411POLITICS BLOG
Welcome to the 411 Mania Politics Round Table! As per normal, please give your thoughts on both our responses and the questions themselves in the comments section below!
Our Roundtablers are:
Enrique, who has last discussed the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Joe Rivett, who last discussed Sarah Palin / Carrie Prejean and their war with the media
Jason Douglas, who last discussed what place abortion has in the health care debate
Robert Zimmer, who last discussed Sarah Palin and her adventures as a "reality show"
J. D. Dunn, who last discussed how the corruption of the Democratic party equals the corruption in the Republican party
J. Alexander Mitchell, your host.
Here is our topic for today:
This week's questions involve subjects that many would consider, at the very least, sensitive: faith, free speech, and the military. However, the tragedy in Ft. Hood - more importantly, the aftermath of this tragedy - has left many searching for answers about how this sort of attack could occur and what we could have done to prevent it. Where are our lines in the sand on these issues?
'Going Rogue' could just as easily be the title of a TV reality show about a white-trash family who somehow found themselves running for president, because like shows such as 'Keeping Up with The Kardashians,' Palin's book merely offers a simulated version of reality – "truthiness," as Stephen Colbert would say. There is no need for E! (or Fox) to put Palin's show on the air, however, as it already runs on virtually every network. It is not that the Palins are inherently trashy; their private lives are refreshingly normal. The sleaze factor comes from Palin's shamelessness. She has leveraged her naked ambition, and ability to lie with enthusiasm, to whore herself and her family to the media in order to grasp the fleeting mantle of fame and money. The Palins have certainly endured beyond 15 minutes, and will likely endure beyond 15 months. But to what end?
Having discredited herself almost entirely during the 2008 presidential campaign with bizarre, incoherent television interviews displaying her utter lack of preparedness for the vice presidency, Palin cheerfully went on to quit her job as Alaska's governor, claiming she could better do her job by not doing it; she has engaged in a public Jon-and-Kate style spat with her daughter's 19-year-old ex-fiancé, who has now distinguished himself by posing nude in Playgirl magazine; and she endorsed a conservative tea-bagger candidate in the New York special congressional election who went on to lose to a Democrat, handing Republicans a loss in that district for the first time in over 100 years. The Associated Press fact-checked Palin's book and found that it is riddled with falsehoods, like most of Palin's public statements. Failure, clearly, has been no obstacle to Palin's success.
Just as Americans have a peculiar fetish for watching themselves be made fools of on television, America also has a penchant for allowing people to fail upward – just look at George W. Bush. This is true in part because if Americans personally like someone or his/her style, we sometimes overlook their professional incompetence. In some other cases, merely being an insubordinate rogue earns respect or a promotion, as known to anyone who's seen or lived the movie 'Office Space.' And sometimes we simply like people with chutzpah that speaks truth to power, or cuts through bullshit with aplomb. America's love-hate relationship with the Palins evidences all of these factors.
By Enrique on November 18, 2009, at 8:03PM
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder made the controversial announcement that suspected 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal court for his alleged crimes against humanity. Conservative critics of President Barack Obama immediately fretted KSM may get off on a "technicality" and advocated military tribunals as a preferable method for adjudicating the accused terrorists. Trying to have it both ways, the Obama administration will in fact employ military commissions for various other Guantanamo detainees, including accused U.S.S. Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Well, that doesn't seem fair, does it? One clique of accused terrorists gets a civil trial and the other gets Nuremberg – that simply will not do. Former president Bush was properly criticized for holding accused terrorists without due process, and now Obama wants to fix the problem by instituting show trials? As they say on Fark, you're doing it wrong.
Carrie Prejean: You are a very good looking woman. You could make millions just by smiling at a camera and being a trophy for some rich guy. Everyone could have loved you, your implants, your blonde hair dye, your spray tan, and your body. But you ruined it!
Why did you have to take a strong stand against gay marriage? Personally, I think the Q+A segment of a BEAUTY pageant is retarded, but everyone knows that you are supposed to give an answer that satisfies everyone. Now if you are going to come out against gay marriage on biblical terms, it would help to not have a tape of you masturbating. It would help not to have implants and stand on a stage so that men can jerk off to you because lust is one of the seven deadly sins.
If you had the pleasure of watching Larry King, she practically stormed off his show when he had the audacity to ask why she settled with the beauty pageant. Who knew Larry asked such tough questions. Then she couldn't handle a phone call from a gay caller. I think we all know why you settled because of the sex tape, but you could at least take calls, after all aren't you an author?
Carrie, you complained on Larry King that conservative women get rough treatment from the liberal media. The reason why is because most of you "conservative women" aren't really conservative in your personal lives and the media likes to point out hypocrites.
Speaking of hypocrites, did anyone check out the story that the Republican National Committee's health care plan paid for ELECTIVE ABORTIONS? Please try to take away my wife's reproductive rights but go ahead and let your daughters have as many as they want. I also read that Newt Gingrich's PAC offered abortion coverage in its health plan; this coming from a conservative Christian that is on his third marriage. I have nothing against Christianity, just those who proclaim to be on a high moral ground.
Sarah Palin: Speaking of hot women that talk too much who also happen to be former beauty queens… Let me start off by saying that I actually feel bad for you. It doesn't take an idiot to see that John McCain had no business putting you in the spotlight, even GW figured that one out. But you sound like the victim when you place a lot of blame on Katie Couric and McCain's staff. Asking you what periodicals you read for your news is not a "gotcha" question. Quite frankly, the McCain staff did the best they could with you. If being a Republican is defined by personal responsibility then why don't you take some? Instead of blaming the liberal media like your buddy Prejean, take a look in the mirror and to make writing columns easier for me run for president in 2012!
I recently wrote about a piece of legislation in Oklahoma that looked to gain a foothold in eroding abortion rights. My ultimate conclusion was that it is wrong for politicians to seek to undermine laws they personally disagree with. Enter the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. It can be read at http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr3962/111_part3_hr3962.pdf and is only four pages long. To understand this amendment, we must first understand its 1976 predecessor, the Hyde Amendment. According to Wikipedia, the Hyde Amendment bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions through funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services. So long story short, it prevents an annual budgetary showdown by banning abortion from being funded by the most likely source. If any separate spending bill were passed that included federal funding for abortions, the Hyde Amendment would not prevent it. So if you hear someone say "a ban on federal funding for abortions already exists", they are at least partly mistaken.
EDIT: In the time between the creation of this article and the posting of this article, Washington State has passed by referendum the "Everything But Marriage Law" (Referendum 71) which greatly expands the rights of domestic partnerships. As noted in the article, it does not all for full-fledged gay marriage, though, on a cursory glance, there does not appear to be any differences in rights from a state perspective. Thanks to 411 Commenter John for noting the oversight! Also, apologies to Jake G., whose responses were eaten by my e-mail. His thoughts have been added.
Welcome back to the 411 Mania Politics Round Table! We've got a new topic for the week, with a streamlined set of questions based on your feedback. As always, we thrive on the thoughts and opinions of our readers so PLEASE, continue to let us know what you think of our answers and the questions themselves. We love to know what you feel, even if you disagree with us vehemently on cap and trade (yes, that is a subtle wink to a particular commenter that loves to bring up my thoughts on that issue).
Here's our controversy for today:
The state of Maine became the latest state to place the legalization of same sex marriage to a public referendum. It also became the latest state to outlaw same sex marriage as a result of a public referendum. Whereas it is not as much of a "hot button" issue as it has been in the past, a definite pattern has emerged: if the debate over same sex marriage becomes a function of a popular vote, the legalization of same sex marriages will lose. Why is this the case?
Joining us in today's panel are:
Our panelists include:
Enrique, who has last discussed whether or not prosecutors should have to worry about being sued when they falsify evidence
Robert Zimmer, who last discussed the role that President Obama should play in pushing a public option
Jason Douglas, who last discussed whether the promises of a "new" Washington DC were even a possibility
Jake G., who last discussed conservative attacks on Sesame Street
J. D. Dunn, who last discussed how the corruption of the Democratic party equals the corruption in the Republican party
J. Alexander Mitchell, your host.
Let's get it on!
By Enrique on November 11, 2009, at 8:05PM
As usual, it's a dark time for the empire. The U.S. unemployment rate stands at 10.2%. A crazed military psychiatrist (allegedly) murdered 13 people at Fort Hood because God told him to. The House of Representatives have passed a health care reform bill that gives the federal government even greater control over Americans' medical decisions. The voters of New Jersey have elected a Republican governor. Everything is seemingly spinning out of control.
In all the excitement, it was easy to miss out on a terribly interesting case that was argued before the Supreme Court last week. In Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, the Court was tasked with the question of preserving a legal privilege created by activist judges that has no basis in the U.S. Constitution. Based on the oral arguments, you may be surprised which justices appear to favor judicial activism.
By Jake G. on November 9, 2009, at 5:04AM
It's been a while since I wrote but something historic happened this week that I just knew I had to speak about. It's something that's been decades in the making. It's a landmark for our country and it no doubt has affected every person born in this country in the last forty years... That landmark epic event was healthcare reform, Sesame Street. That's right folks, Big Bird and company turned 40 this past week. I can say with a certain safety that every child in America has been exposed to Sesame Street on some level and obviously nobody has anything bad to say about a learning institution such as Sesame Street. Really when you think about it there are only a few things left in this country that we can all relate to, feel proud about and enjoy no matter our race or political affiliation and Sesame Street has to be high on that list.
Wait, this just in... Conservative Republicans have declared WAR on Sesame Street. You see while some think the Republican party may be falling apart and others have even speculated it has embraced the lunatic fringe, it's high time we recognize that at least the GOP base still has it's priorities straight: Burt, Ernie and Elmo are promoting an evil liberal agenda.
At least that's what Conversative Bloggers at Big Hollywood have said. What could make you a bigger tent party than taking shots at the Muppets? The brouhaha all got stirred up after a two year old episode of Sesame Street aired in reruns recently and featured a segment where Oscar the Grouch was doing a report on his garbage news GNN and apparently one of his fellow Muppet viewers was upset with the content and said, "From now on, I'm watching Pox News. Now there's a trashy news show!"
Our 411 Politics Roundtable experiment continues! We will change things up a bit this week by having you, the reader, give your thoughts and respond to the thoughts of others! We will have slightly fewer questions this week based on the feedback given last week. Simply tell us your thoughts in the comments, and let everyone know what you think of the thoughts of others. Here is our subject for this week:
An interesting drama playied out in the New York congressional race this week. The Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava - who was chosen by party leaders - was forced to leave the race for the New York 23rd District after falling behind both her Democratic opponent as well as her third party opponent, Doug Hoffman of the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party felt that Mrs. Scozzafava was too liberal, particularly in regards to social issues such as abortion. Ultimately, the Democrat, Bill Owens, won.
Meanwhile, in a Florida 2010 Congressional race, Governor Charlie Crist received the endorsement of former Presidential candidate John McCain, while his former running mate Sarah Palin is expected to endorse the more-conservative Marc Rubio.
Finally, as climate change legislation begins makings its rounds through Senate sub-committees, the Republican members of the committee have begun their own form of filibuster - actively boycotting the sub-committee hearings with the knowledge that at least two of them will be needed to get the legislation out of sub-committee unless the Democrats invoked special exception rules. These exception rules have been dubbed a "nuclear option" in much the same way that reconciliation has been dubbed a "nuclear option" to get past a Senate filibuster of health care reform. Ultimately, the Democrats moved forward with the legislation without any Republican input.
Do these events mark a new direction for the Republican party, or are they merely the result of the minority party doing what it can to have as much influence as possible to push legislation that they feel is best for the country? Let's discuss...
"It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing." That is what Michelle Bachman stated at the "Kill the Bill" rally. If Obama was really a Marxist, she would be dead for saying that. One could interpret that as inciting a riot or treason. I just think she's nuts. The problem is that John Boehner and other Republican leaders joined her on stage. You can say the Left has nutjobs too, but you'll never see Harry Reid joining Dennis Kucinich at a rally. And that my friends is the problem with the Republican Party… the leadership has embraced the nutjobs.
Virginia Foxx said that the health care bill was more fearsome than terrorism. TERRORISM! Screw Joe McCarthy, have you no decency ma'am? Again, I expect there to be nutjobs on the Right but Eric Cantor shouldn't be anywhere near her and THEY WERE ALL THERE!
One can vote Democrat and say they don't have the same values as Pelosi because there are all sorts of Democrats with many positions. However, where are the moderate Republicans? They are gone. And so if I were to vote Republican, I would be endorsing a Party that has not punished a woman for stating that I should fear health care bills more than terrorism. What the hell does Foxx know about terrorism? As a New Yorker, you are not going to get my support making stupid comments like that.
Arianna Huffington wrote an article this week titled The Audacity of Winning Vs the Timidity of Governing (here's the link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-one-year-later-the_b_343209.html). It was inspired by David Plouffe's new book about the Obama campaign, and she asked a key question: what would Candidate Obama think of President Obama? It cuts to the heart of an issue I've been debating with myself all year: Was Obama a wolf in sheep's clothing, or upon arriving in Washington was he swallowed up by a system so entrenched that no one can change it? First, for argument's sake we're going to assume that everything Obama campaigned on has majority public approval. Second, this isn't about asking why he hasn't achieved his stated agenda yet. We're talking about intentions and proposed action, not grading results. The "give him time" crowd has a point if the evidence suggests that he's pulling in the right direction and is merely meeting resistance and obstacles which have slowed him down.
There will be much discussion years from now about how Barack Obama fared as the first African American President. His successes and failures will be tied to the economy, the outcomes of wars, and whether he delivered on social changes he promised. These are very complex issues which don't allow cut and dry assessments of his individual performance. Just as you can't appraise a quarterback simply by his team's wins and losses, a President's effectiveness has to be placed in context. In the current context, the sitting President's party has super-majorities in both houses of Congress. He was elected by a populace which greatly disapproved of the previous administration, and was more afraid of staying on the same path than trying something new. Yet despite the stars aligning for Obama to be elected and have just about any idea embraced by the masses, if only because he isn't Bush, his initiative has been sorely lacking. Why?
By Enrique on November 4, 2009, at 7:44PM
As you may be aware, there were a number of exciting odd-year election results earlier this week. The GOP got its first good electoral news since 2004, as Republican Bob McDonnell defeated his Democrat opponent Creigh Deeds to succeed outgoing Dem Gov. Tim Kaine in Virginia. (Fun fact: Virginia limits its governor to one term. Talk about laboratory of democracy.) More surprisingly, in Democrat stronghold New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie defeated the incumbent governor John Corzine. Corzine had a lot of things going against him, including salacious allegations of endemic corruption among public officials in the Garden State.
Despite his seemingly endless shortcomings, one wonders if any conclusion can be drawn about the effectiveness of Corzine's homestretch strategy of running against Christie's apparent obesity. Corzine certainly isn't the first politician to play the fat card, but it raises questions about fairness and simple decency. In a country where about one fifth of the population is considered obese, is it appropriate to make an issue of a political candidate's raw tonnage?
Recently I had to get my car inspected. I was surprised to find out that my 95,000 mile car did not require anything. However, while it was there I decided to change the oil, coolant, and transmission fluid. Not surprisingly, while GEICO may have saved me more than 15%, it didn't cover my maintenance. Shit!
Yeah I had to pay cash. But it was okay because I saved money assuming I was going to need new tires and/or brakes. Even if I did need these items, GEICO would not have covered anything. In fact, the only thing it will cover is collision and liability. You know, it covers the areas that I may not be able to afford if shit hits the fan.
So my question is: Why can't my health insurance be like this? Does my health insurance need to cover my yearly physical? Does my health insurance need to be billed when I spend five minutes with my doctor for a stuffy nose and she tells me what I already know that I have a sinus infection. Does my health insurance need to cover the antibiotics? I know my car insurance doesn't cover synthetic oil.
&KFor the past two election cycles, we've seen the excision of the most cancerously corrupt Republicans from the right side of the aisle. Gone is Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who resigned in shame after admitting to accepting bribes from Athena Innovative Solutions. Gone is Mark Foley, who admitted to "inappropriate relations" with his young, male staffers. Gone is former House Whip Tom Delay, whose rap sheet is long and still pending (and just wait until his potential cellmates see his Dancing With the Stars footage). Gone is Bob Ney, who pled guilty of conspiring to defraud the government in the Jack Abramoff scandal.
One would think that, with all of these corrupt parasites gone from our government (and this is just the tip of the iceberg), the newly empowered Democrats would at least give it a few cycles before following the siren song of malfeasance.
One would think that, but one would be wrong.
Welcome to what will hopefully be the first of many roundtable discussions among the 411 Mania Politics writers. Our first subject has taken full center stage in the last week given Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi's announcement of the House of Representatives health care reform bill, The Affordable Health Care Act, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's retreat from a robust public option in the Senate health care reform bill. Both bills include, on some level, a version of the highly controversial "public option", an attempt to stimulate competition in the insurance industry via a government sponsored insurance plan; it is this public option which is the source of today's discussion.
Our panelists include:
One disclaimer: This is a "trial run" for this iteration of the Round Table in this zone, so please do not hesitate to leave any comments or thoughts on the idea, formatting, etc..
With that said, let's get it on!
It's been a long time since I set foot over here, but I've always believed that you should only open your mouth if you have something of importance to say. Failing that, sometimes you need a chance to clarify something you previously said. My news column in the Wrestling Zone this week falls into that category. Recent events have caused political matters to be topics of discussion for wrestling writers, and since I'm well-studied in both wrestling & politics, I can get going on quite the rant when the situation merits. Sometimes people get really unhappy when I do that, but I feel that if I explain my statement in Wednesday's column in greater detail, it will be more easily understood.
Allow me to set the stage for those of you who might not read about the pro wrestling…former WWE CEO Linda McMahon is running for one of Connecticut's seats in the U.S. Senate. The election is to be held next year, but the fallout of her decision is already being felt on the WWE product. In an attempt to not reflect badly on their former CEO and hurt her chances for election, WWE has made several changes to their television presentation. The one change that has most dramatically altered their wrestling matches and has generated the most discussion amongst wrestling fans has been their forbidding their wrestlers to bleed during their matches.
Now, I can get behind the idea that grown men cutting themselves on the forehead with a razorblade is something that should be phased out of professional wrestling. WWE has taken it to extreme levels though…on Sunday's Bragging Rights pay-per-view telecast, John Cena was busted open during a match with Randy Orton. Knowing Cena to be one of WWE's most reliable people in and out of the ring, I can say that it didn't happen on purpose. Vince McMahon sent people down to ringside to rub Vaseline on the cut so nobody could get offended by the blood and use it against Linda in her campaign. Yes, that was actually the reason. So several minutes later, Randy Orton decided that he wanted to incinerate John Cena with pyrotechnics. It didn't happen, but the intent was there. Now, I could be completely insane on this point, but wouldn't somebody getting blown up with explosives be a lot more offensive than somebody getting cut open?
By Enrique on October 28, 2009, at 9:16PM
Violence continues to escalate in Afghanistan, as President Barack Obama reviews the unattractive options involved in managing the War Everyone Used to Love™ (myself included). Meanwhile, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that government-subsidized health insurance is still on the table. The American employment market remains stagnant. At any moment, Nancy Pelosi could start making a fuss. It's a dark time for the empire.
So let's forget all that and turn now to the vexing question – is Obama's White House too much of a boy's club? But more importantly – why won't girls just let boys have our fun?
To begin this article, I want to state clearly that I am writing specifically about Oklahoma House Bill 1595 and its implications, not the larger subject of abortion in general. I can't kid myself; some people will jump at any opportunity to sound off on abortion rights as a whole. I will just say one thing about that. Over several articles, I've communicated many ideas, some of which are highly debatable and stir strong emotions. Because my give and take with those making comments has been respectful and civilized, they have been receptive to my ideas, even when I couldn't persuade them. Whatever you have to say, check the personal attacks at the door, or you're just wasting keystrokes.
Oklahoma HB 1595 can be read in pdf format at http://www.sos.state.ok.us/documents/Legislation/52nd/2009/1R/HB/1595.pdf if you like. It's not that long at thirty pages, and is written in plain English, so it's at least worth skimming. It has been passed into law but its enactment is currently stalled by a legal challenge. The main points of the bill are stated as banning abortions which are "solely on account of the sex of the unborn child", and to set up information gathering on abortions. There are other implications but for the sake of keeping this shorter than a Harry Potter book I'm focusing on the main points. If anyone thinks I've glossed over something important in the bill I encourage you to expound in the comments section.
First, it should be noted that the federally-funded Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the CDC, in Atlanta already has collected state-by-state abortion data since 1969, which is available online. Oklahoma state Rep. Dan Sullivan, a Tulsa Republican and co-author of House Bill 1595, said that the law is intended "to find out why people are seeking abortions and see if there is something we can do as a state to have a positive impact." So while on the surface it appears this law advocates redundant information gathering, its sponsors assert that the more specific data they seek will presumably lead to legislation which could lower demand for abortions. Let's turn our focus to the information being sought via a form which the law would require be filled out and submitted for every abortion performed. This list of 37 questions must either be filled out by the woman or verbally asked and checked off by her doctor. The list does not require divulging the patient's name, but asks for info which put together could be used to identify women in rural areas through process of elimination. It could also potentially lead to women being misidentified by nosy neighbors as having gotten abortions. The age of the woman, marital status, years of education, number of previous pregnancies and their outcomes, etc. are all required to be given. Many of the questions are of a nature that a reasonable person could see as keeping with Rep. Sullivan's stated purpose. But then comes the very lengthy section for question 15: Reason given for abortion.
The reports are conflicting, but the word from Washington seems to indicate an unusual situation. While health care reform inches tantalizingly close to the finish line, an unexpected split has developed between the White House and Congressional Democrats regarding the fate of the public option. Regarded over the summer as dead on arrival, the public option has come roaring back to life, with Democrats in both houses of Congress falling in line to support the controversial provision that nonetheless enjoys the support of upwards of 60% of Americans. However, as Congress has tacked leftward on the issue, President Obama seems reticent and reportedly prefers the so-called "trigger" advocated by Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), the lone Republican thus far to support the Democratic effort to reform health care.
According to Politico magazine, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told her caucus "we're on the five yard line – let's not fumble the ball." Buoyed by cost estimates from the Congressional Budget Office that indicate inclusion of a public option would lower overall costs of the House version of the health care reform bill, Pelosi has elected to advocate inclusion of a robust public option with reimbursement rates tied either to Medicare plus five percent, or rates negotiated by doctors and hospitals. There is no question that the House bill will include a public option. In the Senate, the relatively cautious Majority Leader Harry Reid finds himself to the left of President Obama, with Reid leaning towards a bill including a public option, but with an "opt-out" provision that would allow individual states to elect not to participate in the program if they can substitute an alternative that would guarantee comparable access to care for those lacking insurance, such as by means of a state-level insurance cooperative.
According to several reports, Obama seemed cool to the opt-out idea at a White House meeting last week and appeared to favor Senator Snowe's trigger concept, in which the public option would not be implemented unless the health insurance industry failed to meet coverage and affordability benchmarks set by the legislation. (Unsurprisingly, the insurance industry favors the trigger idea.) Obama appears to be concerned about the political fallout that may face conservative Democrats facing re-election in 2010 if they vote for reform containing a public option. However, Congressional leaders are grumbling loudly and in the press, with some members remarking off the record that if Obama would simply go out on a limb and publicly commit his support to the public option, it would be enough to lock in wavering Democratic votes. Pelosi likely already has the votes in the House; Obama could help Reid out with moderate Democrats, who are open to the public option but want some political cover from the president.
Obama's insistence on bipartisanship, even in the face of a Republican strategy to block any kind of health reform whatsoever, should now be abandoned.
By Enrique on October 22, 2009, at 12:00AM
Last week, there was a great disturbance in the 24/7 media world when a saucer-shaped balloon that didn't contain a six-year-old boy captured the attention of the poor folks who have nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon than watch breathless news coverage of non-events. Apparently, the balloon launch was a stunt intended to raise the Heene family's profile because they want to be Reality Show Famous. The local sheriff was not amused by the stunt, which called a "hoax," and said he will pursue felony charges against Richard and Mayumi Heene.
The tawdry business of the Heene family has been great fodder for watercooler conversation and talk radio chitchat, and one issue that's come up is whether or not the Heenes are fit parents. While most of us would agree the Heenes are a little idiosyncratic, at this point there is no evidence their children were physically abused. So why are some suggesting the children be taken away from their parents?
