News and Opinions - Blog Chow

These were some interesting quotes from Larry Flynt after the death of the Reverend Jerry Falwell:

After meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

The famous lawsuit involved a ‘Hustler’ piece with a parody of an intoxicated Jerry Falwell having incest with his mother. While I’m all for free speech, it was, much like most of Flynt’s doings, beyond vulgar. It showed a complete lack of class and lack of conscience. I do give Flynt credit for showing some respect for Falwell and for admitting they had become friends.

It is interesting to note that while the majority of American people claim to be Christians, Falwell took a lot of heat over the years for actually believing what the Bible says.

For those of you who are lied to by those who try to rewrite history, this blog’s for you. It was four years ago the speech took place that President Bush is often credited with saying the mission was accomplished. Aside from being a phantom quote, what those who wish to deceive you try to do is equate that with what’s going on in Iraq right now. The mission that was accomplished was removing Saddam Hussein. Saddam is still gone. He’s quite dead in fact.

Not only do they try to deceive the naive and people who are too busy to pay attention, they hide the fact that President Bush said repeatedly way back when that patience would be needed and that this would go on for a long time. I’ve heard him say it many times with my own ears and so have most of you. As time goes by and the same lies get repeated over and over it’s easy to forget. They repeat the lies so often they become accepted fact, even though they can’t prove their rhetoric.

Do you remember hearing President Bush saying mission accomplished? If you do, you are a victim of the repeated propaganda. You probably actually do remember seeing a banner with those words. A banner that came from the crew of the aircraft carrier from which he spoke. Something he actually did say was: “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” It’s not a crime to forget that, but it ought to be a crime to try to convince people that certain things happened that didn’t. They are playing you for suckers.

It’s so bad that some people forget what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. They are like parrots and just repeat the rhetoric they hear over and over. Sheeple. I’ll never understand why people would choose to believe those who have proven repeatedly to be liars. Why would you even want to be on the same side of people like that? It must be some kind of mental defect. In the case of terrorism, many choose to side with people who murder innocents, even their own children.

The only real and honest way to look at a war is from a historical perspective. When you do, you see that this war is more successful than most. It’s simply a fact. Look at the lives lost in World War I and World War II. Enormous losses in single battles. The fact that we tie the hands of the troops and make them scared to do their job certainly isn’t making things easier. They somehow have to now be perfect or else be treated like criminals. It’s even gotten to where they are guilty till proven innocent.

Did we support the troops in those other wars by telling them to run home where it’s safe so we could all become slaves? People would have been tried for treason for some of the things that are done today that encourage the enemy. Do you think they were parading around grieving family members and doing the propaganda work of our enemies? How disgusting is it to feed off the pain of those who have lost loved ones and try to use them to paralyze us from doing what needs to be done? To help an enemy by playing on people’s emotions like that would seem to be a form of terrorism in and of itself. The fact that a few family members are parading around who didn’t support their loved ones in the first place, disrespecting their memory, just shows how low some can go. Can you imagine not wanting a loved one to be considered a hero who served and died for their country? Shameless. How much of a reward would you need to piss on the grave of a loved one who died serving their country? There’s been a lot of new lows hit the last few years.

“Those we lost were last seen on duty. Their final act on this Earth was to fight a great evil and to bring liberty to others.”
– President Bush during the misrepresented Mission Accomplished Speech

When someone says that major combat operations are over, does that mean everything is over? There is violence all over the world, even in places that are considered peaceful. Why would anyone possibly believe that means we are completely done? What is going on now in Iraq is dirty and dangerous and often fatal, but it’s not major combat operations. Certainly not historically speaking, not unless the military has gone completely downhill and we don’t have sophisticated weaponry anymore. Otherwise, this is a dangerous police action, not major combat. It’s not even Shock ‘N Awe. Do you remember that? That was a pretty major operation. That was back when the politicians had the jewels to try to win. Or maybe it was that some of them didn’t have the jewels to speak up against it. You make the call. Either way we have more than a few people who could use a couple.

It’s one thing for someone to actually be against this military operation, but why do people have to lie about the facts? Why is it so hard to tell about all the infrastructure improvements and the accomplishments of American forces? You are told almost gleefully about the numbers of our own people who die like it’s a telethon and the deaths are dollars. The only thing missing are bells and whistles that go off in celebration of hitting certain milestones. How often do you hear the numbers of the terrorists killed? We are told we are losing the war, so enemy casualties must be less, right? Then again, we are also led to believe that most deaths are just innocent civilians.

If you listen to people like Rosie O’Donnell or John Kerry you wouldn’t expect our troops to be capable of winning. They are just dolts who can’t get a real job to people like that. It’s good to hear they support the troops. I guess they just don’t support the mission of sending idiots off into combat. I think if you have to lie or mislead, then you don’t really care about anything but politics and somehow enjoy hurting people who do care. Do you think people who mislead you are interested in your freedoms?

There’s more than a few people out there who feed on the uninformed. You’ve got the liberal politicians, the liberal media, and the anti-American sheep who repeat the same lies over and over. If you don’t like being played for a fool, you need to start paying attention. Once you know who isn’t interested in the truth you will at least know who to stop listening to. That’s half the battle. It’s not hard to see who they have invested their futures in. They’ve sold out the very people who made them who they are.

Just like the Imus fiasco, the political opportunists will be out to take advantage of the terrible tragedy at Virginia Tech and use it to advance their own agendas. They will blame everything from the right to bear arms to President Bush. They will call for even more laws that will wind up infringing on your rights and doing more harm than good.

If you were stuck in the group of people being butchered wouldn’t you have liked for a law abiding citizen to have had a handgun? Police have guns. What kind of society would it be if they didn’t? So many lives would have been saved. Such things also act as a deterrent to people like this. The only thing that stops some criminals is the fear of running into someone who will fight back. Look at what happens in a disaster like Hurricane Katrina. The criminals pull out guns and wreak havoc. Do you remember that? They will always find a way to get a weapon. This is 2007. People can make guns. Criminals will buy and sell them just like they do drugs.

Banning guns would not have changed anything that happened at Virginia Tech. I suppose a gun was better than a well placed bomb. Imagine what could have been done with a bomb or two in a college with over 25,000 students. If anything it should cause a stronger commitment to fighting terrorism, as this could have easily been carried out by a terrorist. Instead, the vultures who feed on taking away your rights will take full advantage of the pain and suffering and convince some they are trying to solve the problem, when in fact they are simply trying to elevate themselves. Some people care more about the rights of terrorists than the rights of decent citizens.

I remember in a gun control argument Archie Bunker saying to Meathead, “would you rather they was pushed out of windows?” It was a very funny line, but it really was very profound. People have always found a way to kill other people. Now, in the age of terrorism, there are more effective ways of carrying out mass murder. An alert and armed citizen could potentially save thousands from such killers.

Look at what happens in China. Despite over a billion people they are terribly oppressed. Thrown in prison for having their own opinions. It is slowly getting to that point here. When nobody is allowed a gun, the criminals and politicians will have total control. In many instances the criminals and politicians are one in the same. Every time something happens, a do-gooder politician will pass another pile of laws. That is one of the biggest dangers to freedom right now. New laws streaming in and old laws staying on the books. What happens is selective enforcement. Some get arrested and some don’t. Some people get off with a slap on the wrist and others do hard time for a lesser offense…

The Imus lynching was proof of that. Even if you think someone doesn’t have a right to free speech, shouldn’t they go after the worst offenders first? Therein lies the hypocrisy. Bill Maher and Rosie still have jobs despite their anti-American and anti-Christian comments. Rosie the waste product with her accusations of a 9/11 conspiracy and “terrorist are parents too” comments. Nice parents who blow up their own children. What about the degradation of women on a daily basis by Howard Stern? How much money has he made from his right to free speech?

What about some of these rappers and hip hop artists? Some of their songs are so vulgar it’s sickening when you consider a large portion of the people listening to this stuff is kids. How many kids were watching 66 year old Imus? Speaking of kids, Leslie Moonves fired Imus under the guise of cleaning up the airwaves. This is the guy who was in charge of MTV. Do you know what is on MTV? If you have kids that you care about you better watch it. Not just the videos, some of their kids shows. You won’t even believe it. It’s kiddie porn. Talk about sick hypocrisy.

Funny thing about Imus is that he was a liberal. Had he been a conservative that’s all you would have heard. Imagine if it was Limbaugh or Hannity. I guess he fit the stereotype of a republican so that was close enough to throw him to the wolves. Ironically, some of his accusers have said far worse things.

The same people who tell you abortion should be legal because a woman will take a coat hanger to herself and rip out a baby will tell you that a criminal won’t buy a gun off the street. Most of the political people and Hollywood/entertainment big shots who want to outlaw weapons have their own security who are armed for their protection. That won’t change. They are entitled to protection. You aren’t. It’s the same way they can fly jets everyday, but you should drive your car less to save the planet from global warming. You put them in power, but they are better than you. You are a pissant to them.

note: The mayor of Nagasaki, Japan was shot to death today, despite the strictest of gun laws there.

Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has answered the question I’ve had for a very long time about the global warming hysteria: “what is the proper temperature for the planet earth?” This is what he has to say on the subject in his article for the April 16 Newsweek issue:

The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth’s climate history, it’s apparent that there’s no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperature wise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman’s forecast for next week.
–Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Well said. There really is no such thing as a normal temperature for a day, much less a century. What is considered normal is an average. It’s possible for a month to come out on average without ever actually hitting the normal temperature for a single day. In most places the temperature for any particular day usually does not land on the average temperature. Check the records for your area for a month and see how often you hit the normal high/low temperature for a particular day. You could also check today’s high/low and compare it to last year’s high and low for this date. Doubt they will be the same. In more places than not they will be cooler since much of the country has experienced well below average temperatures lately. Where does all that cold weather come from when the earth is a greenhouse with the sun beating down on it?

Saying that last century the earth was at the right temperature is like saying yesterday’s temperature must be the normal temperature for today. It’s very improbable. You would need accurate temperatures for many centuries to even come up with a reliable average. Odds are such an average would be different from both last century and this one. Since there has always been warming and cooling periods, I don’t think normal could ever be established. There is simply no way to measure “proper” temperature.

If the temperature was usually the same everywhere and it rose a degree in a century then there could possibly be a problem. Since temperature swings of 20 degrees or more in a day are not unusual in many places there is certainly no reason to think 1/10th of a degree rise in average temperature in a decade is anything that animals can’t adapt to. Look at the change in temperature from season to season. How do animals ever survive?

What we are being told about global warming can’t be proven and isn’t even logical. There are short, medium and long term weather patterns, so establishing norms is always going to be a moving target. Since life has survived all those climate changes there is no reason to believe that last century’s average temperature was ideal. There is even less reason to believe that a 1 or 2 degree rise in temperature is going to wipe out life on the planet. Panic and stupidity have a much better chance of accomplishing that. So do terrorists and regimes who are promising mass destruction.

Mel Gibson ripped into hecklers before they were escorted from a college film class after ranting that he was racist in the making of the movie ‘Apocalypto.’

Lady, Fuck off… Make your own movie!
– Mel Gibson

I’d have to say he at least handled it better than Kramer did. Even historical movies out of Hollywood tend to be closer to fiction than fact. I think Gibson has been far more historical in his movies than the average Hollywood movie has. Why don’t people go after the worst offenders first?

One of the latest outrages is the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys. Harriet Miers recommended that all 93 be let go. That is what happened under the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno reign. They want Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign for eight. Janet Reno didn’t resign. Let’s not forget some of the other things that went on under Janet Reno, such as Elian Gonzalez and the Waco massacre. She didn’t resign, nor was she fired.

The firings under Clinton/Reno went by with barely a whimper. ABC and CBS never even reported it, according to the Media Research Center. The truth is that these attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, so it is within their rights, although firing 93 would seem to be an abuse of that power.

Political opportunists like Chuck Schumer are saying how this is somehow unprecedented. Their turning a least offender into a worst offender is abominable. This is so typical of the extreme left. Anyone who thinks they are getting it straight on from the politicians and the media only need to look here. These vermin have turned the whole system into a mockery. The facts are out there and they are clear to those who want to go beyond the headlines and one-liners. The spin and hypocrisy these days are what’s really unprecedented.

Hello, everyone. President Bush tonight is defending the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. He says it was the right thing to do. What was wrong, he says, is the way the Justice Department told Congress about it. That would include saying the White House wasn’t involved. Turns out it was.
– Katie Couric (CBS, March 14)

It’s funny how freedom of speech goes out the window when a Conservative says something over the top. Ann Coulter called John Edwards a faggot and there are some who are more upset by this than by Iran getting Nukes or terrorists trying to destroy their way of life.

There were people who cheered John Kerry’s “joke” about our troops being stupid. Where was the outrage from the liberals? It’s called the old double standard. The people should decide what is right and what is wrong. In Kerry’s case it cost him any chance of becoming President. He is still a Senator, however. I haven’t heard an outcry amongst the democrat party for him to step down. But I guess he was for the troops before he was against them…

It’s supposedly patriotic to bash our leaders in a time of war and denigrate the troops. If someone says something derogatory against certain behaviors it is likened to racism. Homosexuality is not a race. Any straight black person should be offended when comparisons arise between gays and homosexuals.

John Edwards hired a couple liberal bloggers who’s writings routinely included vulgar and blasphemous comments against Christianity. It took a public outcry for this union to end. Edward’s excuse was that he hadn’t read all their stuff. What did he hire them for in the first place if he didn’t know what kind of writings they were doing? Where are the liberals screaming for an end to his Presidential campaign? Again, the double standard. The fact that the Catholic League pointed this out to Edwards and he kept them on only adds to the hypocrisy. It clearly did not appear to be a mistake.

The liberals embraced the Dixie Chicks when they started their anti-American tirades. Where was the condemnation from the liberal politicians? That is considered free speech. In fact, you get awards after that kind of thing. Doesn’t matter if they have to cancel a lot of their concerts because people aren’t buying the tickets. If it weren’t for liberals contributing to the cause, the Dixie Chicks would be out of business.

Then there’s the Clintons. Hillary’s thesis and suppression thereof is apparently no big deal to liberals and the liberal media. You can run for President and support a radical leftist like Saul Alinsky and it is a not a big deal. Instead, people worry about name calling. Bill Clinton degraded the White House when he was cheating on his wife while President. He lied under oath as well. But that’s his “personal business.” Even though he was really in the people’s house. Again, it’s name calling that’s bad.

Why didn’t liberals demand Hillary Clinton apologize for her accusing others of making it up about Bill’s screwing around on her in the White House? Does anyone remember her charge that it was a vast right wing conspiracy? News flash: It Wasn’t! No demands for an apology or demands for other Presidential candidates to condemn her remarks. Don’t say these things are ancient history. Remember George Bush’s decades old DUI that was brought up right before the election? One is an old indiscretion, the others are patterns of beliefs and political tactics…

Free speech is okay when it is aimed against things that this Country was founded on. It is okay against Christians, Jews, Conservatives and any group who attempts to exercise their own free speech when talking out against liberalism. You can’t even say that homosexuality spreads aids without liberals being highly offended by it. It is okay to say that the Jews are responsible for all the problems in the world, but to say promiscuous homosexuality was responsible for aids becoming an epidemic would make some people rant and rave. Free speech is used to defend many a vile comment, but when the shoe is on the other foot, censorship is suddenly desired. Do you see the hypocrisy?

It’s okay to sell books that trash Christianity or for a greedy film maker to try to make a profit by saying Jesus was married with kids. That’s considered free speech and “though provoking.” I suppose it is, but if you say things about Mohammad you are intolerant and attacking a religion. Again, anybody getting the hypocrisy here?

There is a call to censor scientists and meteorologists if they have other ideas about global warming. No free exchange of ideas here. If facts about long term emotional problems to many who have had abortions are brought up, there is no tolerance for that information. Nor for information regarding pain to the fetus. These are areas where liberals say free speech is not allowed. Pornography a mouse click away from children is allowable. Just remember, no swearing at a liberal.

Political correctness is an attack on free speech. It gives some people the right to say anything they want, while silencing others. There are college professors who are allowed to spew anti-American venom to their students under the cover of “free speech.” It’s insanity.

It’s even acceptable to some for people to say they wish Vice President Cheney had been killed in an attempt on his life. Bottom feeders like Bill Maher hide behind the right of free speech. Is there any comparison between such remarks against the Vice President when American soldiers are in harm’s way fighting a war and calling someone a name?

Ann Coulter is not a politician like most of the examples I’ve used, yet the media will be sure to repeatedly show how “intolerant” she is. Too bad they aren’t so concerned about things that are said when they come from liberal politicians running for President or the people who support them. Funny how selective some can be. Doesn’t Ann Coulter have the right to not support the mission?

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word “faggot,” so I’m — so I’m kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards. So I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.”
– Ann Coulter, at CPAC 2007

It’s being reported that Anna Nicole Smith commented last year that she thought Britney Spears was “totally cool” and would like to meet and hang out with her. If you want to boil all this down to the root of the problem, that is a good example of it. Anna Nicole wanted to hang out with the “cool” Britney. Britney wanted to hang out with the “cool” Paris Hilton… When you surround yourself with the wrong people bad things happen. When people are led to believe that stupidity is glamorous, it compounds the problem. In this case Anna is dead and Britney is brain dead.

I do think that these events provide a great teaching opportunity for parents. It is a natural thing for a kid to do stupid things for attention. To believe that it pays off is a dangerous thing. People like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton can live like this and wreck their lives and when they walk out of rehab they still have millions of dollars waiting for them. In other words, they can better afford to be stupid. When they finally wake up, if don’t kill themselves, they have a great life to walk back to.

The poor girl who looks up to Britney Spears and never gets started in life doesn’t have all the options of a Britney. They are the ones who made her rich in the first place. How sad it that? Another sad thing is that kids buy into the appearance that people like Britney Spears are happy. They certainly should be, but their ignorance prevents it. They have no idea of the opportunities they’ve been given. The public pays and they spend. That’s about all they know. Maybe it’s not even their fault.

Anyone who needs constant attention and publicity can’t be happy. If these simpletons like Britney Spears aren’t the center of attention they can’t handle it. They are like spoiled children and those aren’t tears of joy. I think most people can be happy with money and fame, but there are some who can’t. Look at Elvis. I don’t think Elvis craved the constant attention that these others do. Plus he wasn’t born famous like some of them basically were. But Elvis was one who surrounded himself with the wrong people.

It won’t be long and people will grow tired of the current crop of celebrity misfits. Then it will be on to the next “hot” dumb chicks. Such is the life of a bimbo - rich or poor. These kinds of antics might be good short-term publicity stunts, but they are recipes for short careers, not long ones. Their lifestyles are recipes for short, unhappy lives as well.

Do you think wrestling is fake? These award shows have become so phony they are laughable. From gay movies nobody wants to see to home movies from Al Gore or Michael Moore, which mislead and play on our fears. Music awards have become no different. These awards are all about extreme liberal politics and sleaze. If you don’t fall into at least one of those two categories you probably don’t even have a 25% chance of winning. If you are at the other end of the spectrum you have a much smaller chance than that.

These awards are meant as publicity to those who very often least deserve it. Despite all the free publicity the Dixie Chicks have received, both from the media and these bogus awards, they couldn’t even sell out their concerts last year. Their album sales were actually down from their previous album. You would never know it from watching these award shows. The awards are meant to prop them up, not show reality. It’s easier to give an award to prop someone up than it is to fake putting asses in the seats.

The media is hyping this as a comeback and vindication for the Dixie Chicks. I can’t call it a comeback since they never really went away, and since getting an award they did not really deserve does not exactly qualify as a comeback. How can you call it vindication when they are voted on by those who were in their corner all along?

It’s not that the Dixie Chicks aren’t good musicians. I saw them myself some years back when they played on the George Strait Music Festival and they have a good sound. Unfortunately they now sound to me like someone scraping a blackboard and the sight of them makes my stomach queasy. That is the honest truth. I’m sure I’m not alone in my sentiments. They acted like skanks even back then, and I was not at all surprised when George Strait didn’t persuade them to come back a second year. They really stood out like a sore thumb. A dumb, trampy sore thumb…

When they keep their mouths shut I’m sure they gain back a few fans at a time. The trade off is that they probably also lose those who don’t care for that kind of music, but support them because they like their anti-American comments. The funny thing is, I doubt they even meant what they said that started all the controversy. They are the kind of people who have to have attention all the time and they figured a cheap shot on foreign soil would get a positive reaction from the crowd and go unnoticed here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were advised to do it. They were too stubborn or stupid to give a real apology afterwards, especially when they got positive attention from the usual anti-American suspects. Hey, but they are the “award winning” Dixie Chicks! “Critically acclaimed.” Yawn…

The media tries to make the fact that entertainers or athletes have fans to mean they always agree with their philosophies. Mike Tyson still has fans and I doubt most of them are ear biters and rapists. The media has tried hard to do this with Muhammad Ali. They have tried to use his popularity and history to draw a relationship between him and the War in Iraq. They use his popularity as proof of redemption for whatever his political beliefs may have been. Ali didn’t gain popularity because of his stance back then. He didn’t gain redemption for his beliefs. He gained redemption as a person, in part because he was a larger than life character who did not continue to push his beliefs on the public. His sense of humor and talent made him very hard to dislike. As the years went by he seemed to have a genuineness that people like the Ditsy Chicks do not seem to posses. I’m a Muhammad Ali fan, and I do not in any way support the nonsense from way back then. Ali, who is a Muslim also spoke out against the terrorist attacks on America. There are many on the extreme left who refuse to do so without blaming America.

Hanoi Jane Fonda never got redemption for her anti-American ways and I suspect the Dixie Chicks won’t either. If they aren’t smart, just like Fonda, they’ll try to justify their actions until the very end. No matter how unpopular the War in Iraq becomes, there is a great difference for most people between being unhappy with the results and not wanting to help a large population of people who have been brutalized. These connections that some people are trying to make are simply an act of deception. Attempting to turn those who are trying to help into the villains. We live in an evil time.

These shows try to take advantage of those who are enamored by entertainers and attempt to persuade you as to who or what is most popular, even when it is far from what the public actually supports. Some of these award winners have had the biggest advertising budgets and received the biggest buzz from the media, yet they consistently do not show a profit. The only award they deserve is the money burner award.

These award shows would convince you that people love gay movies, yet as far as I know there has only been one of the likes of ‘Brokeback Mountain,’ and that was nowhere near the top of the charts for the year, despite a slew of awards. With all the free publicity it actually finished 22nd, behind such blockbusters as ‘The 40-Year-Old Virgin.’ Of course there is a portion of a market out there for gay movies, but for those without a story line. It’s called porn.

Many of George Clooney’s movies have been flops by most standards, yet we are led to believe that he is the big box office man. He certainly should be with all the publicity. The facts simply show otherwise. Numerous awards, huge production and advertising budgets, but few blockbusters. I think only a small percentage even show a profit. Award shows and public opinion do not go hand in hand. The awards have some influence on popularity, but shouldn’t it be more the other way around?

When it comes to movies, we are often subjected to the same retreads over and over again. If you want to see a movie there simply aren’t always a lot of options. If you aren’t careful about who is in the movie or who is making the movie, it is easy to donate to people who are an affront to everything you believe in. More people would avoid certain entertainers if they were aware of all the anti-American comments some of them have made.

Jimmy Carter won an award for an audio book. Is this possible? A book that many even believe to be anti-Semetic. Some of his comments have had me scratching my head about that. What more proof do you need that most of these things are politics? Carter is another one who refuses to accept that his policies had America in the dumps in a time period that had a fraction of the challenges that we are faced with today.

Jimmy Carter’s policies were a failure by almost all standards. Inflation was through the roof. You had to wait in long lines just to get gas. People were convinced back then the world was running out of oil. Americans were being held hostage by terrorists before most people even knew what a terrorist was. In some ways his failure to respond could well be credited with setting the stage for things to come. Carter’s actions can also be credited with giving Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini his rise to power which subsequently left over 500,000 dead in their war with Iraq. The list of failed policies goes on and on… He still believes his policies were good, even though history repeatedly shows otherwise. Some award shows apparently still like his outdated beliefs as well. Yet he is at the bottom of the heap on any legitimate popularity poll of Presidents, somewhere near Richard Nixon, who is there because of Watergate. It’s very possible Carter has such intense guilt that he can only cope by blaming others for the things he helped bring on. He may have meant well, but it’s hard to have sympathy for people who blame the victims. It’s just not right.

Even award shows where people get to vote should be taken with a grain of salt. Where is the oversight? If we have dead people voting in Presidential elections, how are we to believe some of the strange results in award show voting? The answer is pretty simple. We can’t. The method of selecting nominees and winners on many of these shows is a mystery to most people. In the case of the Grammys, I believe it is like the Academy Awards where it a member/academy type voting process. It’s a who you know… or something along those lines. I think a lot of people who would be fair probably don’t want anything to do with the process.

It’s interesting that the Dixie Chicks won in Country music categories, even when they themselves admit they don’t belong there, not to mention that Country fans surely don’t embrace them. There actually is a good reason they are put in that category. There are a limited number of anti-Americans to choose from in the patriotic Country group, so it is more expedient to leave them there. Otherwise they will either take from others of similar mentality/morality, or not win at all. That would be a waste of an awards show propaganda opportunity.

“A lot of pandering started going on, and you’d see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.”
– Dixie Chicks Emily Robison

“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”
– Dixie Chicks Natalie Maines

I wrote this last week and then forgot to post it. So here it is… If you haven’t heard about it, Paris Hilton had some personal and private things sold off after she failed to pay the storage bill on them. Someone has been charging 40 bucks a pop to view said belongings. A temporary injunction has now halted this.

I’d say the guy who sold the lot for $2,775 must be kicking himself after the stuff was then sold for 10 million. Talk about a nice quick return on your investment! The person who paid the 10 million may yet live to regret it, though. Even if they take the stuff down or return it, it will live forever in cyberworld.

I’m not sure how upset Paris Hilton can be, since she really has already repeatedly scraped the bottom of the self respect barrel. But I really don’t think anyone should be allowed to sell or expose to the public someone’s personal, private things, especially revealing photos and phone conversations.

We live in a sad world when this kind of thing can possibly be allowed. It should be punishable by prison time if you ask me. She is suing on the basis of fear of identity theft, which I don’t think is the right way to go about. From a matter of principle I think it should be fought as a privacy issue. Maybe the identity theft angle is the best way to win, but the big thing is the invasion of privacy. It would actually be a chance for Paris to do something productive for society. Besides, I don’t really think Paris Hilton needs to worry that much about identity theft. Most people know who she is, I would assume her money is pretty secure and that she has people looking out for those kinds of things.

I wonder why Paris Hilton needs paid storage in the first place. Someone of her means doesn’t have enough space somewhere to store some private things? How can that be possible? Now that I think of it, she might have been able to store them in the space between her ears.

It can be a sick society, but then again Paris Hilton feeds off of people’s lowest tendencies. It’s a tragedy when someone sells their soul, but when someone rich sells their soul(figuratively speaking), it is pretty shameless and sad. Just what is her claim to fame anyway? I’d say it’s being a rich bitch, professional voyeur… That sounds about right to me.