See You in Court

Want Greta's blog delivered directly to your e-mail box? Click here to sign up!

Dear Viewers,

I am up early — 5:30 a.m. — to get rolling for an early morning taping for the inaugural, so this blog will be short. Monday night went off without a technical hitch — and I even pronounced the names of all my guests correctly! I am still waiting for the day a guest fails to show since I don't exactly know what "Plan B" is when that happens, but maybe I should not mention this possibility so as to jinx us.

As for the Michigan "bat-abortion" (can it get any worse than that?!), it will be "interesting" to see what happens to the boy. He is charged with felony assault of the pregnant girl (not the fetus... probably there is no statute that is directed at a fetus in Michigan and thus the felony assault of a pregnant woman.) If she "consented" to being hit — as crazy as that sounds — it is not assault (or, in other words, her consent is a defense to hitting her... much like a boxer in a boxing match consents.) He is NOT charged with felony assault of the fetus (like I said, there is probably no law in Michigan specifically forbidding it.) My bet: After this case, Michigan will re-write its law, but that's only a guess.

I've streamed a clip from last night's show. Clink on the link in the video box above to watch it.

Finally, what's up with the courts? That messy attempted adoption (search) in Florida is a disgrace. I don't know who is "right" — the biological parents, or the guardians — but to have it drag on THIS long is a disgrace. The child is now 3 1/2 years old and is no doubt traumatized by the chaos. Yes, it takes time for appeals, etc., but judges can move faster.... we pay them to help sort out problems and not create more than we need.

Since I have to get to work, here are some e-mails about some recent shows. I think E-mail No. 2 really thinks I do a good job... just kidding!

E-mail No. 1

$1 million bond for having a sexual relationship with 2 teenage boys? Wow! That's awfully steep.
While I agree that her relationship with the teenage boys is inappropriate, I'm hard pressed to believe that $1 million bond is justified. What is the judge implying by setting such a high bond? Is he implying she is guilty as charged, or is he sending a message that this type of behavior is becoming all to common, and he feels the need to send a message that this type of behavior from teachers will not be taken lightly? He couldn't be thinking she's a flight risk, could he?
I would also like to know what motivated the two teenagers to come forward with their allegations at this time, why didn't they say something sooner?
If they knew that it was inappropriate for a teacher to engage in a sexual relationship with a student why didn't they go to authorities in the first place. The argument can be made that they were too young to comprehend what was going on, but I highly doubt it.
When I was that age I was "hot for teacher" but I never acted on it, nor was I too embarrassed to talk with my friends about how I felt about a certain "hot teacher" or what I "wanted" to do. Sounds to me like the teacher had a fetish, the two teenagers had raging hormones, and all parties involved acted on their urges with impunity. I'm thinking it was consensual. In the end the teacher is charged. What about the two teenagers, it's hard to say if they will suffer any long-term effects from their tryst, only time will tell.
I'm still curious as to what motivated them to come forward now, though.
Don Culbert
The Canadian Gypsy, Australia

E-mail No. 2

Aside from the Amber Alerts you thankfully air, I feel you are nothing more than a typical tabloid (supermarket rag, something to look at while your waiting for the underpaid, under-schooled kid to ask you paper or plastic), so what is it paper or plastic?
Fair and balanced? Yeh, right.
M. Shelton
Elsmere, KY

E-mail No. 3

Charging that young boy with a crime is the ultimate hypocrisy. He did nothing differently than abortion doctors do over 4000 times a day.
Gerard Machonis
Alexandria, VA

E-mail No. 4

Hi Greta,
I don't believe in ANY kind of abortions. But, Miranda Massie's mother should have aborted her when she was a baby invitro... see if she'd have the same opinion today! I want to throw up when I hear these stupid women talk about abortion and women's rights! It's part of what is wrong with our country today!
With Warm Regards,
Rebecca Alderson Ornold
Lewisburg, WV

E-mail No. 5

I was very upset to see your show and FOX News allow the attorney for the boy charged in the beating miscarriage to use the program as her platform for touting abortion. Norma McCorvey, (the original Jane Roe) is going to file an appeal with the Supreme Court tomorrow to try to overturn Roe V Wade. On the eve of the chance to overturn this, your program is broadcast. I know you stopped her, but not before she got her message out.

E-mail No. 6

The lawyer for these kids is trying to use a fear factor as a defense. So why was Scott Peterson found guilty of killing an unborn child and for these two kids its okay? The other question; why is this lawyer talking about what could happen if abortion is not legal, it is legal and look what these kids did anyway. Come on they know right from wrong and being too scared to do the right thing is no defense. If killing an unborn for one is murder killing and unborn is murder for everyone. How can we as a society function if we keep making it up as we go along. You've got red hair GUILTY... You've got blonde hair INNOCENT.

E-mail No. 7

Dear Greta,
I have been a fan of yours since way back in the CNN days. While I admire your climb up the cable news ladder, I must confess that on a certain level I am very disappointed in you. I have always had great respect for your intellect and your intuition. How can you possibly say things like "Keep it here on Fox, fair and balanced news. Real Journalism" without choking?
I know that you are aware of Fox's right bent, and that although you may not bend that way, saying such ridiculous (it is truly ridiculous) things about that network makes you look, well, ridiculous. It cheapens you in my eyes. It's as if it were the price you have to pay to have your own show with greater space. A mini sellout, as it were. Or perhaps I am totally off base, and you actually believe Fox to be a "fair and balanced" network? In that case, I apologize for having grossly misjudged you.
Please, please return to: "Keep it here on Fox, we report, you decide", or some other benign salutation. There are no mistruths in that statement.
I remain, your loyal fan,
Deirdre Pichon
Rome, Italy

Send your thoughts and comments to:

Watch "On the Record" weeknights at 10 p.m. ET