The "Drug Wars" (8)- Bangkok, Thailand 1977

A Thai Execution-picture by Richard Clark

During my tour of duty with DEA in Bangkok (1975-1978), I witnessed several changes of government (not all via democratic elections). In October 1976, a military coup ousted the prime minister and appointed Tanin Kraivixian as the new prime minister. Tanin was a hard-liner, and one area he cracked down on was the drug traffic. A new law was passed, called Article 21, by which the prime minister could order the summary execution-without trial-of certain high-level criminals including drug traffickers. In 1977, a 44-year-old Lao-Chinese man, Thavorn Udomluedej, was arrested in Bangkok selling a multi-kilo quantity of heroin. He would become the first person summarily executed under the new law.

On April 15, an international drug conference involving the US,Thailand and several other nations was scheduled to open in Bangkok. Attending would be several US officials including high-ranking members of Jimmy Carter's administration. Carter, whose foreign policy was focused on Human Rights, was sending his "Drug Czar", Peter Bourne, to the conference, along with Mathea Falco, State Dept Secretary for Narcotics Affairs. My memory is not clear on this, but I believe Carter's Official Representative for Human Rights, Patricia Derian, was also present. There were also a few politicians, including Congressman Lester Wolf of New York. (Bourne, as Carter's Drug Czar, was of the opinion that marijuana and cocaine were harmless drugs. Later, he was forced out of the White House for supplying unnecessary prescriptions to one of his aides-an addict, who was arrested in possession of Bourne's prescriptions.)

As the conference date approached, Thavorn's post-arrest reports were being sent to Prime Minister Tanin with a recommendation to invoke Article 21 for the first time. On April 14, Tanin signed the order for Thavorn's summary execution.

In the early morning hours of April 15, Thavorn was taken from his cell at the Bangkok Crime Suppression Hqs. and transported to Bangkwang Prison. He was not aware of his fate at this point. (The details which follow were reported in the Thai newspapers and also related to our office by the Thai officers who participated in the execution since as narcotics officers, they also worked liaison with DEA. They also showed us photos of the entire execution process.)

Upon arrival at Bangkwang Prison, Thavorn was put in chains, fingerprinted, then taken to an area of the prison for a religious ceremony. At this location, a monk chanted a blessing for Thavorn, at which time, he realized that he was about to die. The actual executioner then knelt before Thavorn holding flowers and a joss stick in his hands and asked the condemned man for his forgiveness. The order for execution was then read to Thavorn.

Thavorn, now weeping, asked why he was being executed without even being able to say goodbye to his family. He took out what money he had from his pocket and presented it to the monk. He was then given will forms and allowed to write a short note to his children. At 6:30 am, after a final prayer, Thavorn was tied to a post- his back facing the executioner, who was separated by a sheet with a target. The executioner then fired 9 rounds into Thavorn from a distance of 10 meters with a sub-machine gun.

Later that morning, I was present at the opening ceremony of the conference at the Dusit Thani Hotel. I sat in the audience and listened to the typical boiler-plate speeches by the above American officials. Carter's emphasis on Human Rights was repeated over and over.

Then Prime Minister Tanin arrived and took the podium. He spoke of his strong commitment to combatting the drug traffic in and out of Thailand and promised strong measures against traffickers as the Americans sitting behind him smiled politely- probably feeling skeptical inside. Then Tanin dropped his bombshell. Only a few people in the audience including the DEA agents knew what was coming. I watched the faces of Jimmy Carter's representatives very carefully to gauge their reactions.

".....To demonstrate Thailand's firm commitment to crack down on drug trafficking, I have ordered the summary execution, under Article 21, of a heroin dealer. This execution was carried out early this morning." (I am quoting from memory.)

Carter's representatives squirmed in their seats with uncomfortable looks on their faces and said nothing.

Hillary's Ad-Who Do You Want Answering the Phone at 3 am?

"Bill, do you know what time it is? Where the hell are you?"

The "Drug Wars" (7)- Los Angeles 1981

"Big Tiny" -without bodyguards


One afternoon, the DEA office in LA was telephonically contacted by one of our offices in Indiana with a request for assistance. It happened that, in that particular week, my enforcement group was the "duty group", meaning that outside calls for assistance from other offices would be referred to our group. On this occasion, our colleagues in Indiana had located a federal drug fugitive in LA and were asking us to make the arrest.

The information we had to work with was pretty detailed. We were advised that at 2 pm, the fugitive (whom I will call, "Big Tiny"), would arrive at a particular biker bar in Venice, right off the beach. He was described as a white male, late 20s, about 6'6", 350 pounds with a full-length beard down to his chest and wearing bib overalls. Additionally, he would be accompanied by two bodyguards. Their descriptions?- They were both about 6'8", 280 pounds, ugly- you get the picture.

It sounded like we were in store for a fun afternoon.

At about 1:30, we were set up on surveillance outside the biker bar. Naturally, the place was packed and loud music was playing. It was like a scene from one of those old Popeye and Bluto cartoons. Sure enough, at 2 pm sharp, "Big Tiny", bib overalls and all, was seen walking into the bar with two scruffy-looking dudes about 6'8".

By now, it was obvious that some of the "patrons" were on to our presence. At one point, a guy came out of the "establishment", got on his motorcycle, pulled into the beach parking lot and eyeballed us before returning to the bar.

At this point, we decided, since there were only 6-8 of us, that we could use some LAPD uniformed presence for back-up since we might have to go into the bar and make the arrest before "Big Tiny" took off. We radioed our base to call LAPD Venice Division and request assistance. We then waited...and waited...and waited. They never arrived.

After about 20-30 minutes waiting for LAPD, it was starting look like we were going to have to go into the place with what we had. I started having visions of my old days as a US Army MP in Germany, when some of our guys occasionally had to back out of some of the rougher GI bars at gunpoint with their prisoners.

Just then- thank mother of God- "Big Tiny" came out of the bar-alone-walking across the street and into an alley, at which point, we pulled our cars into the alley, grabbed our quarry, hooked him up, put him in a car and drove away.

Meanwhile, back at the bar, someone must have asked, "Hey, anyone seen "Big Tiny?'"

Why Conservatives Must Now Support John McCain

Who do you want?



Several weeks ago, I posted an essay entitled: "Adios McCain", in which I declared that I could not support his nomination as the Republican candidate for president. My inspiration for this essay was the news that Juan Hernandez, an open borders activist and former aide to Mexican President, Vicente Fox, had been named as McCain's senior advisor for Hispanic Outreach, an appointment which I felt-and still feel is outrageous. Since that time, McCain has all but wrapped up the Republican primary. Unless something happens soon to give credence to the recent New York Times article about a supposed romance with a lobbyist, McCain will be the Republican nominee for president. Assuming he is, it is crucial that conservatives put aside their differences and support McCain for president.

The New York Times article certainly served to bring conservative support to the Arizona senator from many who had sworn never to vote for him. Yet, there are still those conservatives who, because McCain is weak on illegal immigration and certain other issues, are still saying they will not vote for him. In my view, that would be a terrible mistake.

Let's take it issue by issue. There is no doubt that McCain has angered many of us over his lack of support for stopping the violation of our borders. He has spoken disparagingly of those who have demanded that the law be enforced. Lately, he has made statements to the effect that he is coming around to our point of view. How convincing is he? I remain skeptical.

Yet, we know what either a President Obama or President Clinton will do-nothing. The Democratic Party relies on courting Hispanics (both present and future citizens) as voters. The Democrats are notorious for not supporting any law enforcement agency-let alone the Border Patrol. With McCain, there is hope that we will achieve at least some of our objectives-if we hold his feet to the fire.

When it comes to the War on Terror and our efforts in Iraq, only McCain offers hope that we will prevail in those ventures. Both Clinton and Obama will bring the troops home-incrementally perhaps- but they will abandon the effort to win the war in Iraq, even though we are now winning. McCain is strong on this point. He is committed to destroying Al-Qaida, prevailing in Iraq and defeating Islamic terrorism. This issue alone justifies a vote for McCain. It is simply the most defining issue of our time. Now that we are winning in Iraq, we must see it through to victory. If we allow Clinton or Obama to pull our troops out before the objective is met, then Iraq will surely fall under the control of Al Qaida and/or Iran-and 4,000 American lives will have been lost in vain-just as we sacrificed over 58,000 American lives in Viet Nam, then walked away and let our enemy win.

Similarly, what will happen to our military under Obama or Clinton in an age of international Islamic terror? It is obvious that either would drastically reduce the size and capability of our Armed Forces. As a precedent, we only have to look at the last two Democratic presidents- Carter and Clinton. Both decimated the military, which necessitated a build-up by Reagan and GW Bush to correct the problem. Even now, we still need a further build-up of our military. Only McCain will do that.

Thirdly, is there any question but that Obama or Clinton will further a socialistic agenda for America? The difference is only in degrees, but a Democratic presidency, coupled with a Democratic-controlled Congress, means greater government control, more spending, increased taxes, and increased socialism in our daily lives-in total contrast with what made our country great.

In addition, one of the most important considerations is the make-up of our federal courts-especially the Supreme Court. In all likelihood, the next president will appoint at least two new Supreme Court justices. If the president is Clinton or Obama, one can only expect more people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg (an ACLU attorney). True, McCain could disappoint us on this one, but the only chance we have of getting more Thomas' or Scalias on the Supreme Court is through McCain.

Along those lines, don't overlook the Federal Appeals Courts and federal judgeships. When I was an active DEA agent, I saw first-hand the damage to law enforcement that was done by Carter and Clinton-appointed federal judges, who would routinely sentence convicted drug traffickers to short prison terms or even probation. Many are still on the bench. Obama or Clinton would flood the federal bench with hundreds more lenient judges. Every day, we hear more horror stories about lenient judges who turn vicious criminals back onto the streets. If we allow the Democrats to appoint those judges, then we have no control in correcting the situation.

Is this an enthusiastic endorsement of John McCain? No. I have spelled out my problems with the Arizona senator in strong terms. As I have said before, I have great respect for his military record but object to many of his positions as a senator. The bottom line, however, is this; McCain, barring some unforeseen development, will be the only one standing between a President Obama or President Clinton.

If McCain becomes president, we must continue to pressure him to do the right thing on issues like illegal immigration. He should be pressured to jettison Juan Hernandez from his staff and enforce our immigration laws. However, if we stay home in November, we have only ourselves to blame if liberals take over this country-at a crucial and dangerous time in our history. The stakes are simply too great. We must support McCain in November. If we stay home and allow Obama or Clinton to become president, we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Hillary's New Ad

It's 3 am in the White House, and the phone is ringing. Do you know where Bill is?

Who's Attacking Obama?

"Barack, wait till those nasty Republicans find out that you............"


As I watch the Democratic Primary draw toward its conclusion, I notice that the Democratic Party is employing an interesting tactic. While the Clintons try to attack Barack Obama for this or that, there seems to be an effort to make the Republicans look like the bad guys. Have you heard this before? "Boy, if Obama gets the nomination, the Republican attack machine is going to smear him all day long over; his drug use, his (Muslim) religion, Louis Farrakhan, plagiarism, Tony Rezko, those pictures in African robes, etc." There is just one problem: Currently, Obama is not running (yet) against the Republicans. He is still locked in a fierce battle with Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is behind most of the anti-Obama disclosures.

Prior to the Iowa primary, an e-mail was going around the Internet claiming that Obama was a secret Muslim. The origin of the e-mail is still unknown, but two of Mrs Clinton's campaign workers disseminated it (for which they were fired).

Then one of Hillary's chief campaign managers made public statements speculating about Obama's past drug use-and possible drug dealing. (That also led to a resignation.)

Remember the statement that came out of the Clinton campaign that they had some secret, damaging information about Obama, but they would not disclose it in the interest of party unity?

Who dug up the "kindergarten essay", in which Obama disclosed his plans to run for president? Who tried to make hay with the plagiarism issue? Who hit Obama with the issue of his Chicago pastor and the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan? Sure, the Republicans are talking about it (which they should), but it was the MSNBC debate moderators, Tim Russert and Brian Williams, who brought it up and Hillary Clinton who threw in her two cents worth.

And who fed that photo of Obama in Somali garb to Matt Drudge? According to Drudge, it was someone in the Clinton campaign. (Hillary, of course, has no idea who that might be.)

The intent of the Democrats is becoming clear; if Obama gets the nomination, watch out for those "racist" Republicans who will smear him during the general election. This, of course, is perfectly consistent with the previous statements of DNC Chairman, Howard Dean, who has often characterized the Republicans as a white-only party. Just in the past few days, Dean has stated that "the Republicans look like the 1950s and talk like the 1850s."

Yet, look at virtually every black Republican figure and what they have to contend with from the Democrats and the left. Start with Condoleeza Rice, who many on the left have called an "Aunt Jemima". Then look at Michael Steele of Maryland, who, while running for the Senate, had Oreo cookies thrown at his feet-as Maryland Democrats responded with, "Well, if the shoe fits..." Ken Blackwell of Ohio has been regarded as a "traitor" (to his race) for his role in George W Bush's 2004 victory in that state. How about Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the Washington Court of Appeals by Bush-only to be excoriated by Senate Democrats who tried to derail her nomination? Then there is the classic case- Justice Clarence Thomas, who was subjected to an ugly and humiliating confirmation process, led by white Democratic heavyweights like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Howard Metzenbaum.

There are legitimite questions about Senator Obama that should be explored and discussed during the campaign. Yes, Republicans are raising questions and issues about Obama. However, it is disingenuous to suggest that it is only Republicans and conservatives who have problems with his candidacy. Before the senator goes toe to toe with the Republican nominee, he still has to overcome the smears coming from the Clintons.

Keith Olbermann's "Eulogy" of William F Buckley

This is a Doberman. It Rhymes with Olbermann


Last night, I joined the thousands of TV viewers around the country who watch Keith Olbermann's "Countdown" on MSNBC. Krazy Keith's show is consistently an hour of angrily bashing President Bush, Republicans and conservatives in general. His guests and correspondents are routinely liberal. There are no debates, no disagreements, just KKO and his pals, people like Richard Wolffe, Rachel Maddow (Air America)and Jonathan Alter. Last night, Keith outdid himself and reached a new low.

While announcing the death of conservative icon William F Buckley, Olbermann took the opportunity to inform his viewers that:

Buckley's opinions were "indefensibly and gloriously wrong".
As a student, Buckley had opposed World War Two.
He had defended Sen. Joe McCarthy.
He once suggested that AIDS patients be tattooed.
He once "ruminated" about denying the vote to the uneducated.

Keith, that was completely "klassless". Why didn't you raise a glass to cheer the death of Buckley while you were at it? Not that I was surprised. I am used to the far left making those kinds of comments about conservatives who have just died. I remember when Reagan died, and many on the left were celebrating the "fact that Reagan was burning in Hell". Just recently, it was reported that Nancy Reagan had suffered a fall in her home. Adriana Huffington's blog, "The Huffington Post", was filled with entries from her readership insulting the former First Lady and wishing her nothing but the worst.

But that's not all. Toward the end of the show, KKO presented his "Worst Persons in the World". (Surprisingly, Bill O'Reilly wasn't among the finalists last night.) Who got the Gold Medal? John McCain. Why? Because, in the wake of the Bill Cunningham rant in Cincinnati, McCain had stated that he didn't know Cunningham, nor had he ever met him. Cunningham has stated that he met McCain on a couple of occasions at political events. At that, the McCain campaign backtracked, stating that it was possible that the two had met at some time. So for that, John McCain was the Worst Person in the World? I think it is fair to say that when a major political figure attends political events, he/she shakes hands with a lot of people that they never see again. The person who shakes hands with the pol will remember the meeting. The pol forgets it.

As a conservative, there are a lot of things about McCain that I don't care for. He is not the person I had hoped would win the nomination. As a presidential candidate, he has to accept the barbs, just as I have pointed out for Sen Clinton. But just to nitpick, I would like to suggest that before Olbermann calls someone like McCain (whose shoes he couldn't shine) the "Worst Person in the World", he might want to accumulate a resume similar to McCain's in the service of his country. I don't need to repeat the senator's military record; it is known to all. On the other hand, Mr Olbermann's military record is not known to all-because he doesn't have one.

Danish Brands List

As a follow-up to my posting on the Danish cartoons a few days ago, I am posting this list of Danish goods from the SIAD in Denmark website.

Let's show our support for the Danish people who stand up to radical Islamic intimidation.

Consumer brands:


Food & Beverages

Danish meat
Carlsberg - beer and softdrinks
Tuborg - beer and softdrinks
Danish Butter Cookies - Remember to check for Country of Origin!
Dancake - Cakes
Danish design

Lego - Toys
Bang & Olufsen - Music systems and televisions
K.I.S.S. - DVD Recorders
Stelton - Danish design
Jacob Jensen - Danish design
Bodum - Danish design
Rosendahl - Danish design
Louis Poulsen - Lightning
Skagen Watches - Danish watches
Danish Furniture Online
Piet Hein - Fritz Hansen furniture
Arne Jacobsen - Fritz Hansen furniture
House Of Denmark - High class furniture
Bo Concept - High class furniture
Pilgrim - Jewlry
DYRBERG/KERN - Jewlry
UGLYDUCKLI - Just some nice stuff
Candy

Toms
Galle & Jessen
Stimorol Chewing Gum
Cigarettes

Prince
Healthcare

Novo Nordisk - Healthcare
Clothes, textile & Shoes

H2O
Jysk - Quilts, pillows, mattresses
Hummel
Ecco
Jaco
Inwear
Matinique
Saga Furs - high quality furs
Culture

VisitDenmark - Danish tourism
Danish film
Danish art
HC Andersen
Roskilde Festival - Super rock festival
Night of Culture - Copenhagen Culture Festival
Legoland - Amusement park
Business-to-business

Danfoss
Grundfoss
Vestas
Novo
Danish Crown
Invest in Denmark
Danisco
Lundbeck

ENJOY!

Hillary's Mistake by the Lake

" Why do I always get the first question? It's not fair!"


I had to watch the 20th debate last night from Cleveland since the week's flap over the Obama flyers sent to Ohio voters and Senator Clinton's angry response foretold a night of fireworks. While it was clear that Hillary had to do something dramatic, I imagine her advisors probably counseled her not to show any real anger at Obama. Even so, she had to be somewhat aggressive toward her opponent, which she was, at times, being testy. In the end, she failed to achieve her objective. If anything, she probably lost a few more points in this debate.

The debate started off with both candidates complaining about the tactics of the other during the past week. Then the subject moved on to Health Care, with both candidates arguing about whose plan was better (Ho hum). Actually the topic dragged on for 16 minutes, certainly longer than the moderators had planned, as each candidate refused to let the other have the last word. Hillary especially tried to filibuster the subject. Here I found myself saying to myself, "Keep talking, Hillary. Keep talking."

Then it was off to NAFTA, where Hillary had to defend herself when it was pointed out that she had spoken out in favor of NAFTA (which had been heralded as one of the Clinton Administration's "greatest accomplishments"). Russert, to his credit, directed hard questions to both candidates.

It was during this discussion that Hillary laid another egg, much like the xerox egg she laid in Houston a few days previous. This time, when given the first question, she pointed out that she was always being asked the first question-then made a wise crack about giving Obama an extra pillow. This complaint, linked with a lame joke, was met by grumbles from the audience-not as negative as the Houston remark, but definitely the low mark for Clinton.

In addition, when pinned down by Russert about her previous campaign promises to increase jobs in the upstate New York area (in the face of subsequent job losses), she blamed it all on you know who-George Bush. Moreover, Hillary was put on record as to the status of the release of her income tax returns and records pertaining to her activities as First Lady. Her response: "All in good time." (I am paraphrasing.)

Obama's low point was when he was asked about the endorsement of the dispicable hate-monger and anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan as well as his pastor, Jeremiah Wright (who, in 1984, had accompanied Farrakhan to Libya to visit Moammar Khadafi). Obama was clearly uncomfortable in dealing with this issue, stuttering around about how he had denounced Farrakhan, but had no control over who the Nation of Islam leader chose to endorse. Hillary had a great chance to nail him on this one when she talked about a similar endorsement she had received and rejected from an extremist. But when Obama conceded that he would happily denounce and reject, he had wiggled off the hook to applause from the audience.

I also think the moderators should have delved deeper-not into Farrakhan, but Jeremiah Wright. Obama has not denounced Wright-he still attends his church. But this man is troubling in himself. If Obama wins the nomination, Pastor Wright will be an issue- and should be.

All in all, I think Hillary came off petulant at times, while Obama generally was very cool and polished (with the exception noted above). In my opinion, Obama has come a long way in his debating performance in the last few months. If there was a victor, it was probably Obama by a slight margin. Too bad for Clinton because she had to win this one by a wide margin.

I also noted that Hillary's good side is not her right side. When she turned to look at Obama (on her left) while he was speaking, from the side, she appeared to be angry, and that might not have been an accurate perception from one moment to another.

Some commentators are saying Hillary played the gender card with her complaint about always being asked questions first. Maybe, but there are others out there who are explicitly making the "sexist" argument. Specifically, I am referring to Kokie Roberts and Didi Myers, the latter a member of the Clinton Administration, both of whom are making the "Hillary as victim of sexism" claim. I don't think that is going to help Mrs Clinton much. I don't think the public is looking for a victim to be our Commander-in-Chief.

Meanwhile, her erstwhile husband, Bill, the Pete Rose or Barry Bonds of politics (whichever you prefer), is running around Ohio, appearing in the back of pick-up trucks telling curious on-lookers why his erstwhile wife should be president.

To sum it all up, I think what will be remembered from this debate will be Hillary Clinton telling us she is ready to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One while complaining that she always gets the first question. Mrs Clinton, with all due respect: If you do get to be president, you will always get the first question.

Support Denmark- Buy Danish

With all that is going on here at home, such as our elections, it is easy to lose sight of what is happening in Europe with their Muslim problems. I have recently linked to a few European sites that are speaking out against Muslim intimidation in their countries (UK, Holland and Denmark). More will be added in the future since I think we and like-minded Europeans should be in contact.

In the case of Denmark, that country is still facing pressure from Islamic quarters over the Danish cartoons that mocked Islam. No, it has not blown over. Countries like Iran, Egypt and Sudan are getting involved diplomatically in the issue. Islamic Radicals are preaching violence against those they deem responsible for the cartoons, be it the cartoonists, the papers that published them or Danes in general. Danish diplomatic missions have been attacked or subject to demonstrations, and, of course, there are calls for Danish imports to be boycotted.

At this time, when Europe's will to resist the Islamists is shaky at best, it is necessary to make it clear that we support those countries when they stand up to the violence and intimidation. Of course, we as individuals are limited in what we can do. We can, of course,push our own government to encourage the Europeans to stand firm.

I would encourage you to check out the European links on my page. (The Danish one is "SIAD in Denmark") There is an Islamic page (apparently from Turkey) that has crashed onto the SIAD page threatening damnation and cyber harrassment to anyone who visits the SIAD page. Isn't that nice?

How about this idea? I think it would be a good idea every time we visit the grocery store to pick up a couple of items from Denmark-you know, Tuborg, Carlsberg, a little Danish cheese? It's the least we can do.

Buy Danish!

The Oscar Meyers- Another New Low for Hollywood

"And this year's Little Oscar for best documentary goes to...."


Each year, I make a vow not to watch the Oscars. The reasons are too numerous to mention. Let's just say that I find it repulsive to watch these self-consumed phonies prancing around for 4 hours congratulating each other for being so wonderful while half of the actresses try to outdo each other as to who can dress the most like Little Egypt.

For my wife, however, it's the TV highlight of the year. So I generally retreat upstairs to read a book or work on the computer. Usually, I have occasion to come down for one reason or another and manage to catch some actor, actress or director making a fool out of himself/herself.

This year is no exception. After sucessfully dodging the first three hours, I had to come down for dinner-just in time to see something that upset me. First, the show made what I thought was a nice gesture by having five soldiers in Iraq make an Oscar presentation by satellite. So far, so good. No sooner than that was finished, the next presentation was for "Best" documentary. Sure enough, that Oscar went to a documentary called, "Taxi to the Dark Side", about an Afghan cab driver taken prisoner by the Americans and taken to Baghram Air Base Prison, where he soon died under mysterious conditions. The film clip showed an American soldier (dressed just like the 5 previous presenters), taking a blindfolded Afghan out of a car and into a prison compound. The theme of the movie is an indictment of US Military interrogation techniques. The director, Alex Gibney, then went on to give us a lecture about Baghram, Guantanemo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, and the overall dark side of the War on Terror, in effect spitting in the faces of the five young soldiers previously shown in Baghdad.

Leave it to Hollywood.

It is obvious that the gesture of having Iraqi-based soldiers present an Oscar was nothing more than a propaganda ploy designed to convince the American public that Hollywood really is patriotic and "supports the troops". Sure they do. How many of these people have ever gone to Iraq or Baghdad to visit the troops? There are a few, to be sure, like Gary Senise, but they are few indeed.

As I write this, I don't even know what transpired in the first three hours of the show. God only knows since it only took 15 minutes for me to witness the above outrage.

I heard today that the ratings for the Oscars is declining every year. Apparently, more and more of the public is getting fed up with the antics of these talented, yet idiotic people.

Ralph Nader Joins Race!!!!!!

"Happy days are here again,
The skies above are blue again,
So let's sing a song of cheer again,
Happy days are here again"