… because what fun would Monday be without a reminder that the famous and fabulous tend to have truck-sized chinks in their self-righteous armor?
- The big news out of John McCain’s U.S. presidential campaign on Thursday was a statement promising (among other things) that a President McCain would “Pursue Protection Of Intellectual Property Around The Globe” … unless, of course, that intellectual property belongs to Jackson Browne, or Mike Myers and Dana Carvey, or John Mellencamp, or Frankie Valli, or The Orleans, or the producers of the “Rocky” movies, or makers of antidepressant drugs.
- On Friday, George W. Bush weighed in on the fighting in Georgia, saying that “Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.” (video here) Which — if you look at things from the point of view of, say, half the Middle East — must sound pretty ironic if not downright two-faced.
- Deceiver reader Gen writes in to let us know that PETA spokes-tramp Pam Anderson has her own signature line of overpriced pet products. It doesn’t seem to bother her that PETA is against the whole institution of pet ownership. According to a profile in The New Yorker, PETA’s president has even had a seeing-eye dog taken away from a blind man. Personally, I always thought if Pammy started selling $40 collars, they would be for people…
- Brooke Hogan apparently can’t decide whether she’s an attention-seeking publicity whore or a very private person who wishes the paparazzi would just leave her alone. (Funny, I can decide that one in about three seconds…) Last week on her MySpace blog, she wrote: “It’s so funny that the smallest thing I do can jack up everyones day…LOL sorry I ruined your little gossip world today people … Stay tuned! I might go shave my eyebrows tomorrow! Lets see what other fun things I can think of…um…. don’t you have a life to live? I know I do!” … This from a made-for-VH1 tart who thinks she’s Paris Hilton most of the time.
- Barack Obama tried a few weeks ago to re-position his presidential opponent as “Big Oil” McCain, even putting out a spoof ad calling him “Exxon John.” But it turns out that ExxonMobil executives and employees are actually giving more money to Obama than to his Republican rival. (”I’m sure he’ll give it all back,” writes Deceiver commenter-in-chief Pastafarian.)
- Remember the whole “NBC Green is Universal” November 2007 sweeps campaign? Last fall the network tried to weave environmentalism into a whole week’s worth of programming, while needlessly leaving its own office lights burning. Network bigwigs (who work for General Electric, by the way) even postured for the green crowd by trying to broadcast a football game in the dark. Well, so much for saving energy. As soon as the cameras turn on for the Today show and the Nightly News broadcasts, NBC’s Beijing Olympics team is broadcasting from an air-conditioned outdoor studio
- And just for fun, Keith Olberman slams Sean Hannity for making a big stink about John Edwards’ marital infidelity, while giving John McCain a pass for cheating on his first wife. (Are we guilty of the same sin? You tell me.)
When ANY celebrity complains about their lack of privacy, they usually to always mean the opposite.
There are tons of famous people who just act or sing and you hardly hear anything about them. How often do you hear about Meryl Streep and the like in tabloids? You don’t. Undesirable publicity can’t be THAT difficult to avoid. These prostitots and drunken tools with no shame, class, and ettitquette are just upset that they don’t get the type of publicity they EXPECTED to get when they act out. Brooke Hogan’s bitter.
Edwards might be getting a little more leeway if he hadn’t built the foundation of his campaign persona on the being a devoted husband to a dying wife.
The equivalent isn’t the revelation that McCain cheated on its wife, rather it would be the revelation that McCain spent four years in the Beverly Hills Hilton, not the Hanoi Hilton.
All the personal injury judgements in the world won’t prevent you from being convicted in the Court of Public Opinion.
And the final verdict from ‘Brazil’?:
“It’s not really about John Edwards, the Enquirer coverage, or other media leaving the to story to the National Equirer. It’s about telegraphing to the media their own waning relevance. Film at eleven.”
http://brazilofmux.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/national-review-august-18-2008-vol-lx-no-15/
“When ANY celebrity complains about their lack of privacy, they usually to always mean the opposite”
THANK YOU! i mean boo hoo brooke hogan.. you’re famous and you make a lot of money being a no talent idiot. STFU, thanks.
What’s the point of the Bush mention? Who cares what the point of view is of backward and uneducated people who treat women as a commodity and celebrate a culture of death? It’s not like Bush was enforcing multiple UN resolutions or anything.
If you look hard enough even a normal person can be outed as a bad person when you focus on the negative. The problem is that most political canidates have too many negatives and not enough positives.
Wow, the link to the PETA article just about gave me a heart attack. Ingrid thinks Guide Dogs (the term isn’t seeing-eye, btw, unless the dog is from a certain school in Michigan) are treated poorly? Those dogs are treated better than almost any pet, and a lot of people. The school you get your dog from sends someone out to your house once a year just to make sure the dog is well treated. At any sign of neglect they take it away. These are dogs with $30,000 worth of training so you can believe that the owners do absolutely everything to make their lives as good, healthy and long as possible. Taking away someone’s dog is abuse of the handicapped.
“Taking away someone’s dog is abuse of the handicapped.”
And one of the many reasons I don’t support animal rights extremists.
On another note, I was wondering when you were going to jump on Bush’s comments about the Georgia invasion. Two arses, same caca.
It’s also worth noting that Georgia is a comparatively oil-rich country…
John Edwards was the top most searched term on the New York Times website in the last 7 days.
Since its obvious to the world that New York Times writers spend a lot of time on this website, I will say… Go do some research on John O’Quinn (childless billionaire trial lawyer, and potentially the namesake of Rielle Hunter’s baby)and his private security team run by ex FBI personnel.
See what’s there for us.
http://i34.tinypic.com/r9kj2t.jpg
Thanks again, FS. I’m attempting to put together yet another link roundup, and that’s definitely going in it.
“According to a profile in The New Yorker, PETA’s president has even had a seeing-eye dog taken away from a blind man.”
That’s it. IT. I’m challenging those idiots to live by their own standards. (Yes, I know this is Deceiver, and therefore the point, but humor me.) As of now, I think that if PETA is going to leave the disabled - who in no way chose to have a life where a service animal would help them get through the world - without any kind of helper animal, they need to pay for human helpers to be with those people 24/7 so that they don’t need the animal. Not some kind of medicare or socialized medicine program, PETA needs to put *their own* money where their mouths are and pay for it themselves. Second, and possibly just as important, if PETA doesn’t want anyone to benefit from the use of animals for any reason, neither should they. No: pharmaceuticals, medical procedures perfected by animal experimentation, foods grown with animal fertilizer, foods carried to market at any point by animal power, etc. Let’s see them try growing their own gardens and living on that. Let’s see them try and get medical attention that meets their professed standards. Let’s see how fast they wake up and smell the no-animal-impact coffee.
[/rant]
[/soapbox]
I agree with the sentiment, HHLL, but… given a choice between a guide dog and a PETA intern, I’m going to go with the smarter one. Who’s a good puppy?
HHLL - I agree wholeheartedly, but you have to remember the Law of Unintentional Consequences. In trying to make those idiots live up to their hype, you’re potentially going to subject countless innocent blind people to PETA interns. I would actually rather let them slide on that hypocritical issue than inflict that kind of torture on anyone who’s only crime is being blind. A cute, loyal, and loving companion - or a PETA intern. Like Simon said, easy choice.
Especially considering there are SO many better ways to make them practice what they preach. Here’s just a few I’ve heard of over the years, some might even have come from this site.
1. You throw red paint on little old ladies wearing fur in New York. Alright, so I want to see you walk in to a biker bar and toss paint on anyone wearing a leather coat or vest.
2. Animals should not die for our food. Alright, so you must now plant and harvest every piece of food you consume personally. Do you know how many thousands of small furry animals die for every wheat or soy field harvested to fill your stomach? Being chewed up and spit out by a combine is apparently just fine - so long as you don’t make practical use of the meat.
3. Same goes for clothes too. That ‘all cotton’ shirt you’re wearing is NOT animal friendly. Either large combines were used to harvest it (again slaughtering thousands of field animals), or it was hand harvested in countries like Egypt and then placed on the backs of pack animals and ridden in to town. Just because it isn’t fur or leather, doesn’t mean animals are not dying or being ‘enslaved’ for your comfort. So you’d better get started weaving your own hair into a shirt or something.
The list could go on and on (and I encourage people to add to it), but they’ll never actually do it, because then they wouldn’t be PETA anymore. Hypocrisy has risen to an art form under Newkirk’s demented leadership.
Guys,
While I didn’t actually specify a PETA intern - just that they should pay for it - you’ve got an excellent point. I’d rather have the world’s stupidest dog than a smug, smarmy, self-righteous “helper.” In that case, if I weren’t deaf, I’d probably wish I were, due to the incessant lecturing about my oppression of other creatures.
Scott F. - good points, and thanks in particular for the mental image of a bunch of lethargic vegans trying to escape getting their butts handed to them by angry, paint-spattered bikers. That’s my first smile of the day. The second one is people weaving their own hair into shirts (self-created hair shirts being rather apt for the burning martyr pose cultivated by the organization) because they’re incapable of successfully growing and picking cotton in sufficient amounts. Picking cotton is rough work - not only are you bent over pretty much the entire time, but the plants have to be dry before the cotton is ready and your hands get scratched bloody pretty fast from the dry, rough plants. That is, if you have a crop because boll weevils didn’t get it. Yeah, I’d like to see some city-dwelling PETA members do this … and see how soon they change their tune.
HH LL
@ Scott F. - Your list is great. I think Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams made an observation similar to the one you just did about pouring red paint on leather-clad biker types. It still makes me laugh…
Bush toppled two totalitarian governments who were bullying their own people…bullying meaning gassing thousands of their own (Iraq), uh…knocking over brick walls on unbelievers (The Taliban). I do wonder what would have happened if the Taliban ran out of brick walls…
Point is, Bush didn’t bully anyone. Millions of people are free because of him. Of course the Middle East hates us. There is a choice now. And remember they were calling for Saddam’s head before Bush even took office. Russia on the other hand is trying to topple a democratically elected country.
All the spin will make you dizzy. Obama digs the hole deeper. After the media ignored the Obama campaign admitting that he lied about a vote he made in 2003 in favor of infanticide, now Obama is accusing others of “attacking” him with “outrageous lies”!
“Senator Obama strongly supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. He believes that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue, and he believes that women do not make these decisions casually, but wrestle with them in consultation with their doctors, pastors and family. Senator Obama understands that some will disagree with him and choose not to support him, and he respects those with different opinions.
But the recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama – the proud father of two little girls – and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting. There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.
I know we could get very creative with the word “audacity” now! David Freddoso zeroes in on the spin.
Instead of apologizing to the people Obama wrongly called “liars” on Saturday, he is taking refuge in charged semantics. His campaign, unable to defend the votes he took and the things he said, which are all backed up by documentary evidence, is dropping an atomic bomb of triviality on the entire debate. Obama will only get away with this if the media lets him. A reader asks, “Where is FactCheck.org?”
Don’t count on the media to do any fact checking. If they were interested in doing that, the documents and facts are easily available. I can see why Obama thinks he can get away with this. The media ignored his lies once, they’ll most likely continue to eat them up. Meanwhile, Obama’s arrogance and audacity will continue to reach uncharted levels.
In 2001, Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois senate to speak against a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons.” The bill was in response to a Chicago-area hospital that was leaving such babies to die. Obama voted “present” on the bill after denouncing it. It passed the state Senate but died in a state house committee.
In 2003, a similar bill came before Obama’s health committee. He voted against it. But this time, the legislation was slightly different. This latter version was identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which by then had already passed the U.S. Senate unanimously (with a hearty endorsement even from abortion advocate Sen. Barbara Boxer) and had been signed into law by President Bush.
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
Obama’s work against the bill to protect premature babies represents one of two times in his political career, along with his speech against the Iraq war, that he really stuck out his neck for something that might hurt him politically. Unlike his Iraq speech, Obama is deeply embarrassed about this one — so embarrassed that he is offering a demonstrable falsehood in explanation for his actions. Fortunately, the documents showing the truth are now available.
At the end of last week, Obama gave an interview to CBN’s David Brody in which he repeated the false claim that the born-alive bills he worked, spoke, and voted against on this topic between 2001 and 2003 would have negatively affected Roe v. Wade. This has always been untrue, but, until last week, it appeared to be a debatable point that depended on one’s interpretation of the bill language. Every single version of the bill was neutral on Roe. Each one affected only babies already born, not ones in the womb.
But in 2003, in the health committee which he chaired, Obama voted against a version of the bill that contained the specific “neutrality” language — redundant language affirming that the bill only applied to infants already born and granted no rights to the unborn. You can visit the Illinois legislature’s website here http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session=0 to see the language of the “Senate Amendment 1,” which was added in a unanimous 10-0 vote in the committee before Obama helped kill it. This is the so-called “neutrality clause” on Roe that everyone is talking about:
1 AMENDMENT TO SENATE BILL 1082
2 AMENDMENT NO. . Amend Senate Bill 1082 on page 1, by
3 replacing lines 24 through 26 with the following:
4 “(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to
5 affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal
6 right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at
7 any point prior to being born alive as defined in this
8 Section.”.
The addition of this amendment made the bill identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.
This Committee Action Report, dug up in Springfield by the National Right to Life Committee and revealed last week, shows two different votes. In the left column, under the heading “DP#1”(or “Do Pass” Amendment 1), we see that Obama’s committee voted 10-0 to add this neutrality language to the bill. In the right column, we see that the committee then voted 6-4 to kill the bill. Obama was among the six “No” votes.
A write-up from the time by a Republican staffer on the committee further explains:
CA #1 was adopted on a “Be Adopted” motion (Righter/Syverson) by an attendance roll call (10-0-0).
CA #1 (Winkel) to SB 1082 (Winkel) adds to the underlying bill.
Deletes language, which states that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.
Inserts language, which states that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or right applicable to any member of the homo sapien species at any point prior to being born alive as defined under this legislation.
So again: after the above amendment was added to change the original bill, making it identical to the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, Obama and five other Democrats voted to kill it. They killed the same bill that the U.S. Senate had passed unanimously. Here is the interview in which Sen. Obama offers his false explanation once again, which is contradicted not only by eyewitnesses but also by the records of his own committee:
…I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported — which was to say — that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.
The senator is right. Someone is lying.
Evidence of the EVIL BUSH victimizing & bullying a poor old Iraqi woman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyxm3wZQEq4
Hi Heels LL
Aug 19th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Bush toppled two totalitarian governments who were bullying their own people…
*Not* my post despite similar name. No W fan here, certainly not a defender of him.
The original HHLL
@Craig: “he is taking refuge in charged semantics”
But the right never does that. Riiiiiiight. They just flat out lie about things like yellowcake uranium, WMDs, the outing of CIA operatives whose spouses disagree with them, and other felonious acts. They do things that cause thousands of innocent civilians to be killed, along with members of our volunteer military (and then lie when they die in friendly fire), support the death penalty (more people were put to death under Bush in Texas than any other governor) and still claim that they support the “culture of life” because they are against abortion. They don’t support governmental help for that child if it’s born into a situation of poverty - once that kid is alive, they’re on their own. Statistically, children born into poverty are more likely to commit crime and end up in prison, or choose the military as a way out of poverty, so either way, they’ve got a better than average chance of dying as an adult, thanks to the policies of the GOP. “Culture of life”, my @$$!
It’s always nice to have a legal opinion!
“They just flat out lie about things like yellowcake uranium, WMDs, the outing of CIA operatives whose spouses disagree with them, and other felonious acts.”
Why can’t people like you nail down the difference between a ‘flat out lie’ and bad intelligence? If you believe what you’re saying is true, and have a mountain of evidence from all kinds of different nation’s national security agencies that all points to one thing - it’s not really lying. We were wrong, or they hid them, or they moved them - it doesn’t really matter at this point. But the real question is, why is everyone blaming Bush?
Let me get this straight; Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, right? And here he is, with America telling him that if he doesn’t let us back into the country to confirm that, we’re going to invade. You really want me to believe that, knowing he didn’t have any weapons, he still refused to let inspectors into the country? How unbelievably retarded a decision is that? He knew after ‘91 that he wouldn’t last 10 minutes in a war against us, but he still wouldn’t let the inspectors in. Not exactly the behavior of an innocent man now is it? Bottom line is, if you wanna blame someone, blame Saddam. It was his game of political brinkmanship that backfired on him and started this war.
“Support the death penalty (more people were put to death under Bush in Texas than any other governor) and still claim that they support the “culture of life” because they are against abortion.”
BS. I am so tired of this argument, because there is nothing about being pro death penalty that makes being pro life a hypocritical stance. A criminal who is being put to death gave up his right to life when he harmed another human being. An aborted child’s only ‘crime’ is being unwanted. That child didn’t violate the laws of our country, and thus there is far more ‘reason’ to kill a criminal than a fetus. But God forbid we punish criminals and let children live when we can coddle the criminals and kill the children.
“Bad intelligence”? Try “cherry-picked because it suited our purposes.” The person supplying that information had essentially been discredited, but Cheney wanted his war, and he got it, regardless of how tenuous the excuse.
“Why is everyone blaming Bush?” Because he’s in charge, and he’s made a hash of things. We’re not ready to pull out of Iraq, we’re not even close to convincing the government there to stand on its own two feet so that we could begin to be ready to leave … and on the home front, the governmental deregulation of lending practices has led to the home-mortgage crisis. He’s not solely responsible for these things, but he’s not entirely blameless either and they happened on his watch.
As for children being innocent and criminals not, not everyone convicted of the death penalty is necessarily guilty - exoneration of convicts does occur, usually via DNA and by the work of groups like the Innocence Project. I, personally, would prefer that the guilty be imprisoned for all of the rest of their natural life, across the board, and if the innocent are kept with them, then at least the blood of the innocent isn’t on society’s hands, however few of the innocent there are, because they’re still innocent. Bush claims to be Christian, and if Christ could forgive the thief next to which he was crucified, why couldn’t Bush commute a death sentence to a life sentence?
I’m not going to disagree with you about fetal rights, because I don’t disagree. I just feel that all life has sanctity, and none of us have the right to take it from anyone - including in capital punishment circumstances (see previous paragraph).
In closing, I’ve read other of your posts on here, Scott F., and you write well and I enjoy reading them even when I don’t agree. I particularly note the fact that while you refer to me as “people like you” you refrain from personal insults and attacks, and that sets you apart from a large majority who post on the net. It’s appreciated.
Did you just compare the free and democratic Georgians to the murderous terorist filth in the Gulf? Perverted, child-killing, woman-beating, death-worshipping muslims who destroy everything they touch, who explode bombs on busses, in hospitals and schools, on public trains and roads, these scum are the same as peaceful, non-aggressive Georgians who had the audacity to want a democratic republic rather than suffer under the perpetual failure of a corrupt communist empire?
Wow. I’ve never seen ignorance on this scale before. If I were a Georgian, I would punch you in the mouth.
Don’t you mean “Perverted, child-killing, woman-beating, death-worshipping ISRAELIS who destroy everything they touch, who explode bombs on busses, in hospitals and schools, on public trains and roads…”??
Clearly you don’t know a damn thing. Talk about ignorance. Here, go learn something about the subject of who’s really behind the destruction. Bonus clue for you: they’re also involved in the whole Georgian conflict!
>>>Bush claims to be Christian, and if Christ could forgive the thief next to which he was crucified, why couldn’t Bush commute a death sentence to a life sentence?<<<
For what it’s worth, Christ did forgive the thief, but that didn’t relieve or release the thief from serving his sentence. The thief’s own words were “…for we (the two thieves) receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man (Jesus) has done nothing wrong.” (Luke 23:41)
On Friday, George W. Bush weighed in on the fighting in Georgia, saying that “Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world. Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.” (video here) Which — if you look at things from the point of view of, say, half the Middle East — must sound pretty ironic if not downright two-faced.W
WOW!! You really can’t be that dumb.There were 17 U.N resolutions Saddam broke.The first gulf war was a cease fire aggrement that was broken.But the big one was that congress voted on it so you need to call them all hyps.Facts matter,Facts matter,Facts matter.
So looks like you are a big time hypo too now isn’t that right?Come on ,give me your pretzel logic.
John McCain and John Edwards have only their first names in common, in more ways than one. McCain has never conducted a secret, hide in a hotel bathroom-hey security get me outta here passion play regarding his marital infidelity of 30 YEARS ago. Anyone who’s still hanging on to the “McCain’s an adulterer, so there!” deal is desperate. But what liberal isn’t?
On John McCain and intellectual rights….. His campaign has bought a royalty board license just like any other bar or commercial establishment would. If the music perfomers are complaining, maybe they should revamp their contract with the royalty board. After all this is the same royalty board that is trying to shut down internet radio by charging them right out of profitability. I know! The artists can try marketing their music themselves, that way they can keep control! So really its their call. Do they want control, or the millions they make every year?