Sarah Palin: American Idol?

The other day, Sarah Palin announced that she will be working for Fox News. She said one of the reasons that she is excited about working there is because it is a place "... that so values fair and balanced news." As an opinion columnist, nobody expects me to be "fair and balanced," but news shows were once. But she actually called today's Fox News "fair and balanced?" Obviously, the people at Fox may represent the conservative, right wing viewpoint if they want just as MSNBC presents the left wing, liberal viewpoint. But I certainly wouldn't call either of them "fair and balanced." That would be as silly as saying, "I can see Russia from my house."

Like many people, I couldn't resist watching her debut on the "The O'Reilly Factor." I gave into the "must look at a car accident" impulse. Some of her rambling sentences seemed longer than her job as Alaska's governor. There should have been a button to push to get a simultaneous English translation. She made up words like, "uncomfortableness." But everybody makes little mistakes when they're on TV, so let's not linger on her lack of elementary school grammar. When it came to discussing facts, she seemed to obfuscate the issue (Sarah, if you're reading this, don't be embarrassed to look up "obfuscate"). However, it was clear that she implied that except for her, everyone who was involved in her campaign is lying now. It would be nice to see her take responsibility for something. After all, the buck elk stops with her.

In the past, several people have used television to help make them stronger political candidates. Ronald Reagan is a good example. However, I remember seeing Ronald Reagan on television, and you, Madame, are no Ronald Reagan.

The Fox announcement said that Palin will appear on several shows, rather than merely being on just one program. This got me thinking. If she has an overall contract with Fox, maybe she'll also appear on shows that aren't news programs. "24" has been a guilty pleasure of mine for years, and it would be perfect for Palin. Its lead character doesn't let liberal, wishy-washy things like personal liberties and Constitutional limitations get in his way. "The Simpsons" might be a match for someone that many people consider a cartoon character. "Fringe" probably has the most appropriate title for the former governor. And to many, she is an "American Idol."

Actually, my speculations might not be all that far-fetched. On the same day that Fox announced that Palin would be joining them, they announced that Simon Cowell, the acerbic co-host of "American Idol," will be leaving after this season. Coincidence? Maybe. But don't you think she'd be perfect for the show? It would be a great forum for this millionaire celebrity to continue to push her image as a "just folks, regular person like you and me." Can't you just hear her after someone's singing performance? "We don't have an opera house in Wasilla, but that doesn't mean I don't know good singing when I hear it because, like a lot of real Americans, I still sing in our choir, and your voice reminds me of some of the birds we heard when we went hunting last week and saw a bald eagle that's no longer on the liberal, tree hugging endangered species list. You know what should be on the endangered species list? Middle class Americans who work hard, have kids, pay their bills, and don't want the government to be in their lives except when it comes to Medicare, Social Security, and not paying a penny more than a fair price for all the American flags made in China. And I am 100% pro-life except when it comes to killing innocent animals, but we eat therefore we hunt so I don't think this is the right time to raise taxes, especially on a young woman like you who has the chance to be a singing star in the greatest country in the world."

In another amazing coincidence, on the same page of the newspaper that announced Sarah Palin's signing with Fox News, there was an article that said that scientists have now determined that watching too much TV can actually shorten your life. So, if I didn't have a good enough reason to avoid watching Sarah Palin on television before, I do now.

Mr.President, Fire Somebody. Anybody

In response to the Christmas "underpants bomber," an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, "Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot." Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people "an earful?" I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you're taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody.

It doesn't even matter to me which official he fires. I realize that might just be a symbolic act, but maybe we need that kind of symbolism now. Besides, we all know people who've gotten fired for doing far less than almost letting somebody blow up an airplane. Maybe we had a new boss who wanted to "clean house." Maybe there was some kind of misunderstanding. Maybe the job just wasn't right for us. But I doubt that we know anyone other than a government official who let someone on an airplane who had a bomb in his underwear.

When I was flying home from Chicago with my wife and son after Thanksgiving, we were stopped at the security conveyor belt and the screener confiscated something of ours. What was this dangerous item? It was a container of cream cheese. We had bought bagels and cream cheese to eat on the plane. So why did they take it from us? Was it a case of "possession of cream cheese with intent to schmeer?" Apparently it was in a container that they considered a couple of ounces too large. My point is, we couldn't take cream cheese on a plane, but this guy could get through wearing a bomb? And the president's response is just to give his people "an earful?" Fire somebody.

It just feels like a bad case of déjà vu. After 9/11, we were told that security was going to be beefed up, that the safety of the American people was the number one priority of the President, etc. Then we learned that our government had information prior to the 9/11 attacks that could have been used to possibly prevent the attacks. And now, after the almost-tragedy on Christmas, we've learned that governmental departments had enough information that could have -- and should have -- prevented the guy from getting on that plane.

The difference is that this time our president actually admitted that there was a failure in our "intelligence community." I guess that kind of honesty, that "transparency," is progress, but that doesn't make us safer. Maybe firing and replacing some people wouldn't really make us safer, either. But maybe it would.

Based on the past, what we'll probably see are changes at the airport security stations. There may be longer lines. Screeners will probably go through our luggage more thoroughly. They might install those machines that reveal vague images of our bodies to a screener. Maybe there will be something dramatic. It happened after the "shoe bomber." Because of that one guy, everyone had to take off their shoes at the airport, and then the government could point to our shoelessness as proof that they were taking terrorism seriously. I'm sure you can imagine what they might make us take off because of the "underpants bomber."

Obviously, I'm not against better screening at the airport. However, we need to stop terrorists before they get to the airport, before they fill up their shoes or their underwear with explosives. And it's possible for us to do that. The president agrees. He said, "The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered the plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots."

They didn't "connect those dots?" So, fire somebody and get someone who's better at connecting dots. I know that might not improve things, but it has a better chance of being effective than taking away our cream cheese.