Delaying a Decriminalized Death

Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell is currently exploring alternatives that would postpone the execution of convicted serial killer Michael Ross.

She told the Associated Press that her office is actually looking at their options and what's available to them. In a sense, they’re looking for excuses not to kill the guy in order to prevent a death penalty debate.

Forty-Five-year-old Ross is on death row for brutally raping and murdering four young women during the ‘80’s in eastern Connecticut. He confessed to killing eight women total throughout Connecticut and New York.

If Rell is successful in delaying Ross' planned Jan. 26 execution until after the "next" legislative session, state lawmakers will have a chance to eliminate Connecticut's capital punishment law. This would potentially stop what would be the state's first execution since 1960.

Rell, a Republican governor, has said that she supports the death penalty in heinous cases, according to the Associated Press.

So the question is posed: How many young women have to be ruthlessly murdered before it becomes heinous? Obviously in Connecticut, four is too few.

Ross needs to fry, plain and simple.

What other options are there? Let him rot in a prison cell for the rest of his life? Set him up with a lengthy sentence? -- there's an idea -- then he could get out and create more non-heinous cases.

There is no sense in preserving a life that’s ended so many. A person who consciously takes a life, especially in the manner of Ross’s, is not worthy of their own.

"A society that sentences killers to nothing worse than prison -- no matter how depraved the killing or how innocent the victim -- is a society that doesn't *really* think murder is so terrible." -- Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe

The WWB

It’s finally happened: the NBA has joined forces with professional wrestling to form a new multimillion dollar franchise, World Wrestling Basketball.

At least, that’s what appeared to have happened Friday night during the Detroit Pistons and Indiana Pacers game, which took place in Detroit. The Piston’s Ben Wallace shoved Pacer’s forward Ron Artest after Artest fouled Wallace hard under the basket.

After separating Wallace and Artest, a Pistons fan felt it prudent to hurl a cup of beer at Artest, which landed squarely on his chest while Artest was lying on the scoring table trying to stay out of more trouble. In a frightening rage, Artest lurched forward into the crowd attacking who he thought the assailant was. What followed was a no-holds-barred brawl involving players from both teams and fans. Innocent bystanders – including an elderly woman – were shoved to the ground during the unruly riot.

The NBA took swift action against the two clubs, handing out suspensions and bans. Artest was suspended for the entire season, while other brawlers from the Pacers like Stephen Jackson and Jermaine O’Neil were suspended for 30 and 25 games respectively. Wallace was suspended for a meager six games.

“The line is drawn, and my guess is that won’t happen again — certainly not by anybody who wants to be associated with our league,” said David Stern, commissioner of the NBA.

According to MSNBC, Artest will lose approximately $5 million in salary and O’Neal will squander nearly 25 percent of his $14.8 million salary. And for what?

This incident proves one thing: the NBA is full of egotistically selfish dirt bags. The days of respectable role models like Michael Jordan and Larry Bird are history; and the NBA opened the floodgates to such intolerable behavior by allowing players to be drafted before finishing college and high school.

With so many young players still struggling to grow out of their childish adolescent behavior, it was only a matter of time before the pot boiled over.

The NBA took the right step by applying such lengthy suspensions and pay cuts. But something else needs to be done. The league should set up a “no tolerance” policy in which players are forced to follow a specific code of conduct. If a player doesn’t adhere to any part of the code, they should be fined…heavily: put a dent in their wallet and ego.

The fact is that the NBA lacks discipline and is rapidly losing the dignity and respect it once had. These players are supposed to be role models. Instead, they’re uneducated fools. And the fans are no different.

"The liberals live in a dream world."
~Lcpl Lucien Lafreniere Weapons Platoon India Co. 3rd Battalion 6th Marines, Camp Lejune NC

from Afgahnistan.

Safe for another four years

The nation has spoken.

Projections? Exit Polls? They're all meaningless. Why? Because They all indicated a tighter race and a much more divided America. An extreme hatred for President Bush has conjured up a belief that John Kerry, the baby-killing Democratic Presidential hopeful from Massachusetts, had a chance to take the wheel and steer the county in a new direction.

Like it or not liberals, America doesn't want to go in that direction. So much doubt and dismay has been displayed over the re-election of Bush, the clear-cut winner of the 2004 Presidential Election.

Some liberal students on the campus of Central Connecticut State University have grieved over the existence of the electorial college. Perhaps they need a lesson in government procedures before they run their mouths. Not only did Kerry win California, the state with the most electoral votes at 55, but he won all of New England. If anything, the Republicans should be damning the electoral vote since most of California is fiercly conservative. But regardless, Kerry won the most populated areas of the country and it still wasn't enough.

Then the lefties moved to curse the popular vote, which almost saved them with Al Gore in the 2000 election. Too bad, Bush won there too: a piercing 51-percent to Kerry's 48-percent. That's 59,459,765 to 55,949,407. That hurts. If anything, Democrats should be cursing Ralph Nader for stealing 1-percent of the popular vote. Once again, the country has spoken.

The final point brought up by liberals cursing anyone who voted Republican is the unfounded rumor of Bush instituting a draft for people 18-26. This is remedial government 101: Bush can't istitute a draft all by himself. For it to pass, Congress has to draft a law to authorize it. I thought politically active college students are supposed to be up on such processes.

The Senate had two bills which surfaced in January 2003: Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), and House Resolution 163, introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (D-NY). According to Rod Powers's article on drafting at about.com, both bills would require two years of military service for every male and female in the United States, between the ages of 18 and 26. Might I point out the hefty "D" attatched to both the individuals' names?

As recent as October 5th 2004, Resolution 163 resurfaced and was swiftly defeated by a vote of 402 to 2.

Democrats are simply scared and looking for a "you've-doomed-us-all" reason to throw in the faces of Bush-backers. There will be no draft. Democrats: you lost. Get over it and work together with Republicans instead of pouting over unfounded beliefs.

The Fate of a Nation

Let's take a moment to analyze Democratic Presidential hopeful John Kerry and the enduring crusade of the left to oust the one man who's protected our country from those who wish to destroy us.

As a Yale graduate and former Navy Swift Boat Officer during the Vietnam War, John Kerry first entered the American spotlight by testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Kerry asked the committee in regard to the Vietnam War. Kerry became senator of Massachusetts in 1984 and was re-elected in 1990, 1996, and 2002.

With the election nearly five months away, a recent Gallup pole indicated a 47% approval rating for President Bush, while 49% disapprove. Roughly the same percentages can be found in the presidential race, with Kerry slightly ahead of Bush. This information suggests that the popular vote of the country is split down the middle, with a significant amount of voters teetering in the middle.

In a recent Time Magazine article, director of a documentary called "Uncovered: The War on Iraq" Robert Greenwald said the media may play a significant role in the upcoming election. "We've underestimated the audience's desire to see [political] material," said Greenwald, who's documentary criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy. "I don't think it's about hating the President. It's that politics has been brought home to the deepest part of ourselves."

Michael Moore's latest blockbuster documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, hopes to seesaw those wayward voters over to the left. "There's millions of you on the sidelines," explains Moore, "and I'm like the coach saying, 'Come on, bench, get in the game!'" Though Moore's anti-Bush message is clear in the film, even democrat's fear its repercussions.

"It is an exaggerated message from an imperfect messenger," said former John Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan.

In fact, the film features a clip where Senate minority leader Tom Daschle urges other Senators to vote for war in Iraq after his lead.

Slate Columnist Christopher Hitchens called the film "a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery." Hitchens also points out several key points that he feels were deliberately left out of the film: the emerging Afghan army, Afghanistan is now a joint NATO responsibility and therefore under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, it's constructed a new constitution and is preparing against great odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of the ravaged country's refugees have opted to return.

But aside from the facts left in and out of the documentary, more is at stake that has perhaps been purposely overlooked. Though Moore has taken swings at Bush and the democrats in the film, he fails to incorporated the fallacies of the democratic Presidential hopeful. Those viewers overpowered by the film's message and coerced to vote "anyone but Bush" may wish to reconsider.

Larry King recently asked Kerry in a CNN interview if he would want former President Bill Clinton to campaign for him.

"What American would not trade the economy we had in the 1990's, the fact that we were not at war, and young Americans were not deployed?" answered Kerry. Wake up Mr. Kerry. Under the Clinton Administration, our country suffered attacks by Osama bin Laden on our embassy's and the U.S.S Cole. They simply chose not to fight back.

Kerry's speeches reveal his fallacies. He preaches his objection to the deployment of young people, yet he complained not enough troops were sent to Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Democratic savior to President Bush voted for the war in Iraq. It's interesting how voters poised against President Bush will vote for Kerry simply because of the war notion. Bottom line: Kerry voted for the war liberals feel was unrighteous.

Beyond that, Kerry and the rest of the Democrats maintain that our global standing has never been lower and claim our country is more vulnerable than ever before. Let's look at the scoreboard since the 9/11 attacks: The Taliban in Afghanistan was eradicated, Saddam Hussein's Baathist despotism in Iraq was toppled, the nuclear weapons bazaar hosted by Pakistan and Libya has been terminated, and al Qaeda fugitives are captured daily.

As a matter of fact, Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's leading Democrat, made a convincing case for war when he took the floor in an October 2002 speech. "Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East," he stated.

The truth is, John Kerry and the Democratic Party are fooling the American people into thinking the Bush Administration has not only accomplished nothing, but has been counterproductive. In a time where friends and family fight to protect our rights, John Kerry and the left would blind us against the accomplishments of the Bush Administration. Thus the choice should be clear: a President who's stance on issues fluctuates more than al Qaeda operatives on the grid or a President who's dedicated to our safety.

What Nerve! (agents)

This is dedicated to all the bleeding liberals out there who want anyone but Bush in office.

An exploded artillery shell found in Iraq was armed with the sarin nerve agent. According to Reuters, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that initial field tests indicated that the 155mm shell contained the dangerous chemical agent developed by Hitler’s Nazis and used by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds of Halabjah 16 years ago.

The Pentagon reported that two U.S. servicemen were hospitalized in Baghdad for exposure to the agent. As the servicemen attempted to disarm the crude bomb, it was set off. Later it was determined that the chemical agent dispersed by the explosion was the poisonous sarin agent.

The shell has been dated back to the Gulf War, which suggests that Hussein did not destroy all of his weapons. It seems clear that chemical weapons still exist, proving our case for war. However, the liberals will find someway to disprove it and pin the finding of such deadly nerve agents on bogus causes.

Believe it or not, Senator and Democratic Presidential hopeful John Kerry, the liberals’ only hope of dethroning Bush, believes weapons of mass destruction could still exist in Iraq. "Who knows if a month from now, three months from now, you find some weapons?” he commented on April 27. “You may."

One thing is for certain: these chemical weapons exist and are being used on our soldiers. But don’t tell the Democrats, they’re the one’s that don’t want the military vote to count in close elections. Cheers to another four years Mr. Bush.

The Recorder vs. Academic Integrity

Central Connecticut State University's student newspaper, The Recorder, was recently under scrutiny over a slight case of plagiarism in an opinion article. While the paper's Editorial Editor, Carol Davis, addressed the issue adequately in an April 14 editorial, there are still some issues I'd like to address as Editor in Chief.

The author of the article, which appeared in the Feb. 4 issue of our paper, allegedly misattributed a source idea from a website used in research. While the author cited one source used, he mistook an idea from a second source as being said by the first. A CCSU student then brought the piece to the attention of a boss who pointed out the errors, as well as expressed his displeasure over the author's side of the issue.

Professor Vivian Martin of the CCSU Journalism Department said the mistake was common among students, particularly those in their first year of college. In a meeting with Professor Martin, the author, Managing Editor Ed Harris, Sue Sweeny of the Student Activities Leadership Department, and myself, we resolved to educate the author and future new writers in citation techniques as well as what typically constitutes plagiarism.

CCSU Political Science professor Toni Moran requested that an academic misconduct report be filed and sent to campus judicial. She believed that while most clubs wouldn’t be held to the same standard, The Recorder is in the public sphere and thus requires some kind of judicial-decided consequence.

First and foremost, The Recorder is a club, separate from the institution. Academic policies do not apply because of this. We adhere to our own laws and deal with problems internally in a manner that we see fit. Submitting the author's case of slight plagiarism, which was attributed to ignorance, to campus judicial based off academic misconduct is illogical since no course work was involved and a no grade given.

While Professor Moran was generally pleased with Carol Davis's editorial, I believe the issue should be put to rest. The author has dealt with Professor Martin for educational purposes. That's what The Recorder is: a learning experience. How are students, particularly freshman, supposed to learn if they are knocked down by the first blow?

Marriage vs. Civil Union

President Bush endorsed a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between two people of the opposite sex. However, he left open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.

“The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith,” Bush said as reported by cnn.com. A full transcript of Bush’s statements can be found here.

Ron Paul is a congressman representing the 14th district in Texas. He calls marriage “a religious matter, not a government matter.” Law should mirror moral standards, but morality comes from religion, philosophy, societal standards, families, and responsible individuals, according to Paul. “It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions,” he wrote in an article called Gay Marriage Quicksand, which appeared in The New American.

While some may view it as sad, others view it as necessary. And why shouldn’t they? Don’t get me wrong; I have nothing against gay people. I am in no way against gays living together in some form of unifying bond. But to call something that is sexually artificial to begin with “marriage” defies more than just the bond between a man and a woman; it defies the basis of our culture.

Marriage is a religious term for sanctifying and symbolizing the heterosexual union between a man and a woman. To cast aside the religious references is to disrespect the right to freedom of religion. Allowing a gay couple’s union to be called “marriage” infringes on religious freedom.

While we’re disposing of the country’s foundational moral standards, we might as well scrap the rest of the Constitution as well.

The Many Lives of Judd

Central Connecticut State University President Richard Judd was caught by a Hartford Courant reader for plagiarism. An Op/Ed appearing in the March 9 edition of the Courant described Judd's copying of lines from the New York Times, calling them his own words. This piece may be viewed at ctnow.com in the Other Opinion section.

For example, the Op/Ed by John J. Zakarian in the Courant said that Judd wrote the "island has for too long been contorted by tensions between Turkey and Greece." In a Jan. 7, 2003 New York Times editorial, the line "Cyprus, long contorted by tensions between Turkey and Greece ..." appeared.

Steps to pursue this have been taken and the Hartford Courant has apologized for running the article. As a response, Judd has said "I see now that in preparing a speech, which later became the basis for an op-ed in The Hartford Courant, I mistakenly assumed notes I had made were my own and I thus incorporated them without attribution. As an author of many texts and articles, I should have done a better job of vetting my text. I had no intention of using another's words or misleading readers in describing my sense of events in Cyprus," to the Courant.

If the punishment for plagiarism at CCSU can be as high as expulsion, Judd should be treated no different. The CCSU academic handbook states that academic misconduct can result in contacting "the University Judicial Officer regarding additional University disciplinary actions, which may include probation, suspension, or expulsion."

Judd has a growing list of felonies and falsehoods on his record and should therefore resign in order to preserve the integrity of this university and himself. Him staying in office provides the worst example for students to follow.

A news story from CNN.com can be found here. WFSB Channel 3 also covered the controversy.

I was interviewed by the Hartford Courant in this article, which appeared on the March 10 front page.

Haitian Turmoil

A rebellion in Haiti, led by Guy Philippe, has gained international attention from both France and the United States. Philippe claims that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s regime was unjust and corrupt. Philippe boasted roughly 4,000 strong and threatened the governmental foundations of Haiti itself.

The Bush administration sent 50 marines into Haiti’s capital of Port-au-Prince to protect the U.S. Embassy and its staff. This decision came after the Haitian rebels rejected a U.S.-backed resolution because it did NOT involve the ousting of Aristide.

However, Aristide fled to Africa, claiming he was forced to leave by a U.S. coup d’etat. This statement completely contradicts the reason the U.S. entered Haiti, whether one backs the Bush administration or not. The U.S.’s plan did not demand Aristide step down.

Perhaps Aristide should have heeded the recommendation of the French, who suggested a new form of government. He has accused the United States of kidnapping him and forcing him to give up his presidency. Whatever Aristide did was enough for 4,000 people rebel on a little island nation and was in no way the fault of the United States. By the sound of Philippe’s demands, he deserved to be booted to Africa.

Any nation leader that blames a country for their own personal problems should be forcefully removed. Aristide might as well blame the Jews for the holocaust while he's at it.

The Passion of the Christ

The following will be published in the 3/3 issue of The Recorder

With Christian leaders calling Director Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” perhaps “the best outreach opportunity in 2000 years,” it is unfair to rank this film in terms of an entertainment value. To criticize a depiction of the horribly agonizing and redemptive last 12 hours of one of the most revered religious figures in human history seems sacrilegious.

Actor James Caviezel plays Jesus of Nazareth and had to endure seven hours of makeup each day in order to accurately depict the savagery that Christ’s body endured. “I felt this is what we believe in the Roman Catholic faith and in Christianity as a whole,” he told James Brady of “Parade” about the film. “I didn’t do this for the money but because I love my faith.”

The movie is presented in the original languages that the characters would have been speaking during the time, according to the movie’s official website passionofthechrist.com. Jesus, his disciples, and the Jewish characters speak Aramaic while the Romans speak a common dialect of Latin. Hearing the characters speak these languages brings a degree of realism to the screen. The English subtitles are also easy to read.

Gibson hired cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, whose credentials include “The Patriot” and “The Right Stuff”, to recreate the look and textures conveyed in the paintings of Caravaggio. Gibson wished to illustrate the dark and violent, yet spiritual, context of Caravaggio’s art. According to the film’s background information, roughly 40 percent of the movie was filmed indoors to capture the sense of “light fighting its way out of the darkness.”

Gibson said his “intention for this film was to create a lasting work of art and to stimulate serious thought and reflection among diverse audiences of all backgrounds.”

Whether or not the movie blames Jewish leaders for the death of Jesus Christ is irrelevant. The depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion has been told and retold through many venues and mediums; all of which have numbed the portrayal for suitable family viewing. Gibson has depicted exactly what the death of Jesus Christ was: the savage and barbaric persecution of the son of God.

‘Passion’ illustrates a more vivid understanding of Jesus’ suffering. The movie begins with Jesus praying in the Kidron valley garden. He receives an unsettling and eerie visit from Satan, whose appearance can be described as dangerously luring and strangely appealing: sin in its purest form. The entire scene accurately conveys everything from the betrayal of Judas to the cutting off of Malchus’s ear, which was healed by Jesus.

After the high priests present Jesus before Pontius Pilate, who washes his hands of matter, the movie reveals the ruthless and inhuman treatment of an alleged Roman infidel. It highlights the less savory aspects of human history as Jesus was whipped, gouged, and tortured for every one of humankind’s sins. This powerful representation of Christ’s sacrificial torment for humanity was enough to make even the most casual Christian wince with remorse.

Gibson made the suffering of Jesus incredibly life-like, down to the hammered nails in his hands. Once Christ gave up his spirit after shouting the final words from all four Gospel readings, the earth shook and the clouded sky rumbled. After determining Jesus was indeed dead by disrespectfully stabbing his side with a spear, they took him down. Mary, who witnessed the violent and inhumane torture of her own flesh and blood, cradled the son of God in her arms, looking directly at the camera.

Some people left the theatre in tears; but everyone left with a solemn sense of revelation.

Reality Bites

The Following will be published in the 2/25 issue of The Recorder

Reality TV's roots can be traced back to MTV's first season of “The Real World" back in 1992. From there, such shows as "Road Rules" and later CBS's "Survivor" were born, turning the private lives of individuals into primetime human peep shows.

While "Survivor" revolutionized the modern game show, popularizing the concept of reality television, it opened the floodgates of filth. It wasn't long until broadcasting companies like FOX had to trade a few raunchy sitcoms in for completely grotesque unscripted shows centered on the embarrassment of unsuspecting people.

Reality TV has lost its steam; however, in an effort to leave ts mark on the reality TV industry, FOX has morphed its concept into a continuum of lewdness. Its latest creation, "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancé" focuses on a beautiful bride-to-be attempting to convince her unsuspecting parents of her plans to marry an annoying, obnoxious and obese man for a million dollars. To be successful, she must make it through vows at the altar. The six-episode series began airing on Jan. 19.

The fact that a young woman would embarrass herself and her family on public television for a million dollars, and that Americans would watch it, only demonstrates how American society and its concept of decency are de-evolving. Another example of FOX's tread along this line is their new show called "Playing it Straight" which will first air on Mar. 12.

The show breaks the ethical barrier by creating an environment in which a woman must determine who of fourteen bachelors is gay. As FOX puts it, she "must determine which side of the saddle these guys ride on." If the straight guy is the remaining bachelor after the rest are eliminated by the woman, the couple will split a million dollars. If a gay guy remains, he walks away with the entire prize.

The show places its entertainment value on the sexist stereotype that homosexual males are different from heterosexual males. When the FCC argued that Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction defied the laws of decency, where does the public humiliation of homosexual or over-weight individuals fit in? Apparently the lure of money is more important than ethics.

Providence College's newspaper, "The Cowl," made a particularly sad distinction "noting that there were more votes for 'American Idol' than for president in the 2000 election." Reality TV distracts the American public from the more relative and important issues that plague this nation. People would much rather see the exploitation and public humiliation of horrendous talent ridiculed by American Idol's Simon Cowell than choose a political leader who will impact real life. This needs to change before American entertainment becomes comparable to that of the Roman Empire.

However, Americans will remain devoted to their favorite reality TV programs as they witness the degradation of public entertainment. Soon the axes and maces will be brought back into the gladiatorial coliseum while box-office ticket purchases will be for public executions.

The One, True Bush

Controversy seems to brew around politicians, specifically those in the oval office. On the Democratic side, Clinton felt it; and so on the Republican side, President Bush is currently facing it.

In an attempt to derail the Bush Administration, the Democratic Party has demanded that the President come clean on the issue concerning his military record. Bush critics claim that he used his family influence to enlist in the National Guard in order to avoid the Vietnam War draft.

However, the White House unveiled the information. Records released earlier this week indicated that Mr. Bush received credit for nine days of active duty before being honorably discharged to attend Harvard University.


President Bush in the National Guard

“There were some who sought to leave a wrong impression there was something to hide when there is not,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

A group of reporters analyzed the president’s medical exams during his service. The records showed that he was suspended from flying in 1972 for not taking a physical. However, he did not take the physical because none of his duties were to involve flying.

McClellan answered questions pertaining to the President’s National Guard records in a press briefing.

It’s obvious that President Bush served in the military, though not in the typical fashion. Bush was honorably discharged from his duties to further an education that most would claim doesn’t exist.

The President is smart. He was smart enough to convince the American people to elect him in 2000 and the only reason the general public believes otherwise is because this country has a president with the balls to defend us.

Give it time before Kerry has some questionable quality.

Rowland vs. the Crapper

Governor John G. Rowland recently announced that the state of Connecticut is strong. He presented a $14.2 billion budget plan that didn’t contain anything about the ethical trouble he’s in.

“There has been no retreat from our core values and our core beliefs," decreed the Governor. "There has been no retreat from our efforts to make Connecticut better, to make it stronger and to keep looking forward to the future."

If not investigated, Rowland’s notion of the future would have involved further personal gain. The truth is that Rowland served the state a silver plate of political crap in his address this afternoon. “As leaders, we are most effective when we think of our duties in terms of a new generation, not in terms of the next election,” he said. By ‘duties’ he must mean accepting favors and by ‘new generation’ he probably meant to say his new hot tub.

Apparently, Rowland plans on acting as if that whole incident never took place. I consider myself fairly right-wing on the political spectrum and find Rowland’s abuse of his elected authority deplorable as well as an embarrassment to the Republican Party. The fact that he plans on remaining in office is even more insulting.

The people of Connecticut have to let it be known that political corruption is intolerable. It’s getting to the point where government officials should campaign based off their degree of corruption and ethics, not their stance on political issues.

If he had any dignity and respect for the state of Connecticut, Rowland would resign. Nixon resigned when he realized there was no way out of Watergate; but like a stubborn mule, Rowland’s staying in office to keep his honor. His honor, like his policies, went straight down the toilet along with his administration. Ironically, the honorable thing to do would be to resign. Perhaps he should think about that the next time he’s on the john.

A full text of Rowland's 2/4 address can be found at ctnow.com

The Breast Half-Time Show Ever

A half-time extravaganza featuring Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake went awry when Timberlake ripped off the leather cup concealing Jackson's right breast. CBS, MTV, the NFL, and Jackson and Timberlake themselves have publicly apologized for the publicity stunt. The revealing spectacle has attracted the attention of the federal government, who is investigating the show further. Michael Powell, chief of the Federal Communications Commission, promised to find out whether CBS violated decency laws. If this is indeed the case, fines could amount to $27,500 per station, which would mean millions for CBS.

For an alternative perspective, check out the Drudge Report.

Once Jackson finished her dance routine involving Timberlake, it all happened so fast. CBS cut the camera shot quick enough for viewers to question if what they saw was real but not quick enough for the image to escape everyone's memory. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration," said Powell in his statement. "Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt." CBS claimed the action occurred without their explicit consent. Timberlake called the incident a "wardrobe malfunction."

"Hey, man, we love giving you all something to talk about," chuckled Timberlake. On Monday, Jackson offered a statement. "The decision to have a costume reveal at the end of my halftime show performance was made after final rehearsals. MTV was completely unaware of it," she said. "It was not my intention that it go as far as it did. I apologize to anyone offended, including the audience, MTV, CBS and the NFL."

This stunt greatly offended much of the audience, as is the typical reaction with most poorly conceived publicity stunts. The threshold for decency is being tested again. It seems with each appalling image or action seen, society gains a new level of acceptance. From Jackass to the Madonna and Britney Spears kiss, MTV has pushed the envelope on several occasions. CBS has already revoked MTV's status with planning the half-time show in the future.

MTV needs to be confined to cable television. I find their publicity stunts to be corrosive to society's moral decency. The fact that Jackson and Timberlake's incident caused so great a controversy only intensifies the problem. We need to take the word "Publicity" out of "Publicity Stunt. Once our backs are turned on the rich and spoiled and their desperate cries for attention fall on deaf ears, society can progress. Until then, the scum of Hollywood will continue to poorly represent society.

Controversy seems to be running rampant these days. From a steady stream of democratic candidates on a mission to oust President George Bush from the oval office to Connecticut Governor John Rowland accepting illegal favors resulting in the purchase of a personal hot tub, I'll be there to rightfully criticize and in a sense, verbally bash in the name of critical thinking and the semi-right wing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm probably one of the first individuals who deserves criticizing of all kinds. However, there are specific issues on which various sides I will advocate. Long live Web Journalism.