avid Letterman's ratings have never been higher than they are right now, and much of the increase is attributed to the publicity he has received subsequent to his so-called joke about one of the daughters of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The Governor was infuriated and went on several TV shows to defend her daughter, She called Mr. Letterman's joke "ugly and perverted". He claimed that when the Governor took her daughter to a Yankees game that, during the seventh inning stretch, Palin's daughter got knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez. When the public criticism reached him and when he realized that he'd used the name of the 14 year old daughter, rather than the 18 year old (the one who actually was "knocked up" during the presidential campaign), he apologized publicly. Did he go too far? Yes. Was it bad taste? Yes. Was it funny? No. Does it matter? To whom?. Then stop watching him! There's equally bad taste (or lack of taste) in much of the humor on TV.

One thing I should add is that the women's movement used to have a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual slurs against women. Why is it acceptable for liberal or left-wing Palin haters to be that crude, but look out if a conservative did something similar against the child of a Democrat.

red Barnes writing in The Weekly Standard said that President Obama claims that he's "a free-market guy who hates meddling in the private sector. But, look at his appointments, his policies, decisions, and his own words", they tell a different story. Not one of his Cabinet officers or senior staff members has ever run a business, hired or fired workers or was an entrepreneur. Barnes added that the bailouts of Chrysler and GM punish the car makers' bond-holders and reward their unions. And Obama's rhetoric is "suffused with animus towards the profit motive". That's one man's opinion to which I'd respond, Since President Obama has taken office the stock market has risen 35% since the lows of the winter months, 10 of the biggest banks have repaid their federal bailout money, and some have tapped the private markets for new funds. The Obama administration has been willing to twist arms, take risks, and perhaps bend a few rules. They have been brave and active. They have done, in part, what some conservatives have been calling for, for years, It has worked, and it hasn't occurred as the result of the free-market's natural self-correcting process. It took, of necessity, an enormous amount of government intervention.

If I am accurate, then Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post put it well, "whether or not these are really anti-business policies, let's have more of them". They are succeeding.

As recently as March, Barack Obama embarked on a policy of engagement with Iran's ruling regime. He offered "a new beginning". Now, in the eyes of millions of Iranians, that regime stands discredited (even more than it already was, in many parts of the world). The White House has been correctly restrained in its comments over the days since the flawed election. To take sides unreservedly with the protestors, condemning the way in which the election was conducted, overlooks the fact that Mr. Obama may still have to do business with Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad. Our meddling in their politics would be unlikely to serve the interests of the regime's opponents. It might well strengthen the current leaders and provide the reason for greater brutality.

For now, silence is probably still the best policy with Obama avoiding meddling, if he possibly can. The world is watching as best it can with the controls on press-coverage and the internet. The protests continue as do the arrests. Much depends on what happens next. If the regime decides that a sterner response is called for, the US President will have no choice but to take the side of the opposition; those protesting in the streets. And that will be the end of "the new beginning".