Trent Lott was a guest this morning on the Tony Show radio show.  You can hear the 3-part audio clips here.  In the interview, he blasted Senate Republicans who had threw him "overboard" when he could have "used a little help".  He claims he's free, and can do things the way he sees it.

If he's free, then let him be free of Republican campaign money as well.  Ken Mehlman should cut him off.

Lott complimented himself as someone who could get things done.  There's no doubt that he got things done, but the question is were they good things?  I doubt if people would look at the Senate from 96-2002 in a positive light.  If the Senate is a dysfunctional institution, it's because Lott helped them become that way.  And under Lott's leadership, the Republicans have been an impotent majority.  At least under Bill Frist, they've taken a stand for what's right.

Previous Posts:

1. It's time to show Trent Lott the door
2. Democrats looking to compromise on nuclear option

Roll Call broke the story Monday morning about a supposed deal being etched out by Trent Lott, the Republican former Senate Majority Leader, and Democratic Senator Ben Nelson on the judicial filibuster issue.

Via National Review's The Corner:

A bipartisan coalition of Senators believe it is close to a deal that would avert the looming showdown between Republicans and Democrats over judicial filibusters.

The potential deal, spearheaded by Sens. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), would involve at least a half-dozen Senators from each party signing a letter or memorandum of understanding that signals how they would proceed to vote on all matters related to judicial nominations.

The six Senate Republicans would commit to opposing the so-called nuclear option to end judicial filibusters, which would leave GOP leaders short of the 50 votes they need to execute the parliamentary move to abolish the procedure.

In exchange, the six Senate Democrats would pledge to allow votes on four of the seven circuit court nominees who were already filibustered in the 108th Congress and have been renominated.

In a press statement, Lott acknowledges he has been working on a deal, but he hasn't agreed to this one. Regardless, it is the perfect example of why Trent Lott should never be trusted with any kind of Senate leadership position ever again. Make no mistake; Lott is trying to undermine his Republican colleagues in the Senate, not help. Going behind the back of Senator Frist and the the conservative majority - who have already stated they have the 50 votes needed to kill judicial filibusters - in order to give himself some face time and enact a bit of revenge for his screwup at Strom Thurmond's birthday party.

He hasn't forgiven President Bush for leaving him out to dry in that incident, and there's no doubt that he wants his old job back.  For Trent Lott, it was always about power and prestige.  Whatever he had to say to get into someone's good graces, he'll say it.  Lott has multiple faces; much more than two.

That's why he was able to go onto BET and sing the praises of affirmative action and "regretting" making MLK's birthday a holiday, right after praising Strom Thurmond's presidential run.  Words don't matter; elections do.

Brokering compromises that emasculates the Republicans in the Senate is a Trent Lott trademark.  It's probably what he's truly known for while being Senate Majority Leader.  Conservatives have criticized Bill Frist, and for the most part it is legitimate, but we can all thank the stars that the Senate Leader isn't Trent Lott.  If Lott continued serving as Majority Leader, there wouldn't be a filibuster controversy, because the Republicans would have lost it long ago.

After all, it was Lott's genius idea to split the senate leadership in half after Election 2000.  After 9/ll, Lott caved in to federalized airport security, something that is still causing headaches and problems to this day.  And one of the biggest reasons why Daschle was successful in obstructing the Republican agenda, like military voting bills, for example, was due to Lott's appeasing nature with the Democrats.

If Lott continues to engage in this sort of behavior, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman should cut any funding for his reelection campaign, which is next year.  You would think Lott's embarrassing debacle a could of years ago would cause him to stay quiet.  But he is a liability to the party, and I don't see how he could be a positive to the Republican Party in any way, shape, or form in the future.

Previous Posts:

1. Democrats looking to compromise on nuclear option

(Photo:  Yahoo's The Contender Page)

I just watched Jesse Brinkley knock out Anthony Bosante.  Anthony fought a good fight, but a really stupid fight.

All I got to say is "Billy Conn".  Boxing fans know exactly what I'm talking about.

I'll have my round up by morning.

---

Last week, a very bad cut from a headbutt ended Joey Gilbert's run against Peter Manfredo.  A lot of the guys thought that was the worst cut they ever seen.  It was indeed quite nasty, but Sergio looked at the fight as a positive for Joey, not a negative, particularly if he continues his career.  Jesse and Alfonso thought he should consider not fighting again after that cut.

After the fight, Peter's father was not pleased at what he saw, and thought it was due to Peter being too chum with the other guys.  Peter explained how difficult it was to be in this competition, because the fight with Alfonso was the first time Peter ever fought without his dad, and he felt he had matured and became a better fighter because of it.  Regardless, Peter was happy to get the win and be one step closer to the finals.

Stallone gave Peter his IV pendant for winning the fight, and his reward was an advice session with legendary trainer Angelo Dundee.  Dundee went through the fight tape with Peter, giving him pointers on what he can work on in training for his next fight, and then took him in the ring to help him improve his stance.  As far as rewards go, this was probably the best one, because it helps Peter en route to the semifinals.

Meanwhile Jesse was a conflicted person.  He felt bad for Joey, because he was the matchmaker last week.  He also had a personal problem, as he was overweight (14 llbs over at one time) and had to get the weight down in less than a week.  The problem is, Jesse has a sweet tooth, and can't seem to put the food down.  Having wrestled in high school for four years, I know how that is.   Jesse took me back to those days with the solar suit (I used those as well as wore trash bags while running in order to make weight).

Jesse and Anthony had made an agreement on the weight limit.  The regular middleweight limit was 160, but Anthony gave him a pound extra.  So when it came time to weigh in, Jesse stripped down to absolutely nothing (a normal thing when you're trying to make weight).  Didn't work though, because he was half a pound over. 

It was Anthony's decision on whether to allow Jesse weight to stand; had it been a sanctioned fight by an alphabet organization he would have had to make the exact weight.  Anthony said Jesse needed to lose the half a pound, and an angry Jesse had three hours to lose half a pound or he'd forfeit the fight.  Jesse was pissed, but lost it easily.  Tommy rightfully chewed him out for blaming it on Anthony; the fact is he should have watched his weight better than what he had.  Considering how much work Jesse had done to lose all of the weight, the other boxers wondered if he'd have enough energy to go five rounds the next day.

Jesse Brinkley vs. Anthony Bosante
is the final fight of the quarterfinals.  Both guys are power punchers.  We already saw what Anthony could do, as he had the only knockout of the competition so far, dispatching Brent Cooper.  Jesse is very athletic, and that might prove to be a problem for Anthony.  Jesse went on about his hamstring injury, but surprisingly no one ever mentioned Anthony's torn hamstring from the last episode.  Both are coming into this fight on bad wheels.

As soon as the round started, Anthony unloaded with a nice hook.  That was a message to Jesse right off the bat:  "I'm trying to knock your teeth out".  Anthony looked really serious, and almost robotic like in the ring.  Jesse didn't let it effect him, but wasn't that busy through the first round.  Jesse mocked Anthony at the end of the round, but Anthony probably won that one.

In the second round, both fighters picked up the pace.  I liked how both corners talked to their guys before the round started, and both responded.  Anthony had very impressive defensive skills, bobbing and weaving, and using his glove to absorb some of Jesse's shots.  Jesse looked a bit sloppy in this round, as he was throwing some wild punches that weren't hitting the mark.  Anthony's round easily.

Jesse turned it around in Round 3.  I don't know if it was simply due to him getting some good shots that were finally connecting or that Anthony didn't seem as aggressive as the prior two rounds.  Either way, Jesse tagged him, and had the man frustrated.  He also popped him with some good counterpunches that made their mark.  Anthony's kids were going crazy over there.  Jesse won the round.

I don't think Jesse expected what came in Round 4.  Anthony comes out of the corner and just unleashes everything he has, and never takes a breather.  Punch after punch after punch just comes in, and Jesse can't adequately defend himself or get some space to throw a counter.  A very lopsided round, but I don't think Jesse was ever hurt from those punches because Anthony never measured any of them and placed power behind them.  After this round was over I thought it was possible that Anthony punched himself out in that round.

The final round was classic.  As I mentioned earlier, this was reminiscent of Billy Conn vs. Joe Louis, except that was a much better fight between much better boxers and almost three times as many rounds.  Anyway, Conn had been killing Louis the whole fight, outclassing him all the way up to the last round.  But he got greedy, and wanted to knock Louis out.  Only problem was, by trying to unload and go toe-to-toe with Louis, Conn was setting himself up for a knockout.  And Louis delivered.

That's what happened to Anthony.  In that round he forgot everything he was doing the previous four, and stayed focused on throwing punches.  Boxing is more than that though, and if you get caught by the right one, your lights are out.  All it took was for Anthony to lower that head ONE TIME, and a wicked uppercut by Jesse ended Anthony's dreams.  Jesse followed that uppercut with another one, and Anthony was sprawled out on the canvas. 

Anthony would get up and beat the count, but the guy was out on his feet, and the ref stopped the fight a few seconds later.  All Anthony had to do was hold on for 31 seconds.  That's it.  31.  He couldn't do it because he didn't fight smart in the last round.  One million dollars gone down the drain just like that.

Anthony doesn't deserve all of the blame, though.  At the end of the 3rd Round, Jeremy, Anthony's corner, and Sergio told him to go out there and brawl.  Now sure, it worked in the 4th round, but they should have told him to be careful and keep his hands up.  When you're in a contact sport, you have to worry about defense as well, and finish the fight the right way.  Anthony had no business having his head that low in the first place; that's for trying to throw those downward punches and he ended up getting exposed.  Why are you throwing those kind of punches in the last round and you're ahead????

Jesse was simply smart.  He was right; you're supposed to knock fighters like that out, because they're stupid fighters.  They think they can go in there and impose their will on you in the ring.  You simply wait for your opening and take it.  And that's exactly what he did.  Anthony may fight again, but he needs to learn his lesson from this loss. 

Next week, it's the semifinals.  See ya next week.

I'm sure none of you are that hyped about women's boxing.  Neither am I, because most of them couldn't box their way out of a wet paper bag.

But Ann Wolfe is one of the few that can.  Check out this knockout of Vonda Ward.  Both of them are probably the best in women's boxing (Laila Ali is a fraud) and Wolfe dispatched her in short order.  It's probably one of the most brutal knockouts you'll ever see.

Very disappointing night for NBA fans, as I'm sure everyone expected more competitive games that that.

First, Indiana embarrassed Boston on their own court by smoking them with a 27-point victory.  There had been blowouts like this before, but you expected for Boston to at least show up on their home court. 

Maybe Antoine Walker's smack talk after Game 6, saying how he believed it was Reggie Miller's last time playing in Canseco Fieldhouse, jinxed the team.  Yeah, well only managing to put up the second lowest score in the playoffs since the shot clock rule was implemented guarantees you he'll play at least two more games there.  Maybe next time Walker willl let his game do the talking rather than his mouth.

Walker shouldn't feel too bad, because they definitely had company.  Dallas took Houston to the woodshed, and you would have thought Houston didn't deserve to even be in the playoffs, much less a Game 7.

Both games were very similar; the stars of the team tried to do it all and the role players that start as well as the ones coming off the bench didn't do squat.  Only Pierce and Walker hit double digits for Boston, and only McGrady and Yao did the same for Houston.  As I've been saying for two years now; the superstar-driven NBA title run is history.  You're going to need an all-around team to win one now.

Meanwhile, Indiana and Dallas ate those teams alive with help from almost every position.  Everyone on their teams were able to put some points on the board.  And when Shawn Bradley is hitting 17-footers, you know it's a bad day for Houston.

Boston and Houston weren't just "gone fishin", they were so cold they were ICE fishin:

   

HIL-AR-I-OUS. (Photos from NBA.com's "Gone Fishin" Gallery)

I'll talk about the matchups for Round 2 sometime tomorrow when I regain consciousness.

The Associated Press broke the story last night.

There has been a movement for Nash to win it, but I don't know why.  First, I don't think Nash is even the most important player on his team (I agree with ESPN.com's Page 2 writer Bill Simmons that Amare Stoudamire is.)

Don't get me wrong; this was no doubt Nash's best year.  He led the NBA in assists (11.5 a game) and is one of the few guards to ever shoot over 50% for a season.  He also made 94 3-pointers this year.  No doubt that's hard to do.  But when you think of an MVP, you think of an outright leader.  It's the player that the opposing team points to and says "he's the one we have to stop in order to win".  I don't see Steve Nash as being that player, especially when he only averages 15.5 pts a game.

Contrast Nash with Jason Kidd.  Jason Kidd doesn't score a lot of points either, but everyone knows who led that team.  When Kidd signed with the Nets, there was a very good reason why people were yelling "MVP!"  towards the end of the season.  Everything on offense started and went through him.  He was the playmaker, he was occasionally grabbing rebounds, he was drawing fouls, and most importantly he was making everyone look better.  When anyone asked how the Nets got into the Finals three straight seasons, everyone pointed to Jason Kidd. 

There's no question that Nash has made Phoenix a better team this year, but how better?  Phoenix was in the playoffs last year, albeit they were trashed in the first round by the Spurs.  But even this year it's still questionable whether they'll be a Finals contending team.  If they face the Mavericks, they'll have to play with a team that can place as many points on the board as they can, and I don't think there's anyone on that team that can defend Yao Ming and T-Mac on that Suns roster.  Memphis was a walkover.  The real playoffs start on Monday.

Here's probably the biggest argument against Steve Nash as MVP:

One critical difference, Miami coach Stan Van Gundy argued, was seeing how O'Neal's and Nash's former teams fared in their absence.

With O'Neal, the Los Angeles Lakers were Western Conference champions in 2004; they were 34-48 and finished 11 games out of a playoff spot this year. Meanwhile, Nash's former team, Dallas, improved its record without him, going from 52 wins to 58.

``Steve Nash left and Dallas got better. The Lakers did not get better,'' Van Gundy said. ``I think that's the difference between the two of them when you come down to the voting. And I'm certainly a great admirer of Steve Nash.''

It'll be interesting to hear the arguments from sportswriters as to why Steve Nash is more deserving of MVP than Shaq.  Even with Shaq's injuries you can't deny the fact that Miami is where it is because of him.  Shaq left Los Angeles in shambles.  Can Phoenix say the same with Nash, especially if Dallas advances tonight and wins the series against Phoenix?

Yeah; I watched the Bulls completely choke last night against Washington, but it didn't seem right.  After all, I'm used to watching the NBA on TNT.  If Dave Stern wants to make me and I'm sure other fans happy, he'd place more games on TNT.  I'm interested to how the ratings come out for both channels.

Besides, there is only so much of Bill Walton that one normal human being can take.  His voice is annoying and he tries to sound like a storyteller every time he speaks.  Just call the game, Bill.  And as soon as the game was over, guess what?  I turned the television off.  Why?  There was no Inside the NBA.  ESPN's basketball analysts come off as distant and boring, and Stephen A. Smith has got to be the most annoying personality on television.  He personifies everything that is wrong with sports media right now.

Needless to say, I missed E.J., Kenny, and Charles tonight.  No homo. (Get over it Cobb; it's just a saying).

Anyway, the game was entertaining, just like the series has been.  However instead of people stepping up for their team, like in Game 5, they instead stepped down.  Antwan Jamison once again missed fts down the stretch, and if you would have told me that "The New Heartbreak Kid" Gilbert Arenas could go 6-24 from the field and the Wizards still win, I'd have laughed at you (although he did get one hellafied block on Kurt Hinrich towards the end of the game).

But the worst was from the Bulls; a complete collaspe down the stretch, particularly within the last 36 seconds of the game.  Forced shots by Jannero Pargo and Hinrich, Chris Duhon trying to roll the ball off his back and was completely unprepared for that kind of pressure situation, and then the WTF moment with Tyson Chandler taking a jumper at the top of the key with 3 seconds left when you need a three to tie the game.  And Chicago led for most of the second half.

If Washington is to compete with the Miami Heat, they are going to need a lot of help from Brendan Haywood and Jared Jeffries.  Shaq's had almost a week off and should be ready to play on Sunday, so that means Haywood needs a big game and try to use his strength to make Shaq work and keep a considerable distance.  

I don't think Miami will be able to roll through Washington without a few big games from Shaq, as they were able to do to the Nets, because Washington is a young team that can move up and down the court.  Their guards, Arenas and Larry Hughes, are just as defensive minded as they are scorers, so that means Dwayne Wade and Damon Jones won't go buckwild like they were able to do against the aging Jason Kidd and Vince Carter.  But that won't mean a thing if Antwan Jamison doesn't shake off some of the bad aspects of this series and help out on the boards.

Tonight will be a heck of a night, as there are TWO Game 7's:  Indiana/Boston is at 7PM and the really heated Dallas/Houston climax starts at 9:30.  Both will be on TNT, thank God.  Both games are virtual tossups, so there's no need for me to pull out a prediction.  Whoever has the most heart will win the game.  It's that simple.

And lastly, did anyone see James Carville and Tim Russert (well it looked like him anyway, I'm not for sure) in the crowd last night celebrating the Wizard victory?  That whole group looked too goofy for words.  The one thing I hate about the Wizards winning is now there will be a bunch of politicians starting to show up at Wizards games.  Lord help us if they upset Miami; you'll have all of Congress in the MCI Center trying to get on camera with their newly bought Wizards paraphernalia.

If you didn't know, Barry Bonds went under the knife again on Wednesday - the third time in a year - to have a bacterial infection cleaned.  This means his recovery is halted at least until after the All-Star Game in July.

Well the Arizona Republic did a little checkup of their own, looking into the background of Bond's surgeon, Arthur Ting.   Here's some of what they found:

The complaint also accused Ting of several other violations, including prescribing "dangerous drugs and controlled substances to friends and acquaintances, particularly athletes, for whom he kept no medical records or for whom the medical records were fictitious, inadequate or inaccurate."

Ting signed an agreement with the board on Jan. 4, 2004, saying that "to avoid a costly administrative hearing," he admitted he "was negligent in his supervision of subordinates," but he denied all other allegations in the complaint.

Bonds can continue to rant and rave about the press, and a lot of times he is indeed on point.  But one thing he can't deny is that he is at fault for a lot of the allegations and criticism that comes his way. 

Sure, this doesn't mean he certainly roided.  But just like Marion Jones, there's simply too many coincidences that connect to him for the steroid allegations to be just a baseless rumor.

Two Game 6's last night, and Saturday we'll have two Game 7's.

You got to love the playoffs.

Despite Paul Pierce being ejected late in the fourth quarter, the Boston Celtics beat the Indiana Pacers on the road in Overtime.

The Pacers closed the game playing terrible, missing shot after shot.  I forgot exactly the stat Inside the NBA showed on the game, but it was something like, 5-28 from the 5:00 mark of the 4th Quarter through overtime.  Regardless, this was Indiana's chance to clinch at home, and they completely blew it.

Charles Barkley had a problem with the officials ejecting Pierce out of the game.  If you didn't see it, Jamal Tinsley had reached around Paul Pierce and hit him in the face (And what the hell was that bandage doing on Pierce's face during the press conference?).  Pierce reacted by throwing an elbow, and Tinsley fell on the floor.  I say it like that because it looked as if Tinsley flopped a bit.  Barkley argued that the refs shouldn't have thrown Pierce out because it could have blown the game for the Pacers.

I disagree with Barkley for two reasons.  First, Pierce wasn't given a flagrant intentional foul (yes you can call that).  This was his second tech of the night, which meant he should have watched himself after the first one.  Second, Barkley had a good point about emotions and knee-jerk reactions, but we aren't questioning if he meant to do it.  The fact is, he did it, and the officials have an obligation to step in and make the call.  You can make an argument that Tinsley flopped, but how hard he hit Tinsley with the elbow makes no difference.  Pierce had no business throwing the elbow to begin with.

Whether he meant to do it or not is irrelevant.  If officials have to discern whether a player meant to make a violation, then they'd rarely call anything.  I'm sure Tinsley will say he didn't mean to hit Pierce in the face, but Pierce reacted anyway.  And if the officials didn't step in there and make a decision, Tinsley might have gotten up and retaliated, and then you have a problem.

I also don't like the growing assumption that officials are supposed to make calls for 3 3/4 quarters and then are supposed to swallow their whistles for the last minutes of the game.  First of all, I haven't seen that rule in any handbook.  I know an official can't catch everything that goes on, but if you're an official, and you see a violation, you call it.  I can probably see letting some go in a blowout, so you can simply get the game over with.  But when you're in a tight game and an official swallows the whistle, you place the team that's in the lead at a disadvantage because you're allowing possible turnovers for reaching in, or pushing, or contact while in the air, as well as other violations. 

There's a reason why there is a six-foul rule, free throw shooting, and the like; to deter players from committing those kinds of acts, particularly when trying to gain an advantage on the opposing team.  And I see where Charles and Kenny are coming from, because they're players and they've been fouled out, and have been called for techs at the end of the game, and the like.  But the rules are there for a reason, and no team is entitled to a comeback or a lead by changing those rules in the middle of the game.

Want an example?  Take Houston's win over Dallas game.

There were several occasions tonight where the officials could and possibly should have called intentional or flagrant fouls.  Josh Howard nailed Yao Ming in the third quarter and sent him flying, and had his teammates not been in front of him (and a bit of clumsy feet by Yao, which had McGrady laughing) Yao would have probably gotten into an altercation with Howard.

Later on, Bob Sura (or SARA, as Magic calls him) decided to get back at Howard for it.  He grabbed Howard while he was driving to the lane and threw him down.  That was an obvious intentional foul, yet the refs simply called it a personal.  A scuffle ensued until the refs calmed it down.

Considering the emotion of the prior games along with Van Gundy's complaint about a Yao Ming conspiracy and the subsequent $100,000 fine, I was almost sure that it would escalate into a fight around the end of this game.  Lucky for the officials, it didn't, because they would have had no one but themselves to blame. 

And they didn't escape criticism by either team, as I wouldn't be surprised if Avery Johnson, Jerry Stackhouse (Tarheel!), and Van Gundy again got fined tomorrow afternoon.  Thus, officials simply need to call their game and when they see the guys getting to physical and emotions are getting high, make a stand to stop it before it gets out of hand.  In Game 7, I guarantee you someone will throw hands if officials allow the same things they did in last night's game.

There has been a bit of a spat about the recent jokes First Lady Laura Bush made at a correspondents dinner over the weekend.  Of course, she never said anything vulgar, but whenever you say anything that's considered out of the ordinary you're going to get criticized by someone, particularly by people who want to look at the presidency like royalty.

This incident also brings up a larger topic within the conservative sphere.  With the release of South Park Conservatives by Brian Anderson, it looks as if a new conservative movement is possibly emerging that is shedding away the stiff, preppie choir boy image and are acting and looking like everyone else.  A lot of the political correctness in all aspects is being rejected, and it runs counter to the traditional values of American conservatism, particularly religious influence.

That's where Malkin comes in, as she takes on the belief of South Park conservatives in her latest column:

Self-censorship is a conservative value. In a brilliant commencement speech at Hillsdale College last year, Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner called on his audience to resist the coarsened rhetoric of our time: "If we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must first govern our tongues and our pens. Restoring civility to public discourse is not an option. It is a necessity."  

First, you have to look at the setting where Bush was speaking.  The speech was meant to be lighthearted; it wasn't a state dinner.  Second, Malkin took Feulner's comments out of context.   In the speech, in which a transcript is online, Feulner was discussing political debate between the left and the right in which he argued turns people away from politics.  It's quite ironic, because Feulner could have been talking about her.  Just look at some of the titles of her columns:

- Pandering to the Crackpot Left

- Moonbats on Parade

- The U.N.'s Rape of the Innocents

- The ACLU vs. America

- Hysterical Women for Kerry

And those are only the titles, mind you.

And that's not to say I agree with Feulner's message and necessarily believe we should tone down the rhetoric, but let's be realistic here.  Malkin's one of the most polarizing columnists in America; in fact, probably second only to Ann Coulter.

As for her comments about conservatives and Hollywood, she says:

Rich is wrong about most things, but he's painfully on target in noting the incongruous pandering now taking place by some in the cool-kids clique on the Right. Conservatives criticize Hollywood relentlessly, but as Rich notes, "the embarrassing reality is that they want to be hip, too."

and:

Lighten up, you say? No thanks. I'd rather be a G-rated conservative who can only make my kids giggle than a "South Park"/"Desperate Housewives" conservative whose goal is getting Richard Gere and Jane Fonda to snicker. Giving the Hollyweird Left the last laugh is not my idea of success.

These passages underscore an impending conflict as younger conservatives today get older.  As Anderson states in his book, social conservatism is being rejected by today's younger conservatives.  There's no ideal look or style for conservatism, or I doubt Ted Nugent or Gene Simmons could ever be considered one.

Hollywood, for the most part, has never been rejected by conservatives.  After all, we watch their television and their movies.  Just like we anyone else, we appreciate the things we like and criticize the things we don't like.  Not everyone falls into the "cultural war" that Malkin and other social conservatives are trying to depict it as.  I don't have to hate everything about them because I disagree with their views and some of their actions.  As "Meet the Fockers" showed, Barbara Streisand can be entertaining.  That doesn't mean I want her preaching to me about politics. 

It's fine for Malkin to be a G-rated conservative, but to take potshots at other conservatives for their ideas and tastes comes off as a bit "unconservative".  Conservatism is also about individuality and liberty.  As long as people are living productive lives and aren't hurting anyone in the process, I don't see the problem with them actually enjoying entertainment.