I like the fact that Fidel Castro has, apparently, relinquished power to his brother or whomever is chosen by the powers that be in the near future, but Fidel has stated that he simply no longer wants the job. It is still likely that, until he dies or becomes totally incapacitated and unable to communicate, that he will still be pulling the strings and that the power swap is aimed at a softer stance toward Cuba by the U.S.

I, for one, would love to see relations between our two countries warm, and eventually, become as mutually benificial as they were prior to Castro's overthrow and eventual slide into communism(albiet without the Mob influence). Cuba is another Carribean island paradise, or it was before it's economy was ruined by another failed attempt at dictatorial socialism and communism which kept both Cuba and America from enjoying the profits of tourism and trade(not to mention a few 16 yr old 95mph fastballers we have been missing out on!).

The collapse of the Soviet Union virtually assured the end of Cuba's ability to stay afloat and remain the lone bastion of communism in the area immediately adjoining America. The move toward a more free Cuba, one with more to offer it's own people as well offering something to the world around it is a good thing, but it is a matter of survival rather than a matter of choice. I think the honchos realize the natives are becoming restless and a new revolution is just a few starving families away.

I don't think the U.S. should step into the role of sponsor and economic savior of that tiny island, I mean, we didn't make the mess, why pay to clean it up. The cleanup can be managed by good relations, tourism, trade and all the perks that go with such things, but we can offer help in the way of continuing our food and medical services bolstered by a free market economy.

Hillary and Barak have been bandying words about in support of a democratic Cuba(even though they seem to care less about a democratic Iraq, Sudan or Kosovo). I don't know the position of the most likely candidate for the White House, John McCain(anyone want to take bets on that?), but I am sure he will ride the "Free Cuba" train into town also.

Will Cuba ever become a real democracy? Who knows? But with Spain, France and Canada all doing well by avoiding the mistake of tying their socialist governments to their markets and doing well because of it(is free market socialism an oxymoron?), I don't suppose Cuba needs to be a democracy to be successful once cooler heads prevail. I hope it comes to pass.

I am still amazed at the way the left looks at consrvative talk show hosts as if they have any say in anything that happens in the direction or future of this country. The letter in yesterdays paper shows that this person is starting to get it, but at some point in the past, obviously did not.

I am a conservative and I like to watch Beck, but rarely listen to radio shows(Radios are for Rock n Roll!)anymore, but from back when only had an AM radio in my work truck, I know that Rush and Sean have always made it perfectly clear that  they are simply entertainers who's opinions should hold no more weight than the next persons and anyone who actually listens to them already knows this and the know that these men are not always happy with the decisions made by conservatives in power and that Hannity is NOT a Republican, but a registered Independent. The fact that millions of people, liberals as well as conservatives, listen to them every day is not their fault!

True, they are both very conservative and as conservative hosts it is not their job to hound, badger and diss conervatives. They may not defend poor performance with, and times take issue with fellow conservatives, but they tend to not ridicule tham and that is as it should be. They are talk show hosts, not news reporters. They comment on news already reported and it is no more their job to report news without bias than it was for Al Franken to do so when he had his show, but I didn't hear anyone ballyhooing about the way he did things. The difference was that Franken wanted people to believe that his opinions actually WERE the news. I mean really, when was the last time anone saw a headline that said "Rush Limbaugh leads GOP in new direction" or some such nonsense?

Rush, Sean and Glenn have very successful programs and remain popular because they ARE entertainers and their jobs do not depend on votes, but on ratings and those ratings come from both sides of the aisle. They share their opinions, just as we do on this and other sites. That is all they do. What becomes of those opinions is up to the listeners and has nothing to do with the hosts. They simply share them and let the chips fall where they may. I remember listening to Al Franken one time(and only once)and being amazed at the fact that he was shouting at his audience as if his volume would over ride that fact that that what he had to say was only HIS opinion. As if volume and anger would convince anyone he was reporting facts of some sort. As if it would make him right. Most liberals I have listened to(admittedly not many)seem to get louder as their points become muddled and less persuasive.

Even Liberals did not want o listen to their own rhetoric on the air. Were that not true, Air America would not have been such a quick and miserable failure and it was not some vast right wing conspiracy. It is a fact that more liberals listened to the "Fearsome Twosome" than ever listened to Air America. Nobody holds a gun to anyones head forcing them to listen to conservative talk shows. They listen to hear well spoken, intelligent and rational hosts discuss current issues and events with their own slant. Some agree, some don't, some are in the middle and all are free to toss in their two cents worth, but they all listen of their own free will no matter their affiliation.

These hosts have made it clear that they have absolutely no interest in holding public office of any kind. They just want to share their opinions and would be impossible in the phony world of politically correct politics. They are content to let the politicians run things while they comment without fear of congressional inquiries and investigations. They are expected to be sometimes be abrasive. It's what keeps people listening and sponsors paying the bills and salaries, and you can bet that they make a bundle more as hosts than they would as elected representatives, just ask Tony Snow!

The writer said, in essence, the hosts had been savoring the last eight years of an agreeable audience and the accompanying popularity, but Rush has been on the air for twenty years, and no matter who makes it the honchos seat in November, he will be as popular as ever.

So come on lefties! Make your cases to the people who who matter and can affect real change and stop treating talk show hosts as if they were elected officials or party hacks pointing the GOP in new directions. If you don't want to listen, turn the damn radio off or change the station.

The writer said the conservative talk show are whining...sounds like a bit of a hypocritical statement to me.

I realize this is last week's news, but I have simply been too busy to post, or even get on the board lately. Please bear withh me..Life is a busy place!

It's finally happened. I always knew it would and I smiled when it did. How I love to be right. It took a long time and everyone said I was wrong and that the world had no issues with it. They,too, thought it was necessary and cute and that the worls thought their opinions mattered. What in Hell's name am I speaking of , you may ask?

Celebrities and their opinions they wish everyone to see as fact. Those paparazzi hounded, overinflated, egotistical, self important political envoys to the world who beat their chests(or breasts)as they loudly proclaim thire infallibility due to their stature in the entertainment industry.

You know the ones: Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell, Janine Garafolo(I realize she is pressing the issue where entertainment is concerned)and the irrepressible George Clooney. Well, Russia doesn't see Clooney as irrepressible or cute and told him so. His opinion, and that is all it is, wasn't welcome at a recent global politics summit.

I say it's about time somebody spoke up against these self proclaimed political gurus and told them to stick to acting and leave the life and world event altering summits, speeches and decisions to those who are trained to do it.

I know as much about politics and my opinions about it are just as strong as any of the folks I mentioned, but because I work for the railroad and have never graced the cover of People or had an interview on ET or Larry King, Fidel Castro(or his brother) and the Imams are not intersted in meeting me(nor am I them)as I refuse to be another anti-American propaganda mouthpiece, badmouthing my country and extoling the virtues of theirs. Even my liberal co-workers and friends, who may agree with some or all of those points of view are not contacted for such events because they have never starred in a major film either(has Garafalo?). I have no desire to look and sound like all the buffons who preceeded Clloney, but obviously he had no issues with it. Thank God the Russians did!

Hey, if some star wants to voice their opinion on ET or Hollywood Xtra, thats fine. That's their realm and audience and I am OK with that, primarily because I never watch those lame shows as I am not a man given to celebrity infatuation or being star struck, but when it comes to real news and the real events that create it involving real human issues, military actions, foreign policies and the geo-political stage, we need to let real politicians and trained diplomats do their jobs and let the actors make movies about it.