February 17, 2005 | 12:55 p.m. ET

Dangerous minds (Monica Crowley)

Ah, high school chemistry class.  It’s the place you learn that two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen make water.  That table salt is just a bunch of simple molecules strung together.  That sulfur smells really bad. 

And that you can make a bomb by just connecting a few wires together and adding some explosive powder. That last item was on the classroom agenda of David Pieski , a chemistry teacher at Freedom High School in Orlando, Florida.  He took it upon himself to teach his young charges how to make a bomb in class.  He hauled out an overhead projector and gave his students detailed instructions in bomb-making, including advising them to use an electric detonator to stay clear of the blast.  At one point, students said Pieski actually set off an explosive, videotaped it, and said, “cool” after it went off.  The students called the cops, who promptly arrested him.

In an age of terror and school violence, what was this guy thinking?  It was the height of irresponsibility to teach these kids how to build a weapon that could cause serious injury, destruction, even death. 

School should be a place where reading, writing and arithmetic are taught-— and where childhood adolescence is protected for as long as possible.  This teacher neglected that responsibility.  Thank goodness the kids were more mature than their teacher.  Now there was a role reversal that may have saved lives.

12:47 p.m. ET

On Howard Dean

Please don't waste any more valuable air time discussing Howard Dean.  Surely the country has more nationally pressing matters.  This is just personal attack ... which is what our country would like to get away from.  As for the "scream"... the whole room was ethusiastically screaming and Dean was just joining in— only the mikes were set to only pick up Dean, because he was speaking.  —Faith Jean, Marshfield, Mass.

George Bush speaks candidly and he's called an "every-man" who speaks from his heart.  Howard Dean does the same and he's called a loose canon.  I hope the Republicans continue to underestimate and make fun of Howard Dean, it only proves what most of Democrats already know.  Dean is exactly what the DNC needs, and while conservatives tear him down because they don't understand him, Democrats will be the ones celebrating when he helps us "take back the White House" in '08.
Julie Stone, Loveland, Ohio

12:44 p.m. ET

On reality TV:

I hate very one of them. They are without value, and they appeal to the lowest side of people. —Steve, Mandeville, La.

Get real. The only real thing about any reality show is that it contains the word "real" in its content. Life is real. "Real" in its content. Life is real. "Reality" shows are a TV writer's fantasy. —Monica

Having taken part in a conspicuous show of this genre, it is remarkably more real than your supposed expert asserts. —Raj Bhakta, from the Apprentice

I suspect the keen interest in those moronic "reality" shows is very much like the interest in our current moronic administration. —Skunk

February 17, 2005 | 12:25 p.m. ET

On judicial nominations and filibuster:

Monica, you ask why Bush shouldn't get the judges he wants?  For the simple reason that they stay after he leaves and their decisions affect all of us. —Phyllis Pircher, La Canada, Calif.

The reason the Democrats will NOT vote on the nominees is that the Democrats know a burgeoning theocracy when they see one. Bush judges will do nothing BUT overturn every civil, privacy, and enviormental law based on on THIER ideology. The Democrats are the ONLY ones preventing this counry from turning into a theocratic facsist government and take us back 50+ years. —Alex

The filibuster is almost as old as America itself. In 1790, senators filibustered to prevent Philadelphia from becoming the nation's permanent capital. When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson's choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job. —Brad, San Deigo

The process of judicial filibustering is all about cowardice.  Every nominee deserves an up or down vote.  State your position with a yea or nay and be done with it. 

We the people deserve to know exactly where our elected representatives stand and then make our own decisions about whether our Senators are voting their consciences or simply being obstructionists.  —Delia Emmons, N. Caldwell, NJ

February 17, 2005 | 10:28 a.m. ET

What we're working on... (Tony Maciulis, Senior Producer)

The blogs are still buzzing with the lascivious tale of James Guckert, a.k.a. Jeff Gannon. Maureen Dowd took up the issue today in her column, asking how it was possible for a man with a secret life and a fabricated identity to gain access to a White House press conference.  It's a good question, especially from a security standpoint. 

I was in D.C. for the Inauguration and got sniffed by a policeman's German shepherd just for standing in line at the Sbarro's in Union Station, so I can only imagine what the security must be like on Pennsylvania Avenue.  Later today we'll take a look at the issue.  Is it possible that this was all a mistake, just some bad vetting on the part of White House security staffers?  I suppose it is. Remember that Rosalind Carter had her photo taken with John Wayne Gacy.

Check out more of Tony's Tabs.

February 17, 2005 | 8:48 a.m. ET

Admit it, you've seen a reality show (Tony Maciulis, Senior Producer)

Today, the new season of Survivor debuts— the tenth season believe it or not. It feels like reality shows are a new phenomenon, but at this point they've been around for awhile , like it or not.  Share your thoughts on reality shows.  Which are your favorites and which ones do you hate?  Send us some ideas and we'll put together a segment.  Go to Connected@MSNBC.com.

February 16, 2005 | 6:41 p.m. ET

The real threat to baseball (Ron Reagan)

Professional hockey is on ice. Today, the NHL canceled the rest of its season after it failed to reach an agreement with the players. But hey, there’s still America’s favorite past-time... baseball’s spring training is just getting started. Color me excited.

Yet, there’s trouble in mudville.

No, not steroids. I’m talking a more insidious threat— "froufrou-ness."

I’ve always enjoyed the grand old game for its elemental qualities, wooden bats, horsehide balls, real grass, and players wandering around with huge wads of tobacco in their cheeks spitting freely and scratching their privates in public.

Time was, if you got hungry at the ballpark, someone threw a hotdog at you. If you were thirsty, you had a beer (the blue collar suds not some Artisan Belgian brew).

Now, all that’s changing. Gourmet food is coming to a ballpark near you: California wraps, orange-glazed pork tenderloin, and sushi!  Why, at the St. Louis Cardinals’ Busch stadium, they’re serving prawns pescatori. There’s no prawns pescatori in baseball!

The game of baseball is about more than statistics and folks in kayaks chasing Barry Bond’s homeruns. It’s about history and nostalgia, not skyboxes. It’s about superstitious teams deciding not to wash their socks all season. It’s cussing and dirt-kicking. It’s Babe Ruth hitting 60 homeruns with a hangover (now there’s a performance enhancer).

Fancy is for games played wearing white shorts at somebody’s private country club. So keep your prawns and Chardonnay. Give me my peanuts and cracker-jack... or I might never come back.

E-mail RReagan@MSNBC.com

5:47 p.m. ET

On the cost of war

We spent less on the military during the Clinton years because we were at peace.  Our soldiers had the body armor they needed for peace-keeping missions.  Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing we have done since then has reduced the terrorist threat.  Our grandchildren will pay the price in taxes ....  but who's making the big bucks on this today?  Not our soldiers!
Faith Jean, Marshfield, Mass.

Financial burdens aside, what about the cost the war on Terrorism (a war never declared by Congress) has had on the United States’ reputation. First WMDs, now freedom for Iraq’s citizens, what were the reasons for going to war? We never talk about the oil issue our the pro US policies towards Saudi Arabia. These are the real problems that still have no solutions from the Bush administration. —Matt in Calif.

5:31 p.m. ET

Sorry, I find this all ridiculous. For Hugh Hewitt to play himself and the Right as objective while everyone on the Left is disreputable is simply absurd. There are plenty of stories like Brit Hume mischaracterizing FDR's words on social security which are getting very little coverage.  BTW, Monica, the fact that journalists are more liberal than conservative doesn't mean that the COVERAGE of news is slanted. Most of the big stories that reach most people (who don't sift thru papers all day) are not liberally slanted...because the echo chamber is run by conservatives. —John

The fact that you'll give whining Hugh and the GOP air time says it all. ENOUGH! This constant spinning about the "hateful dems" must stop. Everyone knows mistakes were made at CBS, but everyone also knows that Bush has yet to come up with ONE SINGLE PERSON to verify his claim that he was where he was supposed to be. Clearly, his supporters choose to look the other way regardless of what he does. On the other hand, where was the media outrage when Ken Starr took his investigation into areas he had absolutely NO business taking it--and on our dime? I guess the story was just too juicy to worry about the justification or integrity of those reporting it! —Jeannine Yeamans, Chesterfield, VA

5:26 p.m. ET

I'd much rather hear about the Jeff Gannon story than about CBS and their memo  That's yesterday's news. —Suzi

How come you want so much accountability even going to the top of cbs, but no one, NO ONE including Bush has ever been held accountable for 911. —Joanne Nicholson, Wayne, Pa.

Right..Left…it does not matter what your position is. If the facts are not true, or they are not fully researched, journalism has failed its duty to the public. It then becomes nothing more than a spin factory. —Matt Yacubic, Riverside, Calif.

Ron, please point out that in the Rather interview, the secretary said that although she could not verify the papers CBS had, the content was true!!!! —S. J. Hyatt

Get off the CBS "forged" document story. The forged documents that justified Bush's claim of a connection between Niger uranium and Iraq are of much greater import to our nation and the world. —Art Anderson, Manchester, N.H.

Maybe we can get a better journalist for the left... I understand Gannon is available!  Such a credible fellow...  Why, then, has the "liberal media" not run with the Gannongate story?  Why won't anyone step up to do the right thing? —Fuji, La Selva beach

February 16, 2005 | 5:11 p.m. ET

Looking at the Blogging Du Jour-

  • More ammuninition in the Howard Dean is a loose canon. He is said to have made this comment at a meeting with the Democratic Black Caucus... "You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here." Check it out at Lashawnbarber.com.
  • In Tusla, OK, a local newspaper is threatening a blogger with copyright infringement. For a full text of letter sent from The Tulsa World newspaper, go to batesline.com.
  • CBS is getting another shiner from bloggers who have picked up on print story in the New York Observer about the producers who were implicated in "Memogate" and asked to resign. They haven't... they've gotten lawyers. Wizbangblog.com is leading the charge, also check Powerlineblog.com.

February 16, 2005 | 12:55 p.m. ET

The subjectivity of art (Monica Crowley)

When you think of great American painters, you think of Andrew Wyeth, Georgia O’Keefe, and….Cassius Coolidge?

You may not have heard of him, but you probably know his work.  Mr. Coolidge’s artistic claim to fame is the famous— or some may say infamous— rendering of dogs playing poker.  Called “A Bold Bluff,” it was painted in 1903 and soon earned a cult following among those who love American kitsch, and even among some seasoned artistic experts.  That may be why the two original paintings just sold at auction in New York for almost $600,000.

But $600,000??  Well, Archie Bunker’s chair and Fonzie’s leather jacket sit in the Smithsonian, so why shouldn’t the poker-playing dogs get their moment in the sun?  Besides, they have inspired a whole genre of art:  the velvet canvas.  The dogs have been rendered on velvet so often, that the fabric is now almost as famous as the work.

In fact, one day, while wandering the hallways here at MSNBC, I stumbled upon this velvet rendering of Elvis, belonging to one of our producers, Pete.  Pete seems to have a real affection for this velvet Elvis, but I wonder if he might consider putting it up for auction.  Given that the DOGS playing poker got $600,000, just IMAGINE how much this ELVIS on velvet could get?

E-mail Connected@MSNBC.com.

12:45 p.m. ET

What defines "life" anyway?

An interesting point about the "robotic warfare". In creating a robot that has the capability of "thinking" one is giving it a form of life. Those who are against stem cell research in the ethics that one is "creating life to destroy it" should think twice before promoting the creation of "thinking robots" and sending them to be destroyed.

A fetus is nothing more than a part of a woman's body. Only when it is born and is a separately existing entity, i.e. when it's life is not umbilically dependent on the mother, only at that point is there a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and property.
Joe Wright, New York City

On stem cell research

I think anyone who opposes embryonic stem cell research should be banned from EVER benefiting from any of the resulting research.This should also include their progeny. That would really change the debate. —Wesley

(In response to what defines 'life'): I hope that if ever a time comes in my life that I am not "aware of my surroundings" that does not exempt me from being considered "alive" —Phil, Mullens W.V.

Regarding stem cell research, it looks like the states will have to carry the ball.  Here in Maryland, our legislature plans to put one forward, called the Ronald Reagan/Christopher Reeves bill.  Our state houses NIH and many bio-techs.  We really need this and our Republican governmor will  support it.  Unfortunately, we are the catholic colony and there will be significant opposition. Wish us luck. —Patricia Ranney, Millersville

12:32 p.m. ET

On various health issues

Why are they removing these arthritis drugs from the market when the people who have had the complications were on extremely high doses? It would seem to make sense to lower the maximum dose and let the majority of patients benefit from the more common lower dosages that allow them much needed relief? —Michael, Indiana

February 16, 2005 | 12:10 p.m. ET

On today's first topic, the future of robots in combat:

Great show overall guys. Well done... But long before Drudge began to link to others who began to talk recently about new robtics in warfare, the blog HTTP://DefenseTech.org was creating the material for them. I know because I read them the day they were published, and later laughed when the 'speedy' Drudge broke it as a flash weeks later. —Steve Schippert, Dumont, N.J.

How ludicrous!  Robots fighting robots?  If we can put robots in the field, so can others.  I can just picture it now.  Lines of robots doing each other in.  Give me a break. —Colleen Chandler, North Platte, NE

Robotics are the next level of military technology development - we must assume that other counties are pushing forward on this as well.  Can we afford to fall behind? —Paul

It seems to me that this might be a situation where it's appropriate to use economic terms to look at the situation. If the US (or any country) were to remove the human cost of war, it would remove a tremendous disincentive to engaging in war. What would this president do if there were no human (and therefor little political) cost to military action? —Michael Rader, Kalamazoo, MI

February 15, 2005 | 6:50 p.m. ET

Thank you to those who wrote in that they liked 'Connected':

Writing to say how pleasant it was to see the second of your two premiere shows today. I like the concept of the show insofar as I get it on first viewing, of working closely with blogs and other internet traffic.  Curious to see how this unfolds thru various kinds of news days and news events.  Wanted to praise today two things.  First, the hosts seem remarkably well chosen.  Have seen both before in other contexts and broadly understand one to be of the Left and one Right.  To the extent I marked this today, in the way questions were asked, it was natural and unforced.  It was balanced without calling attention to that fact.   Secondly, and I guess appealing for similar reason.  I was AMAZED by the segment including Rick Francona + the Ambassador Peck and the professor.  Amazed that the hosts allowed the guests to speak fully, and engage each other at some length without interruptions.  I've so wanted to see that somewhere in cablenews, where talking points vie with tactical interruptions to ruin so many conversations.   Bravo. Congratulations and looking forward to more of your show.
Bill Dunn, Seattle

Congratulations! "Connected: Coast to Coast" is great and informative and you are a natural to co-host it. Bravo! —Peter Trevino, New York

Kudos to Ron & Monica!  This is the kind of program we need— fresh air and not the same old stuff.  I'll keep watching and hope for your continued success.  Ron, as always, is not stereotypic, and Monica seems to be upbeat & not jaded.  Good luck! —Alanvego, Chicago

February 15, 2005 | 6:32 p.m. ET

Cyber love didn't work out— a sad post-V-day story (Ron Reagan)

It's the day after Valentine's day and you're back to your old cynical, ironic self aren't you? Well, here's a story just for you, as reported by the Petra news agency of Amman, Jordan.

It seems Bakr and Sanaa, a Jordanian couple, were experiencing marital woes. Eventually, they separated. Sad, but hey, these things happen.

A few months later, feeling lonely, Bakr decided to see if he'd be luckier in love online. Sanaa coincidentally had the same thought. Both used online aliases.

And love bloomed. Bakr fell for a woman calling herself Jamila. Sanaa was sweet on a fellow who identified himself as Adnan.

The months went by and Internet love deepened for both Bakr and Sanaa until, finally, it was time to meet their new flames for an official betrothal.

They arrived at the appointed time and place and there, standing across from Bakr, was his heart's desire... His old wife Sanaa.

Expecting a warm and fuzzy ending, love rekindled and all that?

Nah, remember, this is the day after V-day. Bakr immediatly began screaming for a divorce. Sanaa called him a liar and promptly fainted.

They say love is blind... And maybe it should stay that way.

5:48 p.m. ET

Your e-mails on POW compensation:

Today there are problems of frivolous lawsuits claimed by people who are just looking to get rich. If i was a P.O.W. while serving my country, I would want the same for the abuse and torture. They should be compensated from Saddam's illegal accounts that he stole from the Iraq people for years. —Stephen Csicsatka, San Diego

If you give these guys money, Bush should to pay a Billion to the Abu Ghraib prisoners. —Anonymous

5:30 p.m. ET

The report from the blogosphere from Joe Trippi:

5:12 p.m. ET

Your e-mails on Syria:

We really have no room to condem Syria or Iran for any weapons they want.  After our unwarrented invasion and occupation of Iraq, and Israel's continuing occupation of stolen lands the nations of the middle east have every right to protect themselves from agression. —DCB, SC

If we impose "freedom" on people, are they truly free? The way to spread freedom and democracy is through the use of government not force. the simple question to ask is can we invade a country without being invaders? —Andy Amodio

February 15, 2005 | 4:58 p.m. ET

Coming up on our 5 p.m. ET show (Tony Maciulis, Senior Producer)

We received some terrific and thoughtful emails after the noon show.  I'm really glad we decided to tell the POW story, as it struck a chord with many of you.  At the heart of the matter is the issue of retribution for pain and suffering caused to American POWs by Saddam's regime.  Now the regime no longer exists, so should the POWs still get the settlement promised them?  We are taking this up again at 5 p.m.  We'll bring back former JAG Jeffrey Addicott and add in David Rivkin, a former legal and policy expert for both President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush.

While we were on the air, the State Department announced they were recalling the U.S. Ambassador to Syria as tensions mount over the assassination of Lebanon's former Prime Minister.  That story jumped out at us, and will be our lead tonight.  We have assembled a great panel.  A former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, one of Reagan's top security advisors, and former Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Francona who spent three years with the embassy in Damascus.  Hope you enjoy it.

In addition to your emails, we'll also take a look at the mystery of Fatima.  The last of three children to whom it is believed the Virgin Mary appeared has died.  Did she take the final secret of Fatima with her?  We'll ask one of the world's foremost experts on the subject.

Check out Tony's Tabs everyday, which has an update on how each day's shows are shaping up.

February 15, 2005 | 12:57 p.m. ET

Let's NOT celebrate adultery and statutory rape (Monica Crowley)


Charles and Camilla.  Mary Kay and Villi.

Wedding bells ringing for both couples, coming up in April.  They say love is blind, and that the heart wants what the heart wants.  But should we really be celebrating these couples?

Charles and Camilla carried on an extramarital affair while both were married to other people.  The late Princess Diana once referred to the affair, saying it was difficult being in her marriage since it was so “crowded.” 

Mary Kay LeTourneau began a sexual affair with her minor student, Villi Falauu, when he was just 12 years old.  Tried and convicted for statutory rape, she spent more than seven years in jail.

Now both couples are publicly proclaiming their love.  Charles and Camilla will have a royal wedding— not on the scale of his first one, but royal nonetheless. 

Mary Kay and Villi have already registered for gifts at Macy’s.

All four of these people are now old enough and divorced enough to marry whomever they wish.  But that doesn’t mean that WE need to cheer the adultery and statutory rape that got them here.  So please, Charles and Camilla, Mary Kay and Villi: if love is what you have: keep it to yourselves.

E-mail Connected@MSNBC.com for comments.

Your reactions:

Wow!   I must say, I was just passing by when I caught wind of what Monica was going to talk about. I can't agree more with her!!!  It is so tiring and just simply repulsive to see all the media attention given to these two couples. I am especially amazed at how intrigued we are with the lives of British Royals.  I thought Nightline would be on the results of the historic election in Iraq, but rather it was on Prince Charles and Ms Bowles!  Why???  Are we that shallow?  The lives of these couples are not exemplary, but rather shameful.  Thank you so much Monica, your comments were so refreshing and I felt like someone else shared my heart on this matter.  Keep up the great work! —Jared O'Neal, Phoenix

I think that Charles & Camilla have finally gotten what they have been longing for since they first met and were kept apart by Court Protocol, tradition etc etc... Diana would have been happier, Charles would have been happier, Camilla would have been happier, and I am sure, Parker-Bowles would have been spared a lot of embarrassment. And as for Villa and his lady, love that has lasted this long deserves to be rewarded. I think it is a kind of triumph of love and we should all relax and tend to our own love lives. —Phillip Thomas, New York City

February 15, 2005 | 12:36 p.m. ET

On POWs who are fighting to get compensation awarded them by the courts:

The Germans were held accountable for their actions during WWII, but the Japanese weren't. Anybody who endured horrendous treatment as a POW should be compensated, and the country responsible be held accountable.

Yes, the POWs should be paid.  We are spending $300 billion to tear down and rebuild Iraq. It's high time we start spending whatever it takes to rebuild all the American lives and familles we have destroyed. Let's start with these deserving former POWs. —RJ

If a POW who was tortured has the right to sue the offending nation in a U.S. Court, then the Iraqis who have been tortured by the U.S. can sue the U.S. for money damages. Why is the Bush administration try to overturn this judgment?  They do not want to be held accountable for the torture they have sanctioned and the deaths they have caused.  —Nancy A. Butterfield; Camarillo, California

February 15, 2005 | 12:14 p.m. ET

Show has started and already you are weighing in on the Eason Jordan resignation:

This is not a story. why does every opinion spoken have to be so controversial. Who cares what some guy from CNN says? I sure don't. He has the right to his opinion. If it were fact, then that would be a story. —Brad, San Diego

Eason is more irresponsible and worse than Dan Rather and indeed must be fired. Dan Rather just picked up what was given to him (at least that is the official version). In Eason's case, it was ALL his statements.

What the liberal media does not seem to get is that the public is more informed today.  The age of unverifiable propaganda is past. There are more ways to easily verify information today.  Even the US Government cannot stop this trend. -Anonymous

February 15, 2005 | 8:47 a.m. ET

Thank you for the well wishes for our first show

If you both live up to your intro, this program could rival Hardball. Keep it honest; keep it real and just remember: Hard Left or Hard Right can cause a crash, keep it in the middle of the road and life gets a lot smoother. —Howard West, Frostburg, MD

Thank heavens— it's about time that a show like yours is finally here.  Yes, some of us in the audience get so tired of the monologue, the host who cuts the interviewee off in mid-sentence simply because he disagrees with them, or the yelling and shouting match that has so frequently been seen on this cable network when a host wants their own agenda to prevail.

To agree to disagree and do it politely, with reverence, and yet leave the audience with another side is what true debate was founded upon.  And, our country was founded upon and can only continue on its course when true debate is allowed and absorbed by its citizens.

I welcome both of you with open arms.  I just hope that you will dare to explore "controversial" issues— issues that any conspiracy blogger finds debatable since there is so much frustration in not trusting the mainstream media for not daring to explore those issues. Good luck and I'll be tuning in. —Mary Fairbanks

Well, well.  Though she's no Ann Coulter (is anyone?), I'm beginning to get a terrible feeling that there is just a little too much conservatism going on at MSNBC.  First Joe Scarborough, I hear Tucker Carlson is on his way in (Lord, help us) and now Monica Crowley.  Nothing personal, I find Monica to be an intelligent, well spoken, attractive woman.  Definately siding WAY too much with the Bushies, however.  Good luck on the civilized difference of opinion.  —Donna

And please, e-mail and blog alongside the show today! Weigh in and your comments may make it online and on-air!

February 14, 2005 | 2:42 p.m. ET

Welcome to our blog

Ron Reagan

They said she was blond. They said, "conservative." Naturally, I feared the worst: Some best-selling, fashion-challenged sociopath looking to impale on pikes the heads of any folks even slightly to the left of Zell Miller (or Genghis Khan, take your pick). Imagine my delight then to find myself paired with the captivating and estimable Dr. Monica Crowley.

Sure, we'll disagree— as often as not, I imagine. But we both believe that there's a different way to have a conversation— or even argument— on TV, one that doesn't involve high decibel harangues and spittle-flecked diatribes. Oh, we'll get feisty on occasion, count on it. But without the partisan posturing and contrived ranting that have long since outlived their usefulness and even their entertainment value.

The show is "Connected Coast to Coast!" Smart topics. Smart guests. Smart talk. Give us a try!

Monica Crowley

Hi everybody, and welcome to "Connected Coast to Coast!" I am so thrilled to be at MSNBC, hosting this new program with my friend and colleague, Ron Reagan. 

This is going to be a different kind of program, unlike anything else you currently see on television.  You are going to see dynamic debate and interesting conversation, done in a thoughtful, provocative, and unpredictable way.  Both Ron and I believe that folks can disagree without being disagreeable.  Our goal is to have civilized talk on the issues that matter, some of which will be hot news items and some of which you will not have heard of before. 

After the bitterness of the last few election cycles, we believe it's vitally important to bring a more thoughtful approach to the issues, one that encourages the respectful exchange of competing ideas.  And we're going to have a blast doing it. 

Please join us, by watching the program and checking out our blog. We are looking forward to having you as part of our national conversation.


Discussion comments