Moammar Gadhafi is Still Dead

As I watched the coverage of Gadhafi's murder/execution/accidental death by gunshot yesterday, I kept thinking of the old Saturday night live skit from the 80's where, among the top "news," came the breathless headline, "Francisco Franco is still dead!"

From the gruesome videos and video captures shown repeatedly on the networks, and that appeared this morning on the front page of Rupert Murdock's New York Post (proclaiming, "Khadafy Killed By Yanks Fan; He Had More Hits Than A-Rod"), I'd say there's no doubt Gadhafi is not only dead, but will remain so for the forseeable future. We have the pictorial evidence right in front of us.

A bullet to the head and, apparently, one to the gut, will do that.

Don't get me wrong. The guy had blood on his hands long before the mob dragged him out of that drainage tunnel. It's long believed he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 that killed 243 people, some of whom may have survived until impact (The Sun tabloid in Britain ran a headline today saying, "That's for Lockerbie"), that he supplied bombs to the separatists in Northern Ireland, killed Americans, and committed countless atrocities in his own country. I feel no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi.

What I'm pondering is the clumsy and garishly public nature of his death. What have we gained, or lost?

Certainly, revenge is sweet for some and they have the right to savor it. Others have argued that the visual savagery of his slaying will propel Libyans on to democracy. Yet others believe the televised brutality will send the proverbial message to other bad guys, "This could happen to you, too."

Of course, for those looking forward to their 72 virgins, that last argument may not have much impact.

What about the rest of us?

What, especially, about the kids and young adults we teach to follow the rule of law? Those who undoubtedly got a clear message from yesterday's bloody endless loop of death, that "law" isn't sacrosanct? That shooting a guy you hate in the head is okay if you do it in front of a cheering crowd and it gets broadcast on CNN?

And does this mark the "end of an era of arbitrary rule," as some have claimed, or does it really just underscore the fact that power always comes down to who's better armed and quicker on the trigger when the moment presents itself?

Beats me.

All I know is, I turned off the TV once I saw Moammar Gadhafi was still dead.

Stuck in the Mud, Wheels Spinning, Life Out of Control

If Chicago media critic Robert Feder has it right, Randy Michaels got stuck in the mud of a Ohio construction site last Sunday and, when the cops hauled him out, wound up busted for driving under the influence.

Michaels' mug shot topping Feder's blog makes him look like Otis, the bumbling drunk from the old Andy Griffith Show.

But I'm guessing Ben Homel, the person behind the Randy Michaels persona, isn't feeling like life is much of a sitcom.

Randy Michaels is the guy who ruined a classic radio station and gleefully gave its listeners, all of us really, his upraised middle finger while doing so. From the goofy gambling party in Colonel McCormick's historic office to an alleged tryst on the Tribune's outdoor patio, he broadcast to the world he was running the show his way and anybody who didn't like it could kiss his butt.

As I said at the time, Michaels smashed apart WGN like a kid destroying another kid's toys because he never had any of his own.

Ben Homel . . . I don't know about him.

I'm still trying to imagine how he felt when he woke up the morning after his arrest. Did he shrug it off, pop out of bed laughing, knowing he'd be reading disparaging comments about himself in the national press once again but looking forward to yet another moment in the spotlight regardless?

Or did he crawl from under the covers feeling ashamed and humiliated, one sick and sorry part of his heart realizing the life he always dreamed he'd have is just as out of reach as it's ever been?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Behind every arrogant buffoon is a frightened child curled up in a ball, terrified of the monsters in his closet.

Amanda Knox: Victim or Perpetrator?

With the decision that Amanda Knox go free, lots of folks are celebrating, not the least of whom are the U.S. officials who undoubtedly convinced their Italian counterparts...You're Embarrassing Yourselves...Get It Done, Now.

It's a given that the Italian authorities blew the forensics. And hey, if Amanda's blood wasn't on the knife, she shouldn't get life. Right?

So why do I have a queasy feeling that a murderer is poised to return to the party circuit and in a major way?

My opinion? Knox was complicit in Meredith Kercher's murder.

I think she'll be carefully managed in the short run. Perhaps a few tearful words when she makes it back to America, a little careful video of her making good on her wish to "lie down in a green field."

Within a week or two, however, she'll make the rounds of the talk shows. If she listens to her parents and media advisors, her appearances will be cautious and scripted. If she's on her own, I think an innate desire for attention will lead her to display her wild side.

Then, we'll hear about the book deal, maybe a recording contract. A TV movie, followed by a reality show. A little Dancing With the Stars action?

Hell, maybe she and Casey Anthony will move into a gated community together.

Sooner or later, it'll be back to the party circuit. And the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll rumors will start. Think Lindsay Lohan.

Of course, I'm a cynical SOB. Who knows? Maybe she'll disappear behind a screen of Public Relations firms and bodyguards and dutifully show up in church every Sunday.

It won't last. I think she got away with murder. I think, eventually, she'll flaunt that.

If we're lucky, maybe that's when the truth will come out.