Texas Congressman Ron Paul made a really stupid comment during the GOP debate tonight.

They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East.

     Mate, have you looked at a calendar lately?  You do realize it’s 2007, right?  And, that, uh, 9/11 wasn’t the first time they’d tried to bomb the World Trade Center?
     Oh … and that guy, next to you there?  He was the Mayor of New York when that crap went down…

     Seriously, when you manage piss off Rudy Giuliani, who’s pretty well known for keeping an even keel, you should know you’ve done something pretty damn stupid:

As someone who lived through the attack of September 11 — that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq — I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th…

     You made a gigantic ass of yourself on national television.  You also managed to bolster a great deal of support for your opponent.  So Ron, put your Asshat of the Day award on your mantle.  You deserve it!

     A dishonorable mention, of course, goes to second-time weiner, Fred Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church.  I won’t link to his “God Hates America” website, but I will, at the very least, copy the text of today’s “special message” from the Moron Majority:

WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like “God loves everyone”.  

There is little doubt that Falwell split Hell wide open the instant he died.  The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and irrefragable.  To wit:

1.  Falwell was a true Calvinistic Baptist when he was a young preacher in Springfield, Missouri, and sold his soul to Free-Willism (Arminianism) for lucre.

2.  Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of WBC’s faithful Bible preaching — thereby committing the unpardonable sin — otherwise known as the sin against the Holy Ghost.

3.  Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc.  All for lucre — making him guilty of their sins.

Falwell is in Hell, Praise God!

     Well, Fred, you wouldda gotten the award this time.  But, you’re a loser.

     Of course, that’s no news, now is it?  😉

I was sitting here reading the paper.  Yes, the actual thing, news print on paper that was at one point not post-mortem.  Hmm…  That I believe is a very good description for the newspapers of today.  They’ve softened up just like the rest of the media.  They are slowly becoming pussified, one story at a time.

Well for years, we’ve known the newspaper in Maryville, TN isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.  More importantly, it wasn’t worth the thirty-five cents it once cost to buy it.  The Daily Times remains too biased and never important news.  I suppose it will be forever cursed with the fact that Maryville and Alcoa are small towns.  For the most part, it is similar to the Knoxville News Sentinel, syndication of larger papers or the Associated Press.  Leaving no room really, for what happens down the road or in your own back yard (OMG, since that is what a newspaper is supposed to do.)

The final straw that made me decide that this pussification is now far too widespread happened when I read this post about the Oakland Tribune. 

This paper is moving to start a revolution.  Trying to start a protest for Pete’s sake, all because their civil liberties are being taken away.  This by the way is exactly what they asked for.  George Carlin tried you warn, “you people” about that years ago.  The government, in order to give you the illusion of safety will no doubt, sacrifice a little of your freedom to make you feel safe.

So by all means, send in books that will really change things…  It will send a message…  That all the people involved are major asshats.  I mean do these people think that anyone on Capitol Hill besides maybe Nancy Pelosi is going give a rat’s rear-end?  Much less, would they take the time to read George Orwell’s 1984 again?

The only thing decent out of the whole argument is to try to change the Patriot Act.  It isn’t terrible though, besides the fact, it takes away a few more liberties that I like.  However, one small amendment would be nice…  Give us our copyrights back.  Most places don’t care if it was taken on base or not.  I for one would like any images I record of military items and/or personnel to be mine.  All though I know that this stipulation is already made, there is a complete and total lack of enforcement.  Oh well, I guess that is the problem with many laws… a lack of enforcement (isn’t there a law in place about people with stupid ideas and motivation to start protests which make no since and limiting thier breeding habits?  If they are into limiting civil liberties why not add that?)

This has been Zacque Hitchcock for the Critic’s Corner. 

     By now, most everyone has heard about what happened at Digg… but in case you haven’t…

     The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) started sending Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requests to Digg, whose user-supported community were giving kudos to some little cyberpunks who decided to post Cracks which would allow users to steal licensed content from HD-DVD movies.  These DMCA requests merely asked Digg to take down links to the crack-codes, which their community users had posted.
     Users on Digg revolted as the company began complying with the DMCA requests, and posted thousands upon thousands on links to the illegal material.  Eventually, Digg was forced to concede to the mutiny, as it put an enormous amount of pressure on the dotcom’s small number of owners.

     Digg shouldn’t’ve had to exhaust their resources trying to fight this stuff.  And this is the downfall of user-supported communities on the Internet… And the users who think it’s a matter of “free and protected speech” are actually just a bunch of thugs.
     There, I said it.
     And I’m right.

     Let’s think of it this way:
     Some guy is standing at your local Mall passing out keys that fit the front door of your office, along with a flyer that has your Alarm code on it.  Is that illegal?  Yes.
     The same guy goes and puts your office key and Alarm code on the bulletin board at a local University.  Is that illegal?  Yes.

     But if he went home, and posted the information on the Internet, along with a precise method to guarantee that you could create that same office key using materials you already own, then some asshat Lawyer would claim that it’s protected, free speech.  And that is completely wrong, and defies all logic.
     So I have to ask … What’s the difference between a guy doing any of those three things, and passing out “key” to crack an HD-DVD movie?

     There is no difference.  It is illegal.  It has been illegal.

     And anyone who helps the guy do it?  Aiding and abetting.  That’s been illegal for a few hundred years.

     But money talks… You can guarantee that right now, over this controversey, a bunch of Lawyers will get together with a plan to make money by setting ridiculous precedents, becoming experts and what can only be called bullshit.

     It’s happened before.  For instance…
     It was illegal to trade child pr0n.  However, a lot of people felt it was okay to do it via the Internet, and had Lawyers prove their case.  The overwhelming excuse by Lawyers was, “It’s the Internet — it’s not real.”
     *cough*bullshit*cough*
     Finally, a bunch of other Lawyers got together and decided to make a law against “trading child pr0n on the Internet.”  Did we need that law, when “trading child pr0n” was already illegal?
     It was a way to make a bunch of Lawyers a pile of free cash from an unsuspecting public who felt that giving Lawyers and lobbyists some money was the only way to make it end — instead of starting a grassroots campaign to enforce the existing laws that made trafficking child pr0n illegal.

     It really sucks that people won’t realize that.

     If you call someone and threaten their life, it’s illegal.  If you do it over the Internet, it’s illegal.
     If you have a restraining order against someone and they harrass you, it’s illegal.  Even if they do it over the Internet, it’s illegal.

     Why do we keep letting pedantic Lawyers tell us none of this stuff is real?

     Tell your Representatives: if it’s illegal in real life, it’s illegal on the Internet.  This kind of Legal seperation has to stop!

     Unless it’s between two consenting adults…

     [ Maybe I’ve watched too much Penn & Teller ]

A friend of mine sent me this cartoon earlier, and I find it perfect considering the media’s anti-gun standpoint in the wake of the mass shooting last week.

[ Copyright © Leo Garza / San Antonio Express-News ]

     Having been around guns since I was … well, born, actually … I learned to have a healthy respect for them.  As a child, I never touched them unless they were handed to me.  I didn’t tell my friends about them.  I didn’t ever show them to my friends.  I didn’t carry them around with me.  I certainly never took one to show-and-tell.

Why?

Because I listened to what my father told me.

Flash forward a lot of years, and any time a child doesn’t listen to their parents and does any of those things with a gun, the media goes insane about it.
The problem isn’t guns — it’s in raising a child who has no idea about cause-and-effect relationships, no responsibility or consequences for their own actions.

Guns should be kept away from children.  I agree with that.  Some people should not own guns.  I agree with that.  But making widespread sweeping changes and Federal bans on guns?
Congress doesn’t know enough about firearms to make any such distinctions.  There are any number of stumbling blocks here.  You can’t go out today and come home with a handgun.  You can’t go out today and purchase a fully automatic, military-style weapon — nor can you in two weeks.  Or a month.  Or six.

We have enjoyed gun ownership since this country was founded.  There are plenty of them around.  Employing strict gun control laws only affects guns that the Government knows about, viz. AR-15 rifles. Since we’ve been signing up for them, with background checks, for nearly thirty years, then what are we supposed to do?
In essence, the Government would be saying, “Oh, by the way, that gun you signed for twenty years ago?  Give it here.  No, you haven’t done anything wrong.  But … Give it!  No, I don’t care how much you paid for it, and I don’t care what it’s worth.  I’ll give you to the count of three, or I’ll have to shoot you… 1 … 2 … I thought so.”

“But you don’t need a Glock 17 that can hold 19 rounds!” some scream.
I would argue that they don’t need an SUV with a 24-gallon gas tank that has to be refilled every 200 miles.
Sure, my gun might, one day, give one person a really bad day if they come into my home with the intent of causing me harm.  But their SUV is nothing more than a carbon monoxide factory that is destroying the ozone layer and screwing it up for all of us.

Which one’s really more important?

On 19-Apr-2007, vehement gun control activists, The Brady Campaign, released a press statement, titled, “Cho Seung-Hui Was A Prohibited Purchaser Under Existing Federal Law.”

Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke issued the following statement:

“We believe that based on existing Federal law, Cho Seung-Hui should not have passed his Brady background checks and should not have been allowed to purchase firearms.”

So, basically, they’re saying that even though there were laws in place to prevent Cho from ever owning a gun, he got them anyway, because someone broke the law.  Was it Cho?  The seller?  Those responsible for the background check?
Whatever the answer, it doesn’t change the fact that no amount of legislation would have kept it from happening.

Heed My Words: Gun control isn’t going to affect the massive number of illegal, untraceable guns that are out there, and it will leave a populace completely undefended against those who possess them.

     That’s my favorite picture of Yeltsin, quite often a simile for his life during the last twenty years.

     What few people remember were his frequent clashes with Mikhail Gorbachev on the issue of Perestroika, not because he was against it, but because he felt Gorbachev was moving too slowly.  Media reacted to the clashes without ever looking at the context, dubbing him a “Hardline Communist.”  They never really went back to correct their mistake.
     Needless to say, he was tough, highly opinionated and stubborn.  He said what he thought, and stuck to his guns no matter what.

     Rest in peace, Mr. Yeltsin (01-Feb-1931 – 23-Apr-2007).

Photo Credit: Unknown – Deserves credit