Dr. Frank's What's-it

I'm getting pretty sick of this knee-jerk blame bush and Blame Blair bullshit. I'm sure that GWB ordered the freaky looking man-girl Lindey England to hog-tie, photograph and sodomize some Iraqi detainees. C'mon and give me a frickin' break! The "good guys" are the only ones playing by the rules of the Geneva Convention. Fuck the Geneva Convention and throw it out the window. It's useless in this new war. The next time you want to protest, plead, beg and moan over the conditions of the Iraqi prisoners let me know because I've got quite a few pictures of beheaded Americans, Englishmen, Aussies and Polish people to show to you.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, Zaph, but I believe we should aspire to more than an "at least we don't chop their heads off" policy in our treatment of prisoners, regardless of how bad they are. Of course we're better than the enemy, but that's extremely faint praise and this debacle is nothing to be proud of.

And I'm not knee-jerking. It pains me greatly to draw this conclusion. But the chain of accountability really does appear to go to the top here. The administration should acknowledge its error and stop spinning.

Well, too coin a phrase you've used yourself Frank, "Eveybody's Entitled To Their Own Opinion" and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

"The Miracle of Shame" seems like the more appropriate album title for this story.

I can't believe it.

Frank gets one right!

well too me if its inhumane and over an extended period of time its torture. but point is really mute i suppose since i agree on everything else.

you're serious right? torture doesn't immediately jump to your mind when you hear about this incident?

Arya U and Frank agreeing? Care to reconsider your position, Frank? Ha ha ha!!

Ayra, I think your disbelief stems from hearing an opinion based on sensible thought and reasonable arguments, as opposed to political agendas. I can understand how this would confuse you.

I'm split on this one. I think we should aspire to be better. But at the same time, look who is in Gitmo and who was in that Abu Gharib's wing. These are boy scouts, or even dumb f&cks from Marin county.

Torture? No. Abuse? Some. But I don't want to hear from Sully about intelligence failures if the administration isn't doing what it can to ferret as much information as it can. Representing the policies of trying to obtain information short of torture of unlawful combatants doesn't bother me like it would have on September 10th.

Hmm. I think we should first invest in rebuilding the Iraqi telecommunications infrastructure, so we can conduct our intelligence-gathering operations the old-fashioned way: extra-jurisdictional wiretaps. Problem solved.

Yeah, Ken, I know what you mean - I want all the stops pulled out as far as gathering intelligence. However, it does appear that the system is and has been out of control.

The routine sexual humiliation of prisoners described in the reports, legal or not, torture or merely "abuse," is beneath the dignity of the US Army and the US government. If it that is now the official policy of our government, as it appears to be, at least the administration should acknowledge it instead of trying to split semantic hairs.

i also think the fact that there is a debate over whether or not its torture may miss the point but also dehumanizes society. personally i'm well aware of the governmental scruples and subtlties involved but i can't stand to hear torture really needs a definition. but maybe i'm just really tired, i'm going to go hum happy songs now and maybe i'll feel better.

I can't think of another time I've agreed with Frank on something political, so this is a red letter day.

Is it torture? What an arbitrary question. Are people searching for the Platonic form of torture or something? Good luck with that. The rest of us will just be pissed off and dishartened.

I think the shit is gonna hit the fan with this administration. This Karl Rove situation is going to make everyone who wasn't already aware of the Yellowcake Forgery. Combine that with the Downing Street memo and the fact we had apparently been air-bombing Iraq for a year prior to the invasion. It's hard to come to any conclusion other than that this administration is full of liars who will hold on to power at the expense of thier responsibilities to preseant the truth to the public. I supported the invasion of Iraq. It never occured to me that people could abuse our trust to this extent; these are the people who made a war hero into a war criminal to win an election (the fact that that ever gave me pause makes me sick now). I don't think it's hyperbole that some of the actions of this administration amount to treason. This isn't how democracy is supposed to work, although it is the way democracy will inevitably work if we let it. Maybe I'm an idealist, but I'm so disgusted right now and I can't understand why everyone else isn't as well. Am I overreacting?

Not in the least, Josh.

Dr. Frank-
I have to disagree with you here. I just read through the whole report, and the only thing that disturbed me slightly isn't being done anymore (shackling detainees to the floor).

Josh-
The Karl Rove situation is already blowing over, since it turns out that Plame wasn't covert, and he found out her name from Bob Novak.

The Downing Street memo doesn't mean shit. Even if they could provide an original copy of that memo, it doesn't really say anything incriminating. Tony Blair himself says it presented a "distorted picture".

Yes, we were "air-bombing" Iraq the year before. We were doing it for 12 years before, in response to various threats from Iraq to its own citizens, its neighbors, and us. I was in both Operation Northern and Southern Watches (Turkey and Kuwait) prior to OIF, and in both cases we had to have specific threats in order to respond with force.

If you supported the war with Iraq, then you based your opinion on intelligence that was consistent between the Clinton and Bush administrations.

I'm not a Bush apologist, I'm not even a Republican. I'm just trying to set things straight.

For the record, Josh, I think you are overreacting - political unscrupulousness is hardly unique to this administration and calling it "treason" is pretty over the top.

Bobby: you're right about Rove, Downing, and the no fly zones. As for that other matter, will it disturb you when these "techniques" are applied to our captive servicemen? It will disturb me. But the threshold of disturbance is subjective. More to the point is the glaring contradiction between Bush's PR (i.e., Abu Ghraib does not represent America or its policies) and what, sadly, appears to be the reality. It's no longer possible to say without lying that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were an unauthorized anomaly. So now our position is what, that all that stuff is not that bad after all? And when we said it was bad, we were just doing it for effect, or damage control, when what we really meant was "Gee, I hope no one ever finds out it was authorized by the Secretary of Defense?" If so, the President should come out and say it, and try to get away with explaining it.

I don't think it's the end of the world, but it is pathetic and I think symptomatic of this administration's general lack of competence in running an important war. And it would be nice if, for once, they would admit error and hold someone accountable other than low-ranking scapegoats. We really should be able to do better.

Yes Frank we SHOULD be able to do better but as I've been saying for years now, America has become the fat, lazy, stupid boobs that the rest of the world thinks we are. In my delaings in the business world, I have found it utterly amazing that this country is as prosperous as it is because it seems that every corporation, every division of government and every school is run no better than a bunch of drunk orangutans could. I honestly have no clue as to how this country functions and operates on a daily basis . I think we are witnessing the beginning of the long awaited and predicted "decline of western civilization". To quote a song, not of your own "It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine".

I do think it would be treason if the administration knew that the justification it was presenting for war was false. It wouldn't be novel, but, in my oppinion, it would be treason (I do admit to using "treason" because of its connotation more than its denotation for any deconstructionalists out there). Anyway, I'm not sure if that's the case, I'm just trying to figure out what to make of all of this stuff. We know they're liars, but to what extent?

As much as I probably am overreating, in my oppinion lying to the American public about intelligence that can not be falsified by the general public at the time and using that information to influence policy should be a crime; and is in my oppinion treason. Crimes against democracy itself are worse than crimes against the state or even those crimes that put the national defense in jeopardy. I know it's gererally accepted and has been done by every presidentail administration possibly since Washington (well, mabye not William Henry Harrison), but I bet if we threw a few of them in jail, we'd see a lot less of this nonsense. Seriosly, isn't there a fiduciary relationship with the president?

I'm sick over this stuff, but not surprised. I was born in 1980 and I've grown up in an age where the government lying and putting through secret policies and waging secret, terrible wars has been the norm. (The generation before mine had Vietnam, but I can only speak for what I’ve lived through.) What the current administration is doing is the natural continuation of what's been going on since Reagan was president, just amped up because they think that the American public will let them get away with anything; and they're probably right. The majority of citizens of this country have proven that they’ll swallow any line of bullshit, as long as it makes them feel good about being Americans. If not that, then they’re willing to ignore and/or go along with things like the business that went down at Abu Ghraib. None of this surprises me. I just with it would stop.

Even if you love your revenge on people who are fighting the United States in whatever way they can, you have to recognize that these people have not been put on trial. The detainees aren't even granted the knowledge of why they're even there. Even worse is the Administration's policy of rendition.
I don't think we need to be a shining example to the world. I think we should first just work on being humane and civilized, as is required of any democracy.

On Wall Street, Acme Nutshocker Corporation shareholders were in for a shock today when it was announced that the government was pulling the plug on its longstanding contract...

Frank-
Ok, I understand your concern a little bit better now.

I'm usually not of the ilk that says "they behead our guys, so we can do bad things to them". However, when we have a good reason (not revenge, but extracting intelligence out of them in a timely manner) for putting them through some physical discomfort and playing on their cultural fears, is it worth it? Would it be worth it if it prevented future terror attacks?

I'm still not convinced that the SecDef is responsible for everything bad that happened in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Yes, he made a list of approved interrogation techniques, but most of those techniques seemed pretty tame compared to what my aircrew guys went through at USAF survival school. I don't agree with the theory that it was just a bunch of kids messing with prisoners on their own, but I also don't think responsibility should go much higher than whomever was commanding the unit at the time.

I hear ya, Bobby. I'm not arguing for comfortable, "culturally sensitive" interrogations - we need to do what we can to get what intelligence we can.

Yet I don't like the blasé way that the administration and its apologists brush away these concerns. Even leaving aside the serious allegations of "waterboarding" and so forth, I can't help thinking: why does the interrogation culture have to be so... creepy? Isn't there a way to get the same results with less depravity?

One image I have when I read about this stuff (and I'm not alone, I'm sure) is this: our top military leadership gathered around a table at the Pentagon, ignoring their own legal counsel's advice in their eagerness to draw up detailed, perverted plans involving ladies' underwear, naked pigpiles, snarling German shepherds, menstrual blood, nude guys on leashes, simulated sodomy, and forced transvestitism.

What kind of place are they running over there, anyway?

Maybe I'm just a prude deep down, but I really don't think this shows us at our best, and I really wish we could conduct our intelligence-gathering with a little more dignity. Really, it makes us look like a bunch of perverted clowns.

Frank-
Like I said, most of those techniques are intended to break down the detainee because of their culture. It'd be as if an American were captured, and his captors said that the rest of his men were killed, and they were going to target his family. That kind of talk wouldn't have the same effect on most hardcore Arab Muslims, but playing on their hatred of dogs and women does seem to work. Also, while I'm sure that the average foot-soldier detainee will give us info without us having to resort to such tactics, documents that we've recovered show that the higher-ups have recieved training on how to resist our normal interrogation techniques.

If you get a chance, check out the full report: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050714report.pdf

It does a good job at saying what was approved by the SecDef, and what was made up at Gitmo. The fake menstrual blood incident, for example: a detainee spit on a female interrogator, she left the room and cried, and then got some red ink, went back into the room and touched the detainee, and mentioned that she was menstrating. The detainee then freaks out and starts banging his head on the floor. Anyway, that interrogator got a reprimand for making up an unauthorized technique, and has since left the military.

''''It'd be as if an American were captured, and his captors said that the rest of his men were killed, and they were going to target his family. That kind of talk wouldn't have the same effect on most hardcore Arab Muslims.'''''

That's true, "hardcore" Arab Muslims are inhuman and don't care about the safety or well-being of their friends or families the same way that Americans do. Their blind hatred of freedom and democracy enables them to just block that stuff out.

Seriously though, your views as quoted above are outrageously ignorant and prejudiced.

If I would've said "all Arabs/Muslims", I can see how it would be considered ignorant and prejudiced.

But I didn't.

Thanks for the link, Bobby. I know I should read it for myself.

Also, I have a feeling you may (if you choose) soon become embroiled in a tedious snipe-a-thon involving sarcastic parsing of the word "hardcore." So, best of luck with that.

Thank you for the blog (and the music), Dr. Frank!

I think I'm done with this thread for now (especially when the latest post deals with 'large, voluptuous bouncing breasts with hard nipples', but it's been a pleasure. I've been reading the blog since "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy" came out, and I'll continue to read it until you stop writing it.

I've been hanging out in the comment section of CHOCK FULL O NUTS, so I may be a little late in the game, but ZAPHOD, MAN: You can't coin a phrase someone else already said. To coin is to invent, my brother. I coined a phrase once; "it doesn't take an artist to draw a conclusion." A true coining of a phrase is a very rare occurence, happening perhaps 20 times per generation. Use that euphamism with extreme caution, dudeman.

As far as torturing Arabs goes - yes it is wrong, but they aren't on my top priority list of "Oppressed People or Animals who I get all Sympathetic and Sensitive For". Let them fight this battle, just like the blacks fought to sit in the front of the bus. YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE!

I'll be the first to sign my name on a petition or nod my head along with a liberal commentator, but don't expect me to shed any tears or wear a black motherfucking armband for them. The tortured terrorist suspects that is, not the blacks. I'll wear a black arm band for a black guy anyday of the week, especially if that black man happens to be Wesley Snipes. You ever see murder at 1600? FUCKING AWESOME!

"Arab" is an ethnicity.

"Muslim" is a religion.

What part of being a "hardcore" Arab Muslim makes you care about the lives of your family any less than being a "hardcore" Irish Catholic?

You probably meant to say "hardcore terrorist," in which case you should still be faulted for ignorance or prejudice for having used the words "terrorist" and "Arab Muslim" interchangeably.

Nevermind that you don't even know if the detainees are, in fact, "terrorists", since there's been no charges, no evidence, no trials, no nothing showing any "terrorist" activity by the detainees.

Fuck a Muslim. I got nothing against Arabs, but to be perfetly honest with you I have no respect for anyone that adheres to the religion of Islam. It is a sick, twisted pile of beliefs that promotes intolerance and violence, but since it is categorized as a "religion" people are supposed to respect it.

I'll be the first to admit that all organized religions are pretty stupid, but why is it okay for people to say "right wing christains are total assholes, dudes!" but not "Sunni Islam freaks are pieces of shit, dude." ?

We need to drop the PC shit and recognize Islam for what it is - a cult that advocates misogyny to oppressive degrees, a cult intolerant of homosexuality and/or other religious views to the extent of promoting violence against the offender or infidel, a cult that justifies the killing of innocents as long as the end goal is in line with the Islamic goal of removing anything that Allah does not deem righteous from that face of the earth.

I love seeing liberal pansies up in arms over whether or not a koran got thrown in the toilet. Dolt for dolt these are the same bitches that support art featuring a crucifix in a jar of urine. HEY MAN FREE SPEECH! I WANT TO SHIT ON A KORAN AND BAKE IT IN MY OVEN, DON'T IMPOSE YOUR VALUES ON ME!

And how about these people, who Dr. Frank seems to sort of be, who are pissed about the abuse and torture of detainees becaue IT MAKES AMERICA LOOK BAD? Do you care about what's happening to the detainees because you have empathy for them, or because it is making your country of origin look stupid to our global neighbors?

I do think the detainees should be given legal counsel and treated humanely, but not because I'm worried about our popularity overseas. George Bush pretty much destroyed our reputation a few years ago, so I see that as a trivial concern in the big scheme of things.

And yes, some of the ARABS in detention may not be TERRORISTS. But, keep it real holmes, most of them are. And most of these scumbags are tough enough to behead a Nick Berg or strap on explosives and kill Jewish children, so don't expect me to take it so seriously when they get straddled by a female interrogator. I have to pay 20 bucks for a lap dance, he's getting it for free. WAH WAH.

What's the other big trespass against them? One of them was told he was gay? COME ON! Every kid in junior high gets told he is gay by someone at least once a week. The rest of this shit pretty much pales in comparison to what happens to frat boys when the pledge their brotherhood to some greek organization. Keep it in perspective.

And Amryha, if you can justify suicide bombing as means to an end - you can't understand how our government might be able to justify the use of a barking dog just the same?

'''''I have no respect for anyone that adheres to the religion of Islam. It is a sick, twisted pile of beliefs that promotes intolerance and violence, but since it is categorized as a "religion" people are supposed to respect it.'''''''

Melody,

I agree with your statements as applied to all organized religions, including Islam. But, you know, there is nothing any more intrinsically violent or intolerant - in theory or in practice - in Islam than there is in Christianity or Hinduism or Judaism.

But that's all besides the point.

Bobby, in his ignorance, is co-mingling all sorts of different terms (e.g., terrorists, Arabs, Muslims) as virtually synonymous, and, due to his prejudice, is then making sweeping, untrue allegations regarding the character and psychological make-up of such people.

That was the issue - not whether or not strict adherents to organized religion, in general, are idiots. Or that radical liberals bashing Christianity but then emphasizing the need to respect Islam are hypocrites. On those points, I think, we tend to agree.

As for this comment:

'''''And yes, some of the ARABS in detention may not be TERRORISTS. But, keep it real holmes, most of them are''''''

I disagree. I think keeping it real in this instance would mean acknowledging that most of them are not terrorists, and that we are fucking some innocent people over, big time.

But we'll never know for sure, of course, since we have no names, no charges, no information, no evidence, no trials, no nothing about them, courtesy of Bush administraion.

Yeah, you make some valid points. I think the main issue is really the percentage of innocent detainees. From what I understand, most of them were rounded up on the battlefield in Afhghanistan and Iraq. I could very well be wrong, but the feeling I get is that maybe 1 in 20 is truly innocent and the rest are either guilty of participating in violence or at the very least willing to promote jihad if given the chance. If someone could cite credible truth to the contrary my opinions would certainly change.

If you look back at history, sure you could cite the crusades and other dark spots in Christianity and make comparisons to modern Islamic agendas. But speaking about the world today, you can't tell me with a straight face that there as many Christains, Jews and Hindus who support suicide and homicide bombings as methods for political change. The rest of the world religions are quite consistent in their stated desire for peace. And I do think it is an *inherent* difference in the religions. I honestly believe (and I have an A in one undergrad course of world religions to back me up!) that Islam is far more excepting of violent practices (stoning a women for adultery, etc.) than the others. You can find some twisted shit in the Bible just as easily as the Koran, but the great majority of Christians tend to ignore those parts.

Germany is a Christian country, and its Christian government relatively recently slaughtered millions of innocent people for being Jewish.

Russia is a Christian and Jewish country, and its Christian and Jewish citizens established a murderous communist dictatorship that lasted a century and was responsible for the deaths of countless innocents across Eurasia.

South Africa was ruled by Christian English and Christian Dutch who colonized the country and imposed elaborate racist system called Apartheid.

Those who openly and prominently opposed it, even up until the 1990's, were sentenced to death, banished, or imprisoned for life, like Nelson Mandela.

And these are just the big, famous ones.

Remember, all of Latin America is Christian, too.

That's enough evidence to demonstrate that Muslim countries have no more a propensity for violence than Christian countries.

Melody,

First, I wouldn't want the government making decisions regarding which religions are tolerable and which are inherently evil. Obviously, we may not always agree with their decisions.

Second, don't discount the "makes us lok bad part of the equation." It obviously helps to have allies. Other countries could have viewed the US in an "at least they meant well" light prior to this revelation. Getting kicked out of the "good guys" club could have a number of negative economic and militaristic impacts.

I don't think it's too farfetched to say that Americans have been persuaded by the current administration via the media as it parrots the government's official version of the truth to believe that the average Muslim is more violent, more misogynistic, and altogether more “crazy” than the average Christian. That’s the tone that most media coverage of the war takes, and it’s more than compatible with the general xenophobic leaning that so many Americans have. I find that the differences between Islam and Christianity are pretty superficial, differing mostly in the parts of the holy texts that the religious leaders tend to emphasize.

Josh,

I am not a representive of the US Government. I don't know what you are trying to say in the first paragraph. I don't want the government making any decisions about religion at all, I want them to ignore all of that supernatural sorcery stuff and concentrate on libraries. If you are insinuating that focusing the war on terror on Islamic people is some form of racism, then I don't even need to tell you that is ridiculous. It was Muslims who declared jihad, naturally they are the focus of the "War on Terrorism".

As for the second paragraph, I think our military and economic might are what make us important on the global stage, not the amount of respect others have for our foreign policies. Sure, I'd rather have allies than not - but George Bush has alienated us from most of our former allies. Even Canada was against the war in Iraq, and they are our bitches. We will always be relevant, respected and feared because we are the only superpower.

Melody,

That's assuming that the US is always the only superpower, which isn't a given.

Actually, Chris, isn't it the official administration position, iterated ad nauseam, that Islam is a "religion of peace" being corrupted into a totalitarian political ideology by a group of deranged madmen who do not represent the mainstream of an otherwise great world religion? Just saying...

It's pretty simple, and it's weird that people feel the need to argue so lengthily for such an obvious proposition: there is a subset of Muslims who are not Islamists. Indeed. Hence the term "Islamists." It is the ones who are Islamists who want to blow us up, not the others. The fact that the ones who don't want to blow us up are the "vast majority" doesn't mean that the ones who do are any less dangerous, or that they want to blow us up any less fervently, or that when they do blow us up, we will be any less blown up.

The fact that human evil has been and is perpetrated by people of all faiths throughout history (not just Muslims) is another rather obvious point that seems like a non sequitur in this situation.

Meldody, I suppose I misunderstood this comment in the context of the discussion:

"Fuck a Muslim. I got nothing against Arabs, but to be perfetly honest with you I have no respect for anyone that adheres to the religion of Islam."

I took it to mean that you don't have a problem with torturing muslims in particular. The people doing the torturing would be the agents of the government. I think we can all agree that we would rather the government not decide who it may or may not torture based on which religion the government decides is bad. That's all I was saying, having misunderstood your point I imagine.

"I think our military and economic might are what make us important on the global stage, not the amount of respect others have for our foreign policies."

I'm not so much worried about being important on the global stage as I am with our ability to negotiate free trade agreements and for other governments to give assistence in the war on terror, not to mention maybe some other countries sparing a few troops if we want to send peace-keeping forces to the Sudan or some such place. The incentives of the foreign policy makers can be markedly different for those that the foriegn policy effects. Avoiding anymosity and mistrust seems like a good way of limiting such discrepencies.

Just a thought. Of course, Dr. Frank is right. An terrorist by any other name would still would still want me dead. Religious people want to believe that there is such a thing called "Islam" that can be properly interpreted (and would thus be benign and peaceful), just as Christians want to believe that there is such a thing called Christianity. To me, it seems people bring more to their religion than their religion delivers to them; or perhaps, people will select the nearest available religion that fits them. In a place where everybody is "Muslim", the result will be good Muslims, bad Muslims and Muslims in-between. In the US, the crazies funnel into Christian fundamentalism or Scientology. I'm sure there are number of reasons our crazies are less violent than their crazies, but I'll bet it has less to do with the "Islam" than other factors.

That's like saying Muslim countries should declare a War on Terror against Europe and America under the pretext of targeting "only" violent European racial supremacist groups.

Sure the "vast majority" of Europeans and Americans have nothing to do with any violent racist organizations, but that doesn't mean that the ones who do are "any less dangerous," or want to kill off non-whites "any less fervently" right?

Call a spade a spade. The War on Terror is a largely phoney pretext for perpetual Western military and political interference in Central Asia and the Middle East, which, just coincidentally, happen to be where the world's most valuable natural resource is concentrated.

'''''''''''Hence the term "Islamists." It is the ones who are Islamists who want to blow us up, not the others. The fact that the ones who don't want to blow us up are the "vast majority" doesn't mean that the ones who do are any less dangerous, or that they want to blow us up any less fervently, or that when they do blow us up, we will be any less blown up. ''''''''''''

Frank,
It's true that the official party line is that Islam is a "religion of peace," but there's that trademark Karl Rove "unofficial" undercurrent that always seems to get out. That's what they say, but that's not what is emphasized. They know how to play into people's fears without making themselves look like outright bigots when put under scrutiny.

Or maybe I’m just paranoid? I don’t know anymore.

Chris, it is blatant and obvious and understood that both 7/7 and 9/11 were commited by Islam fundamentalists. In the name of Islam. I am no fan of Karl Rove or the Bush administration, but you can't blame them for the fact that Westerners "emphasize" events like 9/11 and 7/7 in their minds when thinking about that particular religion.

Melody,
You do have a point. I guess people would probably think that either way.

However, in these types of circumstances, the media would do well by society to more prominently show a balanced view of what the Muslim faith is all about. I mean, I didn't know until I happened upon an episode of the Morgan Spurlock TV show "30 Days" that dealt with the subject. Would NBC or CNN or (yeah right) Fox News stick their necks out to prominently air something like that? No way. They’d be viewed as unpatriotic by so many “red state” viewers faster than you can say “Dixie Chicks.” But if the President were to endorse such sentiments, it would make a big difference. He and his administration have done quite the opposite, I find, aside from the required lip service.
But if the administration were inclined to do that, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this, so it’s kind of a moot point.

Would yous guys please stop calling me "Melody"? I am not a woman. I am a musician with huge, vast pectoral muscles. Call me MC for short, if you must. Thank you.

That "30 days" show is on TV already?

http://www.spurlockwatch.typepad.com/