Gail Collins knows a little bit about firsts.  A columnist with the New York Times since 1995, in 2001 she became the first woman ever appointed editor of the Times editorial page.  Leaving that job six years later to finish a book, she returned to writing her pithy, humorous and devastatingly on target columns that same year.  Collins, the author of several books including America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates and Heroines, sat down recently to talk to Red about her latest tome When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present (Little Brown 2009, $27.99)

I was amazed when reading your book about how quickly things have changed for women and though we still have a ways to go, your opening vignette about Lois Rabinowitz, a Manhattan secretary who went to court to pay her boss’s traffic fine and got kicked out because she was wearing pants, was really amazing. And it wasn’t that long ago.

That was in 1960 and the judge went nuts, he said she was defaming the honor of the traffic court and sent her home to put on more appropriate clothes though men could wear sweatshirts and overalls in his court.  He also told her husband, who was with her, “start now and clamp down a little bit or it’ll be too late.” So many women I’ve talked to remember those days and how awful it was. If you worked in the Post Office you had to wear a skirt. And it was extremely uncomfortable, extremely cold for some women.  The right to wear sensible clothes was completely withheld.

And there was the men’s only plane . . .

Yes, that’s the plane United used to have that went from New York to Chicago every day–the Executive Express.  It was men only.  A woman could not buy a seat on that flight.  So it was too bad for them if they needed to get to Chicago at that time.  The men on that flight were served huge steaks and cigars and part of the training stewardesses received was how to lean over and light their cigars.

The amazing thing to me was that it wasn’t illegal to have men only flights.

Whenever I talk about the Executive Express, someone asks a question like wasn’t it illegal, and I say nothing was illegal back then. It was perfectly legal to say, “We don’t hire women for this job,” or as Newsweek told Nora Ephron when she applied for a reporter job, “Women don’t write. They only research.”  There was the head of the medical school who said “We do keep women out, when we can. We don’t want them here.”

None of that was illegal?

None of it. In 1960 the vision of women’s limitations of the proper role for women in society was not, at bottom, much different than it was, say, in 1200 or 1600.   And it all changed in such a small period of time.  It knocks me out when I think of it.

New York Times columnist Gail Collins credits her career advancement to the women who came before her and opened doors that until 1960 had been closed to women.  Collins recounts the female revolution in her newest book, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present.

You interviewed over 100 people for your book, is there one interview that stands out?

One of my favorite stories is about Lorena Weeks.  She was just one of those people who just do something because they believe in what they’re doing.  She applied for a job as a switchman and was denied because there was a law in Georgia that women couldn’t lift heavy equipment over 30 pounds, though she had been lifting her typewriter which weighed more than that every day.  She sued and lost but kept fighting.  Her husband was horrified, her kids were petrified but she just went on.  And she finally won her case.  She’s just a regular woman, she just instinctively knew what was right and what was wrong.  And she just went on.

How did it change?

There were many factors–the birth control pill so that women could no longer be denied jobs and promotions because they might get pregnant.  Before the pill, women used birth control but it wasn’t as effective–it might limit the number of kids they had to three instead of 12.  Suddenly you didn’t’ have to be a woman committed to being single to get ahead.  You could be married or sexually active and control when you had children. Financially, there was a little window of opportunity in the 1950s where you could obtain the middle class on just one salary but that went away in the 1970s and you needed that extra income.  Then there was the Civil Rights Movement.

The Civil Rights Movement?

Yes, women helped spearhead the movement.  Rosa Parks was arrested for not giving up her seat and they had a huge rally when she got out of jail but she wasn’t invited to speak.

You were born in 1945, were you part of the women’s movement?

There were women who were one second ahead of me, who filed the suits, took on the fights and generally they were not the ones who got the rewards, it was those of us who followed, who went through the doors they had opened.

So no stories about you fighting the good fight?

One of my first jobs was in Connecticut and in the capital there was this dreadful room called the Hawaiian Room. It was where the lobbyists and the legislators went to drink. Male reporters could go in, too. A woman radio reporter filed some kind of complaint and the legislators’ response was instantly to bar all reporters from the Hawaiian Room.  The male reporters were so angry at her for doing that.  At the time I just sort of thought, “Wow, who would want to go to a Hawaiian Room?”  I totally did not get it at all.

You talk a lot about Gloria Steinem and I think she showed women that they could be glamorous and demand to be taken seriously at the same time.

Yes, there was a thought in the early days of feminism that women shouldn’t wear make-up and they should wear sensible shoes and that part of the movement just hit the wall.   Speaking of Gloria, during the presidential campaign I wrote that the woman’s movement had made it possible for Sarah Palin to run for the vice presidency and Gloria called me and said if that’s true, I’m going to shoot myself now.

–Interview by Jane Ammeson, Red Editorial Staff

– . . . Sigh.  Alright, fine:  Tiger Woods is reportedly renegotiating his prenup with his wife, Elin Nordegren, who Tiger may have cheated on with anywhere between one and three different women . . . so far.  According to The Daily Beast, Tiger is negotiating an immediate $5 million payout to his wife and as much as $55 million more to stay with him two more years.  Congrats, Tiger.  Your marriage is now a reality game show.

–Love (for money) abounds in Hollywood.  Forget what you’ve heard about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes having marital problems.  OK! Magazine is reporting they’re happy again, very much in love, and that Tom is going to pay his wife a whopping $75 million to have another child with him!  Now you know where Tiger Woods gets his marital advice.

–Russian police arrested three homeless people last month on suspicion of eating a 25-year-old man they had butchered.  On top of that, the homeless men also sold bits of the corpse to a local kebab house.  Suspicions were raised when a Russian police officer went to try a kebob and noticed a “Soylent Green Special” on the menu.

–The remains of Austrian billionaire Friedrich Karl Flick, which were kidnapped in 2008 and held for ransom, were returned to the family this week thanks to the hard work of private investigators.  The kidnappers actually didn’t mean any harm, though.  They intended to just take Flick for a Weekend at Bernie’s, but time flies when you’re having fun . . .

–Some charities that give out toys to children in the Huston, Texas area are checking their immigration lists twice this Christmas.  The charities are going hand out toys to children–unless that child is an illegal immigrant.  In that case . . . NO TOY FOR YOU!!  This is what Texas has come to, America.  The fences didn’t work, so now they’re taking Christmas away.

–Since we’re dealing with the highest unemployment rate this country has seen in 26 years, the White House is holding a Jobs Summit to discuss ways to generate new jobs.  I applied to work the event, but they weren’t hiring.

–A woman in South Florida is in a lot of trouble after calling in a fake bomb threat in hopes it would delay a plane flight long enough for her boss to make his gate.  We tried to reach her for a statement, but she’s unavailable because her dog ate her phone and she’s stuck in traffic and her Internet went out last night and her laptop crashed and she had a family emergency.  Yeah . . . that’s the ticket.

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

–Thanks to some changes in curriculum, the subject of evolution will be made compulsory for British primary schools beginning in 2011.  In response, grade schools in Kansas will remove the U.K. from all their maps and world geography lessons.

–After 25 years of ruling the planet, Oprah Winfrey has announced she will end her talk show in 2011.  Looks like the Mayan Armageddon prediction was only off by one year.

–”Honey, don’t forget to water the meat.”  It’s being reported that scientists have figured out how to grow tiny bits of meat in a lab, meaning that one day we might be able to grow pork chops on trees or steaks on shrubs.  Meh.  Wake me up when we invent a money tree.

–An eye doctor in North Carolina could lose his medical license for being too honest.  He told one of his patients she was fat, and that her thick thighs combined with her diabetes could make her go blind.  Note to self: so, honesty in real life isn’t cool, but when Hugh Laurie does it on House we love it and give him Golden Globes.  Gotcha.

–Scottish singer Susan Boyle, whose rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” from Les Misérables on Britain’s Got Talent was an Internet sensation, is getting slammed by Sharon Osbourne. Sharon Osbourne told a U.S. radio station that Boyle “has a voice, yeah, but, boy, has she been hit by the ugly stick.”  Sharon would know.  She used a similar stick on her own children several years ago . . . . zzzzing!

–Among the many things to give thanks for this Holiday season is the end of Jon and Kate Plus Eight.  The series finale airs in three days, after which, we will never hear another peep about this mess ever again . . . until one of their brood is old enough to date; or release a tell-all book.  Whatever happens first.

–Sarah Palin made the cover of Newsweek magazine recently wearing a pair of running shorts.  Most people think the picture is “gender neutral” but Sarah Palin is calling the picture “sexist.”  Yes.  Sarah Palin is calling a picture of herself on the cover of Newsweek “sexist.”  The same picture appeared in an issue of Runner’s World magazine.  Palin says that one is appropriate, though.

–Beginning today, actor James Franco (from Pineapple Express) will appear on the popular daytime soap opera General Hospital.  Presumably Franco has grown tired of acting.

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

On the surface, it might not make a whole lot of sense for a film critic to interview a United States Senator, but I say it makes perfect sense.  Hollywood and Washington have an awful lot in common with each other, after all.

Hollywood just loves finding new and exciting ways to blow up the Washington Monument, for example, and both towns are very, very good at spending lots of money.  Plus, there’s Reagan.

But the real reason I ended up in D.C. talking to Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is because we’re living through some pretty strange political days, and since I’m not the only American who would rather sit in a dark theatre than stare into Wolf Blitzer’s eyes, I took this chance to ask Sen. McCaskill to help the rest of us average Joes understand what’s going on with health care, why Congress has such an image problem, and how Clooney, Pitt and Matt Damon can erase our budget deficit.

I’d like to begin by saying thank you for taking the time to talk, and even though you’re an MU fan and I’m a Jayhawk, I hope we can have a successfully bipartisan interview.

We can try to get by that.  I will try not to focus on it during the interview so I can remain civil and polite.

Excellent, thanks!  So, who do you think is better at spending money, Washington or Hollywood?

I think both are pretty good at it. One of the things that’s been neat in the last five or six years–it seems to me, anyway–is that independent films have gotten a lot more traction.  There are a lot more outlets for these kinds of films, and they’re my favorites.  My husband and I have a tendency to go to just one or two movie houses in St. Louis because it’s where all of the “non-blockbuster” films are, and those movies show that you can make a great movie and make money on it without having the mega budgets.

Not so much in Washington have we figured out how to deal with policy without the mega budgets.  But the auditor in me is working on that part, trying to do a lot of work focusing in on the way Federal Government spends money, trying to figure out how we can do a better job at contracting, the ABC’s of the business world government has trouble with.

Yes, well, I think it’s fair to say that Hollywood is much better about firing people.

Yes.  Although, I’ll tell ya, the American people are pretty good at holding folks accountable.  One of the things that worries me, is that we have a tendency in Washington, many people in Washington, they forget, quickly, what has happened.

And what really happened in the last two election cycles is independent voters in this country rejected the Republican majorities and the Republican in the White House, and embraced the Democrats because I think they wanted things to be done differently.  And sometimes I think that people who’ve been in Washington a long time forget that lesson and quit playing close attention to what people want.  They quit listening and don’t hear frustrations, and that’s how you get fired . . . again.

Complacency can be a dangerous thing, eh?

Absolutely, and it’s easy to get complacent in Washington because, unfortunately, everyone in Washington treats you like you’re a pretty big deal.

Speaking of money . . . the House squeaked out a health care plan by two votes with a $1.1 trillion price tag, and you’ve said the Senate version will look at cost cutting.  What’s in the House version that you think stands a good chance of being cut?

I think the thing that many senators are focused on, especially some of us that aren’t afraid to call ourselves moderates, is the cost cutting. This really is our opportunity and this is controversial stuff.  The nature of the beast dictates that we’re going to make people upset.  It’s why this can has been kicked down the road so many times.  When you do something this big and this complicated, it’s impossible to do it without alienating large parts of the electorate.  At least in the consideration phase it is.

I think in the long run, if you look back at the Medicare debate, for example, it was wildly unpopular, lots of accusations of Socialism, and now Medicare is one of the most popular government programs in existence.  But if we go through this right now, if we walk over hot coals and try to get a bill, and don’t take a 2×4 to health care costs in this country, we really should look ourselves in the mirror and say, “why are we doing this?”

Because, yes, we want to make health insurance affordable and accessible to all Americans, but what’s really important for all Americans is that we get a handle on this deficit.  And health care costs are the 800-pound gorilla.  That’s why I think the House bill doesn’t go far enough in looking at ways that we can cut health care costs long term.

It’s also being said that the House bill is D.O.A in the Senate.  Is that accurate or hyperbole?

Well, I think everyone needs to start understanding the premise, and that is: there is somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of all the bills that have been written that pretty much everybody agrees on.  So there will be parts of the House bill that will certainly be included in the final legislation–no preexisting conditions, limiting some of the really “bad guy” stuff that insurance companies do–helping our medical professionals retire debt after school so we can get more primary care doctors and more nurses, more emphasis on prevention, helping people get preventative appointments because they’re so cost effective for all of us.

If we can get people in for more free prevention appointments, it saves everybody money, and I mean literally everybody.  So those kinds of things are likely to be included in whatever bill we pass.  Where there’s going to be disagreement is whether or not we have some option on the insurance exchange, and people have gotten this way out of perspective.

The insurance exchange is going to be a relatively small part of the insurance market.  You still are going to have the vast majority of Americans in this country getting their insurance at work, and it’s only those people who don’t get insurance at work that will have the opportunity to pool their risk with others who have the same situation in this insurance exchange.  And what’s in this exchange is where there may be some differences as to whether or not it’s a public option or whether it’s a not for profit co-op, along with a number of private insurance options that people will be able to shop among.

Anyone who watches the news and sees stories, for example, of the Joe Wilson outburst or footage of Rep. Tom Price yelling “I object” over and over again on the House floor might be a little put off by that sort of behavior and it may seem childish to some.  How much of an image problem (partisanship aside) do you think Congress has right now?

I think there’s a lot of cynicism about Washington, and a healthy distrust of the central government is part of the American experience, frankly, and part of our democracy.  It goes back to the very beginnings of our country, and the way our constitution was drawn up to try and limit the power of the central government.  So, it is very natural to our democracy.

I do think that the Republicans are suffering a little on a couple of fronts.  I think the Republican Party is having a bit of a civil war right now.  The moderates in the Republican Party are feeling very lonely, very marginalized.  The “right wing base,” the very conservative base, is flexing their muscle right now, and they are also very focused on being obstructionists.

They really believe–and this is true in Washington regardless of the parties–there is an old adage in Washington that the success of one party is the failure of the other party.  And I think the Democrats engaged in this sometimes when they were in the minority, that you just want to block.  You don’t want to do public policy, you just want to block.

Regardless of whether or not an argument makes sense . . .

Right, regardless of whether or not the argument makes sense, and I think there’s some of that going on.  I think the image problem is significant, and the thing that’s most worrisome to me right now is that there was such a sense of hope and emotion, and really a rising up of a lot of people in this country to participate in the election last November.

And to some extent, perhaps some people’s expectations were unrealistic, perhaps overly idealistic, but I worry that the passion that brought Barack Obama to the presidency has cooled, and that the opponents to Barack Obama, the very, very gut level, visceral opposition to Barack Obama has galvanized, and it has become very energetic and very loud.  And I just hope that the grass roots energy that elected Barack Obama, I hope they reawaken and realize that governing is different than a campaign, that there is nothing evil about compromise and pragmatism, that it’s how you make change.

You just can’t elect a new president and overnight, change happens.  It’s a very tough road and you have to be pragmatic.  But people should not go to sleep, or go home or give up.  Because when you do, the opposition fills that space.  And they’ve been pretty good at filling that space for the last few months, dominating the national debate with a huge dose of negativity.

How many pages is the health reform bill at the moment?

Depends on which bill you’re talking about.  I think the House bill is just short of 2,000 pages.

Can I add one?  Would anybody notice?

Oh yeah.  People would definitely notice.  One of the things about some of the folks that have been screaming is the ridiculous notion that we’re gonna pass something as big and complicated as this and nobody’s going to know what’s in it.  I’ll be very honest with you, I know this is an important problem and I’m glad we’re working on it, but I’m sick of health care.

I’ll bet.

I have learned more and have studied more and have spent more time on this subject probably more than any other subject since I’ve been in public office

I understand you’re in the process of reading it now, but since I just asked you about Congress’ perception problem, I think this plays into it: how is it even possible that a lawmaker can feel so strongly and be so opinionated about a bill that many of them haven’t even read? 

I think there will be some Republicans who are just opposed that won’t read it, but I’ll be surprised if the Senators, once we get a bill that comes to the floor, I’d be surprised if most Senators didn’t read it in its entirety.

And I know it’s frustrating it’s so long, but that pages are–first of all, they’re not like the pages of a book.  You can take five or six pages of a bill and make one page of a book.  There are not a lot of words to a page.  And a lot of the language is what you can call “enrolling” language, and that is, where does this fit in the statutes and how does it relate in terms of the sections?

That’s kind of mundane and it’s hard to follow when you’re reading it, but if you don’t get that right you end up omitting a section you didn’t mean to omit or you end up not omitting something that needs to be omitted because it’s been changed, so while it’s technical and hard to read, the vast majority of the Senate and the vast majority of the staff that are working on this bill know these bills intimately.  Every comma, every paragraph, every word.

I don’t want to spend a whole lot of time on the Stupak Amendment; real, honest-to-god journalists have that one covered.  But I would like to ask you to clarify for the rest of us how it’s worded and what it means.

Sure.  We have in the law right now the Hyde Amendment, and the Hyde Amendment is black letter Federal law, it has been for a number of years, and it prohibits the use of Federal tax dollars for any kind of abortion services whatsoever, except for cases of rape and incest.

So, what the Stupak Amendment does–and you have to understand what the insurance exchange is to understand what the Stupak Amendment is–the Stupak Amendment only addresses the insurance exchange.  So as I said before, this is not going to be the majority of America in terms of their health insurance coverage.  But on the exchange, some people will get subsidies, and what the Stupak Amendment says, is that if you’re getting a subsidy of any kind to help you buy insurance on the exchange, then you cannot buy any policy that has any kind of abortion coverage in it.

Now, there was an attempt to find a compromise and place a firewall within these policies:  Let’s say you’re a family of four that makes $80,000 a year and you’re getting some kind of subsidy to help you buy insurance, but you’re also spending some of your private money.  The attempt was made as part of the compromise, prior to the Stupak Amendment, that you could not use any of your Federal dollars for abortion services.  But if you wanted to use your private money to get abortion services, you could.

The Stupak Amendment outlaws that.  It says if you get any kind of subsidy, you cannot buy a policy that has those services.

Even if you buy it with your own private money.

Even if you’re using your private money for that part of the policy.  So it’s an attempt to further limit that availability.  Now, the interesting thing, in my state, the amendment is irrelevant. Because in my state abortion coverage in insurance policies is illegal, so frankly the Stupak Amendment has no impact on Missourians one way or the other.  But obviously it’s a very controversial amendment.

Obama said in a recent interview that, “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” Still, how easily do you think the arguments around the Stupak Amendment are going to drown out the thesis of health care reform?

Well, I got in some trouble because I was trying to dial down the Stupak Amendment controversy in a national appearance, and I think some of my pro-choice supporters got upset with me because they thought I wasn’t making a big enough deal of it and I wasn’t speaking out as strongly as I should have against it.  But part of my fear here is that the health care debate gets hijacked by the long standing and (probably) never changing emotional controversy surrounding this subject of abortion.

I hope that everyone stays focused on making sure that we don’t let this subject matter bog us down and keep us from this really important work of reforming health care in this country.

Joe Lieberman is vehemently opposed to a public option, so let’s play the “what if?” game for a moment.  What if sweeping health care reform is passed without a public option in it?  Would that be considered an empty victory for Democrats?

What’s really unfortunate about this is that the public option was the precursor for the abortion controversy in that people were very focused on the public option debate without realizing that it is a small piece of it.

The reason it became such a touchstone for controversy is, it was the rationale that the opponents of health care were using, that this was the camel’s nose in the tent for massive government takeover of insurance.  It was the olive branch to many progressives who wanted single payer.  So one side of the debate was, unfortunately, guilty of saying we’re not going to do single payer to all of you that want single payer, but we’re going to do this public option.  And frankly, that’s overselling the public option in terms of what it’s going to do.

And then on the other hand, the people who don’t want any health care reform are saying the public option is big bad government taking over insurance.  So it’s a great example of the two far ends on this debate hijacking one part of the bill and blowing it up into a controversy that’s much larger than what it probably should have been.

I think the White House believes, the experts there, that a “trigger,” in many ways, is as progressive as a public option.  Because what the trigger says to these insurance companies is, “You’ve got a sword hanging over your neck.”  If you don’t get your act together trying to bring down prices for the American people, there will be a public option.  But to the public option people, that’s a sellout.  That’s nothing.  It won’t work, you know, a robust public option or nothing.

When we began down this road and decided it wouldn’t be a single payer system, the public option debate became a stand in for the single payer debate.  I think we’ve put a costume on public option and made it into something it’s not for purposes of controversy.  I’m hopeful that everyone will keep perspective here and not draw lines in the sand because we need to get 60 votes in the Senate to get this done.

Do you think we’ll see anything from the Senate before 2010?

I think we’ll probably start debate in earnest the week after Thanksgiving, so the question is how long will this take.  What people don’t fully comprehend are the Senate rules, and the Senate rules lend themselves towards delay.  There are all these hours that have to go by on all these motions, cloture motions, post-cloture. So if you have to have a cloture motion on everything–and just think of a cloture motion, for laypeople, as “the thing that stops filibusters.”  So the thing that stops filibusters–I wish we’d call it that instead of cloture–

Yeah, calling it a “filibuster buster” is much cooler.

Right, right.  So the thing that stops filibusters takes 30 hours, so if everyone is trying to stop everything, you can imagine the time that has to transpire in order to move forward, especially with all the amendments being debated and all the controversy surrounding those amendments.

I’d say there’s a chance we don’t finish it before Christmas, but we certainly will begin work on it before Christmas.  I would be shocked if we didn’t get it finished up and to the President’s desk by the middle of January, and I think we’ll have a bill before everyone is sending each other Valentine’s cards.

Plenty of Americans, whether they’re for health care reform or against it, know that it’s probably one of the most expensive things they’ve ever seen.  Luckily for you, Claire, I have a plan to deflect the cost of health care reform, and you can take all the credit for this idea if it works. Ready? 

Sure.

Get Michael Bay to be your Film Czar and open up a government run movie studio, and you guys start making movies.  They don’t even have to be any good, they just have to make money.  Michael Bay doesn’t make good movies.  He makes money. 

So what you’re saying is that we need Michael Bay to make movies for the Federal Treasury so we can get out of the deficit.

Right.  Take the last Harry Potter movie.  That netted $679 million.  So, you make about eight of those, and that’s around $5 billion.

Now, that’s pretty good.  I thought you were going to say that we just need to open up the ridiculously expensive popcorn and Coke concession.

No, well . . . that’s good too.  And I know $5 billion isn’t a lot of money in this town.

Oh, $5 billion is a lot of money in this town.

Really?

Oh, sure.  $5 billion is, well a little bit less, but $5 billion is around 25 percent of the entire budget of the state government of Missouri.

Hollywood is full of liberal actors anyways so I bet you could get Clooney and Matt Damon to work for cheap, and Brad Pitt used to live in Missouri so I bet he’d do whatever you wanted.

You know, I think that’s probably true.  When George Clooney was in St. Louis making a movie [Clooney shot Up in the Air at a St. Louis airport] he was kind enough to come over and have dinner at my house.  So we had a chance to talk around the table and we could probably talk him into helping out with this.  I think you’ve got a plan.

Actually, there was a joke floating around over the summer that Brad Pitt was running for Mayor of New Orleans. 

Is that right?

Yeah, because of all the humanitarian efforts he’s doing down there.  I’m guessing you would have endorsed him . . .

Well, we have to take care of our Missourians.

Well, if I ever get to interview him one day, I’ll tell him you said hi.  Hey, you don’t have his number, do you?

(Laughs) I do not have his number, sorry . . .

Damn.  Worth a shot.  All right, Claire.  Thanks so much for taking the time.

Thank you.

–Interview by Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

–An airplane part fell from the sky over Long Island today, landing in the front lawn of a house in Roosevelt, N.Y.  No one was injured.  As is the usual practice these days, however, parents in the area are looking for someone to blame, and since this is pretty much how the movie Donnie Darko ended, director Richard Kelly should call his lawyers just in case . . .

–Captain Timothy B. Cheney and First Officer Richard I. Cole, the two Northwest Airlines pilots who overshot their Minneapolis, Minnesota, airport destination by about 150 miles because they weren’t paying attention in the cockpit, have appealed the FAA for revoking their licenses.  If that actually works, I’m going to appeal to my 6th grade math teacher for that “D” he gave me . . . for not paying attention in class.

–If you’ve ever wondered why your baby is crying, there’s now an iPhone app to tell you.  Using state of the art technology, the app claims to be able to tell if your baby is crying because of hunger, fatigue, annoyance, stress or boredom.  Mood rings are also scientifically sound.

–In North Korea, 68-year-old Cha Sa-soon is celebrating.  She finally passed her drivers test after 949 unsuccessful attempts.  But don’t get your hopes up, kids.  Stereotypes are still wrong.

–A 23-year-old mom to be in Minnesota, who’s been blogging about her pregnancy for months, is going to bring her readers into the delivery room and broadcast the birth live online.  “It was a way for me to teach,” she said, “A way for me to use myself as a textbook.”  I’m not sure why people wouldn’t use a textbook as a textbook . . . ooooh, that’s right.  You have to read a textbook.  Never mind.  Forget I said anything.

–A 21-year-old man in Oregon called the cops to report his weed had been stolen from his car while he was in a bar getting wasted.  The police apparently didn’t respond quickly enough, so the man got into his car and drove around aimlessly trying look for the thief.  He was arrested, but only because he doesn’t live in Oakland.

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

–According to a report by CNN, “A coalition of top musicians, including R.E.M. and Pearl Jam, want to know if their music was used by the U.S. military as part of controversial interrogation methods at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”  The list of bands and songs can be found on the Internet, and the Barney theme song is on it.  I always know that song was torture.

–In a testimony before the House International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight Subcommittee hearing on violence against women on Capitol Hill, actress Nicole Kidman said that violence against women could be blamed in part on Hollywood’s depiction of them as weak sex objects.  She might have a point, but it’s too late to stop Michael Bay anymore . . .

–TMZ founder Harvey Levin is promising legal action after learning that Los Angeles cops went through his phone records during a leak investigation related to Mel Gibson’s 2007 DUI.  “It breaks federal law, it breaks state law,” Levin said.  Hey Harvey, if you’re gonna dish it out . . .

–An alternative newspaper in Denver is hiring for a new position.  They need someone to review the state’s medical marijuana dispensaries.  Whoever ends up with this position will probably end up dabbling in music reviews too, as long as you want to read a new column about Phish every week.

–I ran across an opinion column today in honor of the band Creed’s reunion.  The column claims that it’s time to stop hating Creed, and that “Creed is Good.”  Ladies and gentlemen of the Internet, this is a lie.  The time to stop hating Creed is the same as the time to stop hating Nickelback, which–to be crystal friggin’ clear–is never in a million years.

–A prisoner in Sicily is lobbying to get himself transferred from house arrest to a real prison because he’s sick and tired of arguing with his wife, thus proving Rodney Dangerfield isn’t really dead.

–A controversial new iPhone app from PepsiCo Inc. that promised to help men “score” with women has been scrapped.  There goes Pepsi’s plans to manufacture “A New Generation.”

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

Last week it was revealed that Rush Limbaugh–in a joint effort with the NHL’s St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts–is interested in buying one of the worst teams in football; the St. Louis Rams.

This week, the inevitable happened: Rev. Al Sharpton wrote a letter to Commissioner Goodell expressing his concern.  And just like that, the Rams are politicized.  Congrats to the Rams, you’re making headlines for something other than how awful your team is.

And as soon as this news hit the wire, there were too many jokes to count (personal favorite:  the Rams will only run plays to the right).

Rush has said that, if the deal goes through, he’ll let Checketts actually run the team.  So presumably Rush just wants to sit back and cash the checks like any good old fashioned fan of conservative free-market business, and all politics aside, there’s no reason why Rush shouldn’t be considered.

Hey, he’s got the money and he’s got that stereotypical overweight-sweaty-white-dude-chomping-on-a-cigar “owner” look; just like the album cover for Warrant’s “Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich” album way back in 1989.

But leaving politics at the door with Rush Limbaugh is like talking about the Oakland Raiders and Al Davis without making a joke about the Dark Side and Emperor Palpatine.  It just can’t happen.  So regardless of the NFL’s policy on giving every potential owner a fair shake no matter what, a move for Rush to buy the Rams just simply can’t be allowed.

Here’s a few random reasons why, and maybe a few extra things for Rush to chew on as well (I don’t think Rush has really thought this through):

1.)    The NFL is a socialist business model:

Seriously, Rush, it is.  I’m sure you might have noticed it back in 2003 during the two or three minutes you were on ESPN’s payroll before making a racially charged comment about Donovan McNabb and resigning.  The NFL might use free-market practices to get into the owners’ clubhouse, but once you’re there, it’s a veritable “pinko parade” all the way to draft day.

Well over half of the NFL’s revenue generated from television is divided up amongst the league’s 32 teams.  On game day, the home team shares a percentage of the gate sales with the visiting team, so even last year’s winless Detroit Lions were turning a dime.

In the NFL, failed businesses get all the cool stuff, like draft picks, so if you want to thrive as an NFL owner, you’ll need to accept the bailouts.  And if you own the Rams, you’re gonna need them.

2.)    The NFL has a lot of African-Americans.

I’m sure you’re aware of this, Rush, as you’ve stated before that “the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons.”  Classy, but it doesn’t really matter if you’re a racist since, according to you, African Americans are only “12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?”

Well Rush, if you’re in the NFL, that number jumps to around 65-70 percent.  That’s a majority, and it might be a problem for you.  I’m not going to tell you what you can and can’t say, do or believe, but I’m just saying that if you build a career on looking down at a certain group of people that you eventually expect do to good things for you . . . that might not pan out too well.  Those athletes get lots and lots of face time in the public eye, which brings me to a third problem you might face as an NFL owner.

3.)    Chad Ochocinco

Now, regular readers of this column will know that I’m not a fan of Chad, really.  He runs his mouth a lot more efficiently than he runs a post pattern, but honestly, Rush, if you end up being an NFL owner, I will literally sit on the edge of my seat every Sunday and follow Ochocinco’s Twitter account religiously in hopes that he shoots his mouth off about you.

And it’s not even that I’m looking forward to what Chad has to say; I’m looking forward to how you’ll handle it.  You see, Rush, once you own a team, Commissioner Goodell owns you.  That’s right.  You’ll have a boss. Someone who can investigate, fine and punish you for doing the things you’ve built a career on (including the pills, Rush).

Most of the menial little smart alec moves that Chad Ochocinco has pulled during his career has cost him lots of money.  A tweet here, a dance there . . . whatever.  Can you imagine–even as a partial owner of a team–what might have happened to you if you’d actually been associated with the NFL when you said, “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

Man, that would have been messy, eh?  Here’s how the headline would have read:  “St. Louis Rams owner slams NAACP.”  There’d be a picture of you chomping on a stogie, and legions of sports analysts would have weighed in on that one.  And I mean everyone.  Ditka, Bradshaw, Berman, Golic, Greenberg, Wilbon, Whitlock, Kornheiser, Mariotti, Blackistone, Jim Rome, Gumbel  . . . Tony Dungy.

And Rush, if Tony Dungy hates you, then God probably hates you, too. Tony Dungy is the Lord’s coach.  Just ask Michael Vick . . . wait, on second thought, it’s probably a bad idea for you to ask Michael Vick anything.  Better stay away from him if you want this job.

You’ll open yourself up to a whole new word of criticism if you do this, and you’ll have to sit there and be quiet while you try and thrive in a socialist system.

So whaddaya say, Rush?  Is that worth it?  Just to own . . . the Rams?

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

–For the first time in over 100 years, the International Olympic Committee has decided to include golf at the Summer Games in Rio.  They’re going to go ahead and send Tiger Woods his medal tomorrow.

–TMZ is reporting (is that the right word?) that Marge Simpson will appear in the next issue of Playboy.  I’m serious.  It’s a three-page spread, and no, there’s nothing strange about humanizing a cartoon character by putting her in a nudie mag.  Some speculate that Marge will be wearing lingerie, but I guarantee it’s going to be so tight that it’ll look like it’s painted on.

–An awful lot of people are really, really mad that Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this year, and to put this award in perspective of importance, I ask you this:  Who won the Nobel Peace Prize last year?  Anyone remember?  Anyone know without looking it up?  Of course you don’t.  Because it doesn’t effect you.  Rant all you want.  By this time next week you’ll be back to talking about Survivor and gawking at Kelly Clarkson’s weight gain.

–Due to the bad economy and a 25 percent sales slump in the DVD market, you can expect Hollywood to churn out a lot more “branded entertainment.”  This means we’ll be seeing a lot of movies based on old TV shows and popular toys . . . including Battleship and the popular children’s View-Finder toy.  The View-Finder movie is about a very special boy who finds a magical View-Finder, and when he looks through it, he sees a terrible, terrible film.

–NASA said Friday’s rocket and satellite strike on the moon was a success.  In an attempt to find water on the moon, NASA decided to start throwing rockets at it in hopes of carving a big enough hole to find water in.  Amazing, eh?  After all these years of technology and advancement, we still exemplify base human traits: we beat up things that confuse us.

–Conservative talking head and false idol Rush Limbaugh has thrown his hat into the NFL.  It’s being reported that Rush is teaming up with Dave Checketts, owner of the NHL’s St. Louis Blues, in a bid to buy the St. Louis Rams.  Rush wants to rebuild the team and win a Super Bowl because it’s the only way he’ll ever be invited to the White House.

–Sarah Palin has offered to her services to the GOP in order to help out some pretty close gubernatorial campaigns in New Jersey and Virginia, but her offer has been declined.  I guess Palin will have to spend her time pushing her new book (crayons sold separately).

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

After much deliberation, it has been decided that President Obama will hop his plane to Denmark and do something that Rod Blagojevich dreamed of doing before his impeachment:

Sell Chicago to the world.

Yes, the Prez is headed to Copenhagen this Thursday to personally throw Chicago’s hat in the ring for hosting the 2016 Olympics, something no president has ever done before.

And considering how loved Obama is by the rest of the world (the country he runs is the only one whose people draw Hitler moustaches on pictures of him) my gut is telling me that selling Chi-Town to the International Olympic Committee is going to be easier than selling Bibles to Glenn Beck fans.

In fact, if you read the situation correctly, it might already be a done deal.  Would Obama go all the way to Denmark and spend time pitching the Windy City if there were a risk of failure?

This kind of set up happens more often than you might think, actually.  I like to call it the competitive “Cheney Handicap”: if the president or vice president participates in any kind of contest or sport, you can be pretty sure it’s rigged like the WWE.  For example, if Cheney wants to hunt quail on a Sunday, there are people in place whose job it is to make sure Cheney doesn’t have to look very hard for a quail.  Otherwise someone gets shot in the face.

The fact that Obama is going to Denmark–for a short stay of around 10 hours, at that–tells me that he doesn’t really need to go to Denmark to make the Olympic bid stick to the IOC in the first place, but maybe it’s not a done deal.  Maybe it’s still close.  Maybe we’re neck and neck with one of the other cities in the running: Madrid, Tokyo or Rio de Janeiro.

So just in case you need some last minute talking points, Mr. President, allow me to supply you with a few sure-fire incentives you should bait the IOC with . . . just to be safe:

–Tell the IOC that we promise to put a muzzle on Ozzie Guillen.  Not that he has anything to do with the Olympics, but it’s probably just for the best.

–Tell the IOC that we impeached Blagojevich so he wouldn’t try to sell the gold medals, but if you need someone to hawk a bunch of Olympic tee shirts and official glow sticks, he’s your man.

–Chicago is home to the world’s largest public library, the Harold Washington Library Center.  If the IOC gives Chicago the 2016 Olympics, everyone gets a library card.  Seriously.  Come on in and have the run of the place.  We’re Americans and have no use for books (we hate the public library option anyways; too socialist).

–Chicago is known as the “Candy Capital of the World,” which is great news for the children.  China’s gymnasts would have a blast.

–Chicago’s Oceanarium is the largest indoor marine mammal pavilion in the world, and Michael Phelps is totally cool with having a sleepover.

–If all else fails, bring some deep dish and tell them “There’s plenty more where that came from.”

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff

President Obama attended an event in Troy, New York today with New York Gov. David A. Paterson, who is running for reelection despite the White House strongly advising against it.

Ooooh, awkward.

The focus of this event was to talk about the economy, but I’m willing to bet the only dialogue between Obama and Paterson was an uncomfortable discussion about the weather, and maybe the Jets game.  Maybe.

Over the weekend, upon hearing of Gov. Paterson’s plan to run for another term, the New York Times reported that the Prez “sent a request to Mr. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing . . . ”

And the crowd went wild (not in a good way), because that’s what crowds do these days . . . especially with government, and ESPECIALLY with this administration.

There are various and conflicting reports trying to figure out who exactly is responsible for telling the Governor of New York that he’s not liked, isn’t very good at his job and doesn’t stand a chance in heck of winning reelection.

Some attribute this message to the White House in general; some to White House political director Patrick Gaspard, who according to ABC News is spearheading the “charge within the White House to try to convince Paterson to not seek election,” and others say it’s all Obama.

I guess it depends on where you get your impartial journalism, which these days is more of a theory than actual practice.

But it doesn’t really matter who ends up taking credit for this memo to Paterson because the buck stops with Obama, and considering the conservative extremist view of his administration and Glenn Beck’s puffy faced cries of Socialism, well, I think it’s fair to say the White House stepped in it with Paterson.

To say the masses are touchy is an understatement, and hyperbole is rampant when assessing everything Obama does.  A sitting president getting involved with state politics in any way, shape or form–especially in a manner that smacks of control–is probably the worst bit of PR Obama can hope for.

As president, you just can’t do that sort of thing.  Then again, you aren’t supposed to heckle the president when he’s speaking to Congress either, so there’s plenty of firsts in Washington this year.  Maybe the cosmos is to blame . . . which house is Pluto in right now?
It should be said that Obama’s desire for Gov. Paterson to go away is not unfounded.  The math is there, and politicians look at this sort of thing when deciding to run in the first place.  The numbers aren’t good for Paterson.  A Marist (Hey, that’s only one letter away from “Marxist!”  Panic!) Poll from last week shows that 70 percent of voters and 65 percent of Democrats in New York don’t want Paterson around anymore either.

But alerting Paterson to those numbers, and for the president to leverage them in order to exercise his will on the state level is a horrible idea.  Just like it’s a bad idea for the House to waste their official time passing a resolution to admonish Congressman Joe Wilson.  Both overstep their bounds.

Who governs New York shouldn’t matter to Obama therefore he shouldn’t be involved. And if Obama’s remarks are a means of trying to preserve party dominance he’ll never hear the end of it.  That’s not his job either.

If only there were some kind of governing body for the Democrats whose job it is to handle these sorts of things.  Like . . . a committee or something.

Yeah, that’s it.  Some sort of Democratic National Committee that “promotes the election of Party candidates with both technical and financial support; and works with national, state, and local party organizations, elected officials, candidates, and constituencies to respond to the needs and views of the Democratic electorate and the nation.”

Man, that would be a huge help, wouldn’t it?  That way Obama could focus on being president instead of spoon-feeding the right more talking points.

In other news, President Obama called Kanye West a “jackass,” but we’re totally cool with that one.

–Joey Alfino, Red Editorial Staff