Once again, it's about responsibility...

So here we are with more dumb-asses in the news. How did it come to a dumb-ass, celebrity, gossip-blogger becoming NEWS? So he writes something that is not appreciated by his targets, and eventually one of those targets decided to confront him. Sooner or later one of those targets is not gonna care about a police record and take a poke at him. Seems to me that if I was a celebrity target of these idiots I would have a goon on retainer to go break some fingers now and then.

Of course you know that I'm pissed off about this Perez Hilton Bullshit. These Gossip bloggers hide behind the first amendment like it's armor. I can barely think of them as journalists. As much as I like and respect Harvey Levin, I can't consider TMZ to be real news, and I can't consider him or his associates to be journalists. They are snoops and busybodies. That's it. Perez Hilton is a dopey little twerp who realized that by writing about celebrities, eventually they would take notice of him, and he would get to actually hang out with them. Now that he is himself a "celebrity", (I consider that to be dubious at best ) he has become a target of his own kind. He is the subject of the bloggers.

If you talk shit about people long enough one of them is going to not want to talk. The 1st Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression. By the current standards that means that anyone can say anything about anyone, as long as they can either :A) prove or verify the statements, or B) qualify the statement as rumor or opinion.

Opinion, there is the sticking point, because as the old saying goes, "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and they are sure that theirs doesn't stink." Well, when you voice your opinion long enough and loud enough, you eventually piss people off, especially those whom you are expressing your opinion about. While it is less likely to happen these days, because most people don't feel like making an idiot rich, there was a day when a person was expected to defend their honor, or that of their friends. That often meant calling the idiots and braggarts out to the street for a good old fashioned ass whuppin'. If the braggart won, he kept his honor and the right to talk his particular brand of shit, but if he lost, he was expected to (and usually would) retract all derogatory statements and issue apologies, or expect another ass whuppin' in the near future.

Not today! No way man, if someone decided to make your life miserable, by writing crap about you on their website, you're pretty much stuck with it. There is pretty much no recourse, other than writing your own line of crap on your own website. This is progress! Nope, I think it's time to look at certain laws and bring back the the field of honor. There is no need for killing, that's a little harsh in general. (but not always!) Perhaps it's time to make the bragadocious knuckleheads who spend their lives making other people miserable feel a little actual pain. Just because they say that they are only using words, it is only words that cause many teenager each year to take their own lives, because they can't deal with the repercussions of those words.

The great writers like to say, "the pen is mightier than the sword." Yet, when called on the pain their writing causes to people, they love to respond, "But it's only words." So which is it, your majesties? Does the power of the pen trump Stick and Stones, or is it possible that you must take responsiblity for the pain that your words cause? Someday you may well get more than a black eye for writing mean things about people. Even if you do it in jest, or with a grin, not everyone knows that you're doing it in such a way. And when you get self-righteous about your right to write what ever you wish, just remember that Karma is a bitch, and sooner or later you will have to pay a price for the meanness that you put into the world.

OH yeah, and one more thing, If you were truly hurt, you would not have tweeted about your assault, until you were in the ER sitting in a bed and getting stitches. If you can't take your medicine, don't play in the rain!

So Ironically, I have spent my freedom of speech talking shit about PEREZ HILTON. But you know what? It's only words!

Let's learn about language!!

I have decided that forwarding is becoming a pain in the butt!! that being said I have posted something that I would have forwarded. I hope it gives you a giggle!! I got it from my dear friend, Candy Black.

THE MOST FUNCTIONAL ENGLISH WORD


Well, it's shit ... that's right , shit!
Shit may just be the most functional word in the English language.

You can smoke shit, buy shit, sell shit, lose shit, find shit, forget shit, and tell others to eat shit.

Some people know their shit, while others can't tell the difference between shit and shineola.

There are lucky shits, dumb shits, and crazy shits. There is bull shit, horse shit, and chicken shit.

You can throw shit, sling shit, catch shit, shoot the shit, or duck when the shit hits the fan.

You can give a shit or serve shit on a shingle.

You can find yourself in deep shit or be happier than a pig in shit.

Some days are colder than shit, some days are hotter than shit, and some days are just plain shitty.

Some music sounds like shit, things can look like shit, and there are times when you feel like shit.

You can have too much shit, not enough shit, the right shit, the wrong shit or a lot of weird shit.

You can carry shit, have a mountain of shit, or find yourself up shit creek without a paddle.

Sometimes everything you touch turns to shit and other times you fall in a bucket of shit and come out smelling like a rose.

When you stop to consider all the facts, it's the basic building block of the English language.

And remember, once you know your shit, you don't need to know anything else!!

You could tell people about this post, if you give a shit; or not do so if you don't give a shit!

Well, Shit, it's time for me to go. Just wanted you to know that I do give a shit and hope you had a nice day, without a bunch of shit. But, if you happened to catch a load of shit from some shit-head...........

Well, Shit Happens!!!

At what cost, freedom?

I am an American, for good or for bad, It is where I was born and the language that I speak. I happen to understand and speak a few extra languages too, but my primary language is American English. And here I am implementing my 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. BUT with every right that we are granted or promised, we must also promise to use these rights with some responsibility. As the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, it is not meant to allow one to cause a stampede by screaming "fire!" in a crowded theater. This is a common example, and one that most people seem to understand. But let's look at this freedom from a different angle, where do we draw the line at the "right to know?"

In the last couple of decades the "investigative reporter" has become the great enlightener of our generation. They have exposed corruption and scandal in every quarter of government and business. They depend on the whistle blower and the confidential informant to get their stories and facts. They have done lots of good over the years, but at the same time, they may be responsible for much harm too. When exposing national security concerns to the public, is it truly wise to stress over and over again which ports are most susceptible to terrorist attack, or wouldn't it be more prudent to say simply that "certain ports" are still vulnerable? Let the bad guys do their own homework, and quit giving them easy directions. When I lived in Florida, the port of the city that I lived in was considered to be one of the easiest terrorist targets in the US. The local paper even published a study that they had carried out themselves Detailing the weaknesses of this port. Including the best targets, the police response times, the security holes and the best forms of attack. Why isn't this considered to be treason? "Here is your target, the best way to attack it, and the tools you need to do it!" Now it is truly my belief that one must be willing to sacrifice a certain amount of security in order to preserve freedom, but at the same time it seems that to simply hand out information to our enemies is foolish and irresponsible.

My personal favorite is the 2nd Amendment and the right to "...bear arms..." . This is a point of serious argument, both the pros and the cons, but the truth is that these debates can easily be argued as points of responsibility. The NRA (National Rifle Association for those who may not know) is a great argument for both sides of the fence. They are adamant that guns are everybody's right and there should never be a reason to give them up. They are against registration, or a gun census, and any restrictive legislation. To some extent I can agree with some of these points, but not all. What is the harm in a gun census? Unless you have something to hide, or you wish to do something illegal, you should have no reason to be afraid of your local law enforcement agency knowing how many guns you have in your home. Of course we all know that one or two can always be reported stolen, and kept in reserve when the "jackbooted thugs" come to collect your weapons. In Great Britain it is now illegal to keep a gun in a private home, they must be kept at a gun club, or a hunt club (or so I have read I can't say that this is truly a fact). But there are still illegal guns out in the streets. Not nearly as many as in the United States, but they are out there. I own shoot and carry pistols, rifles, and shotguns. In NY state in order to purchase a pistol one must have a "pistol Permit" and each county has different standards. My permit is a "carry/posses on premises" permit, and I am allowed by law to carry my pistol(s) anywhere that they are not expressly prohibited, and I generally do. Generally, but not always, and with consideration to where I am and who will be there. I exercise responsibility. I don't carry when there will be lots of children around, I don't carry when I will be drinking alcohol. I don't carry an exposed weapon into a convenience store. I have educated my nephews about guns, but when they are around I keep my guns out of reach and unloaded or even better, locked up. Why, because I wish to be responsible. I enjoy my freedoms and I wish to keep them and allow them to be passed on to following generations.

Guns and cars, 2 things that are more American than just about anything, while the liberals cry over and over how guns are killing so many people, they seem to barely take notice of the numbers racked up on America's highways.

Motor vehicles accidents account for more deaths than all natural disasters combined. In fact in the United States your chances of being injured in an motor vehicle accident is better than one in a thousand, in any one year.

If you wish to do the math, crime stats for murder can be found here. Yes, when weapons are involved Guns are the biggest offender, but they have to be employed by somebody, and most often are used With the intent to kill! Automobiles are killers by accident, by poor training and inexperience, by inattention, by bad weather, and who knows how many other reasons. But who ever heard of bad weather being the reason for a gun death? ( ok, ok, maybe a hunting accident, but be realistic...) Yet there is no big movement to outlaw Cars. ( Which BTW are NOT A Constitutional right! )

Many freedoms come with a cost, I will look at others in the future, but these 2 are on the surface recently.