The Devil in the flesh?

Throughout the media, we are repeatedly hearing the term "the Devil" today, as President Hugo Chavez speaks about President Bush. It is not like the comment was unexpected to come out at one point in time especially from the President of Columbia who has already proclaimed his dislike for President Bush, but what is interesting is the rise of supporters of both sides.
President Bush had almost conceived his own policy years ago, "You are either with us or against us." I have spent over an hour reading blogs that were either in full support of President Bush attacking President Chavez with out reading what he claims. In the other side, there are the blogs who cheer on the term Devil applied to President Bush. Certainly I can say harsh things between both sides, but show me someone who you can't chastise?
I don't support President Chavez' claim that President Bush is "the Devil", but I do not view President as any type of saviour; he is human after all.

The point I want to come across is that we are all stubborn in a form or another, but we have to open ourselves at some point, unless we have the proof as to oppose it. i.e. socialism, interventionalist economic policies(including a foreign government intervening with another's policies) On a good note, FED leaves the interest rate alone, oh, and the rise of U.S. and China 'economic dialogue'.

Ramsey still in News and not ex Redskin?

So a man is aprehended for the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. I am not sure why this is receiving so much coverage when there is so many events occurring throughout the world. Let me rephrase that towards RECENT events, not a murder that occurred ten years ago. Perhaps if someone had been wrongly accussed, or if word was brought that the family had ties with a terrorist plot that was thwarted. But why is this case so important that I have to read through articles, spend my news hour wasting fifteen minutes for a 10 year old unsolved murder? There are many unsolved murders that do not receive any press; what makes this one so special?

The country had mourned for her death many years ago, but to keep bringing it back? I asked many upon the issue and most did not care anymore, so why is there so much press coverage? I have many questions on this issue. This is not the first time that the media has covered upon something to almost make it a household name, yet the most grotesque murders, unsolved cases, are forgotten. Columbine was tragic, yet there are still schools that face death. In short, I need an explanation, why is this topic still arising in the press. Does anyone other than the young lady's family need to know of his capture? She wasn't the child of Charles Lindbergh who was kidnapped after his heroic flight causing us to worry for his child.

Note:this will probably be deleted later, but I am just curious. Why?

Update: So I haven't deleted it, but would like to add a few updates. For those who are not aware, the Washington Redskins had a quarterback named Patrick Ramsey who they traded to the NY Jets. He was the starting quarterback the first game last season but was soon replaced by Mark Brunnel after he had an injury in that first game against the Chicago Bears. Thus, my title about Ramsey in the news and not the ex Redskin.

I also found at the barbershop that the Ramsey murder case is still a hot topic so I must give credit where its due to the media. They know how to make money and what the public want, even if I am part of the low percentage who does not care, it is all about what the market wants not one consumer. Good job media.