, sheriff Morgan announced seven people had been arrested in connection to the murders.

Morgan declined to give specifics about the suspects, saying only that some may have been laborers at the couple's home but noting there's "no direct tie" between the suspects and the couple. He also declined to answers many questions, repeatedly saying, "I won't speak to that issue," because of the ongoing investigation and because other states are involved.

The prosecutor said the primary motive in this case was "home invasion and robbery," but he declined to disclose the other motive or motives earlier referred to by Morgan or provide specifics about the items stolen, though he confirmed a medium-sized safe was among them.

"A lot of the questions, you, the media, is asking we just cannot answer," he said.

Leonard Gonzalez, Jr., was identified as the organizer of the crime.

Sources: Pensacola News Journal, CNN, ABC News, AP
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved

'Nazi guard' Demjanjuk charged for killing 28K Jews

Could justice prevail in this case?

German prosecutors have formally charged John Demjanjuk (right) with 27,900 counts of being an accessory to the murder of Jews during World War II.

Demjanjuk, who was deported from the U.S. in May, is accused of serving as a guard at the Sobibor extermination camp in Nazi-occupied Poland during the war.

The 89-year-old auto worker says he never hurt anyone, claiming he was a Red Army soldier captured by Germans in his native Ukraine and kept as a prisoner of war.

Here's what frustrates me about a case such as this one: if he's guilty of assisting in the murder of thousands of Jews, then no charges, no trial, no bad press, no poverty, no prison time could ever settle the score. No amount of pain inflicted on him could compare to what the Jews were subjected to during the Holocaust.

So other than to serve justice and set the record straight, his arrest and imprisonment (if convicted) couldn't possibly offer much comfort to the victims. Long-term torture, might, but that's out of the question within the present judicial system.

The charges were filed Monday, but no details about a trial were released.

Doctors say he's fit to stand trial, but Demjanjuk's family say he is too frail to stand trial because he suffers from kidney disease, cancer and arthritis. In May, he was admitted to hospital for three days after developing gout, the BBC reported.

Demjanjuk arrived in the U.S. in 1952 as a refugee, settling in Cleveland, Ohio, where he worked in the car industry, according to the report. In 1988 he was sentenced to death in Israel for crimes against humanity after Holocaust survivors identified him as the notorious "Ivan the Terrible," a guard at the Treblinka death camp, but Israel's highest court later overturned his sentence after former Soviet Union documents showed "Ivan the Terrible" was another man.

Demjanjuk returned to the U.S. but lost his U.S. citizenship in 2002 because he had not disclosed his work at Nazi camps when he first arrived as a refugee. Three years later a U.S. immigration judge ruled that he could be deported to Germany, Poland or Ukraine. (Three years...it took them three years to arrive to this ruling, and meanwhile he was living happily in the U.S.).

In March 2009, Munich prosecutors issued a warrant for his arrest, accusing him of being an accessory in the deaths of Jews based on documents proving his Nazi background, including an SS identity card that showed he had been a guard at Sobibor between March and September 1943, and on witness testimonies.

If Demjanjuk is innocent, he should be very scared because prosecutors evidently have enough evidence to convict him.

If he's guilty, he--and his family--should be celebrating that he got a 65-year get-out-of-jail-free card after murdering nearly 28,000 innocent people and that he got to live and prosper in the U.S. as a refugee, with U.S. citizenship handed to him on a silver platter in an act of generosity and compassion. No need for long faces...he got away with it all up until now, when he's about to die anyway.

Where's the justice in that?

Sobibor Extermination Camp (Photo: Holocaust Research Project)

Sources: AP, BBC, Al Jazeera
Copyright © 2009, Primetime Oracle
All Rights Reserved