Chris Cuomo - Was Another Hit Piece For You Worth Kenneth Bae's Life?

 One man (Chris Cuomo) puts on make up every morning, makes sure his hair looks perfect, makes sure the camera angle gets his best side (left side please), sits between two female co-hosts who get paid to slobber all over him, does hit pieces, goes out for a steak dinner, adjusts his sleep number bed to a comfortable level and gets a good night's sleep.

Another man (Kenneth Bae) isn't worried about make up, probably isn't even allowed to comb his hair, sits in front of a camera after being tortured into the words he speaks, doesn't really have a best side of the camera anymore. has two guards to spit on him, is lucky if he gets a meal and probably doesn't even sleep in a bed.

At Kenneth Bae's, the man who doesn't get a meal, expense, Chris Cuomo does his hit pieces so he can afford to eat steak.  Sadly, CNN condones it... hell, CNN encourages it.

If Kenneth Bae dies in the work camp where he has been transferred, CNN and Chris Cuomo share the blame for his death.  CNN and Chris Cuomo put a hit piece on Dennis Rodman ahead of Kenneth Bae's well being.  Now Bae will likely die in a work camp in North Korea.

Dennis Rodman is an idiot.  I knew him when he played basketball in college, in Durant, Oklahoma.  Dennis probably can't even spell 'diplomat", and by his own admission, he is not one.  He's a retired NBA basketball player trying to revive his fifteen minutes of fame by taking other retired NBA basketball players to North Korea to play basketball.

Chris Cuomo is a user talk show co-host on CNN's New Day.  He searches for his daily fifteen minutes of fame doing hit pieces.  Why he thought a hit piece on Dennis Rodman's trip would come out well, only he knows.  Why Chris thought it was appropriate to mix basketball and diplomatic efforts to free Kenneth Bae is anyone's guess.  It definitely got Chris his daily fifteen minutes of fame, but Kenneth Bae will most likely pay for it with his life.

Kim Jung Un is the dictator of North Korea.  He is not a good person and does not want to be a good person.  In fact he delights in being known as a "bad boy".  The man had his own uncle executed for speaking out against him.  Kenneth Bae is in prison in North Korea for speaking out against the dictator.  Why the hell would Dennis Rodman, or any of the other basketball players who accompanied him to North Korea, speak out against Un while they were sitting in North Korea.

What did Chris Cuomo expect a group of basketball players to say about Un while they were sitting in his country?  I have watched numerous newscasters in foreign countries preference their reports by saying, "I have to be careful what I say and how I say it." If Chris wants to go to North Korea and get in the face of Un about Kenneth Bae, I will pay for his flight over.  Chris will not need a flight home; he will be sleeping on the hard floor next to Bae for the rest of his life.

If Chris Cuomo had not done his hit piece on Dennis Rodman, less people would have known Dennis was in North Korea with his group of former NBA players.  Thanks to Chris Cuomo we do know that Dennis was there.  Knowing that has not changed my life, by the way.  Thanks to Chris Cuomo's putting Kenneth Bae front and center, Mr. Bae has now been transferred to a work camp where, given his health issues, he will likely die before any real diplomatic efforts have a chance to save him.

The hit piece on New Day was bad, but Cuomo could not let it go with one bad interview that put Kenneth Bae's life in jeopardy.  Chris doubled down, doing a second interview with Rodman while Rodman was in "rehab".  While he was in rehab?  That is the worst time to interview anyone and Chris knows it.  Not only did Chris double down on the interview, he doubled down on the jeopardy to Kenneth Bae's life, continuing to talk about an issue that neither he, or Rodman was equipped to discuss.

"Dennis Rodman asked for the second interview," stated Chris Cuomo.  

Hey Chris, just say no.

Dunn Jury - 25% voted to acquit of murder, Sonny Hostin still 100% wrong

Juror number four from the Michael Dunn murder trial spoke out about the verdict.  She says the final vote on murder was nine to convict and three to acquit.  Now we know.  Twenty-five percent of the jury voted to acquit Michael Dunn of murder.  The most interesting comment from the juror; race was never discussed in the jury room.  It was not argued as a race crime in the courtroom and the jury did its job by keeping race out of the deliberations. 

Sunny Hostin, your broad brush racist condemnation of the jury was wrong.  Even if the entire jury had acquitted him, calling any of them racist was wrong.  If anyone on the jury was racist, why did they convict him of three counts of attempted murder and firing into the vehicle?  Why would a racist jury not set him free.

The verdict from the jury that you called racist will send Michael Dunn to prison for seventy-five years.  Your complaint is that a racist jury did not give Jordan Davis justice?  You want Dunn retried with a "non-racist" jury.  You want to be sure the next jury gives a forty-nine year old man life in prison for murder.  Never mind that he will be sentenced to a minimum of seventy-five years for the convictions the "racist" jury handed down.

Regardless of why he is there, Michael Dunn will be in prison for the rest of his life.  So, why spend the money to try him again and possibly get a life sentence for murder?  What then?  You cannot make Michael Dunn die twice in prison.  With the convictions handed down, he is never going home again.

What will you say if the next jury acquits Michael Dunn of murder?  Will it be another "racist" jury, in your mind.  Perhaps it will be twelve people who just see the evidence differently than you see it.  The only thing we know for sure; if he is tried again, we don't want you on the jury.  You will convict him without listening to the evidence.  

You will convict him because a white man killed a young black man.  I concede the argument, if Dunn shot Jordan Davis simply because Davis was black, that would be a reason to convict and it would be a hate crime.  However, that was not the charge against Michael Dunn. So, convicting him as you would have him convicted is a racist conviction, which is racism on your part.  The verdicts against Michael Dunn should have been rendered without respect to color of skin, and I believe they were.

We don't know how the vote will come out if the prosecution tries him again.  There may be a conviction, but it will not add one day to the amount of time Michael Dunn spends in prison.  He is going to die in prison regardless of any verdict in a retrial.

Here is the one thing that is certain.  You owe an apology to the Michael Dunn jury for your rant against them.  Even if they had acquitted Michael Dunn of every charge, you are a former federal prosecutor, you should respect the jury system and encourage others to do the same. You say we have to talk about race?  Ranting against the jury in the Michael Dunn case is not going to help race relations.

You have been critical of the prosecutors for their handling of the case.  Maybe you should strap on your prosecutor boots again and show everyone how it should be done.  I have a feeling you made a few mistakes when you were a prosecutor.  I am curious, what was your won/loss record in the courtroom?  Perhaps your were the best prosecutor who ever walked into a courtroom.  Maybe I should hang on your every word of analysis because you were perfect in the courtroom?  In my opinion, I should take your analysis and weigh it with others who see things a bit differently.

Michael Dunn was convicted of charges that will put him in prison for life.  Just because he was not convicted of the top charge, you want to make his trial a racial issue.  It is NOT a racial issue, it IS a Sunny Hostin issue.

New Day's Chris Cuomo Steps In It Again

I started watching CNN's New Day a couple of months ago.  I watch parts of it, along with other network morning shows, because Chris Cuomo's interviews intrigue me.  When my channel surfing lands on New Day I watch for Cuomo's interview pieces.  Most of them provide comic relief at some point during the interview.

The subject matter is rarely comical, but the comic relief comes from Cuomo's inexperience that leaves him looking like a deer in the headlights, when an interviewee leaves Chris holding his own ass after asking a question that backfires. Watching Chris conduct one of his "hit piece" interviews is like driving by a car wreck; you have to slow down and look to see if there is any blood.  Chris is usually the one who gets bloodied in his hit piece interviews.

You are probably wondering why I watch New Day, since my previous comments about Chris Cuomo are less than flattering.  He's young, and when he learns to go after the news value of an interview, instead of the "WOW factor", Chris will be a great interviewer.  I am going to enjoy watching him grow, similar to another Chris...Wallace.  

Both Wallace and Cuomo got their breaks with their respective networks because of their last names.  Wallace has made the best of his opportunity.  He has found his million dollar payday.  Cuomo probably got the million dollar payday opportunity for being the New Day eye candy, and for his last name.  I doubt he has ever had a job that did not come as a result of his last name.  He is still struggling to make the best of the opportunity his name has given him with CNN.  

Chris Cuomo is not stupid.  In fact he is book smart intelligent, but lacks real world street smarts that may one day make him a great reporter as he experiences more of the real world and steps in it in his own interviews a few more times; maybe a few hundred more times.  He may one day realize that the story is bigger than him.

Right now Cuomo is the eye candy, stereotype (dark haired) blonde, stuck between two female hosts who are paid to slobber over his every word, and his poses for the cameras.  The two ladies have the hardest jobs; the jobs of not showing up Cuomo. 

Right now Chris Cuomo wants to be the news.  Some of his interviews are all about him.  Three interviews best illustrate his over eagerness to be part of the story and be seen as the best interviewer on television, even though he struggling to understand what it takes to be the best.

First, his interview with Dennis Rodman while Rodman and other former NBA players were in North Korea. was a complete failure and put an imprisoned American, Kenneth Bae, in greater danger than he was in before the Cuomo hit piece.  Then the follow up piece with Rodman in "rehab" further illustrated that Cuomo only wanted to play for the cameras.  Cuomo said that Rodman asked for the interview in rehab.  Maybe so, but sometimes it is best to just say no.

Let's be clear about Rodman;  I knew Dennis when he played college basketball in Durant, Oklahoma.  I doubt he can spell "diplomat", much less be one.  Rodman actually admits he is no diplomat.  Cuomo turned an interview that should have been about basketball, into an interview about Kenneth Bae, a subject that Rodman could not care less about and definitely should not have been asked about.

Not only did Cuomo's hit piece fail to make Rodman look any more stupid than we all know he is, the piece did more damage than good.  Why do I say that?   Bae was transferred to a work camp in North Korea after Cuomo made him the topic of the failed hit piece on Rodman.  Unintended consequence, absolutely, but Cuomo caused it; and for no good reason. If you ask Bae, he would probably say he doesn't want Cuomo to put any more focus on him.

Next, Cuomo interviewed a republican lawmaker.  I confess I don't remember the lawmaker's name.  The thing I remember is after the lawmaker answered one of Cuomo's questions the lawmaker stated, "Chris, you are an attorney, you know better than to ask a question like that."  Cuomo's pregnant pause before the next question was very telling.  Chris knew his ass had just been handed to him.  He couldn't even remember which camera he was supposed to look in for his best side shot.

Lastly, Cuomo really flubbed his interview with George Zimmerman.  The "unsophisticated", as Cuomo describes him, Zimmerman, held his own in the interview.  Cuomo had that deer in the headlights look several times, while losing track of the next question.  So, Chris just ask the same question again, four times in one case.  The unsophisticated Zimmerman finally said "I think that is another way of phrasing what I just said" when Chris tried to put words in Zimmerman's mouth by paraphrasing one of Zimmerman's answers.

The moment that made the entire Zimmerman interview worthwhile was when Cuomo made this point; if George had not gone out that night Trayvon Martin would be alive today.  Zimmerman responded by reminding Cuomo and Americans watching the piece, if he (Zimmerman) had not gone out that night, he (Zimmerman) would not have been attacked.  The reason the jury found Zimmerman not guilty was because he was attacked, and was defending himself.  That is also the reason Trayvon Martin is dead.

Is there a piece I would like to see Cuomo do?  Absolutely!  I would like to see him interview HLN's Sunny Hostin about her racist rant against the jury that found Michael Dunn guilty of attempted murder, but deadlocked on the murder charge.  Her rant was ridiculous and I am positive Cuomo realizes it, even though he cannot honestly say it if he wants to keep his million dollar job.

These are facts about the Dunn verdicts and lack of a verdict.  Three charges of attempted murder were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Why?  Michael Dunn fired the last three shots into a retreating vehicle.  Dunn said at that time he did not know he had hit anyone, so he should have been charged with four counts of attempted murder, instead of three. 

I am not an attorney, so I don't know if murder and attempted murder can be charged for the same alleged victim.  Perhaps, attorney Cuomo, or former federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin know the answer to that question?  I would rather hear that analysis of the case, instead of a rant about a racist jury, especially when that rant comes from a former federal prosecutor who knows better.  After all, Hostin was not present in the jury room and has no idea what was said during deliberations.  

So, Chris, take on one of your own if you want to do some real reporting.  Update your resume first though; CNN will fire you if you do any meaningful news reporting about a fellow "analyst" and her racist rant. 

As for me, I will keep watching Cuomo's interviews as I click around the various channels to get the full view of what is going on in the world.  At some point during his career I believe Chris Cuomo will forget the "ivy league, shoot me from this camera angle, please" concerns and actually start investigating the story for the news value in the story.  If he does, he will be more intellectually stimulated and may become one of the best interviewers on television.  It may happen, eventually.

Sunny Hostin's Ridiculous Rant On HLN

On February 15, 2014 the jury rendered a partial verdict in the Michael Dunn Murder trial, finding him guilty on three counts of attempted murder and one count of firing into a vehicle.  That same jury deadlocked on the charge of Murder in the first degree and a mistrial was ordered for that count.  The mistrial allows for Dunn to be retried if the states attorney elects to retry the case.

Shortly after the verdict was rendered on four counts and the mistrial was declared on the charge of murder, HLN's Sunny Hostin went ballistic, charging the jury with racism and pretty much insinuated that anyone who agreed with the jury's finding was also a racist.

"I can't believe this jury's verdict...it just proves, once again, that the life of a young black man has no value," Hostin declared.  She went on to say, "as a black mother, I am afraid for the safety of my young black son"  I guess Sunny does not care about the safety of young white men.  Of course, that is not racist of her.  She is the mother of a son, just like my mother is the mother of a son.  Our skin colors, although different, should not be the issue in her argument.

Sadly, three other news analysts were on-the-air with Sunny, listening to her rant.  Of course they all slobbered over her report and tried to comfort her in her moment of on-air distress.  They were afraid to take on her racist remarks.  Why?  They probably did not want to be labeled racist by the labeler in chief.

To Sunny's one credit; within her rant she suggested that we need to talk about race.  I agree, but not because of the Michael Dunn trial.  However, it is easier to talk about race if you do not talk "at" those whose opinions are not the same as yours.  Sunny was definitely talking at everyone and was not considering listening to anyone.  She had a "one label fits all" attitude toward anyone who did not agree with her.  That label was "racist".  So with that in mind, let's continue.

Work with me here, Sunny.  Let's try what you suggested. Let's talk.  You feel there was at least one racist on the jury.  If so, why was there not a hung jury on all counts.  They agreed on four verdicts, convicting Dunn on three counts of attempted murder and firing into the vehicle.  The three victims of the attempted murder were black.  I do not see the racism with respect to those counts, or the count of firing into the vehicle.

Look at the evidence with respect to those guilty verdicts.  Dunn fired three shots while the vehicle was retreating.  I understand why the jury found Dunn guilty of attempted murder,  Dunn had no reason to fire at the teens while they retreated.

Further, Dunn testified he did not know he hit anyone in the vehicle at the time he was firing. That leads me to a question of my own. Why did the states attorney not file four counts of attempted murder?  Maybe the law would not allow for filing murder and attempted murder against Dunn for one alleged victim (Jordan Davis). If four counts of attempted murder had been filed, Michael Dunn would be looking at an 80 year minimum sentence.  Also, Jordon Davis would have received a measure of justice, because he was fired on while retreating.

Sunny, you are upset by the verdict.  Many other people are upset too.  Others, like me, at least have a few questions about why charges were filed as they were filed.  However, the jury should not be labeled "racist" because its members did their jobs.  I would not expect any of them to vote for a conviction they did not feel it was appropriate after seeing the the evidence and listening to the testimony.  Did you expect them too?


My opinion; at least one person on that jury believes there was a gun in the teens' vehicle.  However, that same person, or those same persons, believed that Dunn should not have fired on the vehicle after the teens started retreating.  He obviously did; the evidence proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.  The jury voted guilty on attempted murder because every member of the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt it was attempted murder on every person in the vehicle, without respect to the color of their skin.

As a former federal prosecutor, and a professional legal analyst I expected more support for the justice system from you last Saturday.  I am disappointed that no other analyst on HLN called you out for your racist remarks and that HLN has not fired you, or at least suspended you for for a reasonable amount of time for those racist remarks.  Racism in the Michael Dunn jury room?  No, but you sure tried to put it there.

Why Is CVS Really Getting Out Of Tobacco Sales

Tobacco sales accounted for around $2 million of CVS's $1.6 billion total revenue last year.  That is around .13% of their sales for the year, far less than 1%, which leads me to believe that CVS is giving shelf space behind the registers to a product that will contribute a higher percent to its total revenues.  This is marketing, not a concern for health issues related to tobacco sales.

The CVS pharmacy where I fill prescriptions sells my brand of cigars.  A box of four Dutch Masters Caronas sells for $6.48.  However, I do not by my cigars from CVS.  I go 250 feet across the street to a Racetrac convenience store and pay $4.41 for my cigars.  High prices at CVS for tobacco products is the reason sales of those products account for only .13%, far less than 1%, of the company's annual sales.

Did anyone else notice that the CEO of CVS did not comment on the percent of annual sales given up by his company through discontinuation of tobacco sales?  He mentioned the $2 million loss in revenue, but not that it is far less than 1% of the company's annual sales.  He also failed to mention that the prime "behind the register" shelf space can be devoted to higher revenue items.  I guess the true facts slipped his mind while media news talk show hosts were slobbering all over him with praise for his decision to give up the revenue.  As soon as the segment was over... the talk show hosts probably took their smoke breaks.

Here is a fact.  Many items in CVS are priced very high in comparison to other retail outlets.  I realized this recently when Jan needed a can of Hormel chili for a recipe.  CVS was the closest place to buy it, so I went there.  CVS certainly does not draw customers to the store for Hormel chili.  I paid $1.99 for a can of chili I could have bought at Walmart for $.89.  I chose the closer, more convenient place to go for one item Jan needed.  If CVS really cares about me, why not sell me a can of Hormel Chili for $.89?  I didn't expect them to, but is it not a fair question to ask?

The shelf space given up by CVS for Hormel Chili was minimal.. they had a total of 6 cans on the shelf and I had to look for the location of the product.  Contrast that to the prime, "behind the register" shelf space given up for tobacco sales, which is far less than 1% of CVS annual sales.

If you go into a CVS store, look at the shelf space given to alcohol products.  You will find displays on end caps throughout the store.  CVS has no issue with selling alcohol products.  Why?  Could it be that alcohol products add more to the gross revenues and profit margin of the stores than tobacco products?

CVS does not need to sell tobacco products in its stores, but why lie to us about the reason the company is discontinuing sales of tobacco products in the stores. It's a business decision based on profit and loss, not health concerns for the company's customers.  Just be honest about it.

Will it hurt the store?  Time will tell.  Let's see if customers move prescriptions to Walgreen's so they can buy tobacco products when they fill prescriptions.  I'm sure CVS has studied this and the effects will most likely be minimal with respect to lost customers.  They will not lose any business from me over tobacco products, because CVS is the closest place for me to fill a prescription... right now.  Of course, when Jan and I move to a new house later this year, there might be a Walgreen's closer to our new neighborhood.