Osama bin Laden is Dead

Reports have surfaced that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in an air assault on his compound last week in Pakistan by American Special Operations forces. Military officials waited in order to confirm his identity using DNA tests.

While folks may be quick to put on their party hats and pull out the champagne bottles, the harsh reality is that Osama bin Laden's death changes nothing. bin Laden was a mastermind behind al Qaeda, he built a complex transnational (or multinational depending on how you look at it) franchise based organization that looks a whole lot like McDonalds. It has a chain of command, independently operating cells across North Africa, Central Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, southern Asia, Europe and presumably the United States. It is the Quetta Shura (located in Quetta, Pakistan), not al Qaeda that is running the insurgency in Afghanistan. Independent cells across the world will still continue to strike, as they did a few days ago a few days ago in a crowded marketplace in Marrakesh, Morocco.

The war in Afghanistan, which is now about nation building and fighting the Taliban (and what few al Qaeda fighters are still there), will continue. There will not be any mass surrenders of al Qaeda fighters, nor will there be any great armistice. This conflict will simply continue on.

Ho Chi Minh, the revolutionary leader in Vietnam that led the fight for unification under Communist rule died of natural causes midway through the Vietnam War. Four years later, the United States threw in the towel. Six years later, Vietnam was reunified under Communist rule.

Hopefully history will not repeat itself.

There may be hope for the GOP.

Former Utah governor and ambassador to the People's Republic of China, Jon Huntsman, is making a play for South Carolina.

There may be hope for the Republicans after all.

A boardroom in Manhattan is missing its idiot

I have had enough of hearing about Donald Trump's presidential ambitions.

Why on Earth would we elect a man who runs on business credentials, yet has managed to have his namesake flagship operation run into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Three times.

A New York Times article sums it up best with this gem:

The bank seized on the opportunity to discuss Mr. Trump’s reputation. “Trump is no stranger to overdue debt,” it said in asking that his suit be thrown out of court. It noted that Mr. Trump’s casino operations have filed for bankruptcy twice, adding, “This suit is classic Trump.”

Aside from his own personal financial misadventures, Donald Trump has built his campaign on xenophobia, targeting Saudi Arabia and China (among other countries) for the problems America has, while making absurd statements about the Arab League having money "pouring out of their ears." Of course, this brings into question Donald Trump's understanding of "wealth" seeing as Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros, Mauritania, and Yemen are member states.

That, and he will not drop the Birth Certificate issue.

The man is a professional buffoon who has had the good fortune to play around with daddy's money for a few decades too many. Republicans, stop playing with the newest train wreck of a candidate (joining Palin, Bachmann, Gingrich and Huckabee), and field someone who could actually win. I will say it again. Jon Huntsman.

A four party system?

Rather than waste my time telling you what you already know, the future of American politics needs a little bit of an overhaul. Goodbye two party system, hello four party chaos and the associated coalitions and other highly un-American, parliamentary sounding terms that we have avoided for the better part of 250 years.

New Federalist Party (NDP): Fiscally liberal, social liberals (Blue)
New Republican Party (NRP): Fiscally moderate, social conservatives (Red)
American Libertarian Party (ALP): Fiscally conservative, social liberals (Green)
New Republican Party (NRP): Fiscally conservative, social conservatives (Yellow)

A primitive, hypothetical map showing what a four party system would look like in a Presidential election.

The Yemeni trainwreck just got worse

Continuing strife in Yemen should come as no surprise. It is quickly diving towards the unfortunate label of "failed state." First, it was President Ali Abdullah Saleh's arbitrary dismissal of his cabinet. News from Sana'a now indicates that four ranking military officers, including General Ali Abdullaha Aliewa and Brigadier Generals Hameed Al Koshebi, Mohammed Ali Mohsen, and Nasser Eljahori have pulled their support for Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. They follow Major General Ali Mohsen Saleh, who pledged his support for the protesters earlier. Major General Saleh's switching of loyalties likely initiated the defection of other officers, as Major General Saleh is part of President Saleh's family.

This defection has implications that reach far beyond Yemen's borders. In addition to massive anti-government protests, Yemen's military has been fighting al Qaeda and tribal militants in the mountainous fringe of the country - with substantial American assistance. President Saleh has also been struggling to hold together the country's fractious tribal network, as well as play down fears of a South Yemeni secession.

The collapse of the military command structure also presents the danger of an escalation of the ongoing conflict, this time between loyalist forces and those who are now backing the protesters. This risk is not as likely, however, as the defection of these high ranking generals may lead to other generals following in their footsteps. The real immediate risk in Sana'a is of a coup d'état led by a group of these generals, which would likely be welcomed by the people - unless the generals refused to relinquish power.

Yemen is also unique in that it is supported by the United States, yet it receives support from the current Iranian regime, which sees it as a peripheral ally along with Lebanon. This alliance, however, is largely a relationship of convenience that would lose its value if another power stepped in to back thew new leadership. Iran, however, has sought to win support among Arabs by condemning violence against protesters. In yet another twist, Iran support Houthi rebels in Yemen's north. These rebels, however, have proven to be a greater problem for Saudi forces than th Such a move would likely see Yemen establish closer ties with Riyadh at the expense of Tehran, while calming secessionist calls by the Sunni south.

One thing is certain, the never-ending-train-wreck of Yemeni internal politics got messier. Again.

NATO's Admiral A(c)kbar Moment

There is only one video clip appropriate to describe what just happened between NATO and the Arab League.



In a full about face, the Arab League condemned the NATO led attack on Libyan air defenses in support of a Security Council resolution calling for protection of civilians.

For those with short memory spans, the Arab League called for a no-fly zone over Libya. It is quite clear that the Arab League was woefully unaware of what a no-fly zone is, and their political posturing has led to America's direct involvement in a third Muslim country in the past decade.

NATO, and the United States in particular, need to reconsider and reevaluate their involvement in this operation.

A Regime is Dead

In a turn of events whose origins go back three weeks, NATO forces began bombing military targets around Tripoli and Sitre in Libya as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The targeted attacks against Qaddafi's air defense forces represents an escalation in support of earlier proposals calling for a no-fly zone, but presents a greater question for the West - what will happen if and when Qaddafi falls? Opposition forces collapsed yesterday under pressure from Qaddafi, do they have the strength to rule a deeply divided country? Will Libya be able to stay politically unified in the aftermath of this conflict?

Qaddafi's Last Hurrah

Two weeks ago I said not to discount Colonel Qaddafi just yet.

I may well be right in the end. As Libya has fallen further into what is now a civil war, Colonel Qaddafi made a conscious decision to gamble the future of his country on his ability to crush the insurgency. Colonel Qaddafi's bet, after watching forty years of Western planning, is that he can secure his country, crush the insurgency and restore a semblance of peace and order in his before the world community aligns itself to take military action against his regime. In the past two decades, he has seen several cases in which the United Nations or NATO have taken months to mount an effective response to the actions taken by a state.

Remember the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990? Desert Shield lasted for five months before a counter-attack to liberate Kuwait was launched. Before NATO's intervention in the Balkans was initiated by a two year long no-fly zone, during which time ethnic continued to operate with little restriction until Operation Deny Flight, whose bombing campaign formally brought Slobodan Milosevic, the President of Serbia, to the negotiating table during the Dayton Accords. NATO's second intervention in 1999 took months for forces to be mustered - and Serbia was just across the Adriatic Sea from Aviano Air Base.

The threat of a no-fly zone does not scare Qaddafi as much as we think it does. No-fly zones are exactly that - unless rules of engagement are changed to allow for attacks against Libyan forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi, in which case the intervention is a targeted bombing campaign.

Colonel Qaddafi is trying to beat the clock here, and unless the United Nations Security Council can reach an agreement to provide forces for a formal humanitarian intervention, which is unlikely considering China's opposition even to the implementation of a no-fly zone, Colonel Qaddafi may well be "Colonel Qaddafi" for a few more years.

High Speed Rail's Magic Number: 125

With Governor Rick Scott's rejection of federal dollars to build high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando, it is time that rail advocates think smart, and not fast about the future of passenger rail in America. The current fascination with going fast is distracting us from the real issue, that American trains are incredibly slow while intercity frequencies are low outside of a handful of corridors. This may sound like a retreat, but it is really a leap forward.

The solution? Focus on achievable, short to mid term goals. While the magical 200 mile per hour corridors we hear about so much make great campaign promises and pipe dreams for transit nerds, there is a much better number out there that delivers much of the benefits of high speed rail without the costs: 125 miles per hour. Why 125 miles per hour? The equipment exists in American today, it is operable on existing corridors with some modification, it can use existing rolling stock, it offers benefit to freight rail and is cheaper to build that a true high speed rail line.

Let me apply the 125 mile per hour speed to a number of corridors, both existing and potential:
Corridor Distance Travel Time Current Rail Travel Time (if available)
Chicago - Milwaukee 89 miles 0:43hr 1:30hr (Hiawatha
Chicago - St. Louis 284 miles 2:17hr 5:30hr (Lincoln Service)
Ft. Worth - Houston 260 miles 2:05hr N/A
New York-Boston 230 miles 1:45hr 3:40hr (Acela), 4:15hr (Regional)
Houston - New Orleans 336 miles 2:41hr 7:50hr (Sunset Limited)
New York-Philadelphia 89 miles 0:45hr 0:55hr (Acela), 1:05hr (Regional)
New York-Washington 225 miles 1:45hr 2:45hr (Acela), 3:20hr (Regional)
Philadelphia-Pittsburgh 355 miles 3:50hr 7:50hr (Pennsylvanian)
San Luis Obispo - San Diego 350 miles 2:48hr 8:30hr (Pacific Surfliner)
Seattle - Portland 186 miles 1:30hr 3:30hr (Amtrak Cascades)
Seattle - Vancouver 157 miles 1:15hr 4:00hr (Amtrak Cascades)
Washington-Raleigh 306 miles 2:53hr 5:55hr (Carolinian/Silver Star)

The time savings are significant. In order to whet America's appetite for high speed rail, the American people need to see faster and more frequent rail service to start with. Once that can be demonstrated, the 200 mile per hour corridors being advertised can be considered in earnest.

Beyond moving people faster, boosting speeds to a faster 125 miles per hour bring relatively close cities, such as Washington and Richmond, Chicago and Milwaukee or San Diego and Los Angeles, to becoming neighbor cities. While intercity trains make the downtown to downtown hop in record time, commuter trains would create large commutable corridors. Richmond, Virginia would be forty-five minutes from Washington, DC's downtown - for reference's sake, the average commute in the District-Maryland-Virginia area is 30.1 minutes, from outlying areas in Prince Williams and Stafford counties that average rises above 40 minutes.

The real hurdle is convincing the freight railroads to get onboard with this proposal. This is the expensive part - to keep traffic separate, new tracks would need to be laid alongside freight lines, which would be mean double, triple or even quadruple tracking some lines. The freight railroads would benefit, as this would free up capacity by removing pesky passenger trains from their lines, while giving them the opportunity to operate their own faster electric freight trains.

If all else fails, we can always dream.

The Army PT Test goes Expeditionary

Things are changing in the military, albeit at the pace of molasses. The newest change will come in the form of an updated Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).

Out with the old three event test, including two minutes of sit-ups, two minutes of pushups and a two mile run, and in with the new. The new APFT, if the changes are approved, will lead to a new five event test. This test would include a 1.5 mile run (like the Air Force and Navy, but half of the Marine Corps 3 mile run), a 60 yard shuttle run, one minute of "the rower," one minute of push ups and a long jump event.

A second, pre-combat portion will administered prior to soldiers being deployed. This will include a battle-buddy drag, an obstacle course and a quarter mile run in combat gear.

APFT, meet the President's Challenge.

The USAF Tanker: The Headache Ends Tonight (Sort of)

In a matter of hours, the Pentagon will announce the winner of the KC-135 replacement. The project officially started a decade ago,during which several high profile ethics investigations into Boeing were launched, several individuals involved in the bid were jailed, Boeing employees were sacked, the CEO of Boeing resigned, and EADS won the bid in a 2008 upset only to have the win overturned by the GSA.

I for one, am hoping for EADS' KC-30 (the original KC-45) to win the competition.

Update: Boeing is the winner of the KC-135 Replacement contract

Now comes the fun part, EADS is going to appeal the decision, and over the next six months, their appeal will be considered (and eventually rejected). As compensation, I am willing to wager that the KC-30 will be considered as a KC-10 (the DC-10 based tanker) replacement. That order, however, will be for a paltry 60 aircraft. Had the KC-30 won this competition, Boeing would have likely pitched a KC-777 as a KC-10 replacement, which they would have likely won.

Still, this outcome is quite a surprise.

Qadaffi, a Man on Fire

Show your friends a video of Colonel Qaddafi going off on one of his many rants or tirades and ask them the first word that comes to mind. I would wager that a significant number of those responses would involved or be the word “buffoon.”

I am here to tell you to stay away from that word. Go beyond the rhetoric, the designer sunglasses, his busty blonde nurse and his attempts to convert supermodels to Islam. Colonel Qaddafi, for all of his unique qualities and eccentricities may come off as a buffoon, yet he is anything but. Qaddafi is the longest ruling contemporary leader. He has seen 8 American Presidents (from Nixon to Obama), 5 Soviet General Secretaries, 4 Saudi Kings and 3 Egyptian and Russian Presidents come and go during his time. He witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the rise of the United States as the world’s sole superpower and is now witnessing the rise of China. He has survived his fair share of assassination attempts, both internal and external. And now, he faces his greatest internal threat yet.

His time may be running out, but do not write him off just yet. Qaddafi is as politically astute as he is eccentric. He is politically and ideologically malleable, which has kept him relevant while other leaders have been voted out and overthrown. While he remains firmly entrenched in a political and diplomatic third way and non-aligned, he also hopped around ideologically, first as a pan-Arabist intent on joining, and then emulating Syria and Egypt’s United Arab Republic atthe peak of the Arab Socialist movement, then as that movement lost steam, he jumped ship and became a proponent of pan-Islamism. Recently, seeing opportunity to the south, Qaddafi reframed himself as a pan-African leader, eventually being appointed to the chair of the African Union, the first to come from an Arab country[i]. He even took the time, back in the mid-1970s, to put his ideas to paper in his aptly named Green Book, which he still refers to whenever given the opportunity.

Internally, he squelched internal division caused by tribal rivalries in order to strengthen his power base and put forth a remarkably progressive social agenda, though much of that is being undone as this is written. Libya today is certainly not the Libya of yesteryear. It has among the highest standards of living, median income, life expectancies, and literacy rates in Africa. Libya, at least ostensibly, is socially progressive. Since the peak of his radicalism in the 1980s, which saw Libya become a training ground and bank for radical movements the world over, from the Irish Republican Army to the Red Army Faction, he has moderated – tremendously, all but apologizing for and paying reparation to Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 victims, ending his WMD program, reestablishing diplomatic relations with the United States and strengthening ties with the European Union, all while maintaining his unique brand of national leadership.

As Libya approaches the fine line that separates failing states and failed states, and as his forces commit further attrocities against his people, as members of the armed forces and foreign representatives begin to defect, one must consider Colonel Qaddafi’s past. He has ruled Libya for his entire adult life, and, through his peculiar cult of personality, has become as much a part of the country as the country has become a part of him. Colonel Qaddafi may as well claim the infamous line "L'État, c'est moi."

Image Credit:
blatantnews.com (License)

[i] The Organization for African Unity, the African Union’s predecessor had several Arab leaders as chairmen, including Gamal Abdel Nasser

Maglev, uninvited guest at the High Speed Rail party

Maglev is an uninvited guest to the high speed rail party. Do not let the flashy videos and cool lines of the Maglev fool you, it gives you very little more than conventional high speed rail does for two to three times more. Maglev in America is a disaster in the making, and exactly what opponents to high speed rail want: a shiny expensive train that bankrupts its operators. Beyond its cost, Maglev's unique design makes it un-interoperable with conventional rail, making it far less flexible than its steel wheeled counterparts.

There is no denying that Maglev is incredible technology. It is clean, safe, efficient and by far the fastest land based transportation available. However Maglev is an unproven technology that risks costing high speed rail in America tremendous political capital. Though development of Maglev technology goes back over half of a century, there is only one high speed maglev in service today, the Shanghai Maglev train running 19 miles from Shanghai's Pudong Airport to just outside downtown Shanghai. Hailed as the first part of a bigger Maglev network, its expansion was quietly shelved three years ago in favor of a more cost effective alternative. Though far cleaner than air, bus or car, Maglev does not make any significant improvements in efficiency or emissions.

Therein lies one of Maglev's greatest weaknesses: its cost. For a corridor such as the densely populated Northeast Corridor of the United States, Maglev costs well over 100 million dollars per mile, conventional high speed rail on the other hands costs between two-thirds and half that amount. With limited funding available for the construction of new high speed rail lines, Maglev would give American taxpayers less bang for their buck. Now let me monetize that. For a DC-Boston high speed rail line, assuming a distance of 450 miles, Maglev would cost well over 55 billion dollars (assuming 120 million dollars as the minimum price per mile, including new bridges and tunnels). Conventional high speed rail would cost between 22.5 and 30 billion dollars. Both are gargantuan expenditures, however, with 37.5 billion dollars saved, the line could be extended well past Atlanta (another 620 miles, not to mention that construction costs would be far lower along the less densely populated I-85 corridor).

Even the folks at Desert Xpress abandoned their ambitions (and ill thought out plan) to build a Maglev from Victorville, CA to Las Vegas, NV, instead deciding to focus on building a conventional high speed line that would eventually connect to the California High Speed Rail (CAHSR). Beyond the fact that there is virtually no market for Victorville to Las Vegas, the Desert Xpress builders realized that without interoperability with the much bigger CAHSR, they would be dead in the water. (Seriously, why drive three hours to Victorville only to get on a train for 45 minutes? Why not just build the line to Anaheim or Los Angeles?)

Maglev is completely inoperable with existing rail lines. Conventional trains run on steel wheels on steel rails, the same as the rails that crisscross the country today. Maglev operates on (or floats on or around) a fixed guideway. If Maglevs were to be built in the United States, they would be unable to operated on conventional rail lines if demand necessitated, nor would they be able to be moved to other Maglev corridors if needed without incredibly expensive connector tracks. (Just for reference's sake, a high speed train could easily be moved from New York to Los Angeles over conventional tracks, a Maglev would need to be disassembled, transported across the country by truck or rail and then be reassembled on the other line).

There is a silver lining in all of this. Maglev does have a future, if the funding can be found, as a downtown to airport shuttle as Shanghai has discovered. Maglev's rapid acceleration and high speed would connect far flung airports to city downtowns in record speed. The current circuitous route from Manhattan to New York's Kennedy Airport on the Long Island Railroad to the AirTrain could be replaced or supplemented by a direct link using a mix of elevated and underground maglev. The 18 mile trip from Kennedy Airport to a transit hub in Manhattan (either Penn Station or Grand Central Terminal) would take under fifteen minutes. Other cities, including Washington, D.C. with its far flung Dulles Airport would stand to benefit from a fast link from downtown.

But really Maglev, you need to go, you're stealing High Speed Rail's thunder.

Photo Credit

(1) User Alex Needham on en.wikipedia

(2) My own work

Bahrain, in a nutshell.

The mass protests in Bahrain are not all that we think they are. After the fall of leaders in Tunisia and Egypt and ensuing protests in Libya, Jordan, and Yemen, we have become accustomed to the relatively similar narrative of popular unrest fueled by poor employment prospects, autocratic governments led by corrupt, selfish and nepotist leaders and a cry for equity through representative government.

That narrative holds some water in the case of Bahrain, however, there are several key factors that are overlooked or misunderstood in current discussions. The case of Bahrain holds a confessional dimension that does not exist in the case of Libya, Yemen, Egypt, and Tunisia; in addition there is a long history of clashes between Bahrain's Shi'a majority and the ruling family.

First, Bahrain's Shi'a majority is led by the Sunni al Khalifa clan, whose roots lie in Kuwait and Qatar. Their ascendancy to the throne in 1820 was made possible not by their ability to marshall their forces in Bahrain, but by treaties signed with the British, eventually becoming a British protectorate and colony.

Second, the ruling al Khalifa family has stayed in power by empowering its Sunni constituency while keeping the Shi'a in a general state of economic and political destitution. Formal segregation exists with the Shi'a restricted from many jobs, neighborhoods and opportunities that are reserved for Sunnis and allies of the royal family.

Third, though a largely stable and economically successful country, street violence is nothing new to Bahrain. Going back four decades, the Shi'a have demonstrated in the streets to protest the conditions they have been subjected to. When street protests erupted in 1973 and 1974, Emir Isa bin Salman al Khalifa, the ruler of Bahrain, dissolved the elected National Assembly and enacted the State Security Law of 1974, giving him carte blanche to prosecute what he saw as subversive elements. The Iranian Revolution only exacerbated the situation, as Emir Isa linked Shi'a opposition to Iranian supported terrorist organizations including Hezbollah. Neighboring Arab nations supported the government's crackdown, fearing their own Shi'a majorities would eventually rise up. It is important to note that clashes between the Shi'a and the al-Khalifa clan are exactly that - anti-government protests, and not anti-Sunni protests.

Fourth, Bahrain's Shi'a are disappointed with their experience with representative government since the reestablishment of the National Assembly in 2001. Initially promised that the Council of Representatives, the elected house of the National Assembly, would be the more powerful house, King Hamad reneged on his promise when he realized how powerful the Shi'a would be in such an assembly. Since the 2006 elections (Shi'a parties boycotted the 2002 election after King Hamad's undermining of the National Assembly), the Shi'a Islamist al Wefaq party has dominated elections, winning 17 out of 40 seats in 2006 elections and 18 out of 40 seats in the 2010 elections. These results do not demonstrate their real support however, as more than half of voters cast ballots for al Wefaq candidates, however due to gerrymandering, al Wefaq's representation remains below the 21 seats needed for a majority, though they did have alliances with Sunni liberal prior to the dissolution of the National Assembly.

What does this all mean? For one, it gives validity to Vali Nasr's assertion that there is a Shi'a revival in the Middle East (A book certainly worth reading). The protests in Bahrain also show that discontent with the direction of the country is not only limited to Shi'a, as there is also considerable Sunni participation in the protests. And the good news for the United States? While Bahrain's Shi'a are confessionally linked to Iran's Shi'a, Iraqi cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has a far greater following. Though certainly not an American ally, Ayatollah Sistani's moderation and pragmatism led to Iraqi Shi'a participation in politics rather than violence (though the younger firebrand Moqtada al-Sadar would wish to see otherwise). He also disagrees with an Iranian style clerical government and opposes clerical involvement in politics.

In the end, Bahrain's neighbors stand to lose more than the United States, particularly if (or when) the protests succeed in overthrowing the royal family.

The South will not be rising again. Get over it.

There are few things that divide people are much as the issue of the Confederacy's place in American history. Yesterday marked the 150th anniversary of Jefferson Davis' inauguration as President of the Confederate States of America. The city of Montgomery Alabama celebrated the historic event by hosting this reenactment. It seems that quite a few folks took this event (too) seriously.

In case any of you forgot what the Civil War was about, I will take the time to remind you: THE SOUTH WANTED TO KEEP SLAVES. All these arguments about "States' Rights" and "Northern Aggression" are irrelevant.

As for a government for the people, by the people? It's about as true as the assertion that large numbers of Black soldiers served in the Confederate Army. The Confederate Army

was made up of poor, slaveless southern Whites. Wealthy landowners, industrialists and politicians were exempted from military service, though some chose to serve. If by "The People" one means the wealthy landed class, then sure, the Confederacy was for "The People."

The quote that really got my attention was Kelley Barrow's assertion that "the people of the confederacy have been forced to the back of the bus" in reference to Rosa Park's daring decision to not give up her seat and sit at the front of the bus. It almost sounds like Nathaniel Bedford Forrest made that statement.

Photo Credit: Mark Calendine

A first post, a pointless post.

Rather than start by making a substantive post about a real issue, I think we ought to address how mindless our news coverage is from time to time.

So I'll feed in to it:

Apparently, Fox News, by way of British tabloid The Sun, felt it was important enough to discuss a new expedition to find the Loch Ness Monster. Unfortunately for Fox News, they failed to add one key fact to The Sun's story: The Loch Ness photographs were proven to be a hoax in 1994.

Running stories by tabloids is nothing new for Fox though: last November Fox News reported that an increasingly frustrated Barack Obama was sending 75,000 word ranting emails to his supporters. The source was none other than, you guessed it, The Onion. Fox News was smart enough to remove that story.

Apparently, no one at Fox knows how to "use the Google."