I like knowing way ahead of time who the ‘team is’…

I will give Nader the thumbs up for allowing folks to know who the team is way before 90 days before the election– I actually know very very little about Gonzales.

 

 

Nader/Gonzales > Their plans & focus 

 

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

New John McCain Ad- War Is The Answer

DavisFleetwood has John McCain’s new ad running at his youtube channel and his new blog, Operation Itch.

About Operation Itch:

Launched on July 28, 2008, Operation Itch is part Political Action Committee (imagine if “Moveon.org” was not so intent on kissing the Democratic party’s ass) and part political entertainment (think The Colbert Report). We produce a daily video news/ entertainment program- THE HERMIT WITH DAVIS FLEETWOOD.
Hell yes, the show is biased. The show caters to the majority of Americans. To the majority of us who want things that neither their Democratic or Republican leaders will provide them with, such as-
- A reversal of America’s murderous policy of preemptive war
- Peace in the Middle East
- Bring the troops home/ don’t instigate war with Iran
- A single payer health care system that provides healthcare for all
- A serious commitment to alternative energy
- Impeachment of the world’s leading War criminals: George Bush and Dick Cheney
- A Crackdown on corporate crime
- Open and fair debates
Operation Itch will also collect and distribute news articles and commentary that our audience will be interested in. Check our blog daily.
Operation Itch is viewer supported. We rely on your generous support. There are several ways that you can support us.

…she bumped her head… remember…

http://www.paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=204310

Masharraf linked Benazir’s security to her ties with him

NEW YORK: The US intelligence agencies taped Benazir Bhutto`s phone calls, prior to her arrival in Pakistan, in a bid to “play under-the-table, cut-throat games more effectively”, a new book has revealed.

“The Way of the World” authored by a Pulitzer Prize winning US journalist Ron Suskind, is full of disclosures, with its fair portion about Musharraf-Benazir conversation including Musharraf`s quote “You should understand something, your security is based on the state of our relationship”.

Suskind writes that Benazir Bhutto`s case of returning to Pakistan was strongly backed by Condoleezza Rice-led State Department and equally opposed by Vice President Dick Cheney who considered Bhutto “complicated and unpredictable”.

The book said whenever Benazir Bhutto went harsh on Musharraf, the US ambassador in Islamabad advised her to “tone down any criticism of Musharraf”. The author said Bhutto often regretted that Vice President Cheney never called Musharraf asking him to “behave” and instead kept her pressing for coming to terms with him.

As Musharraf, during telephonic conversations, refused entertaining her demand of revoking provision barring her becoming PM for third time, Bhutto said: “What you can give me (then)? May be some real reform in election commission”.

Musharraf said: “She should not be hoping for much there (reforms), either”. The book revealed US intelligence once intercepted Bhutto`s conversation with her son, Bilawal. “They`ve been listening to her calls for months, including an earlier call she made to her son.”

In that call, the book said, she told him (Bilawal) about the secret bank accounts that hold the family`s fortunes that investigators have long suspected are ill-gotten. Therefore when Bhutto once floated the idea of freezing foreign accounts of “key people around Musharraf”, a US official let her understand that the United States could, if need be, “constrain her assets” just as she was now suggesting they do to Musharraf.

According to the author, Bhutto`s representative started approaching the State Department, in spring 2006 to work out a plan for her return, but White House began taking her seriously after the widespread demonstrations in backdrop sacking of Chief Justice. And this plan was aimed to shore up an embattled Musharraf, a single-issue ally.

Bhutto would consider, the book said, the lawyers and especially Iftikhar Chaudhry were a “problem” and that they owned the “high ground of principle. While she was sprouting democratic rhetoric, the book said, she was caught in the deal room — a position in which she came close to mirroring the “say one thing but do another” behavior of the United States.

The book also discloses details of Bhutto`s meeting with US Senator John Kerry requesting for her security and his reply that “United States is generally hesitant to ensure the protection of anyone who is not a designated leader”.

The notable excerpts from the book related to Pakistan have been given below:

Telephone tapes:

Author said the US National Security Agencies (NSAs) were doing this job. Regarding Bhutto`s conversation with Bilawal, he writes: “The NSA was listening. They`ve been listening to her calls for months, including an earlier call she made to her son, Bilawal. The subject of the secret is often aware that evidence has been collected that may be used to drive judgments and may be even destructive actions…The NSA, meanwhile, has harvested a number of portentous conversation of Benazir Bhutto. This should help the United States play its under the table, cut-throat games more effectively. The intercept will be cited inside the US government as evidence of Bhutto`s unfitness, her corruption. It will be used as part of a wider “carrot and stick” programme in which the United States let Bhutto know they were happy to work with her in setting up a marriage with Musharraf, but they could make her life difficult if she started to improvise and freelance. What they`ll overlook is the context and her tone in the many calls they eavesdrop or overlook the fact that she`s scared and preparing for the possibility of imminent death… Bhutto didn`t know about the NSA’s intercepts, but a US official let her understand that the United States could, if need be, “constrain her assets,” just as she was now suggesting they do to Musharraf.”

Telephonic conversation with Musharraf:

Referring to conversation that took place three weeks before her return when she was meeting US lawmakers at Capitol Hill, including John Kerry, and State Department officials, he writes: “Suddenly the couple (Bhutto-Zardari) turns. One of Bhutto`s aides is rushing towards them, saying he`s just gotten a call from one of Musharraf`s aides. The aide says that Musharraf can`t support Bhutto on a key demand — the repeal of the provision prohibiting a third term for the prime ministers — and he wants to talk to her… Bhutto takes the call from Islamabad. “The twice-elected provision is important to me,” she tells Musharraf. “If you`re retreating from that, what can you give me? May be some real reform in the election commission?” He says she shouldn`t be hoping for much there, either. In their many calls, he`s been surprisingly cordial, often quite reasonable. But something has changed. His voice is harsh, almost mocking her. She asks if the US officials have had conversation with him that makes it clear that her safety is his responsibility. “Yes, someone has called”, Musharraf says, and then laughs. “The Americans can call all they want with their suggestions about you and me, let them call,” he tells her… He finishes the call with a dose of fair warning. “You should understand something,” Pervez Musharraf says, finally to Benazir Bhutto. “Your security is based on the state of our relationship.” She hangs up the phone feeling as though she might be sick.

Regarding Musharraf`s call to Bhutto after assassination attempt on her arrival in Karachi, the author writes: “By the next day, Musharraf calls Bhutto at her estate near Karachi. She accepts his sympathies reluctantly. “I`m not the enemy, Bibi.” She says little. She knows the lines are tapped. It`s a new hand and she is not showing her card.”
Conversation with Senator John Kerry:

As Bhutto met John Kerry in Washington, three weeks before going back to Pakistan, author writes: “The priority of this trip is to get Bhutto the security support she lacks. October 18 is only three weeks away. Kerry is swift off the mark: “This is a volatile situation you`re walking into, Benazir.” The United States, he says, is generally hesitant to ensure the protection of anyone who is not a designated leader, a provision to prevent US forces from becoming embroiled in the internal disputes of sovereign nations. “Senator Kerry, I want Pakistan to provide me with the security I am entitled to under the laws of my country. I`d be grateful if you would talk to the Musharraf government and tell him the US expects he will fulfill those obligations.” Kerry sighs. Of course, he, a senator, can`t conduct unilateral foreign policy. “Well, Benazir, I will certainly talk to the State Department about that point being made to Musharraf,” he says as forcefully as credulity will allow… Her current fortune, however, are in hands of a half-a-dozen people beyond her orbit: a tight circle of policy makers in senior posts at the State Department and in the Vice President`s Office. All official contacts with Pakistan on Bhutto`s behalf must be channeled through this small group, overseen, in essence, by Cheney and Rice, a duo with a long history of internecine combat. Most of it dominated by the vice president.”

Condoleezza Rice Vs. Dick Cheney:

“The initiative to reinsert Bhutto into Pakistan, was, in fact, launched and led by Rice and her State Department. Cheney`s position, expressed to the president on several occasions, was `don`t mess with this,` according to one of his senior foreign policy advisers. `Our feeling,` said Cheney`s adviser, summing up the view of the vice president, “was that arranging this marriage can only backfire on us. Bhutto is complicated and unpredictable. It`s best to just support Musharraf, give him whatever he wants or needs to stay in power.` `Our position,` the advisor added, `is that this whole thing with Bhutto is being run out of state. Let them fly or fall on their own.”

Rice-Bhutto telephone talk:

Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who`s been handling the Bhutto-Musharraf talks, falls ill and needs to be hospitalized. Condi Rice tries to step in. She calls a London hotel where Bhutto is meeting Pakistani supporters. Bhutto does not take the call. “Someone said that Condi Rice was on the phone,” she (Bhutto) said later, I thought they were joking”… She and Bhutto talk several times through a long night and into the next morning, ironing out some sticking points with Musharraf. Bhutto tells her she`s concerned about her security… She`s suspicious that the United States sees her value mostly as a means to shore up Musharraf — rather than as a champion of democratic ideals — and to describe her exchange with the general would show just untenable a couple they would make.

Musharraf`s visa denial to security firm:

Two days before she boards the plane, Bhutto is concerned. Her team has been frantically trying to beef up her security… Mark Siegel and Larry Wallace, Bhutto`s American advisers, have been working the problem with Blackwater. In September, representatives from the firm flew to meet with Bhutto at her home in Dubai and laid out several security plans, each costing about $400,000 per month. They intended to work in conjunction with affiliated firms inside of Pakistan, because Musharraf had blocked visas from being issued to imported Americans security personnel for Bhutto… She turns the firm down. She knows that the United States has accepted Musharraf`s assurance that he had her security under control, but she does not trust him and sends an “in the event of my death” note, identifying various hard-line Islamist officials in his orbit who should be held responsible in the event that she is killed.

• Refused to remove ban on third time prime minister

• Benazir asked for EC reforms but Musharraf said do not hope for much there either

• US talked with Benazir seriously only after protests against sacking of deposed CJ to bail out the president

• US ambassador advised her to tone down criticism of Musharraf

• Dick Cheney declared Benazir a complicated and unpredictable personality and advocated continued support to Musharraf

• US threatened Benazir with constraining her assets when she talked about freezing foreign assets of Musharraf aides

• Benazir did not trust Musharraf and identified her killers in a note

The End.

Earthquake Quiz…

Ever been in an earthquake? Think you know exactly what to do? Not sure? Take the quiz and learn a few things. I did.

link>  http://www.nwcn.com/sharedcontent/features/flash/quake/during.html

The Short List is coming up short–

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4af34942-65a1-11dd-a352-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=729ab242-9cb1-11db-8ec6-0000779e2340.html?nclick_check=1 

Lieberman ‘on McCain short-list’

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington

Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s ­campaign.

Mr Lieberman, who has campaigned for the Arizona senator, has long been ­considered an unconventional but plausible choice for Mr McCain.

Although Democrats have rejected Mr McCain’s image as a maverick politician, Mr Lieberman’s support for the presumptive Republican nominee has, much to the chagrin of his former ­colleagues, helped to boost Mr McCain’s reputation as a bi-partisan legislator with friends on both sides of the aisle. Mr Lieberman, a staunch supporter of Israel, could also help Mr McCain win over Jewish voters.

“[McCain] loves Lieberman. And he is on the [short-]list because Lieberman has never embarrassed anyone, never misspoken. The first rule is, don’t take someone who costs you votes,” said one McCain adviser.

But not everyone would be enthusiastic about Mr Lieberman being added to the ticket. While Mr Lieberman has staunchly defended Mr McCain’s support of the surge, the escalation of US troops in Iraq, and the lawmakers have teamed up on legislative proposals to ­combat global warming, the registered independent is aligned with Democrats on most other issues.

“Conservatives would be pissed as hell – I think you would have a revolt, but sometimes John does what John wants to do,” the McCain adviser said.

Another McCain adviser said that it was unlikely that the Republican candidate would base his decision on “tactical considerations”.

“He can be pragmatic, but on the biggest decisions he tends to favour his instinct for the bigger picture,” the adviser said.

Mr Lieberman’s office declined to comment. But when the senator was asked recently whether he would decline a request by Mr McCain he said: “It’s not going to happen”.

Mr Lieberman has left open the possibility that he would speak at the Republican National Convention, a move that would probably ensure that Democrats would strip him of his chairmanship of the committee on homeland security. Democratic leaders allowed Mr Lieberman to caucus with them in the Senate even after he left the party to become an independent, because it gave the party control of the Senate. ­However, most analysts agree that if, as expected, Democrats win more seats in this year’s election, Mr Lieberman will be forced out of his coveted role on the ­committee.

Speculation surrounding Mr McCain’s short-list of potential nominees has so far focused on Republicans, including Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and his rival for the Republican nomination, Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota, and Rob Portman, the former Ohio ­congressman.

The McCain campaign declined to comment

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

 

 

Ya’ have’ta be kidding me!

We spent HOW much to launch this program??? Ya’ have to be kidding me. Who’s idea was this??? This made about as much sense as a proposed plan my state legislature came up with 8 years ago. They thought if they told drug dealers that they could report their income to the state for taxing  with the ‘promise’ of no disclosesure or reporting to law agencies, that the revenue to the state would be bigger. ANd– what blew that stupid suggestion out of the water is the fact we have no state income tax!! Plus what dealer is going to pay taxes on anything?? geeeeece– stupid, stupid, stupid!

By Spencer S. Hsu and Kari Lydersen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Self-Deportation Has Few Takers

Program Reflects Problems in Immigration Enforcement Efforts, Experts Say

CHARLOTTE — With a fanfare of news conferences and Spanish-language television and newspaper ads, U.S. authorities last week started giving 457,000 illegal immigrants a chance to turn themselves in without the usual threat of arrest and detention.

Three accepted.

The cold reception given to the rollout of the three-week pilot self-deportation program, called Scheduled Departure, presents an apt metaphor for the state of relations between U.S. enforcement officials and immigrant advocates in the year since Congress killed President Bush’s proposed overhaul.

Since lawmakers rejected Bush’s plan to combine tougher enforcement with a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and more guest workers for industry, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have stepped up raids at workplaces, in neighborhoods and in homes. That has triggered a fierce backlash from immigrant advocates, labor and religious leaders, and Hispanic and civil rights groups, who say the Bush administration is coddling employers while brutalizing families and abusing immigrant communities.

Meanwhile, key members of Congress charge that the raids are shifting ICE’s focus away from its stated priority of targeting illegal immigrants with criminal records. And even though its funding has grown, the agency is finding it more difficult to keep up its increasing pace of arrests of such illegal immigrants, having already snared those who are easy to apprehend and encountering limits in detention space.

These problems, immigration experts say, help explain why officials turned to Scheduled Departure — despite little evidence that it will much reduce the nation’s estimated illegal immigrant population of 12 million.

“Perhaps it’s trying to make them [ICE] look more humane,” said Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “It’s not designed to work.”

Scheduled Departure is aimed at illegal immigrants who are living here in violation of deportation orders — people the government calls “fugitive aliens.” Those with no criminal record and who pose no threat to national security or to the community may get as much as 90 days to put their affairs in order, avoid the risk of arrest or jail time, and, in some cases, leave with some family members.

About 457,000 of 570,000 fugitive aliens may qualify, ICE said, although the pilot is set to run only until Aug. 22 in Charlotte, Chicago, Phoenix, San Diego and Santa Ana, Calif.

As Raymond A. Simonse, the ICE Atlanta field office director who oversaw operations in Charlotte last week, put it, “We need to establish the integrity of the immigration system, and this is how we can do it.”

Outside ICE offices in this Sun Belt city, however, the task was easier said than done.

“I don’t think most of the people will take this chance,” said Rafael, a 17-year-old illegal immigrant from Raleigh, N.C., who asked not to give his last name because he was arrested while driving without a license and may face deportation after he turns 18. The young carpet installer said that he came to the United States as an infant and that his girlfriend is expecting the couple’s own baby soon. “I think people like living in this country,” he said.

Nearby, Elisabeth Soto, 54, of Seven Springs, N.C., explained how two decades of lax enforcement have made self-deportation unattractive for illegal immigrants who have set down roots in this country, such as her oldest daughter, 32, whose case was separated from her family’s when she got married.

Soto said her daughter works for pork processor Smithfield Foods, is married to a U.S. citizen and has three children who are citizens by birth. However, she was misled by an adviser to apply for asylum, even though she was not eligible, and now faces deportation after having lived in the United States since 1987.

“We don’t have any family in Mexico. If she goes, where is she going to live? What is she going to do?” asked Soto, a grandmother of seven and an 18-year employee of Butterball.

The nation’s backlog of immigrant fugitives nearly doubled between 2001 and 2006, before dipping to 572,000 mainly because of an administrative effort to reconcile government records of people who had died, left the country or obtained legal status. Each year, ICE estimated in 2004, 40,000 illegal immigrants join the list of fugitives, ignoring orders to leave the country.

In response, Congress has boosted spending on fugitive arrest operations 20-fold since 2003, and the number of apprehensions each year has climbed from 1,900 to about 30,000. However, even though ICE has increased the number of its fugitive enforcement teams from eight to 75, arrests have fallen far short of the goal of 1,000 per team, making it hard for ICE to keep up with the growing backlog.

Critical lawmakers note that ICE’s stated priorities are to first remove fugitives who pose a national security threat, then those with criminal records and then those without criminal records. But deportations of noncriminals grew 91 percent from 2003 to 2007, while those of criminals climbed 16 percent.

ICE agents acknowledge that the pool of criminal fugitives whose court appearances are recent enough to yield good clues about their whereabouts is thinning, making it harder to find fugitives.

Though it has spent more than $1 billion to add detention beds, ICE also faces limits on how many fugitives it can lock up, making initiatives such as Scheduled Departure — that don’t require jail beds — more attractive.

ICE officials say that the program will cost only $100,000 or so — the price of advertisements — and that agents waiting for takers will continue working on other investigations.

They also questioned the motives of enforcement critics who do not urge illegal immigrants to turn themselves in under Scheduled Departure, while criticizing ICE for enforcement raids.

“We are going to find out if people are opposed to methods of enforcement or if they are against any enforcement of the law,” said James T. Hayes Jr., acting director of detention and removal operations for ICE.

Charles Kuck, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, called such rhetoric a public relations ploy. Still, he understands, he said, why ICE is conducting raids that anger people and adopting an ineffective policy such as Scheduled Departure to deflect criticism.

“The administration is so desperate to force Congress to act that it will try anything,” Kuck said.

 

 

B’Man’s Sabbath Watch: Let The Bodies Hit The Floor

From The Comedy Feed:

more about “The Comedy Feed » Jesus Finally Gets …“, posted with vodpod

And

God Is Not A Jerk

Antiseptic: Max and The Marginalized

Max and the band recorded this song yesterday in the van as they travel on their tour. Read and take a listen:

Yesterday was a strange day. John Edwards admitted to having an affair, and as a result all media coverage was focused on him, rather than the fact than the other minor story that the Vice President had ordered a forged document that provided a false link between Iraq and Al Qaeda to further make a case for a war that has killed over 4,000 Americans. But who gives a fuck about that, $400 haircut John Edwards, who isn’t running for anything, but when he was would often appear in photographs with his wife and children, cheated on her!

The song is called “Antiseptic”, because the press is supposed to help kill the germs that can do us a lot of harm. Right now it is an antiseptic bludgeoning an antigen that doesn’t threaten us at all and once again allows the Republican administration to infect with its literally murderous deception. Great job guys.

Since we are on tour, we have to go a little more lo-fi than usual. We recorded two songs without vocal s before we left, and I wrote the lyrics for them and recorded them from the road but we are now in week three of our tour, so I recorded this tune on video in the van an hour or so ago outside our show in hot, hot Tulsa, OK. Enjoy, and please pass around:

Antiseptic

All in a day, the ricochet
Of salacious scandal pushes the sanguine out of the way
For overgrown boys, and corresponding girls
My hands wring out of sync with the hands of the rest of the world

So, Antiseptic, won’t you wash away the dirt?
The stuff that kills, not the stuff that hurts
We’ll take care of the rest if we need to
Antiseptic, while they’re selling out the dead
You’re curing colds while cancer spreads
Somehow never there when we need you

All in an hour, misuse of power
Will not encode within the waves that beam from the tower
The map to death’s door, oh that was forged
All might be fair in love but I’m afraid it’s not in war

Antiseptic, won’t you wash away the dirt?
The stuff that kills, not the stuff that hurts
We’ll take care of the rest if we need to
Antiseptic, while they’re selling out the dead
You’re curing colds while cancer spreads
Somehow never there when we need you

Antiseptic, won’t you wash away the dirt the stuff that kills not the stuff that hurts
We’ll take care of that when we get there
Antiseptic, common decency demands
That you focus on the injustice at hand, ’cause every story is leading us nowhere

Rage against the machine– Sunday’s Rant

Acutely aware of the current state of the MSM and what passes for news these days, I decided to tune-in to CNN tonight – and I wasn’t disappointed. The fully-expected wallow-in-the-mud pig-fest was underway, and it was – and continues to be – of mammoth proportions.

Yes, indeedy, the media is all over the Edwards story – because this is big news, and the people have a right to know.

Of course, the naïve approach would be to say there are all kinds of things we people have a right to know. But apparently the network news outlets, what with their legendary journalistic integrity and all, can’t be expected to waste their time investigating trivial fare when the story of a man sleeping with a woman not his wife might break any second. And apparently, it has.

“I understand there was a secret meeting between Edwards and his mistress in a hotel.” Hey, you want to talk about secret meetings? How about the one between Cheney and his oil buddies at the White House? Funny, I don’t remember any probing questions about that event. Maybe if the vice president had screwed a young and fecund assistant or two on the boardroom table in the midst of those “secret” discussions, that story might have been deemed important enough to make the bottom-screen crawl.

“We’ve been told that money changed hands.” Oh.My.God. Really? Was it anywhere near as much money as Chalabi got from this Administration? Was it even close to the amount of cash that “went missing” in Iraq? THAT wasn’t even John Edwards’ campaign money – that was US taxpayers’ money. Any details on that story – yet? Or are you still verifying the details?

“He betrayed the trust of the voters by lying about his affair.” Well, put away the tar and feathers and throw a noose over the sturdiest oak, ‘cause this is a hangin’ offence. A man who would lie to his fellow citizens – well, I can’t imagine anything worse. Except maybe a president lying his country into war – maybe even forging documents, or planning faked “incidents” that might lead to war under totally false pretences – whoa, now that would really be something. And no doubt you MSM guys would be right on top of it if something like that happened. Thank God it never has.

Really, it’s understandable that networks like CNN would jump all over a juicy scandal involving a politician and a sexual liaison. Poor John McCain has had his sorry old ass hauled over the coals continually for months now: “Ambitious politician dumps disfigured wife to wed young heiress.” I realize the man is a candidate for the presidency – but will the focus on that story never die?

In the same vein, will the MSM ever get off Gingrich’s back – or Vitter’s, or Foley’s, or Larry Craig’s?

Well, I, for one, am willing to cut CNN and the rest of the TV news media some slack. I can appreciate how zeroing-in on a gossipy little trifle like the Edwards affair can take the edge off the day-in/day-out drudgery of covering the stories the media has been focused on for years now: stolen elections and vote fraud, illegal wiretapping, torture, secret US detention sites, no-bid Halliburton contracts, Blackwater, abuse of executive power, the shredding of the Constitution, the mistreatment of veterans, the sixteen words, cherry-picked and misleading intelligence, ties between the White House and lobbyists, the politicalization of the Justice Department, inept appointees to powerful positions in the DHS, FEMA and FDA, tax subsidies to the oil industry amid record profits, the outing of a covert CIA operative – the list of what the news media has been on top of is truly endless.

So why should it be so surprising that when a “news” story of no consequence – one that titillates but has no impact on the economy, the war in Iraq, the healthcare crisis, or the outsourcing of American jobs – comes along, our ever-vigilant news media isn’t expected to take a break from the serious news they’re famous for and just let it all hang out?

In closing, I would be remiss if I didn’t send out much-deserved kudos to the media types who keep bringing up Elizabeth Edwards in all of this, by reminding the audience that she is battling cancer. It’s always a nice touch to wring your hands on-air and tearfully point to a woman’s personal health tragedy – just before launching into yet another hour-long segment of dragging her husband, her children, and herself through the news cycle mud.

Well done, media. I would have been shocked had you handled this earth-shattering news in any other way.

Let’s hope a pretty blonde teenager doesn’t go missing between now and Monday – it could seriously ruin a truly memorable weekend of American TV journalism at its finest.