Far left conspiracy theory rants are not enough to lose the praise of a CNN anchor. On the February 20th addition of American Morning, anchor Soledad O’Brien announced that Spike Lee won a Polk award for his film When the Levees Broke. The man who does not think it is "far fetched" that the levees in New Orleans were bombed, earned praise from O’Brien who editorialized, "if you haven’t seen it, you should really run out and get it" and added, "good work Spike!" Additionally, it is very telling that such conspiracy theories can win one a journalism award. The transcript is below.

Soledad O’Brien: "Director Spike Lee, who's been helping us on this project, helping hand out the cameras and giving the kids some tips for shooting, and becoming really film makers. We have a little congratulations in order for him today. His documentary, called When the Levees Broke, it won the George Polk award, which of course, is one of the top prizes in journalism. It showed the government's failed response to Katrina. If you haven't seen it you should really run out and get it. So a big congratulations to Spike Lee for this honor. Good work Spike!"

Interviewing Barack Obama's senior strategist, David Axelrod, Chris Matthews made a pitch to get Obama on his Hardball College Tour. On last night's edition of the show, Matthews made this syrupy plea to Axelrod: "I think it's a great, it's a great platform for a guy who, clearly, according to my kids, and maybe me too, the kid in me, appeals to the youth of America and the young at heart."

The following is the full exchange as it occurred on the February 19th edition of MSNBC’s Hardball.

Matthews: "Let me ask you, David Axelrod, let me just try to make a proposition to you. On behalf of our producers here and everybody that works at MSNBC, we would like a lot to have your candidate, Barack Obama, to sit, the junior senator from Illinois be our guest, our special guest on a town meeting with college students at some college, perhaps, of his choice. Certainly a good college. And we'd love him in the round with the students for an hour, like we did with John McCain and we've done with other candidates, including Hillary Clinton in the past, and, and Rudy Giuliani and the others. We've tried to get everybody. We would really like to get Barack Obama. You don't have to answer today."

On February 8, in the midst of Diane Sawyer’s Dictator ‘07 Tour, a whirlwind trip that saw her offer softball questions to both the dictators of Iran and Syria, the "Good Morning America" anchor sat down to speak with a group of Syrian women. As already noted on NewsBusters, Sawyer portrayed the brutal Syrian regime as a family friendly paradise. An onscreen ABC graphic identified one female, Bouthaina Shaaban, simply as a "top ranking female in President’s cabinet." Sawyer afforded Shaaban a platform to bash America for its failure to help women balance home and career:

Diane Sawyer: "What do [Syrian females] think of American women? They say we have so many opportunities, yet they'd give us something from Syria, safety on the streets, family to help with children, and the government helping too."

Bouthaina Shaaban (Top ranking female in President’s cabinet): "They could be a lot better, family and professionally-wise in making family life in balance with the profession. I feel the U.S., as a very rich and strong country, could have offered a lot more for working women."

As it turns out, slamming the U.S. is a common action for Shaaban. She’s actually a fierce propagandist, as well as virulently anti-American and anti-Israel. Last year on CNN, she likened the actions of Israel in Lebanon to those of the Nazis in World War II, an outburst that drew no response from Wolf Blitzer. And in February of 2005, Shaaban hinted that the United States and Israel were behind the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

Better get a trash receptacle handy just in case this turns your stomach: former Vice President Al Gore is rumored to be up for an honorary doctorate in climatology. As unbelievably reported by the Minnesota Daily (h/t Drudge):

Former Vice President Al Gore could pay a visit to the University [of Minnesota] in the near future to receive an honorary degree for his work in climatology.

University President Bob Bruininks spilled the beans at the February Board of Regents meeting, saying that "two of our colleges are working with Vice President Gore to provide, we hope, an honorary doctorate."

Amazing. This guy makes a science fiction schlockumentary creating unwarranted hysteria about an unproven theory, and an American university wants to give him a degree? You’ve got to be kidding?

Alas, it appears not:

On the February 19th edition of Paula Zahn Now, guest host Kyra Phillips, well known for her restroom comments, confused Senator Barack Obama with the world’s most wanted terrorist. When interviewing African American film maker John Ridley on Obama’s standing in the black community, Phillips posed this question.

Kyra Phillips: "What do you think is Osama bin - is, is Obama - boy that was a terrible slip of the tongue, right? Barack Obama, is he that new leader?"

CNN confused the two before. As newsbuster Scott Whitlock noted, a graphic on The Situation Room asked "where’s Obama?" next to a picture of Osama bin Laden.

On the Tuesday edition of “Good Morning America,” host Robin Roberts slammed the insurance industry for daring to make a profit in the years since Hurricane Katrina. She also used the segment as a vehicle to call for more government regulations. The piece, combatively titled “GMA Gets It Done: Getting Answers” suggested the subjective, advocacy oriented slant that the program would take. (Additionally, last week, Diane Sawyer previewed the multi-day story, describing it as “a call to arms.”)

Roberts repeatedly took insurance company representative Bob Hartwig to task for the industry’s “record profits.” A sampling of Roberts’ hostile questioning can be found below:

Robin Roberts: “When people who have lost everything, who are in dispute with various insurance companies and they see the amount of money that-- the profit that is being made in such a year, these home owners scratch their heads a little bit. Do you understand?”

Roberts: “Though people find it hard to believe during such a devastating year, you still make a significant increase in your profit. And they’re saying, ‘Good grief, we trusted you.’”

Roberts: “You know that rings hollow, what you just said, to so many people. They don't believe that anymore.”

MATT APUZZO, AP

Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

...

The dem iraq attack is slowly attacking them.

Wishfully thinking Hillary Clinton may have an easier than expected path to the White House, this morning's Today show asked are: "Conservatives Softening On Hillary?" Clearly lifting generously from David Kirkpatrick’s New York Times story, NBC's David Gregory examined the theory that "Clinton-haters are mellowing." Leading off the piece Gregory portrayed those who opposed the Clintons during the '90s in the kookiest light possible as he cast them as mere, "attention-seekers" and then ran a clip of the infamous Clinton Chronicles video. After the clip, Gregory ran a soundbite from a clearly bored with the topic- Christopher Ruddy, as he asserted that among conservatives: "There's a view now that Bill Clinton was not only not so bad, he was pretty good," and that they "don't have the same level of anger towards her that they once had towards him."

Newt Gingrich mentioned Brent Bozell's recent column on the Newt vs. Nancy contrast in media coverage on the February 18 Fox News Sunday.

Chris Wallace asked about the 2008 presidential race: "We asked people who under no circumstances would they vote for, and you came in second on that dubious list at 64 percent, behind Ralph Nader, but far ahead of everyone else. And I should add 44 percent of Republicans said they would not vote for you. Why do you think that so many voters say Newt Gingrich, forget it?"

Gingrich answered: "Well, there was a column written by Brent Bozell recently about Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker and me becoming speaker. And he contrasted the initial media coverage of the two of us. And if you go back and look, you know, I had a — Time magazine savaged me as Scrooge who stole Tiny Tim's broken crutch — didn't just steal the crutch. I broke it, on the cover of Time. Newsweek had me as the Grinch that stole Christmas. I was a Dr. Seuss figure."

I've been trying to avoid paying too much attention to the Anna Nicole Smith story, but got hooked watching MSNBC this morning as my fellow Bronx native, Judge Larry Seidlin, made a shambles of a hearing with his loose-lipped style. My attention was rewarded by spotting this amazing MSNBC promotional ad for itself. More than any of the genre I can remember, it takes pointed potshots at its cable news competitors, Fox News Channel and CNN.

As the voice over says "let's face it: there's a lot of choices out there," an attractive woman turns on her TV to what is clearly meant to be Fox News. One man complains about a ploy to discredit the administration, while another rants about how anyone could question the authority of the Commander-in-Chief. Voice-over: "you could pick someone who has an agenda."

The viewer then turns to "ZNN," where a Larry King look-a-like is talking about '60s sitcoms as an elderly gent in his bathrobe on the couch at home exults, "this is going to be great!" Voiceover: "you could pick somebody who's out of touch." ZNN -- zzz's -- we get it.

I must admit that I never thought I’d see this kind of a book review at the New York Times. This is especially true given the recent zealotry surrounding global warming, and how much of the media-driven hysteria is based on computer models created to predict future climate events.

Much to my elated surprise, the Times amazingly published an article Tuesday entitled “The Problems in Modeling Nature, With Its Unruly Natural Tendencies.”

I imagine many readers are checking that link about now as they question my veracity. Go ahead. I can take it.

Let’s cut to the chase, shall we (emphasis mine throughout):

Yesterday, we celebrated what has become a farce, a mere shadow of what it meant in the twilight of our nation.

The American Revolution was led by our first President and it was started because of an over reaching and oppressive government which taxed with no redress and imposed unfair laws, duties and levies on the colonies.

In 1763, King George III of England signed into law the Proclamation of 1763 prohibiting any English settlement west of the Appalachian mountains and requiring those already settled in those regions to return east in an attempt to ease tensions with Native Americans. This was only the beginning. Only one year later, the English Parliament passed the Sugar Act to try and offset the war debt brought on by the French and Indian War and to help pay for the expenses of running the colonies and newly acquired territories. This act increases the duties on imported sugar and other items such as textiles, coffee, wines and indigo (dye). It doubles the duties on foreign goods reshipped from England to the colonies and also forbids the import of foreign rum and French wines. Ha… one reason for the Revolutionary war was because England taxed booze… and to think, we’re now under a far more oppressive taxation than were the colonists.

At first glance, one might question the relevance of religious opinions on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. However, given the cult-like fervor being exhibited on this subject by the media of late, maybe what the world needs is a little balance to add a modicum of sanity to the growing hysteria.

With that in mind, Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia, wrote on op-ed in the Sunday Telegraph last week cautioning readers about the zealotry being exhibited by those convinced that man is destroying the planet (emphasis mine throughout):

Talk about creating a false dichotomy geared to discrediting a policy! The AP has generated a doosie in theirs titled "Rural America bears scars from Iraq war" and subtitled "Nearly half of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq came from a small town".

Their main thrust is that small towns are somehow seeing their sons fall on the field of battle in "unfair" numbers.

Across the nation, small towns are quietly bearing a disproportionate burden of war. Nearly half of the more than 3,100 U.S. military fatalities in Iraq have come from towns like McKeesport, where fewer than 25,000 people live, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. One in five hailed from hometowns of less than 5,000.

At first blush this might seem to be alarming. But, when one lets that first emotive rush fade and allows a little common sense to be applied to the situation, it doesn't seem so outrageous. The fact is, youngsters from rural areas are simply far more prone to joining the military in the first place and always have been. So it is a natural matter of strict statistics that more from those areas would fall in battle. After all, there are more of them.

So, what we are left with is a naked, emotive effort to cause some sort of outrage over the perceived unfairness of this statistic, even as there is no "fair" or "unfair" component to it. It is simply a fact.

Are you a conservative? Someone who historically has harbored, shall we say, a decided aversion to the former First Lady turned senator and presidential candidate? Do you find that in recent times your feelings toward Hillary have undergone a change? Do you perhaps see her in a more kindly light?

'Today' ran an unusual segment this morning suggesting that, indeed, conservatives may be "softening on Hillary." With David Gregory narrating, we were first treated to the bad old days. Hillary, as shown here, making her infamous "vast right wing conspiracy" accusation to Matt Lauer back in 1998. A clip from The Clinton Chronicles, which spun the darkest theories about the Clintons.

Today is probably going to be the last day of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial. I'm going to be in the courtroom blogging the trial for Dean's World. For my coverage and everyone else's see the Media Bloggers Association's Scooter Libby Trial web site. For an idea of what to expect, see Tom Maguire's post here.

Consider this today's open thread.

One common media-created misconception in the Bush years is that the Clinton administration fully supported the international Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but the Bush administration arrived and refused to take any action on it. In reality, while Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto agreement for the United States, the Clinton administration never submitted it to the Senate for ratification (just like Bush), and the Senate voted 95 to zippy in a nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate resolution against Kyoto in 1997, because the agreement would curb American and European emissions, but place no restrictions whatsoever on China or other polluting "developing" nations.

Agence France Presse was the latest to use bias by omission to relay the Bush-killed-Kyoto theory. It was a story on that global savior Al Gore, declaring he would not run for president in 2008: