Paycuts For Top TARP Recipients, More On Cameron Todd Willingham, Immigration Debate, And James Arthur Ray Story Gets More Disturbing

Hi everyone. My Internets have not been playing nice tonight, so I think this is going to have to be one of those semi-abbreviated blogs. You may send your complaints to AT&T. Anyway, we're kicking off the broadcast an hour later tonight due to "Latino in America." Sorry CNN, I did not watch. Nothing personal, but this Gleek had other TV programming calling. Besides, it's not like you won't rerun it five billion times.

But enough about that. We've got money to worry about. Yesterday, we did some WTFing over all these company executives still living the high life after taking our tax dollars. Names? Oh, they were named. Now we learn from Ali Velshi (yeah, he's at the wall) that the Obama administration is taking away the toys--or, essentially ordering pay cuts--of executives at the top seven TARP receiving companies. Booyah!!! Of course, Anderson Cooper notes that this isn't actual reform of the financial system...and Ali tells us it doesn't address the underlying problems, sooo...booyah?

Time now to get our politics on with James Carville and Kevin Madden. Kevin thinks the salary slash is good politics, but as a worshiper of the invisible hand, he's not happy. James' basic viewpoint is that they took our money, so now they can take our orders. Then Kevin starts talking about how the government has good intentions, but always screws things up, and how we need to build partnerships. Okay, uh, let's be clear here: Wall Street doesn't even have good intentions. They don't want to be our partner; they want to make money. Period. And that's the problem. Culture of greed.

As an aside, hey, you know that whole conversation we just had here? The one about whether or not the government should control aspects of compensation regarding private companies? Um, haven't we already done this? I mean, seriously. I seem to remember a House bill imposing a 90% tax on bonuses. I guess down the memory hole it went.

Back to the discussion, apparently there's a new meme being floated by the Republicans: Obama is just like Nixon! I'll pause a second while you laugh. So, it seems Congresscritters like Lamar Alexander are implying our prez has an enemies list, which is just so...what is there even to say to that? I think there's a bit of amnesia going on, because not only did the last administration target specific news outlets much more than the Obama camp has gone after Fox News, they also outed a friggin CIA agent for political purposes. But Obama is Nixon.

We're also shown a poll that says more people now disagree with the president on the issues that matter to them. Wow. That might be damning...if it had any meaning whatsoever. Okay, who were the people polled? What issues? How are they interpreting Obama's stand on these issues? And so on and so on. Seriously, if you're going to throw up a poll, can it at least have a tad bit of relevancy?

Transitioning now to a Randi Kaye piece that brings us more info on the Cameron Todd Willingham case. She talked with Gerald Hurst, an arson expert joining the chorus of those saying what occurred was not arson. Actually, he's not just joining--he wrote a memo to Governor Perry regarding his finding before the execution. Perry's office states the report was just an opinion. This story is starting to make me nauseous. The state of Texas most likely killed an innocent man, and the Governor is trying to cover it up.

For the legal low down, we're next joined by Jeffrey Toobin who tells us that the law does not say Perry had to read the memo, or do anything with it really. He and Anderson then talk the politics of the case, but then Toobin moves to the most important point: the huge moral issue. Again, the state of Texas most likely killed an innocent man. Due to the new revelations about junk science, this case could blow the death penalty debate wide open. I'm guessing a lot of these "experts" and officials are going to be digging in their heels for that very reason.

Moving on to a Soledad O'Brien piece on Araceli Torres, an undocumented 26-year-old who was brought into the country illegally by her parents when she was a child. One day her place of employment was raided and officials discovered she had been using a fake ID. She was detained for five months and separated from her daughter, a US citizen. Worse, she faces deportation even though she doesn't know a soul in Mexico. I don't understand why we're wasting our energy on going after people like this woman. If someone was brought over as a child--meaning not their choice--and they've been here almost their whole life, they should get to stay.

I think it's about time for a debate, don't you? In one corner, we have Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio--whip cracker when it comes to illegal immigrants. On the other side, we're got Araceli's attorney, Isabel Garcia. Okay, so I start out clearly rooting for Isabel, but things get weird pretty quick. Joe says he has sympathy for people like Araceli, but then he moves right into the "they're taking our jobs!" meme. This leads Isabel to go off on the economy of Arizona, as well as start talking about how this is like "post slavery" and "black codes." Um, what?

So then Joe starts muttering about a pinata, leading me to think he's being a jerk, and possibly racist. But no! There's video of a pinata in Joe's likeness being beheaded by children (oh, yes) and paraded around. And the kicker? Isabel totally defends this. Even Anderson has to note that if it had been Obama, people would flip out. So...there's that. Not really doing her cause any favors, is she?

Kinda reminds me of that debate a couple years ago with that incredibly annoying immigration rights activist. Any other long time viewers remember that? I simultaneously agreed with her side and wanted to smack her. Even Anderson got so mad he (admittedly quietly) threw down his pen. And you don't see that everyday. The Silver Fox is usually so mellow, it was like his equivalent of "We'll do it live!"

Speaking of live, we transition now to Gary Tuchman who is standing in front of the hotel where James Arthur Ray is holding one of his seminar deals, or whatever he calls them. Trying to make a buck, is what Ray's doing. All the while not talking to officials or the family members of those who died in his sweat lodge. Earlier, Gary talked on the phone with Beverly Bunn, a woman who was there the night the incident occurred. We hear their conversation and the picture she paints is nothing short of horrific: people throwing up, passing out, being chided by Ray for wanting to leave or pointing out the condition of others.

Beverly is CPR trained and states she was prevented by "Dream Teamers" from helping to save lives. If this is remotely true, people need to go to jail. On another note, Team Gary is staying at the same hotel to try to get close to Ray, but security is tight. Not quite tight enough, however, for producer Ismael Estrada, who managed to not only get into the seminar, but also stood up and asked Ray a question. "This is not a press conference," was the guru's reply and Ismael was met with attendee boos until security took him away. So, unfortunately nothing gained there, but still, kinda badass.

The "shot" tonight is office workers getting their Backstreet Boys on. The hook here is that it was all done simultaneously. I love the non participating woman. Anyway, then Anderson has to play the Falcon Heene "Who the hell is Wolf?" clip because, hey, why not? Yeah, we're going to be seeing a lot of that one. Anderson wants to put the phrase on t-shirts. I would totally buy that. Remember those fangirly heart-shaped 360 shirts they used to sell (and maybe still do)? I always wanted them to make some for Blitzer. Because I wanted to buy one. You know, for the hilarity. The show was good. That'll do it.

Boyless Balloon Flight Results In Cable Newsgasm, A Defense Attorney Who Isn't Big On That Whole "Defense" Thing, And NOLA Gets Thrown A Coverage Bone

Hi everyone. Balloon boy lives! Good gravy, this was one wacked-out news day. The story that unfolded in Colorado this afternoon had everything: a sympathetic figure in peril, suspense, mystery, and oh yes, cable news anchors awkwardly trying to fill airtime with little to no information. A complete and total spectacle of a story that some believe was totally blown by the media.

So anyway, in case you've been living under a rock or just awoken from a coma, today the nation became transfixed by a runaway experimental balloon hurtling through the air in Colorado, because we were all led to believe there was a terrified six-year-old boy inside. Turns out? Not so much. Balloon landed sans kid, who was later found safely in his own home--specifically hiding in a box in the attic. So yeah...

Except for the two minutes I turned on CNN to see what the balloon looked like, I followed the whole thing via Twitter. Why? Well, first I have that whole life and job thing. But also because at the time, everyone thought there was a very real chance a six-year-old was going to die, and I wasn't about to watch it all unfold on live television like some morbid voyeur--tape delay or not. Plus Twitter really helps filter out all that previously mentioned anchor awkwardness.

Anyway, in an Erica Hill piece we learn the details of what went down. Like, the kid's name is Falcon Heene, the dad is a storm chaser, and the parents had previously been on the reality show "Wife Swap." You really can't make this stuff up.

Next comes the part where we hear from someone who is somehow tangentially connected to the major players of the story, no matter if they have anything relevant and/or interesting to say or not. Hm, will it be a cousin? Co-worker? Teacher? Neighbor it is! Throw in a balloon expert dude and we're good to go. Meh.

We're shown a clip of the dad in "Wife Swap," I guess, I dunno, because they can, and Anderson tells us what's sad is he actually saw that episode of the show. Ohhh duuuude. The Silver Fox needs a reality show intervention STAT!

Still clip-happy, we next get one from Larry King Live. Wolf Blitzer was filling in for the suspender-ed one and apparently the whole Heene family found time in their very trying day to fame-whore this whole thing out. Speaking of that, when asked why he didn't come out when he heard his parents calling him, young Falcon replies that, "“You said…that…we did this for a show.” Let cable newsgasm part II begin.

Okay, before everyone starts screaming "publicity stunt!" I'd like to remind people that the kid is six. Have you ever spoken with a six-year-old? They say weird things that have no real meaning. That being said, the dad's weird reaction to Wolf's follow up didn't exactly put any suspicions to rest. Also? Hey, Wolf, just because you're filling in for Larry doesn't mean you have to emulate his style. A little more pressing might have been nice. Just sayin'.

Anderson Cooper notes that about 90 percent of the live-bloggers are suspicious of Heene's story, and when he tells this to Tom Foreman, he's all, "reeeally?" Cracked me up for some reason. Tom is here to tell us about costs of the rescue and whatnot, but I'm done with this story. Please Newsgods, do not go wall-to-wall with this crap tomorrow.

Next up, Randi Kaye gives us some info on that Texas execution arson case that 360 has been covering. Then we're joined by Cameron Todd Willingham's defense attorney David Martin and Steve Mills of the "Chicago Tribune." David begins by apologizing for his attire because he was apparently out checking cows or something. Um, okay. The hilarious thing is that there's nothing unusual about what he's wearing, other than a big old cowboy hat, and I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure those are easily removed.

Anyway, there's a whole lot of craziness that goes down here because the defense attorney is a piece of work. First of all, he's convinced Willingham was guilty and completely dismisses all the scientific reports that say the fire wasn't arson. How's he so sure he's right? Because he burned some carpet himself and it looked the same. Man. With defense attorneys like this, who needs a prosecution?

Also, he gives Anderson a schooling regarding the role of defense attorneys, which according to him, is not actually to defend. So hmm. Then he starts bringing up how Willingham allegedly bought people drinks after his kids died. Um, the guy's dickishness was not on trial. Anderson starts to note that, and is shut down by David, but Steve quickly picks the point up. Then David has the gall to be all, "you're way off topic." Wha? Anderson then reiterates that being a jerk does not equal being a murder.

Well, that was a hot mess, wasn't it? You can watch it all here. I think Anderson actually did pretty well with calling out the BS. It's looking more and more like an innocent man was put to death. Sickening.

Transitioning now to Obama in New Orleans. Well, briefly in New Orleans. He only stayed less than four hours, which has resulted in some criticism. We're joined by Candy Crowley live to give us the low down of all that, but this whole segment is basically slanted toward politics and perception. Pretty disappointing. For a show that's all about "keeping them honest," a fact-check on Obama's speech and what's he's actually done kinda seems like a no-brainer.

Of course, who has time for that kind of research when there's an empty balloon to watch for two hours? I'm a little sad to say this given how dedicated they've been to the story in the past, but I've pretty much given up on 360 when it comes to covering New Orleans. I'm not saying they've changed and don't care now. I'm just saying they're no longer doing better coverage than everyone else.

Hey, didja happen to hear that Sanjay Gupta has a new book out? It's called "Cheating Death," and it is time to pimp that bad boy! We get a piece from him about a woman who technically died in icy water, but they were able to bring her back. These kind of stories are both amazing and freaky. Anybody read the book? Anderson was a good little soldier today and even tweeted about it. Kinda sweet.

No "shot" again. It was noted that the arson discussion went over, so I suppose that could be why, but I'm really beginning to wonder. The show was...well, definitely not what I would have liked. I guess I couldn't expect them not to lead with balloon boy though. Hopefully it at least got them some ratings because their October numbers have been...bad. Here's hoping for newsier news tomorrow.

Racist Comments From Don Imus, Raw Politics, And Investigating Arson (Monday's Show)

Hi everyone. I hope you had a nice weekend. What happened to Friday's review, you ask? Uh . . . I forgot. I was going to make up an interesting excuse, but I've got nothing. Anyway, during that show a new segment, "Giving 360", was introduced, so I'll be curious to know if we ever see it again. They tried a similar segment like this before and it seems to have gone gently into that good night. I guess we'll see. Anderson's back from vacation and we begin tonight with a piece from him on the recent racist comments made by MSNBC's Don Imus on his show. What did he say? Well he referred to members of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "some nappy-headed hos" and then he and his producer yukked it up. Lovely. Imus didn't even apologize until two days later and that was surely due to pressure. Of course this isn't the first time Imus has made disgusting comments. Besides the racist comments, he's also partial to the homophobic variety. A real winner, this guy. For its part, NBC/MSNBC has decided to suspend him for two weeks. Wow, accountability. I'm always surprised to see it since it happens so infrequently these days. So now Imus is doing the apology circuit, going on Al Sharpton's radio show and I'm sure if the networks allow it he'll be popping up on Larry King any day now. I'm glad 360 covered this because these kind of things tend to go unnoticed, but this is so not top story material. Didn't Muqtada al Sadr lead mass demonstrations today or something? The Imus thing is just another example of the news making itself the news.

Next up Anderson has an interview with Al Sharpton, who has been leading the charge against Imus. Anderson wonders if a two week suspension is enough and Sharpton clearly thinks not. He believes there needs to be some kind of regulatory standard. Anderson notes Imus apologized, but Sharpton again reinterates that for him it's not specifically about Imus. Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction is brought up and though I'm not a Sharpton fan, he does kind of have a point about there being a standard. This is kind of reminding me of what happened with Dave Lenihan. Dave was a radio talk show host here in St. Louis and was fired for making an accidental racial slur against Condoleezza Rice. What happened was he had actually been praising Rice's qualifications to be NFL commissioner and had meant to say her being an African American would be a "big coup." Unfortunately, he misspoke and instead said "big coon." He was instantaneously horrified and apologized over and over, but 20 minutes later he was fired. Dave also taught at a local college and some of his students confirmed that he was always misspeaking. Initially the St. Louis based NAACP was outraged over his comments, but after having some time to review what really happened, they reversed their decision and supported him in asking for his job back. He never got it. It seems crazy to me that this guy lost his job and Imus, who does this stuff on purpose all the time, is still on the airwaves. Anyway, back in the interview Anderson points out how big politicos are always going on the Imus show and wonders if they should continue to do so. Sharpton doesn't really think so and neither do I. Why would you want to associate yourself with racism?

Moving on to an interview with "Amy Holmes, a conservative analyst and speechwriter for former Senator Bill Frist, and Stephen A. Smith of ESPN and a sportswriter for 'The Philadelphia Inquirer.'" Again Anderson starts by asking if the two week suspension is enough. Stephen strongly feels that it's not and he thinks both Imus and his producer need to be fired, specifically due to the initial response once the pressure began to mount. Anderson wonders if the suspension might just be the corporate overlord's way of pushing the whole thing away until the heat dies down. Amy agrees (as do I) and is surprised it took this long. Then she tries to make this into a broader issue of the degradation of African American women in our culture. I respect that. Well, not the degradation part; the trying to use the comments of one idiot to focus on a broader social problem. Unfortunately, that never seems to work. Remember when Katrina was suppose to make us all really focus on poverty in this country? Yeah, whatever happened to that? Hell, whatever happened to rebuilding after Katrina? Anderson points out the Imus supporters say he's an equal opportunity offender. Amy doesn't think many wrongs make a right. Exactly. Then Anderson asks if Imus got a pass early on because it wasn't until bloggers pushed this into the mainstream media that things started happening. Yeah, what's up with that? Why are bloggers always having to make the media do their jobs? I'm still in awe that it took coalitions of people working their asses off just to get an American newspaper to do a substantial story on the Downing Street Minutes. Pathetic. This Imus thing doesn't even come close in regards to importance, but still. So anyway, turns out Amy is not a fan of Al Sharpton and she wonders why people always run off to his show instead of apologizing to the person that has been offended. Though neither guest or Anderson mention it, Imus did say he wanted to meet with the players-for what it's worth. Anderson then asks what it says about the stations that air Imus if they allow him to go back on the air. You know, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here, but I really hope that part of the reason for this Imus coverage isn't due to the cable wars. After all, MSNBC doesn't come out smelling like roses here.

Next up we have further discussion of the racist bigotry from CNN's own expert on that subject: Glen Beck. Seriously?! How did he even get into regular CNN? They need to build a moat or something. Anderson notes he has his own radio program and asks if he understands how comments like that could happen. Glen says yes and no. No? Dude, you do forms of this crap all the time. Less than two months ago you sexually harrassed one of your guests. Live on the air! Glen seems to think bigotry is Imus' schtick. Anderson then asks the obvious: does that excuse what he said? Um, no. Glen explains that he's doing what he was hired to do and he's making money for his corporate owners. He wonders if Imus gets fired for a "mistake" like this who will be next. Well, hopefully, YOU. And this wasn't just a one time "mistake." Personally Glen finds the comments reprehensible. Good Lord. Does he really not realize he basically does the same thing on his show? Anderson then starts to say that he thinks there are some things black people can say that whites can't, but he catches himself and reforms the question to take out his opinion. Yeah, I caught that. Anyway, Glen says no and gives a nonsensical answer to support his argument. Whatever. Oh and 360, you're seriously going to assault me with Glen Beck AND the horrible sound effect in the same segment? What did I do?

Transitioning now to Joe Johns with some "Raw Politics." First up we learn that NY governor Eliot Spitzer is trying to make his state as relevant as everyone else for super- duper Tuesday. Other Big Apple news includes, "Senator Barack Obama, trying to steal the show, literally, with an appearance on 'Letterman.'" Literally? Did he actually try to take Letterman's show and make it his own? I know, I'm being anal, but hey, words matter. Then we get John McCain still trying to dig himself out of his Iraq hole. Whatever. Finally, we learn that Elizabeth Edwards is a bit freaked by her rabid republican neighbor who likes to chase people off his land with a shotgun. Oh my. Probably want to stay away from that guy. I guess we all have our shady neighbors. I know I do. After this Anderson informs us that 360 is getting a podcast. They're getting so hip! Okay, so they're actually behind NOW on PBS on this, but awww. I'm totally going to download it some day just to say I did. Oh, and I can also then say I used the video part of my video Ipod. Because so far? Not so much.

Transitioning now to a Randi Kaye piece on arson investigations. Apparently they haven't been as accurate as one would hope. Cameron Todd Willingham's three young children died in a fire that he was convicted of setting. But did he? It seems that a lot of fire investigation is based on myths and not science. The Innocence Project referred Willingham's case to scientists for review and they believe he was innocent. Well that totally sucks. Unfortunately even with new evidence Governor Rick Perry still went through with his execution. Gotta love Texas. I know I kind of skimped on the blogging with this story, but this was a good investigation. Oh, and props to 360 for NOT running the forest fire arson story about the woman who planted the matches. I thought I felt that coming up, but yay, it never did. I think that one is ready for retirement. Erica then gives us the Headlines, which include a lot of Iraq stuff. That totally should have lead the top hour. And actually they could have done the whole second hour on the Imus thing, with longer discussions and more perspectives. Instead we get "What is a Christian?" Again. The Shot tonight is world class violinist Joshua Bell playing at a metro station in Washington D.C. Just cuz. Anderson suggests they should try to anchor one day in a subway. You should. I'd watch it. And actually, you did anchor from the subway once. Well, near it anyway. It was when there was a terrorist threat, shortly after Katrina I think because Aaron Brown was still there (aw, Aaron). I have no idea why I remember that. My brain is apparently filled with useless information. The show tonight wasn't too great. It's fine to cover Imus, but not in lieu of important news. C-