I must confess, I did not watch Christiane Amanpour’s debut on “This Weak” last Sunday, but had I know it would be so controversial, I might have tuned in. Wingnuts are outraged (which is so darn unlike them). St. John McCain even tweeted about his lament for the good old days with Jake “the mens room” Tapper. What was so vile, you ask? It seems that Christi had a new segment called “In Memoriam”, where she had the audacity to say

“We remember all of those who died in war this week, and the Pentagon released the names of 11 U.S. servicemembers killed in Afghanistan.”

I mean, how controversial can you get? Was she just trying to incur the wrath of all real Americans?

Now, just in case, like me, you don’t quite get what the frickin’ problem is here, I’ll let the inimitable (and sexy) WaPost, “style columnist” (style columnist?) Tom Shales explain.

Sexy, Sexy, Shales
“Perhaps in keeping with the newly globalized program, the commendable “In Memoriam” segment ended with a tribute not to American men and women who died in combat during the preceding week but rather, said Amanpour in her narration, in remembrance of “all of those who died in war” in that period. Did she mean to suggest that our mourning extend to members of the Taliban?”

Ah, yes, well. Shame on you Christi! But why stop with the Taliban, Tom?

“We remember all of those who died in war this week….”

That doesn’t just mean all those who died this week. No, it means that, this week, we remember all those who died in war (next week, we’ll remember what we did with our keys). And that means Nazis and North Koreans and Viet Kong and Confederates (oh, sorry, I didn’t touch a nerve there, did I?) and even Iraqis and Iranians (not to mention the Romans – who, contrary to popular opinion, are the ones who actually killed Jesus).

Yes, this week, we remember them all.

Shame, shame, shame on you Christi, you Taliban-Nazi-Christ-Killer sympathizer, you. Though I’m not sure that remembering actually equates to honoring. I mean, shouldn’t we remember the “bad people” too? If only so we can recognize them before it takes a global conflagration to deal with them?

Anyhow, this “amanpourism” not only shows that the media is a bunch of commie libruls (especially those foreign female types; what are they doing on regular American teevee anyway, with their snotty accents and big fancy words and high-class hairdos?), but that manufacturing isn’t dead in this country.

‘Cuz at least these wingnuts can still manage to manufacture faux outrage by the ton.

As you may have heard, Maxine Waters will apparently face a “trial” by the House Ethics Committee for requesting federal help for a bank that her husband owned stock in and had served on the board of directors (which she denies).

First Charlie Rangel, now Maxine (who’s next – Patty and Laverne)? Who knew that in the hallowed halls of Congress, only the black folks are ethically challenged?

Mitch McConnell has officially jumped on the “Repeal the 14th Amendment” bandwagon. That’s the one that says anybody born in the US is a US citizen.

In case you weren’t paying attention in Social Studies class (or “civics” for you old-timers), Amending the constitution is a rather involved process. There are actually four ways to go about it (though two have never been used, and only one method has ever been used more than once), but the usual way is for the proposed amendment to pass both houses of Congress by a 2/3 majority, and then ¾ of the states must ratify it. Of course, there’s not really a “usual” way, because it’s only been done 27 times since the Constitution was ratified by the State of Vermont in January 1791. And when you take into account that the first 10 amendments (aka, the “Bill of Rights”) all happened at once at the end of 1791, that only leaves 17 amendments in 218 or so years.

So, it’ll be a tough slog, but, since there’s really no other big issues to worry about right now, I think it’ll all be well worth the effort.