Twice last week and once just before that the nation's top news stories included the death penalty.

However, there came no (or at least little, for I didn't catch it) discussion on merits of death penalty.

These stories do not include the recent execution in Ohio of the man who raped a baby after a drunken night out, killing the baby in a horrific manner. That story was really a statewide story but it did cross the wires in Michigan and perhaps made it to sites like the Huffington Post. The man's own daughter still believed her father didn't do it or didn't mean to do it.

Last month, the bombings and terrorism in Boston prompted talk about the captured bomber receiving the death penalty, though more were interested in whether it was right to give him access to a lawyer and a reminder of the right to remain silent.

But the immediate news items with execution as a possibility included, of course, Jodi Arias, the darling bitch of cable news. Unlike Casey Anthony, she was found guilty and thus thoroughly reviled and unable to disappear. She reportedly said she preferred the death penalty instead of life in prison, prompting cable and social media debates about whether she was trying to use reverse psychology or deserved life to make her suffer more. The hatred, seemingly worse for her among many women than that sent to the Boston Marathon bombers but at least lasting longer in twitter trends, is interesting because all she did was kill a boyfriend.

"All she did," of course, is tongue in cheek in that domestic violence and killing a partner, though all too common, is a horrible act. I'm not against the death penalty, generally, but if domestic violence cases include it, we will be putting a whole lot of people to death.

Domestic violence is one of the more regular types of murders in our country, perhaps the most common. People hate her though because she is big news, due to her youth, her seeming prettiness, and the fact that she's tried to lie her way out of this. Oh, and there's sex.

She did not, though, kill a child, a group of people or terrorize the general public. She annoyed people.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, however, did kill many people, many babies, and he seemed a passive part of a horror story, running a filthy abortion clinic in a poor area and helping kill many unborn and just born babies. Many cried foul at the lack of coverage of this case, and they had a point; 'sexy' Jodi was on the cable news every night and the general media had a small Associated Press report on the complicated trial of the doctor and his practice. General news for the most part ignored both.

You can't say that the long trial was difficult to cover, as the Arias trial went on and on, and that was just great for cable news. But the murder of a boyfriend in a crazy relationship is less depressing than poverty, abortions and hopelessness. When Gosnell was convicted, though, the story turned, I thought, when it came out that he faced not just life in prison with the first-degree murder conviction, but he could face execution. That would be incredible, a professional who argued that he was doing legal abortions in tough circumstances now facing the worst penalty.

Quickly, though, the ruling came that he would not receive the death penalty. Cable news eagerly awaits Arias' fate, sidetracked by the tornado.

Again, interesting to me is the lack of debate about the death penalty, a regular news feature during the many Texas executions and even the Oklahoma City bomber's execution.

Yes, terrorism happens, as it occurred in Boston. That's dramatic and frightening — as is a mass murder, such as Newtown's Sandy Hook elementary school.

Then we have the man opening fire on police in Ohio with an AK-47, caught on police dashcam. Again, the video adds to the horror and terror.

And then we have continuing story of the women escaping a decade of captivity.

News, it seems, is much more like a CBS crime drama, such as "Criminal Minds" or "Numb3rs." Throw in Charles Ramsey, the black man who helped save them and gave funny interviews, it is a bit of "The Mentalist" or other shows with grim horror mixed with refreshing laughs.

Is it that we want our news to be more like our entertainment, putting into a context we relate to? Or is it that the news is more horrible? I'm thinking the former, as there have always been horrible stories, such a serial killer out west in the 1950s or the Michigan school bombing in the 1920s. And those were sensationalized, though mostly in print.

The continuous airing of highlights, set to music, adds to the drama. Producers want an emotional impact, but is that at the expense of being informative and putting events into perspective.

Feel how you may about Margaret Thatcher, the beloved by many, hated by maybe more, British prime minister who died this week, she showed what it was to be a serious world leader.

She is well known here in the US for her close alliance with Ronald Reagan.


I recall her from the national nightly news, mostly Dan Rather, that we watched at the dinner table of my childhood, leading the movement against unions and Soviets, leading a mysterious (to me at that young age) war for some islands by Argentina, fighting the Irish who wanted freedom, and working to help the British economy survive. All these stories were followed here in the US.

But I mention Thatcher not for her politics but for her stature in the world. Fellow leaders and particularly foes (domestic and international), I suspect, respected her. One part of her story is that she's a woman, much mentioned in her obituary. Little part of the narrative from her battles in the early 1980s, as I recall, dealt with her gender. It's an important part of her obituary, yes, but as a leader, she was prime minister first, a lady second.

Her death this week reminds us of the juvenile nature of international relations by North Korea's new boy-president. The video images out of the Communist state are scary, though very comical and amateurish. Shooting a gun, riding a boat, overseeing the border with South Korea are good for internal propaganda, perhaps, but Kim Jong Un, 29 or 30, is an imposing figure not for his leadership skills, military training or overall intelligence; rather, he is scary because he has nuclear weapons and appears to have some issues.

Let's hope it's all grandstanding for the sake of keeping his people in line, but he could wreak significant havoc on the region and the world's economy, making it necessary for us to respond to his threats and to bring the issues with China and Iran to a head.

It makes me remember Mrs. Thatcher fondly, because she and Reagan could go toe to toe with Soviet leaders, standing by principles while seeing a bigger picture, but still not drive the world into chaos. Kim Jong Un is a reminder that it is important for the US to meddle in other country's affairs to prevent incredible harms being brought onto many peoples.


Let him play ball with Dennis Rodman, though I must say it is interesting to read studies of who actually is in charge over there, as this Telegraph piece evaluates Kim Jong Un's aunt and uncle. Of course, it's interesting in the way "The Sopranos" was interesting.

They made it.

YouTube was not enough for the Milford High School students who wanted their own 'Harlem Shake' video to go viral. It's kinda viral, up to 99,000 views as of 11:27 a.m. today, Tuesday, pre-snowstorm, 2013.

But today, they are also nationwide, hitting the front page of the NYDailyNews.com, where the head proclaims:

"Simulated oral sex, an Obama mask and a live bird! See the R-rated 'Harlem Shake' routine that got 30 high school students suspended"

They did not mention the bulge!

The story goes on to detail, however, a second video, which had "racially insensitive portions." Wonder how that will play in the Big Apple.

They quote the maker of the video in our paper, The Oakland Press, as well.

The comments were not so kind, including:

"Leave animals out of your low-class entertainment, troll."

And, "The parents must be proud of their work."

Of course, most film work means ignoring the critics.

Big week for celebrity death news, first with the double amputee accused of killing his girlfriend, a budding reality TV star (how are you a budding star, isn't stardom later?) and then the suicide of falling country singer Mindy McCready.

Reeva Steenkamp starred in her debut on a reality show in her home country of South Africa just days after being killed in the home of the Olympian Oscar Pistorius. Do you air such a thing? Seems like you can't not air it, especially with all the positive things she discussed, based on the highlights show in American news. But you can't ignore those ratings either.

And now we have the suicide of the troubled country music singer, McCready, who was questioned at least by NBC about a possible role in her boyfriend's recent shooting death, another suicide possibly.

She, too, has a tie in to sports, claiming to have had an affair with also troubled former pitcher, well no longer troubled now that he's been acquitted of federal charges related to banned substance use alleged by others, Roger Clemens, who did issue a statement about her death and the few times they had met. 

Kudos for the HuffingtonPost.com for its calling out the CNN network on trying to exploit the cruise ship story.

A reporter compared it to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, when interviewing one passenger as he left, and he was quick to put it in proper perspective. We were on a freaking cruise, he said, calling it a disastrous vacation but not a disaster.


Well done, sir.

Meanwhile, thousands of miles away, contrasting the slow return of the cruise ship, a meteorite exploded over Russia a few hours later. Hopefully, no one dies, but so far, about a thousand suffered some kind of injury as countless windows exploded when the sonic boom occurred.




If it's not deadly, it's certainly a reminder that we can be vulnerable to catastrophe, especially as we are awaiting a near miss with a large asteroid later this afternoon.

Now, those are some big stories, especially if you include the Olympic hero now charged with a domestic violence murder in South Africa.

How large is the CNN international bureau nowadays?

What is in a name? Not much, it used to be, when it came to storms but with Twitter, a name is everything.

Lots of people didn't like the Weather Channel dubbing the snowstorm and blizzards that hit the East Coast as a superstorm named Nemo. We accept the naming of hurricanes and tropical storms, as the list is prepared at the start of the season and we know what storms will be called. But it seems as if this name was given just to name it and, hey, who gets to let you name it.

So don't use the name. Except, on Twitter, hashtags #matter and there's no point in using different hashtags. So, guess what. If you name it, and the name catches on right away, that's the name people will use.

In my mind, though, the storm, which affected more people directly, was not the biggest story of the weekend, and newscasts that led with it were reflecting a strong East Coast bias. The weekend's top story was out west, where the made-for-Hollywood rogue cop turned cop-killer, who upped the font of his headlines by publishing his manifest online, remained on the loose.

And the tie in to the other top weekend story, the Grammy awards, which some feared he would target, upped the ante. DrudgeReport.com led for a while about the Grammy's under extra protection.

Wild stuff, this story. On Friday, I wondered if it would end like Humphrey Bogart's "High Sierra," in the mountains without the dog but looking more like a combined episode of "Criminal Minds" and "Numbers," but he got away. Now, the headlines for this story bring in the other big story of the month, drones, as drones are part of the search operation.

The story continues to grow, especially as the alleged killer, Christopher Dorner, has some supporters. Anonymous, the hacker group, has gotten involved. And the LA command is reviewing the case that got him fired, though I doubt it will go anywhere once he is caught or found dead of a self-inflicted wound.

It's rare for a news story to reach a level of fiction, the sort of story that I hear and say, if this were a book, I'd still think it was unbelievable plot.

Well, the story of the LA police officer, fired for prior lying, involves him shooting a basketball coach who was daughter of the former cop who represented him and then shooting another police officer.

Now he's on the run and the media is abuzz with the story. Press conferences are held, cable news is interrupted and then the story leads most broadcasts. He has participated, they say, with his Facebook manifesto.

Wild stuff. Seems more like a Michael Connelly story and a Harry Bosch case.

Here are a couple of examples of why doing live television reports is never easy, one of them involving a reporter striking back with some tough questions.

First, here is a video of a female reporter offering a live update on the trade deadline for the English Premiere League soccer team Norwich City, wondering if a big move would be made. In the background, two men simulate sex, which apparently the reporter did not realize was going on. It's all good fun, I guess.

And here is the reporter from San Francisco trying to do a live report on New Orleans' Super Bowl fun and with the time difference, perhaps it's pretty late in The Big Easy. The drunken lady interrupts the report but that's OK, as the reporter switches gear and asks what everyone wants to talk about, not football but sexually transmitted diseases:

"How long have you had an STD?" asked the annoyed reporter, stopping the videobomber in her tracks.

And certainly not Notre Dame, the university that sat on knowing a widespread story about a player's dead girlfriend was all false. No death. No girlfriend. No tragedy.

What a fantastic job by Deadspin. com for putting the facts before us, completely, fully showcasing the extent of the lie and the failure of the media, oh and names are named and links provided, in perpetuating a nice-sounding story. I must note that much is made of Sports Illustrated writing it about it, but this story from them just adds about the tough week for the player, not going into detail about the supposed death. It just mentioned it, as it was a commonly shared story, it seems.

Better than the details in what media reported about the case and what facts were out there (lack of death notice all the way to the tweets and the origins of some photos) was the speculation by a friend of Manti Te'o who said he was "80 percent" sure that Te'o was in on it.... based on the fact that he couldn't be that stupid.

Apologies to athletes for a bad joke, but not even a football player could be that stupid, to become engaged to someone he had never met. Can someone be really so dumb? (What a tough thing to argue to the world... I'm not a liar; I'm an idiot.) All the details about meeting her, where did those come from? And what kid tells his parents such details... isn't it just, "I met this girl" and maybe include a geographic location.

If he didn't lie about these details, someone else did. And the mistakes of the media include fact-checking, independent sourcing and pushing a nice story that's already been told... not making something up. Newspapers and TV reporters aren't generally that bad, just creating facts. No, these had to presented by someone.. the son to the father? The father to the media?

That Notre Dame first sat on knowing the story was a hoax (three months after it started, they said they learned but waited until it broke to share that?) is bad enough, but to push the idea that the player is a victim of the hoax means that the media and his friends/family created such rich and deep false details. They said he was on the phone with her overnight to hear breathing. Their stares had intertwined when passing by one another at Stanford? A good hoax needs details, if the story is going to jump from conversation to front page.

Now come the jokes, and they are good, highlighted by a photo gallery.

Let's hope we don't hear the last of this, and gain, great job Deadspin. And Slate has a nice piece of analysis, noting that the narrative gets in the way of fact-checking, too often.

Oh, and again, if it's on the internet, you can delete it, but it's never gone forever.

Again, there is an effort to censor news.

And this is a noble effort, the request to not name or show the picture of a serial or spree killer.

OK, you don't name the killer in Connecticut. Does it matter less then when ten adults, or perhaps just one person is killed? Do you not name that killer? Do you not name anyone who commits a crime that is attention-seeking, such as protestors or that guy who threw shoes at President George W. Bush? It's a slippery slope.

The argument is these mass killers want attention. I don't think that is primarily what drives them, though. I think the act is the attention they want, bringing horror into the world, more than infamy for them. Of course, there's no answer for all killers. But it seems the primary goal is to hurt and cause pain.

Our business it give information, not to give some of the information. The idea of not naming rape victims makes sense, because of the tendency to not report the crime because of the humiliation. But then domestic violence advocates ask us to not name accusers in such cases. That's tough, but then it leads to others saying they don't want to be named.

And are sex offenders usually initially victims themselves? Again, if you ask to withhold some information, then what right do you have to release any information — there's always someone who won't want to be named. I've had witnesses in trial beg not to be named, some reasonably and some unreasonably.

Now, there is common sense and good taste. One idea that I've supported is not putting the shooter's picture on the front page in these cases, focusing rightfully on the victims. But that is common sense because that is what the audience wants.

We have to work knowing how the audience will react, going with it sometimes and sometimes against it. But excluding information is not the answer and not going to stop these tragedies.

I'm happy to hear that Richard Engel is free from captivity after his five-day ordeal, being kidnapped in Syria, where he was covering the civil war.

It appears he was taken by 'thugs' working for the regime, which may soon topple. The media coverage is largely positive for the rebels, so attacking the correspondents is one — very ineffective — way perhaps to control a message by a leader who is on his way out. I wonder if Bashar al-Assad will end up like Libya's Muammar Gaddafi or Egypt's Hosni Mubarak.

 In NBC's report, nothing was mentioned of the blackout they maintained and asked others to maintain.

I hope Engel and his team do not stop their work but it must have been tough, especially being subjected not just to the terror of being captive but also to the psychological torture of being told they were to be executed as well as seeing people killed.

Nonetheless, while NBC doesn't have to offer up that this has happened (if no one else knows) nor do they have to comment once it is reported, I don't understand a news agency that asks others not to report something, as NBC apparently did to others reporting this news. During most tragedies, many want to be left alone by the media, but media outlets, including NBC News, have to and do ignore those request because of the thirst by the rest of us to know.

I say, yes, absolutely.

But I understand the idea. Don't make a story out of it so we can work to get him back instead of giving potential terrorists a chance to harm him and garner their own headlines.

However, once the story is out there, it would irresponsible to ignore it, especially if the same standards are not maintained for every other story.

In this case, it is gawker.com reporting that NBC's Richard Engel is missing in Syria. Mr. Engel is a fine journalist who has done incredible work as a foreign correspondent, telling stories lately about Egypt's revolution and now Syria's civil war.

I hope his missing is a problem with communications in what seems like a war-torn country that may have damaged or turned off communications equipment. The fear is that he is injured or kidnapped or worse. His is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world and he did not seem to shy from the danger in order to do his job.

The story, though, from gawker.com deals with a serious issue: Blackouts of news coverage. Several comments, the majority on the page, were critical of gawker for writing about the story, in effect calling them out for writing about a blackout on the story and then 'violating' it.

What happens is the news agency doesn't want to report on its reporter missing as that may inflame the situation and endanger the reporter. That's fair. But in this business, or calling as some wish journalism would be, once a story is out, it's out.

Gawker correctly reports all the agencies in Europe that are reporting the news as well as people on social media.

But to insist it be held and to criticize others for reporting the news is rather disheartening, especially with all the (sometimes, rightful) criticism of news outlets (such as NBC) for the endless reporting of others' tragedies, the latest one being the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut. In fact, the rush to get the story out led to news agencies wrongfully reporting who the shooter was, including The Oakland Press, where we used wire reports that later had to be changed.

Many expressed desires to see the media:

- Leave the victims' families alone,
- Not flood the area with multiple reporters falling over one another,
- Not show the culprit's face and tell a story that would perhaps inspire another crazy person to act as a copycat in seeking out such media attention,
- Not politicize the event by jumping into the natural discussion about guns and gun violence and America's gun culture.

News agencies routinely ignore such requests because of the thirst to know as much as possible about something as fast as possible.

Same goes for a story about a respected journalist who goes missing while on the job in a place that generally accounts for the first or second story on NBC's "Nightly News."

And criticism that a news agency applies different standards when covering itself than it would anyone else are fair.

So, you thought you'd get away from ugly political fights now that the election is over?

Ok, perhaps after jump over or avert (or postpone, typical for our DC leaders) the fiscal cliff, and then we can focus on work, family, sports, entertainment...a Super Bowl, the Academy Awards and awaiting spring?

Nope, it's going to get ugly with the upcoming war on guns arriving. Well, it's not going to be a war on guns, but to the defenders of the guns, it's war just thinking about any kinds of limits. (I wonder what Boehner would do if Obama offered to keep taxes on the rich lower if GOP would vote for a ban of the most deadly semi-automatic rifles.... that'd be an interesting test on the right's desire for guns and lower taxes... which is the  priority?)

The debate is already ugly, judging by the reaction to the mass shooting that killed 20 children in Connecticut just three days ago.

And wow, the news gets better:

Two police officers killed in Topeka.

A man in California arrested after firing off multiple rounds in a mall parking lot. He was releasing tension from the stuff that made his life unhappy, police said. Used to be, beer was enough for that.

Now I hear those 'people' from that church are to protest at the funerals in Connecticut.

Makes one want to turn off the news and lock the doors.

One man died in one of the most horrific ways I could imagine: pushed into the path of a subway and unable to climb out to safety in time. Image the terror.

Another man took pictures.

The freelance photographer for the New York Post says he took the pictures (one of which ended up on the front of the NY Post) as a way to alert the train's conductor to the plight of the victim, using the flash to signal the driver.

Yeah, I don't quite believe that.

HOWEVER, I'm not one to argue the man should have risked his own life to save the victim. Running or jumping into the path of danger is not easy to do and it's not my place to say what someone should have done. I likely would have hesitated. I also likely would have hesitated to take a picture.

Here is an update to the case from the NYT, looking at the various ethical implications and reflections that this case has on our society.

No one helped the victim. I don't know how far away people were but some reports say the victim had about 20 seconds. I would like to think someone close enough could have reached down to grab his arm and help him up. I wasn't there though, and my guess is that no one did because no one could.

While I don't believe the photographer's excuse, I don't begrudge the photographer. Too many people nowadays like to jump on someone from afar. I'm amazed at the calls to fire people, jail them, or shoot  them by people who simply see a post of Facebook or read an online story. Yes, we all have opinions, and I share mine here sometimes. But people are too quick to condemn.

Why isn't there more outrage for the man who pushed this poor guy? That guy, I could say, should burn in hell after finishing his life in a nasty New York prison. I don't know what led him to push the victim, but my first thought is he shouldn't be, to use the popular phrase, walking the streets, or in this case, taking the subway.

Leave the photographer alone. If people really cared, the newspaper would fold for its insensitivity, but hey, it was a big story, a great photo and a true snapshot into what happened in that instance.

I just don't get it. Someone, yes a presidential candidate announcing their candidacy, misspeaks about a long-dead Hollywood star. Sure, John Wayne is one of the biggest stars, but remembering where he was born more than a century ago while giving a speech is not a big deal.

And playing gotcha this way backfires, if people think that talking, writing, blogging, pontificating about this would change minds. No, it makes people feel sorry for her.

Now, I am more interested in misstatements on or about financial issues, such as receiving federal money for a family farm while boldly saying that you don't receive such help. That could be something, but if you link it together with a slip about John Wayne's birthplace, then the financial statement gets lost in what is really a petty attack. Must not be that serious, if they're lumping it together with John Wayne. More gotcha, lacking completely in any substance.

This attack (I'm using the word her supporters or general media-haters) on Michele Bachmann (read the AP story here) only helps her, I'm afraid. I don't like her ability to misstate facts about the war in Libya or oil drilling permits, but those substantial, true policy mistakes get lost when making fun references to John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy. It appears that the Fox News host, Chris Wallace, asking about her being a "flake" (a great moment of morning political talk news, I feel) has now swayed how others cover her.

I'm not surprised at the recent criticisms of NBC Nightly News and NBC News in general for not reporting on a fascinating story out of New York, one that indicates one of America's most profitable companies paid no federal taxes.

GE made billions but has found enough loopholes to keep its tax bill to zero dollars. Of course, NBC is owned by General Electric and has little interest in airing its bosses' dirty laundry. Here's a good look at the issue.

I'm surprised they would totally ignore it, as that decision gives Daily Show host John Stewart something to accuse them off. Seems like tossing it in quietly and quickly would have done better. When I bounce between the three 6:30 p.m. national news broadcasts, I see generally the same stories, so it's noticeable if one story is ignored somewhere in particular.

And the news has been used so much as a way to promote network reality shows, that it's hard not to see the corporate shilling that is going on, especially with promotions of Dancing with the Stars, Biggest Loser or Celebrity Apprentice, or else American Idol -- especially when forced down on the local news stations (WXYZ's 7, WDIV's 4 or Fox2).

However, it's not like I'd believe any story at 6:30 p.m. that concerns medicines or other pharmaceuticals, considering that industry seems to pay for the right to get a 30-min worldview wrap up of the day's news.

Long day with lots going on. We had a fire at Rochester High School (a suspicious trash can), a late-breaking report of a homicide in Pontiac, a pair of home invasion arrests in Troy (way to go Troy PD; you got em before they could get away), accused cross burners and an accused DVing teen pleading to charges, and stagnating unemployment.
Oh, and the Tigers lost a close one.
Something I thought would be the most humorous but turned into the most distressing was finding the online video rants of a man accused of a road rage shooting in Farmington Hills. I would be so pissed off to have gotten shot by someone who seems so nutty, but in the end, it was depressing to listen to it.
Hopefully tomorrow's news is a little more cheerful.

According to a biting reaction by media critic Jeff Jarvis on Rupert Murdock's decision to go with the pay wall around some of his UK properties, the answer is NO. And I don't see how excluding a large part of the population — those of us who are used to getting our online news the easiest way possible, without a credit card — will help grow an audience, benefit advertisers and actually make money.
Isn't the point of the Web to expand outward, reaching people you could have never reached before? Doesn't sound like the Times and Sunday Times is seeking to do that.
If the proper way forward for this business is to generate revenue directly from the users, then it appears news will be more narrowly focused and reach a small but dedicated audience.
It is not reaching the masses, and if advertising is no longer a part of the news economy, then the masses need not be bothered.
However, I don't see the news economy changing the much. The medium will change, though. Newsreaders will still seek out what interests them and they will do so for a minimal cost — instead of a dimes-a-day subscription, they'll pay for general internet or mobile access — and advertisers will continue to crave them.
And the best news content will generate the greatest interest and hence the strongest advertising dollar.
TV commercials are almost pointless as I DVR nearly everything, even pausing sporting events, so I can skip over the ads. (I do like some movie previews on the big TV screen, much better than small laptop screen). Radio ads have long been ignored in my car, first by the button and variety, then by CDs and iPod, and now with satellite radio and its plethora of channels, mostly commercial free.
I get the radio for free with the car for now, but will I renew for a little bit a month. I'd pay for radio I think, because of the content, but I may not because I'm not in the car that much and we also have a DVD player. So it's unlikely I would pay for that.
I do not see myself offering up to pay for news, though, because it'll be somewhere for free or else it's not that important to me.
I mean, it's a paywall. That's what it's called. That sounds like a bad business model, keeping people out.
Like the inheritance tax becoming the death tax, Murdock should rename it.
Let's see....Exclusive club? Maybe, but I don't see mass readership. Restricted site? That'll keep em away. Going alone? Hmmm, sounds like a blogger. I look forward to seeing some numbers down the road.

Just gotta say, and Jon Stewart got this one right with this look at CNN.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
CNN's Just Sayin'
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Healthcare Protests

Unfortunately, it's only going to get worse.