Results tagged “controversy” from jsstudios.com

I was going to write a short, although sarcastic, piece about yet another image of the Virgin Mary appearing in a doctor's window in Springfield, MA. I found this via Google News. I was taken to the Boston Globe's website and landed at the article which described the turn of events. I had hoped to see a picture of the image, instead the lead image above the text of the article was that of a crowd of awe-inspired onlookers.

After examining the page for a few seconds I found the image gallery for this particular news event. It consisted of six images that recounted a few other Virgin Mary image sightings in varying settings.

Here's where it got interesting, and is the real point of this post. Being at the final image in the series I wasn't sure if the first image in the series was the one that the article referred to. So I clicked on what I expected should take me to the first image in the series.

But I didn't get to look at it. Instead, I was prompted to login. Lame . . .

There's been no shortage of news that conventional news outlets are losing profits. Even the local paper where I live has raised their rates citing increased costs. Has your local newspaper raised their rates lately?

Previously when I linked to local news stories I also had to add that they still hadn't quite gotten used to the fact that they really should consider NOT forcing people to login just to read the news article. Perhaps they got the message. You can read the news without logging in. Of course they did re-design their site and improve it such that they can now load even more ads of which some are really, really ugly. How many ads does the online version of your paper have?

As much as "The Press" wants to throw around the adage that "the people have a right to know" you would think that they would be able to wrap their head around the fact that they shouldn't need to login to exercise that right. Do you have to login for any particular function of your local paper? To read the article or view photographs?

Local news outlets just aren't getting it. They don't understand the Internet and much like the music industry, they are clinging to a dying model in which they grossly overcharge for classifieds and ad space on their online and print versions. Have you paid for a classified ad lately? How much was it? Did it actually pay off for you?

I think this topic deserves a little more research and will most likely be something I'll post about again in the near future. Anything you think deserves mentioning?

Anybody who checks out my blog from time to time knows a few things:

1. I'm a pretty liberal, idealistic guy.

2. I'm for free speech.

3. I'm not very religious.

With that in mind when I came across this news in one of the video podcasts, I had to do a little more research.

In Clay County, Florida a girl by the name of Lexi is running for student council president and created the sign you see in this post. As is so often the case, a bunch of stuffy parents are upset about the fact that the sign reads, "Jesus loves you! Lexi for Prez!" Some have been even so motivated as to write a letter to the principal of the school.

However, school officials said the sign may stay because it is neither "sponsored speech" nor "offensive."

Good for them!

According to Lexi:

"My friend told me that this dude said it's a little cheesy, but I don't listen to that kind of stuff," Lexi said.

Good for you Lexi!

Stick to you beliefs no matter what some people may say. If only our elected politicians had the same fortitude the world would probably be a better place.

I hope you become student council president! If I could, I'd vote for you!

All I can say is, "It's about stinking time." Finally, someone gets the backbone to take these people to court and kick their stinking butts across the floor. In case you're not familiar, this is the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS that likes to go to the funerals of dead soldiers to protest homosexuality. Since I live in Topeka, I have to see these people all the time. It sickens me. Why KS has never really taken a stand against them, I couldn't answer. I haven't lived here all my life. I heard that Westboro handed Topeka's ass to them in a court case quite some time ago, but I don't know the details. However, here's the meat of what happened today:

A Baltimore federal jury awarded nearly $11 million Wednesday to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq, deciding that the family's privacy had been invaded by a Kansas church whose members waved anti-gay signs at the funeral.

Good on ya' Maryland.

This is the kind of news article that has me wondering that very question. As the anniversary of 9/11 grows near certainly there are many people who grow more conscious of the events that took place that day. But I have to wonder several questions?

• First off, are we any safer than we were on September 11th?
• Do we have a better idea of how to protect ourselves in the future?
• If the first two questions are true, then why are people so freaking paranoid?

I could offer several examples that have crossed my radar that clearly demonstrate how ridiculously paranoid people are responding to the fear of terrorism. However, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to waste my time doing it as I have little time to even write this post. In case you haven't the time to read the article however, here's a brief run-down: Two people, a brother and sister, belong to a running club. In preparation for an afternoon run for them and the rest of their club, they marked the trail that the club was to use. On this particular day the trail was intended to wind through the Ikea parking lot. As is often the case, the trail is designed to be challenging often branching into dead-ends and forked trails. They chose, as they have on several occasions, from one end of the US to the other without incident, to use flour to mark the trail. However this time it was different. Someone saw them and called the police. The brother and sister, he an ophthalmologist and his sister a German visitor, were charged with a felony. The charge is first-degree breach of peace. What the hell is breach of peace? I don't know either. Here's the results of a search if you'd like to invest the time. It seems the reason they're being charged is that the authorities treated the whole situation as if this was a suspected terrorist attack. They made everyone leave the store, called the hazmat team and did the whole "root out those terr'ists" bang-up job. More than likely the entire thing was probably a little embarrassing once they'd determined they all assembled for flour.

Perhaps that's why the city is going after them for restitution. A spokesman for the city said,

"You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know," she said. "It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious. We're thankful it wasn't, but there were a lot of resources that went into figuring that out."

Yes, that's what I always think when I see arrows, chalk and flour. I figure another terrorist attack is eminent, I break out the duct tape and plastic and bury myself and my family until I muster up enough courage to pull my head out of the sand and see if it's all clear. Perhaps I missed the latest intelligence memo? I didn't know that terrorists weren't fond of Ikea furniture. I'll never step foot in another furniture store again without looking over my shoulder and be ever-so-aware for any indication that suggests terrorist activity.

I was thinking today, after reading the recent articles about Nicole Richie being sentenced to jail time and it sent the wheels in my braining to spinning. I wonder how much celebrity status has to do with crime and punishment in Hollywood. Of course it goes without saying that celebrities, compared to common, hard-working folks, get off pretty light when they get themselves in trouble. I'm not really going to try and dig up any real reasons of substance why this is true. Could be money . . . could be industry influences . . . could be brain waves from alien spacecraft. It doesn't matter. Let's take a look over the past few years at some notable celebrities . . .

Robert Downey Jr

Now here's a guy that has had his fair share of run-ins with the law for stuff ranging from drugs to weapons possession. He's served time in both jail and prison and has gone to rehab a few times. Given his long list of drug offenses, you'd think that he'd still be in prison. But his career still thrives. His latest film, Tropic Thunder, is being filmed.

Mel Gibson

Mel's not a career criminal. For the most part he's a guy who likes to toss a few back and then go for a leisurely drive on the Pacific Coast Highway. If he happens to get pulled over, however, you might see the side of him that is a bit anti-semitic. During his last drunken drive he got pulled over and went off on the officers. For this he received 3 years probation, one year of AA meetings, and a $1300 bill to pay in fines and restitution. While he may have received some bad publicity, his most recent film, Apocolypto, has earned 27.9 million as of December 2006.

Michael Richards

Michael's another guy who isn't chasing after any lifetime criminal achievement awards. That doesn't change the fact that even though his career is drawing to a close he's playing it low key. He does share one common trait with Mel - he likes to go off on people simply because they're different. During a recent comedy performance he apparently displayed his lack of affection for black people. As with many celebrities, he has an excuse but it isn't drugs or alcohol. He has rage issues. He didn't answer to a judge, however, he answered to the court of public opinion and apologized.

Paris Hilton

I know you all wanted to hear about her. You can't possibly be sick of her yet. We all know that Paris got busted for a DUI and got her license taken away. But that didn't stop her, she drove anyway. What did we all expect from a gazillionaire princess? Apparently the judge wasn't payed off chose to throw her in jail. Even after trying to subvert the process, she couldn't manage to stay out from behind bars for 23 days. Evidently Paris' escapades with the sex videos and drugs and drunken driving have brought shame over the whole family and Grandpa Hilton has revoked her privilege to her big, fat inheritance.

Nicole Richie

Paris' ex-BFF has her own drunken driving problems. But she likes to do it driving the wrong way on the freeway. Hey, if you're gonna do it you may as well have fun doing it. Right? She's getting off pretty light if you think about it. She'll serve 4 days in jail, 3 years probation, pay a fine of $2048 and will attend 21 days of alcohol education courses. Something tells me she already knows how to use alcohol. After all this is her second offense in 4 years.

Lindsey Lohan

I'm sure you're all sick of her too, but she's actively chasing poster child status for problem Hollywood starlets. She's earned her second DUI arrest in a few months. Topping that with the cocaine they found in her possession, she's well on her way to getting a very, very hard slap on her precious, little wrist. Perhaps she believes that if she goes to rehab again it'll be ok or the slap won't be quite as hard? Everyone in California should know by now that if Lindsey's behind the wheel of a car they should find a safe place to ride out the storm. She's had at least three car accidents within one year. Time will tell what Lindsey receives from her most recent DUI. Will it garner the same punishment as Nicole, Paris or Mel?

The other day I ranted a bit about how kids are held to different standards than I was when I was their age. One of the cases I used to illustrate my point was that of two middle-schoolers that could potentially face jail and be required to register as sex offenders for slapping their peers on the ass - which, as it turns out, is a pretty common thing in their social circles and not to be taken as a sexual advance but rather as nothing more than a greeting of sorts. As I said, to each their own.

In reading the comments that followed the story online it appeared there were fairly mixed opinions. Some people believed that there was no need to push this issue and felt the school and law enforcement were going too far. Others felt that the kids should do their time since they should know better. As someone who has two children aged 9 and 12 I would contend that they often do know better. And parents teach their children better. But sometimes kids don't do what they're told. Sometimes they make bad decisions in order to conform to the rest of the pack so they will fit in, as I so often hear, "with the cool kids." I thought perhaps I was in the minority when I chastised those Oregonian school administrators and legal administration. In essence I suggested that those kids' lives could be ruined because they made some bad decisions which could be addressed by something as simple as a suspension rather than locking them up and labeling them as sex offenders. It appears I was wrong. I wasn't in the minority.

The comments from Bradley Berry outraged the parents of the two 13-year-olds, Ryan Cornelison and Cory Mashburn, who with their lawyers were deluged with calls from ABC, CNN, Fox, Court TV and radio stations across the country a day after a story about the prosecution appeared in The Sunday Oregonian.

Perhaps there's hope. Was it simply a school administration or legal office that wasn't quite so dogmatic in their approach to dealing with kids that they decided to rethink what they were doing? Was it the dedication of people who see our little world getting out of hand when it comes to raising our kids? Perhaps the school system was afraid of a law suit? Who knows? Maybe the district attorney feared that his career would end up going the same direction of Nifong's. Regardless, it's a good thing when people wake up and smell the coffee. Of course sometimes a nice, sharp smack on the ass can help.

I watch these shows from time to time: Man vs Wild and Survivorman. They say they can teach you how to survive singlehandedly in environments like cold arctic regions, desert ranges and alligator infested swamps. In every episode either of the two, Bear Grylls ( Man vs Wild ) or Les Stroud ( Survivorman ), are dropped in a remote location and given a time frame in which they must either find civilization or survive until found. They are not usually given any of the conveniences that your modern camper would have. They both are normally equipped with a knife, a container for water and Bear usually brings some flint. Les has often been stranded with equipment. For example, he was "stranded" in a desert when his motocross bike "broke down". Therefore, he was able to use parts from it in order to survive. However, neither of the two men have ever acknowledged that they received outside assistance from any of the crew that film the series.

But . . . in this BBC news article an entirely different story comes to light. In one instance when Bear was supposedly filming on a deserted island:

However, he was actually in Hawaii and spent some of his time there in a motel, Mr Weinert alleged.

Who would have thought that these "reality" shows aren't really all that real? Perhaps Bear isn't quite as much man as say, for example, I am . . . because as I've pointed out before, on my off days I wrestle bears.

Some recent events have caught my eye lately. Not long ago a reader of my blog followed up on a post I wrote that pointed to an article I linked to about people who were born before 1980. The article was a bit of a sarcastic congratulations. "How could people who were born before 1980 possibly have survived?" Rinsem followed up with a post that suggested we take a very serious look at how we raise our kids to produce children that will take risks and explore the world without fear. I wholeheartedly agree with Rinsem. I try to give my kids the freedom they need to try things and experience life. I may ask them to wear a helmet when they ride their bikes or come in from the rain, but I consider that common sense rather than fearful hovering.

In response to Rinsem's post, I commented to a specific point:

We are raising a generation who will not take a risk because they've been warned throughout their lives that the risks are dangerous. While this can be good, they simply don't understand the difference between a good risk and a bad risk because they don't have the life experience.

My comment on his post was:

The only thing I'd add here is that the price we paid for poor decisions or mistakes was much smaller when I grew up. At the very most, I might receive a generous spanking ( at least that's how my parents dealt with things ) or a very stern talking to. However, now our kids have to deal with "no tolerance" policies, litigious pricks who want compensation for everything little thing and little understanding that kids will make mistakes even when their parents teach them otherwise.

While I'm sure Rinsem understood what I meant, I want to use a couple examples that best represent what I mean. Recently a sixth-grade girl faced being sent to an alternative school for four months. Her crime? She wrote, "I love Alex" on a wall at school with a marker. The school has since changed their mind after the story got the attention of local media and citizens. She faced the same punishment that those who fight, make terroristic threats, and are caught with drugs. Granted, she shouldn't write on school walls. So give her a detention, some soap and water, and have her clean the mess. Thankfully the school eventually made the right decision. But what about the fate of these two 13 year-old kids?

Evidently childish behaviors, like slapping your peers on the ass, now warrant sex charges. It seems, based on the statements of several kids at the school, the norm is to slap your friends on the ass ( regardless of their gender ) as a form of greeting. Well, when I was younger we only did that on the football field or basketball court, but hey . . . to each their own.

So what should happen to these kids? Well, here's what could happen:

Police arrested Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison of McMinnville and if convicted could be permanently marked as sex offenders, The Portland Oregonian said Sunday. The teens also could spend as long as 10 years in juvenile detention if found guilty.

That's the way to do it. Brand them as sexual offenders and stick them in the system. Evidently the district attorney is ready to prosecute:

While the boys' parents have opposed such a harsh penalty, McMinnville District Aattorney Bradley Berry said such youthful acts could have longstanding consequences for the alleged victims. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

Damn straight they are. Branding them "sexual offenders" and institutionalizing 13 year old kids for acting stupid does alter their lives. But hey, you gotta get tough with these kids these days don't you? You need to punish them so severely that they would never think of making that mistake again. Zero tolerance. That's the ticket. Brand them for life the first time they step out of line. Honestly, when do we make the distinction between what is criminal and what is a product of bad decision making when it comes to kids? Why should we always resort to ruining someone's life in order to discipline? Couldn't a simple suspension have sent the message that their behavior was inappropriate?

Evidently I'm not the only one that has noticed this story. If you visit that link you'll also find a more in-depth news article about the incident.

When I was growing up my family moved around a lot. My father was an accountant and he was constantly chasing a better paying job. Up until I was about thirteen it was pretty cool. Never living in the same place for more than a few years had its virtues. If ever you did anything that made you look like a complete and utter fool, it was ok. It wouldn't be long before you could have a fresh start in a new place with new people who knew absolutely nothing about you.

Incidentally, my father was often drawn to cities like Houston, Salt Lake City and Chicago, where it was not only a larger place but your anonymity was amplified by the sheer volume of people. Way back then the children-should-be-seen-not-heard doctrine pretty much ruled. In the event some kid forgot that, well . . . corporal punishment was employed as a reminder. Let it be said that I had a short memory and a sore ass to show for it. Times changed as I grew older and I think it's great that teachers aren't allowed to use corporal punishment anymore. And there's been a movement to foster kids' self esteem in the hopes that children will think better about themselves and what they can accomplish.

But, have these changes produced a generation that not only gives little thought to their own privacy but also gives little thought to anyone but themselves?

I came across this post earlier today. It is an Open Letter to Michael Moore suggesting that he make a movie much like Sicko, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911 or Roger and Me. I have yet to see Sicko, but I have seen his other movies. I do find his movies thought-provoking enough that it has ignited an urge to find out more about the topics he chooses to grapple with. While some would challenge the validity of the facts Michael uses in his films, ( and I'm not going to debate that point ) he clearly wishes to see people dig deeper that what they are commonly exposed to via major news outlets.

Which brings me directly to the point of this post . . . Do you trust the news you receive regardless of its vehicle or source of delivery? The news you watch on TV? The news you read in magazines? Newspapers? Internet? Even if there was some sort of expose would it really make a difference?

Not long ago I posted a link to a series of short movies on YouTube about a cult of hateful people who just happen to live in Topeka. These people call themselves the Westboro Baptist Church.

You may have heard of them ever since they decided to start picketing the funerals of soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq. I learned a lot about them by watching those videos. I still cannot agree with their message or the manner in which they spread it. What I didn't know is that they have been protesting here in Topeka for the last fifteen years.

For a long time the citizens of Topeka decided to ignore them. They clued in to the fact that these people enjoyed the attention they received. When they stopped getting the attention from Topeka they decided to branch out and preach hatred at the funerals ( of homosexuals ) in other states. Then along came 911 and Afghanistan and Iraq. To them it must have appeared they won the lottery.

Since that time several states have enacted laws to prevent the picketing of funerals. Kansas can finally say that they are taking steps in the right direction. Yesterday our Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, signed a bill that will address picketing funerals.

Under the Kansas statute, picketing would be prohibited within 150 feet of a funeral one hour before, during and two hours after a service. The penalty for the misdemeanor offense is a maximum six months in jail and $1,000 fine. The law also contains a provision allowing family members to file civil lawsuits against people who defame the dead.

As I've pointed out before, I'd love to link to Topeka's newspaper website so you could read cjonline's version of the story. But, the Capital-Journal hasn't yet learned that there are other, much better, news outlets on the Internet that understand people don't want to be forced to sign up just to read a news article.

As much as I would like to say, "Bravo!" and give them a standing ovation, all I can seem to muster at this time is, "It's about time." Kansas became the 33rd state in the nation to enact this kind of legislation. The 33rd! Yet they've not only been harboring the very people that this legislation is meant to address, they've also been tolerating it from them for 15 years. The only drawback is the our Governor has directed the Attorney General to mount a court battle against the bill in order to test the constitutionality of it.

Who knows how long that will take?

First off - a bit of a disclaimer. I neither condemn nor condone homosexuality. You live your life and I'll live mine. I won't judge you if you don't judge me. I believe in the right to express your opinion. After all, I wouldn't be blogging with the freedom I have if I didn't. I also don't go to church on a regular basis.

I attended Catholic schools for a portion of my life and it's kind of hard to buy into what great people priests are when they condone the kind of violent behavior I saw ( and witnessed first hand ) while in school. Perhaps it screwed up my faith a little.

I want people to know that the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church are not my own.

I didn't post this so that I could further their cause. They also do not reflect the beliefs of the vast majority of Kansas or the United States. I find the behavior of the people in this video rather despicable. You really have to wonder what has to happen to someone in their life to cause a deep hatred for others.

I first heard of the Westboro Baptist Church when my family and I lived in Omaha. A student at an Omaha high school had committed suicide and the members of Westboro decided it would benefit society to picket the kid's funeral . . . because the kid was gay. I debated publishing this post because I really don't want to give these people any more publicity than they already get at the expense of human emotion. However, I'm one of those kinds of people that believes knowledge is power.

Well, that and the fact that I have to at least try and answer the question of, "What screwed these people up so badly?"

When I heard about a University of Kansas Student who created a documentary about Westboro I was really interested in the film. However, the night it was to be shown to the public we had an ice storm and the 35 mile trip to Lawrence was out of the question.



So, when I found this documentary by the BBC on You Tube, named, "The Most Hated Family in America," I just had to watch it. I watched the entire thing - it's a seven part series of videos that will consume about an hour of your time.

I'm still waiting for an opportunity to see K. Ryan Jones' documentary. I just haven't had one that works as well as watching it over the Internet.

I've created two posts, two days in a row, about American Idol. As much as I hate to do it, I'm going to post again - about American Idol. But this post isn't going to be a prediction of the outcome, who did what and how well ( or poorly ) they did it, or who should be sent home.

I think it's time I moved beyond that and open a discussion of what is driving this season's decline from what started as a great idea to the beacon of mediocrity it is quickly becoming. I suppose that's an unfair statement. It isn't that the producers made a conscious decision to drive the show into the ground. And perhaps, as demonstrated by the popularity of the show, it isn't really being driven into the ground. But it would appear that there is a concerted effort to invalidate the integrity ( well, I'm using the term integrity very loosely here ) of the show.

American Idol has willingly fallen victim to the stupidity of the mob. Let's face it . . . there are people making gazillions of dollars off of the show. As consumers, is it too much to expect that there is at least some semblance of an attempt to remove any air of impropriety? Or are they merely basking in the riches that the publicity is giving them? Allow me to explain . . .

It doesn't take too much to start trouble in this booming metropolis called Topeka.

According to the local newspaper a state employee has a bumper sticker on her vehicle that states, "F*CK WAR." Although I prefer to replace the appropriate letter to complete the "F" word with an asterisk, the bumper sticker leaves no letters out. The state employee parks her vehicle in the statehouse parking garage. Evidently House Majority Leader Ray Merrick came across the car in the parking garage and he found it rather offensive. From there, he registered a complaint.

The owner of the vehicle was reminded:

. . . a research department policy restricting employees from participation in partisan political activities.

What does a bumper sticker that portrays that message have to do with partisan political activities? There's a bit of controversy brewing here as well. According to some sources, the owner of the vehicle's job was threatened if she did not remove the bumper sticker. However, Merrick denies that he suggested that she be removed from her position. So, who's not being 100 percent honest?

The Governor has come out in support of the employee's right to free speech. And clearly this is free speech. While I may not necessarily agree with the way the message reads, it is entirely non-partisan and the opinion of the owner. It could be phrased differently, for example, "WAR SUCKS" could send the message just as effectively.

If you would like to read this article, follow this link. However, this newspaper doesn't seem to understand just yet that people don't really want to have to create a login just to read one piddly news article. So, here's a link to bugmenot.

A bit of a dilemma here in fortywhat?! land lately. We recently ( about a couple months ago ) acquired a new pet - a dog named Precious that we adopted for my son. She's a cross between a Chihuahua and a Jack Russell Terrier. Essentially, she has the face and ears of a Chihuahua and the body of a Jack Russell. She's a pretty decent dog. She's very affectionate and loves to be by your side at all times.

My daughter has a cat. He's a mix with quite a bit of Siamese and something else. He's big, lazy, and loves to eat. I like him because he's pretty laid back and content to sit in the window as long as no meals are missed. He's kind of a cross between Patrick ( of Spongebob Squarepants ) and Garfield. His name is Mr. Whiskers.

My wife has a cat of her own named Ms. Kitty. Her cat his a purebred, Oriental Shorthair. She has a beautiful, tortoise-shell coat and great big ears that make her look kind of like an alien. If you didn't know better you would believe that we starve her. She's very, very skinny. But that's how Oriental Shorthairs are. As a matter of fact we have to take her to a special vet that is familiar with the breed because they have to treated differently with various medications. They have very little body fat and the vet has to be careful not to overdose them. I'm not absolutely sure, but I think Ms. Kitty gets her shitty attitude from the long lines of inbreeding through her lineage.

Don't get me wrong - Kitty is an ok cat. She's very affectionate, playful, and loyal to a fault. But man does she have an attitude.

Getting to the point . . . I was concerned about how Ms. Kitty and the new dog would get along. Well, they aren't. I don't mean that little squabbles are breaking out. Ms. Kitty is starting major fights - big time, major fights. For example, I'm sure you may have seen an episode of Animal Planet in which a lion or tiger stalks, attacks, and subsequently kills a gazelle or something. That's what happened the other night. I was putting the dog on the leash to take her outside and from out of nowhere Kitty pounces on the dog's back and tries to bite the dog's neck as if trying to sever the poor dog's spinal cord. It really was just like an episode of Life on the Serengeti or something.

The dog managed to get away ( Kitty has no claws on her front paws ) and a skirmish broke out with the dog seeking refuge under my wife's desk. I managed to break them up and get the dog into her crate where she was safe - kind of like protective custody for canines. My wife called the vet. After going through a bit of 20 questions the vet finally concluded what we already knew. This is much more serious than a simple difference of opinion. Someone's going to get hurt - badly. His first recommendation is that we try catnip to hopefully mellow out Kitty so she will be less interested in trying to rip out the dog's throat. If that doesn't work the vet has recommended ( I laugh every time of think of this ) anti-depressants!

Of course both of these in the event we are not considering finding a home for either Precious or Kitty. So far today I have tried some catnip. The dog has been on the Lazy Boy with me ( even as I write this post ) and the sock that I coated the inside with catnip has been the object of Mr. Whisker's affection since I first introduced it. No skirmishes have broken out . . . but the day is young and Kitty seems to be in anti-social mode right now.

If anyone has experienced this kind of problem . . . any suggestions are certainly welcome. I don't want to have to pay for anti-depressants for my wife's homicidal maniac cat, and I don't want to ask my son to give up his dog. But then again, I don't want anyone to get hurt trying to break up a fight or worse . . .

Any thoughts? ideas? recommendations?

Little did I know but my earlier post last night would serve as an ice-breaker for tonight's post.

Perhaps it only served as an, "American Idol" icebreaker since it's really only indirectly related to American Idol in that Antonella Barba, the hot 20 year-old from New Jersey appears to have posed for some rather provocative photos and they have been widely distributed around the Internet.

Ordinarily I'm the type that would not only provide the links I have found so far and freely distribute them via this post but also re-visit them myself for the next couple of weeks - or at least until the newness wore off. But, I have an agenda here. I have a point that I would like to prove.

First off, let me get the old fart thing out of the way. When I was considerably younger . . . we didn't have the Internet. If you went around letting people take pictures of you with half your clothes off, drunk or under the influence of anything else you could certainly take steps to make sure the whole world didn't find out.

These days that's not the case.

Anything you do and give to the Internet ( regardless of how intelligent or well thought out it feels at the time ) is recorded and there forever for the whole world to see. I'm beginning to believe that there's a significant number of people who just don't seem to get it. And it worries me because it has the potential to really screw up someone's life. Allow me to elaborate just a bit . . .

It seems that a day cannot go by without some story about Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsey Lohan or even the latest in the never-ending saga of Anna Nicole Smith. Personally, I've never been that interested in any of them. Oh sure it's fun to criticize them and pick them apart. What have we to lose?

What truly surprises me is the great lengths the media will take to condemn their behavior while at the same time give celebrities the one thing they desire so much . . . fame and publicity. There's no shortage of talking heads that will suggest celebrities are role models and need to be held accountable for their actions. But how often does the media show the great things they do? They're more concerned about Paris' most recent, late night on the social scene or Britney's latest hairstyle ( or lack thereof ). Why? Because no one cares what great things they are doing. It doesn't sell. But . . . if Paris Hilton gets arrested for DUI that's news.

How many of us could live our lives in the spotlight the way most celebrities do? I, for one, would prefer not to. Knowing my desire for privacy, the first time some jerk jumped in my face with a camera I'd be up before a judge and my face would be splattered all over the TV screens. If you're old enough you might remember that little escapade with Sean Penn and Madonna and a certain photographer. That's what I imagine might take place.

We all know that life is a delicate balance of ups and downs, highs and lows, and good times and bad times. I can't imagine living a life with every moment on the front pages of tabloids or television. Although it would prove to be the definition of boring compared to Britney not wearing panties under her dress, the low points of my life would prove to be a major embarassment for me and my family.

For example, I remember a time, back in California, I was maybe 19 and had gone to a party with friends. Well, as things tended to happen with increasing frequency, I drank way too much. Stumbling onto the front lawn, my body decided it was time to purge itself of all that free alcohol. I vaguely remember a girl who tried to console me or maybe see to it that I wasn't going to die there on some stranger's lawn from alcohol poisoning in a pudlle of my own vomit. As luck would have it, more important events beckoned her and she left me - as did my friends who thought I had gotten a ride from someone else ( I found out the next day ). I awoke the next morning smelling very, very ripe and started stumbling home where I slept until seven or eight PM. Then I got up to do it all over again.

Like I said, it's not as glamorous as snorting coke off the bathroom counter in some exclusive, Hollywood nightclub with movie stars and pop singers to your right and left. But it's just as private and embarassing. Thank goodness no one was there with a camera.

Don't get me wrong . . . I'm not defending celebrities. Their obnoxious, conspicuous behavior truly is nothing short of offensive sometimes. It truly is entertainment to watch a super-mega star like Mel Gibson or Michael Richardson hit rock bottom. But ask yourself this . . .

If you were famous and rich what would you do differently? If Paris Hilton asked you to go out with her and a few of her famous friends would you go? If Britney happened to invite you to drink and do anything else with her would you? If money was no object would it matter what anyone else thought about what you did? If simply because no matter what you do will get your name in front of the public, movie producers, recording industry executives, etc . . . and you can do nothing wrong, then how might that shape your decisions?

I like to hear your take on this. Feel free to leave your opinions.

At risk of coming across as a bit of a hypocrite I made a few changes this year.

In the most recent past I've been writing about TV shows and making predictions about different series. So, I have to accept the fact that there are those who may view what I did as hypocrisy. Well, I've decided to throw caution to the wind and write a post about it. Since I decided to do it, I've come across a couple of articles that tout the benefits of ditching cable tv. For example, a blogger at zdnet decided he could save about $300 a year by ditching cable tv and using iTunes and netflix. I also read an article the other day about subscription television. I bring up that link primarily because it's relevant to my post a little later on and because the author states that he hasn't been a cable tv subscriber for some time.

The point at which it has become difficult to balance the cost of cable television and land line phone services offered has been reached. To be honest I reached it a long time ago and finally decided to just do something about it earlier this month. I believe, over the span of about a year I may be able to save $1380 by ditching my cable tv and land line telephone services. This isn't really a scientific explanation or anything like that. Essentially I am comparing what I pay and what I get versus the options I have as I see it. I'm confident that there may be something I overlooked, but really, I doubt it is anything that I can't overcome once I get to that point. Go ahead and give it a look and let me know what you think . . .

I've been listening to a couple radio talk shows that are trying to determine what it is that sealed the Democratic victory over the the House and ( potentially at this point ) the Senate.

Everyone seems to believe that it is the war in Iraq or the Abramoff/ Delay/ Foley scandals.

I decided to walk across the street today and get lunch at an Oriental restaurant. As I gobbled down my Korean spicy pork I listened as the hosts bickered back and forth and took calls from listeners. I couldn't help but want to laugh when people said, "Well we just needed change." Additionally, I couldn't help but shake my head when the host suggested that people, "just decided to vote entirely down the Democrat side of the ticket." in an absolutely disgusted tone of voice as if that was some sinful act deserving of no forgiveness.

I know I live in a red state, but it would be nice if the word, "Democrat" could be removed from the state list of four-letter-words.

Getting on to the purpose of this post . . . After I finished my main course I opened up my fortune cookie and set the fortune aside. I devoured the tasty little cookie and grabbed my glass of Code Red ( my favorite soft drink ) so that I could refill it. Since I needed ice I decided to take the fortune with me and read it on the way to the ice machine. I couldn't help but laugh when I read the fortune and recalled the events of the last 24 hours or so.

The fortune read, "Confucius say:show-off always shown up in showdown."

For me, this is why the Democrats control the House and ( quite possibly but not yet - as of the time I am writing this ) the Senate. It isn't the war in Iraq. It isn't the scandals. It isn't anything like that. It's everything. The talk show hosts are missing the forest for the trees. There is no one single item that brought about this change. It's the way things were done.

The last six years legislators and the executive branch have acted as if they had a free ticket to do whatever they wanted using whatever means they chose without fear of retribution. It is the war in Iraq ( or lack of reason for invading Iraq ). It is the way the scandals were handled. It is the way that legislators try to legislate morality. It is the Patriot Act and the fact that no one read it before they voted on it. It is the way the 911 commision was handled. It is the lack of oversight. It is the fact that there was no assistance for Katrina victims. It is record oil company profits and no alternative energy plans. It is turning people against each other on the basis of religion. It is the way that the executive branch can do things ( usually deemed illegal ) but get away with it anyway. It is the outing of a CIA agent. It is Social Security. It is NSA wiretapping. It is stem cell research. It is name calling and negative ads. It is taking away habeus corpus. It is using scare tactics. It is The Medicare Prescription Plan. It is illegal aliens and the lack of border control. It is eminent domain. It is the lack of representation of The People's interests and preference given to corporate interests. It is Halibuton. It is all of the money.

And when questions are asked about these things what happens? We aren't supposed to ask; We're supposed to worry about gay marriage. It is six years of the same old stuff.

In summary, it may have come down to a couple items of interest for individual voters. Perhaps some people are more interested in the war in Iraq or stem cell research. Regardless, the fact remains that a change has taken place. I believe the reasons are so wide and diverse that it effectively be termed, "The whole thing is a mess." Was it something special for you? Leave a comment and tell me.

This is why my kids will never be in the military if I have my way.

This case has lots of people talking. The opinion handed down from the Supreme Court is, quite simply, this:

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

I saw this post at Techdirt today. I just recently went to the movies to see the last episode of Star Wars. While I will admit that the movie was good, I must agree with some of the points made in the Techdirt article. For example:

The debate over a national ID has stirred up a lot of controversy. There are supporters on both sides of the fence. Personally, I am still sitting on the fence and trying to weigh both sides of the argument.

Thinking about starting a blog to expose your employer? Complain about a business?

Better think about the consequences . . . Unless, you decide to blog anonymously. Here's a link to a blog that lists a number of people that have been disciplined, fired, or not hired for blogging.

I don't know exactly what the nature or content of their blogs were that got them fired, however. The list is kind of long if you ask me. The bottom line - blog for fun, blog about your life; but don't blog about your job unless you can do it anonymously.

The conservatives have yet another cause to take up and another voice to censor. They feel they are being under-represented on Starbucks coffee cups. This article explains it . . .