I'm not sure who to root for in this particular dispute. The British authorities have banned Martha Stewart from entering the country due to her previous conviction of obstructing justice.

The television personality was hoping to visit England for some business engagements. Stewart's assistants confirmed her visa denial, but didn't give details (I don't understand this particular fact. American citizens don't need a visa to go to England, only need a passport.).

"Martha loves England; the country and English culture are near and dear to her heart," said Charles Koppelman, chairman of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. "She has engagements with English companies and business leaders and hopes this can be resolved so that she will be able to visit soon."

I'm not the biggest fan of Martha, but this seems like a bit of a snow job. She did the crime and did her time. Why do the British authorities feel that she is still some sort of threat?

She did, however, get to visit her ancestral country of Poland. Score one for the Poles! Maybe they'll keep her.

This is an interesting bit of yin yang for y'all*:

It seems that all the reasons given by Claudio Petruccioli, president of the Italian state broadcaster RAI, not to have reality programming on his channel are the exact reasons why American broadcasters want to have more reality programming:

• "unreasonable if not degrading behaviour"
• "[putting] people into environments that are both unrealistic and coercive"

(S11E01)

Cartman: Token forfeits! Whites win!

Given Michael Richards' tirade at a comedy club last November, it would have been easy for South Park to dedicate a show to ruthlessly bashing Richards and people who use the N-word, but South Park has never been about simple approaches. Ultimately, Stan realizes that a person who isn't black can never really understand the effect that word can have, but the episode also ingeniously shows how none of us are completely immune to thoughts of prejudice, it's just that some forms of intolerance are more, well, tolerated than others.

Stoney Creek, a hotel chain based in my homestate of Iowa, has removed CNN from its rooms after the cable news network aired footage of insurgents killing American troops in Iraq. James Thompson, president of Stoney Creek Hospitality Corporation, made the decision to pull the channel from the cable lineup in his hotels, saying that CNN's decision to air the footage was supporting terrorism. CNN has been removed from Stoney Creek's rooms in cities in Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin. If we ever win the war on terrorism, I guess we'll have this hotel chain to thank.

Years ago I actually worked in the hotel business, and while living in Des Moines I even applied at the Stoney Creek Inn. At the time I was a member of the "Association of Left-handed Q-Bert Advocates and Equine Dalmatian Artistry," an organization dedicated to southpaws who loved to play Q-Bert and paint images of dalmatians riding horses. The organization had the unfortunate acronym of A.L. Q.A.E.D.A. I'm guessing it was my "Proud Member of A.L. Q.A.E.D.A." t-shirt that cost me the job. And that, my friends, is what we call working way too hard for a joke. I hope you learned something here today.

The Associated Press is protesting a ban put in place by FOX that would keep photographers from snapping pictures at the Television Critics Association press tour. The network wants the AP to use photos that FOX hands out, rather than have actual photgraphers come in and take the pictures themselves. The AP says it will not assign any journalists to the event at all unless FOX allows their photographers into the event. David Ake, deputy director of photography for the AP, says, "The problem for the AP is that, just as we wouldn't let Fox write our stories, we can't have them shooting our pictures." This seems to me like a pretty clear cut example of a violation of journalistic rights. What do the rest of you think?