Rocco Landesman, the NEA chairman, has stated that Barack Obama is "the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar." That doesn't mean he is a good writer.

Take, for example, his puffed up tome "The Audacity of Hope." I found the book to be poorly written. On page 78, there are sentences that have no verb. There are no references for any of the points he cites. The book contains at least one outright lie, on page 188, where he directly blames the Bush tax cuts for the rising deficit even though it is widely documented that federal tax revenues have increased since the tax cuts. He frequently puts forward his opinions as if they are fact. No conservative politician could get away with writing a book with no cited references, no editor, and such poor grammar.

I posted the above paragraph on a Buzzillions review site for the book last year. One comment has been generated so far, stating that "A sentence at the top of the first Index page states: "Sources for the statistics in this book can be found at www.audacityofhope.com."" Well, I went there to look for the references and found none. Am I missing something?

That aside, Barack Obama is decidedly not a good writer. Compelling content (and that is debatable here) does not a good writer make. He's a good BS artist, who will say anything as long as it furthers his cause, but not a good writer. Good writing must include correct grammar, and it must site sources and back up arguments with references. Anyone who has written a college term paper knows that.

But the statement by Landesman does not say Obama is a good writer; it says he is a powerful writer. I suppose when you have the full force and weight of the most powerful office in the world behind you, that statement could be true. But let's not confuse that with good writing.

I was talking to a friend who claims not to be a liberal, and the conversation turned to the impending health care bill. Of course, I voiced my objection to the bill, and my friend expressed the sentiment that people who don't have health care coverage need some sort of option to obtain it. One of my objections was that the bill would most likely be paid for by taxing the haves and redistributing the money to the have-nots; the Obama administration is pushing this "Robin Hood" propaganda and the people are eating it up. To which my friend replied, "well it's time the rich paid their fair share."

This comment has stuck with me, and to be honest, it kind of burns me up. The liberal mindset seems to be stuck in some sort of class warfare struggle, and they have no problem with spending other people's money. The overall perception is that "rich" people built their wealth on the backs of the less affluent, and they should give more of it back. But this perception is flawed.

There is an assumption in this argument is that these "rich" people did nothing extra to earn this money; that they are recipients of undeserved wealth gained through inheritance or dumb luck. The line drawn for "rich" people is an income of $250,000 or above.

Now, many people in this income range worked damn hard to get there. A relative of mine, for example, was born poor to a coal miner in depression era Iowa. Through hard work, stoic privation and shrewd investing, she was able to lift herself out of this poverty. She struggled, at times went without, and to this day watches every penny carefully, and shops for bargains like everybody else. Her most recent yearly tax liability was $120,000. Now, she obviously does well to have that much of a tax liability, and would certainly qualify as "rich" by the liberal standards. And how did she get that way? She earned it. To insinuate that paying a tax bill of $120,000 does not meet the obligation of her "fair share" is just plain insulting. She should be rewarded for being able to contribute that much money in taxes, but no, the liberals want to take more of her hard-earned income, and insinuate that she is somehow morally inferior because she has done well for herself.

Under the current system, much of the tax money she pays goes to pay for the services of the have-nots, people who pay little or no taxes at all. She should be praised as an example of American capitalism; a system where anyone can pull up their boot-straps and rise out of poverty to become a valuable contributor to the economic well-being of our nation. How many of the people who feel the "rich" aren't paying their fair share actually contribute that much tax revenue? Few of the liberals that I know do.

Rather than castigating the "rich" for not paying their "fair share," perhaps the people who pay little or no taxes should be more concerned with "doing" their fair share.

I can't believe I didn't create this one sooner...

Here's my photo round-up, starting with a group of people on the way to rally, then the rally itself...

I happened to be in a Burger King restaurant today when I overheard an interesting conversation. A large black man who looked very blue collar, wearing a Carhartt jacket and work clothes, was talking to another customer about the current state of affairs. Now, I only mention the fact that he is black because it is actually germane to the conversation we had. The gist of his conversation with the other fellow was that the current situation is taking us down the wrong path. He claimed that Obama's policies were the worst type of class warfare, and that he is trying to make everybody poor.

I called over to him and said, "you are right." He then invited me into the conversation and talked about how much money he was losing every day because of Obama. He said he was in business (he appeared to be an independent contractor), and the current policies are killing him. He then said he can't talk to his wife about this (who I can only assume is also black), because she only talks about how great it is that we have our first black president, and he shouldn't be speaking against him. He continued saying that that has nothing to do with the problem - Obama is screwing us all, and it doesn't matter whether Obama's white or black. Obama, he says, will not stop until we all are poor and have to go to the government with our hand out, and the government will dole out prosperity as it sees fit.

As we parted, he started talking to another man who entered and tried to persuade the fellow to his point of view. These people he was addressing appeared to be total strangers, and he was spreading the word: Obama is bad, and we're all in trouble if he continues.

This is a good sign. Here we have a fellow who is not rich - he is a small business owner much like Joe the Plumber. And he is pissed and is doing everything he can to impart his message to others. Let's all follow his example. Spread the word, and the Obama backlash will grow and grow.

As George W. Bush leaves office this month, many are trying to stick a fork into his historical legacy and call it done. One recent poll asked, "do you think history will judge (Bush's) presidency favorably?" 70% of respondents said no.

Of course, this was a poll conducted by an MSM news outlet, which begs a different question: how can a group of viewers, who are mostly liberal and really have very little sense of history make any kind of educated guess on this? The answer is, they can't.

Even those with a strong knowledge of history, regardless of political ideology, will have to wait and see how history judges the man and the presidency. My guess is that the rancor and hate of today's liberals will fade and more objective voices will ultimately examine the Bush years and write a much more accurate telling than is currently being suggested.

One thing is for sure: George W. Bush is an honorable man who did what he thought was right for the country, and he never compromised his principles for fleeting popularity. I believe that historians will slowly come to recognize this. But, as I said above, it's too early to tell.

In less than 24 hours it will be election day, and most of us will be going to the voting booth and casting our ballots. From the way I see it, we have two major choices to make among the many decisions in local and state offices.

Barack Obama is a candidate who is persuasive and eloquent but uses his oratory to say very little. He has little experience of any kind, let alone the type of experience needed for the highest office in the land. In truth, he was groomed for the position of the presidency by nefarious people with dubious purposes. His goal is redistribution of wealth, and his candidacy is fueled by class warfare. Many have stated that if Obama was elected, the country may fall into an economic Depression, because he would raise taxes in an economic downturn. He believes that taxes are a way to punish the rich as well as a way to earn revenue, and does not understand that the very businesses, both small and large, that will be hurt by his economic warfare are the ones that create the jobs that ordinary Americans need. He has no foreign policy experience, and will drastically weaken our international footing by cutting defense spending and withdrawing troops from sensitive, unstable areas of the world where our interests are at stake. The media have done no real vetting of any of these issues as they all want him to win, so no critical assessment of this candidate is exposed to the American people by the mainstream media. In short, he is a candidate who is the least qualified, who has been given a pass by the media, and who has such questionable associations that he himself would not even pass a routine security check.

John McCain, on the other hand, is war hero who shown his love for his country in words and deeds. He has tremendous experience from serving in the Senate for many years, where is well-known for bipartisan efforts as well as bucking his own party when he felt it was right to do so. While he was involved in the Keating 5 Savings and Loan scandal in the eighties, he was forthright about all activities; he came before the American people and explained his every action, and was exonerated of any wrong-doing. That type of candor is something he possesses and Barack Obama does not. He has a good economic plan that does not involve the socialist redistribution and higher taxes that his opponent proposes. He is a candidate who believes Americans should be self-reliant rather than dependent, which, I believe, is the quintessential American way. He is a foreign policy expert, as was shown in the recent crisis in Georgia when he correctly assessed the situation almost immediately, while his opponent was jumping from position to position. He believes in a strong military and will not cut defense spending. John McCain is a man whose allegiance to this country have been tested, whose experience has been vetted, and is the clear choice for any thinking American.

Vote John McCain.

I saw An American Carol yesterday, on its opening day, and it did not disappoint. It was refreshing to finally see a movie that criticizes the American left the way they have been criticizing conservatives for years. The movie is a parody of the liberal left, featuring Kevin Farley as film-maker Michael Mallone, an obvious send-up of left-leaning film-maker Michael Moore.

I especially enjoyed the college classroom musical scene, where Kelsey Grammer, as General George S. Patton, proclaims "Education? You mean indoctrination!" Truer words have never been uttered. The movie attacks a number of liberal ideas, such as the fact that liberals believe that our enemies are justified in their hate of us because of our actions, that the current war in Iraq is just like Vietnam in 1968, and that we should negotiate and appease our enemies rather than confronting them with force. One particularly funny scene takes place in 1938, showing then British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin signing away half of Europe to the Axis powers and proclaiming "this will achieve peace," then being forced to shine the shoes of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito.

The movie is not all negative attacks, though, by any means. Sincere patriotic references are shown throughout, and the heroism of soldiers past and present, fighting for freedom, are highlighted at various points in the movie. When a soldier tells Michael Mallone he can't visit with him next week because he has to ship out to the Middle East, Mallone responds "can't you get out of it?" The soldier then proclaims that he volunteered to go and it was his duty. The liberals may think that such movie scenes are mere jingoism, but it rings true to me and makes me proud of those who fight and die for all of us.

Overall, the movie is funny and entertaining throughout. I was surprised at how scathing it was regarding liberals, and was pleased to finally see something in mainstream media that treats them as they have treated conservatives for many years. The liberal reaction I have seen to the movie of course, is utter indifference, and an attempt to bury it. Many liberal papers are not bothering to review it, nor even mention it. On movie roundups I have seen on TV, many critics do not even mention the movie in their lists of movies opening this weekend. Their bias is palpable, and their hypocrisy is clearly to be seen.

So, I urge you, if you are planning to see a movie this weekend or even this week, go see An American Carol. You will not be disappointed. I will go even further and say that it is a patriotic thing to do. The liberal left are trying to silence conservatives, and are trying to bury this movie and would no doubt like to see it fail, so that only movies they agree with are made. The only freedom of speech they believe in is speech they agree with. It took courage to make this movie, courage from David Zucker, courage from the many stars who "came out of the closet" of liberal Hollywood and stepped up to make a movie that may well keep them from being able to work in Hollywood in the future. They are taking incredible risk to make a statement that more than one kind of political ideolgy can exist in Hollywood movies. Support them in that cause and go see An American Carol.

More interesting than last night's VP debate was the exchange between Barney Frank and Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly, in an even more blustery than usual fashion, called Barney Frank out and called him a coward for not admitting fault in the recent near collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

O'Reilly once again did himself no favors by confirming what liberals already think about him: that he is shouts people down, calls them names, and refuses to let them make their points. But Frank was behaving despicably, denying any responsibility for the losses of many Americans after he claimed that Fannie and Freddy were sound, and the future for the companies was favorable.

If you look at the history of connections between Barney Frank and Fannie and Freddy, you see a troubling pattern of obsfucation. In 2003, the Bush administration raised concerns that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac needed more regulation and proposed a new agency to oversee the housing finance industry. Barney Frank responded with the following:

"These two entities--Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddy are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investment these days from the long term standpoint...going back, I think they will do okay going forward... from what's happened to the housing market... I do think their prospects going forward are very solid, and in fact we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."

As I was slogging through the thousands of spam in my e-mail box, I came across an actual letter that I feel compelled, in all fairness, to respond to. Although months old, I just discovered this e-mail today, and as it is a thoughtful critique, I would like to do my best to offer a fair-minded response. Here's the letter:

Dear P. (Sense you favor use of initials),

I find it odd that you are so quick to call H. a racist, but you won't acknowledge your own families(sic) racist history of Slavery. I wonder how many of your readers would be interested in the history of your own families recent past. You are a talented writer and even though I'm a Democrat, I find your post well researched and informative. You should use your talents to be more open-minded and less bias. It is one thing to support your party, but another to build support by posting such negative (and often hateful) comments regarding your opposition. I have not read one post describing anything positive that McCain or Bush (W) stand for that would make the reader switch parties or even see your views. Your posts have more hatred and ridicule towards Obama, Syesha Mercado, R-Kelly, Rev Wright and other minorities than insight on the party issues.

There is an implication here that I am a racist, although it is not implicitly stated. I am not "quick to call" H. a racist; as the letter states, my post is "well researched and informative." I am not sure exactly to which post the letter writer is referring to, but I did a quick search of my posts from April and May (when the e-mail was sent) and could not find a statement where I called H. (Obama) a racist. I certainly have called Reverend Wright a racist, and perhaps it could be inferred by my linking of Wright to H., that I was calling H. a racist. While that may be a fair conclusion, I was primarily trying to question the judgment of H. for associating with racists such as Wright, and not just for a short time, but for twenty long years.

More importantly, I feel the letter writer did make a very important comment when he implored me to be more positive. I think he has a valid point there, and in the future, I will do my best to comment on the positive offered by the people I support, and not just knock the people I don't. I believe I have offered positive comments, but they may have been buried in the deluge of harsher criticisms. For example, I posited that the surge in Iraq is working when I stated on April 26, 2008 that the Iraq War has strengthened the U.S. international position. On March 27, 2008, I called attention to a great speech by John McCain where he deftly describes our current international position in regards to Iraq, and what he feels needs to be done. On February 19, 2008, I called attention to the recognition of Bush from Bob Geldof for providing more aid to Africa than any other American president. And more recently, on July 7, 2008, I compared and contrasted examples of what I feel are patriotic and unpatriotic actions in regards to the service afforded to our nation.

Still, these examples are few and far between, as the letter writer infers. So, in that regard, let me offer some of the positives that have resulted from the Bush administration:

• While the economy seems to be rocky right now and the price of gas was recently increasing, there is no question that our country has experienced one of the longest runs of economic growth in history. I believe this may be credited in part to the tax cute that Bush enacted early in his first term, as well as the pro-business, pro-growth policies that are implicit in lower taxes.
  
• The foreign policy of the Bush administration has yielded significant achievements in our world position. Libya has gave up its pursuit of atomic weapons and is pursuing a path to becoming a partner in the world, rather than an adversary. Pro American politicians have been elected in Britain, Germany and France. While Iraq has been a rough and sometimes tragic endeavor, a fledgling democracy is taking root there. In regards to the Iran problem, one of the reasons they are blustering on the world stage is that we now have our troops stationed in countries both East and West of them (Afghanistan and Iraq). From a strategic stand-point, we have them surrounded. That may a simplistic way to look at the issue, but it is true that we have troops on both sides, and they undoubtedly are feeling the squeeze.
  
• Al Qaeda in Iraq has been shattered. Of course, liberals will say that they weren't there until we drew them there, but one of the best strategic actions any nation can do in fighting an enemy is pick the battleground.
  
• Self reliance by the American individual is supported and strengthened by the Bush administration and Republican policies. While some may say that the American way is to offer hand-outs to the people who have less, I believe this is trumped by the American spirit of creating your destiny, not having it handed to you.
  

• John McCain favors the renewal of the tax cuts, which do not just help the rich, as some would have you believe. As a small business owner, these tax cuts have helped me tremendously. And I am not rich by any means. My income is in the low five figures, in other words, I make less than 50k a year. Much less.
  
• On foreign policy, McCain will continue the practice of regarding terrorists as engaging in acts of war, rather than criminals to be prosecuted. This is actually the number one issue facing the country today, and I believe it was the practice of treating terrorists as criminals rather than enemies of war that enabled Al Qaeda to proceed from the first World Trade Center bombing to the second.
  
• McCain has an admirable record of service to this country, both in war and in the U.S. Senate. He has experience in foreign policy that far exceeds his opponent, and I believe a McCain presidency will benefit our country much more than his opponent.
  

The final point of the letter seems to suggest once again that I dislike minorities, and once again infers that I am racist. I believe Reverend Wright is a racist and have called him so. I do not believe my criticism of him in my numerous posts shows me to be a racist. I am not attacking him because he is black, I am attacking him because I believe he offers a dead-end for the unfortunate members of his church who are posited by him as victims, rather than as self-reliant individuals who can take positive steps to further their own futures. As for Syesha Mercado, she can't sing that well. It has nothing to do with her being black; I just can't take that screechy voice. And the other minority mentioned is R. Kelly, who was found not guilty in his recent trial. Once again, I have no problem with him because if his race. I have first-hand accounts, which of course would be considered hearsay in the eyes of the law, that he has engaged in exactly the types of acts he was accused of. Although I am not at liberty to reveal my sources, I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of these claims. In addition, I have also learned that he treats his dogs poorly, one time leaving one locked in a hot car for hours. So I dislike and distrust him because of his actions, not his race.

I think it is unfair to suggest that I dislike minorities by cherry-picking criticisms of them and ignoring the many other people of all races that I have criticized. What about my posts about William Ayers, Allen Colmes, Jane Fonda, and the far more numerous other caucasions I have given the same treatment in my posts? By that logic, I must dis-like all races. I do not believe that minorities are off limits to criticism because of their race. And if I criticize them it is not because of their race.

In the end, I hope this answers some of the concerns this letter writer had. I appreciate his positive comments on my writing, and do thank him for taking the time to read some of my posts, and further, to communicate his response. I look forward to other readers doing the same. I do not allow comments on my site because I do not want to have curse words appear on my site, nor do I want to provide space for "hate bombs" by trolls. Nor do I want to deal with the spamming that inevitably comes with open comments. I do invite readers to send me an e-mail with their thoughts, and I will do my best to address them, as I feel I have done here.

The verdict is in -- the jury has acquitted the pustule known as r. Kelly in the perverted singer's child pornography trial. I was a bit aghast when I heard the news, and will continue to believe that the jury did the wrong thing. If there is anybody that should be put in jail for his sick and degrading crimes, it is r. Kelly.

The most interesting thing to note about the jury's comments on their verdict is that they acquitted Kelly because they said there was "no victim." They agreed that r. Kelly was the man on the tape urinating on and raping a 13 year old girl, but they couldn't positively identify the child, so they felt they had to acquit. Yes, you heard right - they all agreed r. Kelly was raping a child, but they voted not to convict him. What a miscarriage of justice.

From the CBS 2 Chicago website:

CBS 2's Dorothy Tucker reports the jury said Friday afternoon that they did believe Kelly was the man on the tape, but could not be sure the alleged victim was the girl on the tape, because she never took the witness stand, so they felt they could not convict Kelly.

The graphic, sordid video shows the female dancing and urinating on the floor in the man's direction. The man then has sex with and urinates on her.

Of course, he can never be prosecuted for this particular incident ever again (except for maybe a civil suit). But it is my guess is that this isn't an isolated incident. There's got to be more video tapes floating around. If anyone ever finds one, they should turn it in immediately. There still may be a chance to nail this pervert...

Carly Smithson was cut tonight on American Idol. Now, I usually don't blog about such things, but I just have to comment on this. Syesha Mercado was also in the "bottom two," and her performance, I'm sorry, was abysmal. So many wrong notes. Syesha is not half the singer Carly is. That's not to mention far worse performances from Jason Castro or sappy forgettable performances like the one by puppy dog David Archuletta.

America Idol voters, you are tone deaf. Syesha was off key throughout. Smithson did not hit a wrong note. Why am I blogging about this? Because quality and substance no longer matters. It's all just a "popularity" contest. That's why H. is still in the Presidential race.

I have watched H. make the rounds of talk shows this week. After returning from vacation, he has gone to "soft" publicity outfits to further regain some of the poll points he lost due to the Reverend Wright controversy. It's interesting to see liberal media figures, who have unapologetically skewered President Bush with scathing innuendo and out right lies, fall all over themselves to make apologies for H. and his association with Reverend Wright. The double standard is blatantly transparent.

One notable stop was on ABC's "The View." Before H. came on stage, the ladies were actually a bit critical of H., but right before he took the stage, Barbara Walters uttered a proclamation absolving him of any responsibility for the issue:

"Barack Obama... has condemned those remarks. He has in no way supported them, advocated them, stood behind him, or praised his Reverend. There are still questions which we will ask him, about whether he should have gone further, whether he should still go further, but we cannot let it stand that these are.. any statements or any sentiments of Senator Barack. That's all I want to say."

In lighter news, Ray Romano made an appearance on Craig Ferguson's show last night, and one could not help but notice the new hairstyle. Comb-over alert! The future is not far behind...

Heather Mills was awarded less than half of the amount she was seeking in damages in her divorce settlement with Paul McCartney. Paul originally offered her approximately $35 million to settle out of court, but she instead chose to fight him, seeking about $125 million. The final amount came to about $48 million. Plus, when you think about it, the final amount is much smaller, because you have to minus from the amount she was awarded lawyer fees, two years of courtroom appearances, and what else... oh yeah... her DIGNITY!

Happy St. Patrick's Day Sir Paul!

Hitting the newsstands today is the new issue of Rolling Stone, featuring a cover photo of none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Such an endorsement is not a surprise, but the blog world is abuzz with discussion of the Star Wars reference ("A New Hope") and the reverential treatment signified by the ethereal glow they have given the candidate. Darth Barack is clearly smoking hot after doing battle with the forces of Republican evil. Or is he emanating a white smoke similar to that seen expelled from the Vatican chimney after the election of a new pope? It's too bad they ran the photo so high on the page, it cut off the halo that would be clearly seen floating above his self-righteous noggin.

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet... I wonder if they mention anything about him belonging to a church which has awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award to Louis Farrakhan, and which some believe is a racist cult? Or that it took a couple of Saturday Night Live skits to finally embarrass the national news media into taking a harder look at the candidate? Or if they examine his Senate voting record, where he has been virtually non-existent as any kind of representative in the Senate for the people of Illinois? Somehow I doubt it...

Fred Armisen has portrayed Barack Obama on Saturday Night Live over the last several weeks, and it seems to be raising the hackles of the race hustlers. The argument is that a black American should be playing Obama, not a person of white/Asian heritage. I first heard about the contorversy when I was in a cab and the radio happened to be tuned to a "urban" talk show, and the consensus was that the black commentators were offended that a white person would portray Obama. In delving further into this issue, I have found others who are equally offended.

From the Washington Post:

Todd Boyd, a professor of critical studies at the University of Southern California, says viewers might have a different reaction if the roles were reversed. What if, he says, "SNL" had cast a black woman to portray Hillary Clinton? "Do you think there's ever going to be a day when we start casting Queen Latifah to portray Princess Diana?" he asks. "We just don't have the same representations going in other direction.

Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune put the question bluntly: "Call me crazy, but shouldn't 'Saturday Night Live's' fictional Sen. Barack Obama be played by an African-American?" Ryan went on to conclude: "I find 'SNL's' choice inexplicable. Obama's candidacy gives us solid proof of the progress that African-Americans have made in this country. I guess 'SNL' still has further to go on that front."

Jane Fonda is unrepentant in her recent use of the "C-Word" on national morning television. When questioned about the incident, she matter-of-factly stated that she was just describing a true situation in which she was asked to participate in the Vagina Monologues, and that was the particular monologue she was asked to do. So, in her eyes, it was completely appropriate to say the name of the particular monologue, despite the fact that she was on a nationally televised morning show which may have been watched by children and adults who do not care to hear such language.

Standing next to her at the time of her "explanation" was none other than Eve Ensler, the creator of the Vagina Monologues, who further interjected that saying the C-Word was about "taking it back" - in other words, to make it more acceptable to say in mainstream society, and to remove the stigma about it, much the same way black people have tried to remove the stigma of the N-Word by taking it and using it themselves. She intimated that she was fighting a war to reclaim that word, and similar words, and that is what the Vagina Monologues is all about.

Now that may be all well and good, but why does she and Jane Fonda think it is appropriate to drag us into their battle? The audacity of their position is unfair to those of us who do not share her views, or at the very least, do not want this battle waged on national TV during family viewing time. If they want to fight their battle, they should pick a more appropriate venue to make their initial stands. In warfare, you don't parachute right into the center of a country without at first making some initial gains on the periphery. Similarly, they should choose to fight their battle in an adult venue, and if eventually the adults have decided to side with their position, then they can start involving the rest of the family. To spew forth with what a majority of Americans think is vulgar language on a daytime TV show is simply not appropriate, no matter what battle you think you are waging.

In addition, the self-righteous nature of their behavior is beyond audacious. Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler care little or nothing for anyone who does not agree with them. The fact that someone may be offended by their behavior does not bother them at all. They are self-centered limousine liberals who believe they are smarter than the rest of us and do not have to answer to you and I. Let's show them that their are two sides in every battle, and that we will fight back by refusing to acknowledge their position, and by taking the other side in the battle of decency versus common vulgarity. Their shallow disregard for how others may feel is transparently obvious. Let's show them that we feel the same way about them.

Previous:
Jane Fonda Drops A C-Bomb

Jane Fonda said the "C-word" on NBC TV on Thursday - how ironic. That's the word I usually think of when I hear mention of Jane Fonda.

All kidding aside, I think it's ridiculous that she said that word on national TV. A few weeks ago, Diane Keaton made a similar slip when she let slip the f-word on Good Morning America. But unlike Fonda, Keaton's utterance seemed more like a genuine mistake, for as soon as she said it, she seemed flustered and looked like she realized she made a mistake. Fonda let loose with her profanity in an almost calculated effort to shock.

Whether it's a mistake or not, people swear all the time, but most of us know when to keep it in the back room or to do it when you are with the appropriate people. One of the reasons there are no comments on this blog is that the general tone of discourse on the Internet nowadays has grown increasingly vulger, and I'm not going to pay for web space and have it filled up with people who contribute to that. If you have an opinion about what I've written, put it on your own web server, and you can use all the expletives you want, but I'm not going to publish it.

Many people feel that the reaction to celebrities using vulgar language on national TV is overblown, that people use these words all the time and we're making to much of it. Maybe so, but I don't have to agree. To me, it is evidence that many of today's celebrities are so self-centered that wherever they are, they believe it is all about them, and the rest of the world be damned. It also shows a lack of intelligence when you can't find a balance between expressing yourself and using a careful and appropriate choice of words for the venue you happen to be in.

The Grammy redux; Herbie Hancock wins album of the year, and Usher slaps down Kanye again with this line, just before the announcement: "remember, there are no losers," and directs it to Kanye West. Do you get it Kanye? You are officially a joke.

Ha HA.

pBlakeney.com is beginning to expand beyond politics, and in that interest, I would just like to salute Vince Gill for his put-down of Kanye West at the Grammys. After Kanye's self-indulgent, mentality of a 5-year old boasting after receiving his Grammy, Vince Gill was presented with a Grammy from Ringo Starr. Gill, acknowledging that he was being presented with a Grammy by a Beatle, smacked Kanye down with the line, "have you done that yet, Kanye?" Good for him, and no good to Kanye, who is an egotistical hack whose music will hopefully fade faster than a cheap pair of jeans.

Kanye West's disgusting spectacle in Denmark recently just goes to show you that you can't buy popularity. It kind of reminds me of how Democrats reacted after the 2000 and 2004 elections. Hopefully, this will show him as the selfish loser he is. Anybody who is not offended by his behavior deserves to be bought off by him.