Ann Coulter, 2007's Grendel Award Winner

In keeping with the current theme established in the Paris Hilton blog, I must return and try to decipher the irrelevancies of yet another blonde five letter word. Yes, it seems that the she's at it again, that vile, despicable, monster-who likes to call herself Ann Coulter is rearing it's ugly head again. I know; such harsh language, and I am afraid that it still may not be enough to truly capture the essence and lack of character Coulter displays in most interviews and her very desperate ventures into political commentary. In a recent interview on the news program HARDBALL, Coulter received a phone call from Mrs. Edwards, presidential nominee John Edwards wife. She [Mrs. Edwards] candidly requested that Coulter stop making personal attacks against John Edwards and other political candidates. She said "if you want to discuss issues and debate, that is fine, but please refrain from personal attacks." Hmmm...seems like a reasonable request. Seems like the kind of discourse two intelligent people should be able to engage. However, we must remember whom we're dealing with- Ann Coulter. I don't believe she could even begin to know the meaning of the word reasonable. She lives for personal attacks. Everything she writes is an attack. I think she might believe she is very caustic in her delivery. Well, Miss Coulter since you are so fond of fallacious argument tatics-what do you think of mine? You are a the most nasty, venomous, repugnant, being-comparable even to Grendel in the Beowulf tales. In fact I believe you are Grendel, the most loathsome and lowest creature. I support Mrs. Edwards as Beowulf and you are the disgusting Grendel. And, I believe most people know how that battle ended. Oh yeah, get rid of that freaking out-dated cocktail dress. Your attempts to be sexy are about is ridiculous and unnecessary as your political comments.

PARIS HILTON....Who gives a $*%@

Before I begin this post, I must admit that I am giving lip service to the very thing I am about to complain, rant, even bitch about. But, I feel a calling; and maybe some unsuspecting tall blonde will stumble upon my meager blog and have a revelation. Something along these lines is preferable, I am not relevant; I am not important; I have no talent; I must go away....far, far, far away. Oh well, I can dream, right? After a long day of training, yard work, and general housework, I sit down and turn on the television. Hmmm....what station? As I channel surf, I end up on my favorite local station, Channel 10 CBS. Not because they have great programming, but I am a soap opera fan and CBS has the best. Young and the Restless rocks! Okay, back to my rant, it's 6:30 and EXTRA is showing something about Paula Abdul's new reality series. Are they serious? Paula Abdul, a new series, okay that could be a blog to itself. But, I am quickly remember I am sort of a Paula fan, so I keep watching. Next, in there highlights for tomorrow's show. ..."PARIS HILTON, her first interview, what she has to say, etc....." What the $*%@ people? Why, why, why do so many people care about Paris Hilton? Is it her amazing talent? Is it her striking beauty? Is it her quirky catch phrases, "That's Hot!" To be quite honest, and I will take a favorite quote from a friend, she is about as relevant as a bear shitting in the woods. Her success as a pop culture icon, and I use that term very loosely; is quite the enigma. I would love to think of her post prison attention as more of "oh Paris we're laughing at you not with you." Yet, I know she is going to milk this attention for all it's worth and sadly, the mainstream media, will eat it up. I realize we live in somewhat trying times, we are fighting a war, and yes, I can admit; we need distractions. But, Paris Hilton is not a distraction; she's not even interesting. So, on that note I have to end this blog.

Music Picks: Rihanna & Amy Winehouse

As promised, more comments on Rihanna new Cd, Good Girl Gone Bad, and I have to say this one is pure pop bliss. There is some definite growth on this record both lyrically and vocally. Rihanna takes some risks-trying to shed that "good girl" image of the past two years. However, I don't really think the "SOS" video was 'good girl' or "Unfaithful" (a cheating girlfriend) but if she's claiming 'bad girl' status now, more power to you. Okay back to her current cd, I am in love with it. Most of the songs don't require two or three listening before you are hooked. Download - "Don't stop the Music" it will leave you wanting more, more, more...

Last week I discovered Amy Winehouse's first UK release entitled "Frank" and let me just say that it is just as good, if not better than her current US release "Back to Black". Despite what critics may say about her personal blunders, she has such a distinctive sound. Her first release is not as 60's sounding as "Back to Black" it has a more current feel to it. Amy's signature bombastic, raw, in-your-face lyrics are just as poignant as they are on "Back to Black." Download - "Fuck Me Pumps" and "Stronger than Me"

Foment My Soul; Senator Clinton Speaks

Saturday night I had the pleasure to attend a Bush Bashing event. No.. actually it was not all Bush Bashing, it was a Democratic Fundraiser for Presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton. The event was held in Alltell Arena with about 4,000 plus attending. It felt good being around people who supposedly share the same beliefs or vision for our country. I felt great in fact, but I think there was something lacking. Where was the synergy? The crowd seemed very relaxed and even bored at times. I am a native Arkansan; I know we can get excited. Just attend any Razorback football game and you'll see Arkansans show their spirit. Our congressional Representatives and Governor Mike Beebe all were supposed to get the crowed pumped, primed, and ready for Mrs. Clinton. For the most part they did; they each had wonderful things to say about her and their remarks got sufficient responses(cheers and claps) but no pig..soooiee from the crowd. So, what am I getting at here? Well with such a build up, did Clinton deliver? Although I support Hilary and believe she wants to make some significant real needed changes in this country, I can't say that her speech was energizing or inspiring, maybe even forgetful. Okay so lets backup for a second; if I make a claim, I should support it with reason. In the continuing evolution of political candidates, and yes folks evolution does occur, it is not good enough to have an impeccable resume filled with experience and credentials. Of course, those things make a difference, we can see that qualified should really mean "qualified." We have the Bush administration to thank for giving us unqualified people, thus we never want to retreat to placing people in positions because of certain loyalties. Nonetheless, a political candidate and especially a Presidential hopeful, has to be able to sell them self. They are applying for a job, undoubtedly the most important job in our nation. So, what does that mean? First it means they have to inspire people. Political candidates have to make people believe in their convictions. Second, and this goes for so much in life, but really is important for public speaking and writing-know your audience. Political candidates have to know the audience's needs, wants, and desires. On a general level, most politicians know this, but what makes for great speeches, good public oratory is inundated with audience awareness. Critics may say that could get candidates in trouble; they could be said to be flip flopper's or double talkers. Yet, I think the more aware of your audience you are, the better informed your speech will be, and you will not make mistakes such as double talk. It does not mean you are disingenuous, it just means you are not taking you supporters needs for granted. Finally, Senator Clinton's speech was brief; she did hit all the major talking points, but I am compelled to say it lacked the charisma and ardor it really needed.

If I had to grade her speech, and essentially that is what I am doing; I give her a C+/B-. I was good, but could have been better (more Bush Bashing), she did make her positions clear, or as clear as any politician will at this point in the race. I think there were some missed ceremonial opportunities to get the crowed fired up. Once you tap into people's emotion you have really got them sold.

Massachusetts has Big Balls

Thanks, a many thanks to the activist, citizens, and general supporters who helped law makers defeat a challenge by social conservatives in Massachusetts to ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts is the only state to legalize same-sex unions. I for one would love to see the rest of America hop on the bandwagon and follow in their footsteps. I can dream; right? If you can't tell from most of my blogs, I am liberal; in fact very liberal. But, I hate labels- I prefer to think of myself as a reasonable, fair-minded person, who can see both sides of controversial issues. Consequently, the liberal perspectives seem to always be the most intelligent. Okay, on to this gay marriage issue.

Social conservatives basically want the monopoly on who can get married. Well that's great; the last time I checked, we have a government in this country. And, "we the people" means a collective group of people who give their consent to be governed by elected officials. These Representatives make decisions which meet the best interest of those people. It's called a representative democracy. Likewise social conservatives might agree with this sentiment-feeling a vote on gay marriage should be left up to the citizens of each state. One problem, marriage in this country is not just a religious union, it is also a legally binding one. In deed, it was our founding father's major concern and hope the religion and politics, church and state need not mix. I agree; it is the basis for this argument. Since the government plays a role in marriages, although our current ideas of marriage stem from religious or Christian beliefs, does not mean the government should follow suit with a particular sect of Christianity's beliefs about marriage. If you believe marriage is between a man and a woman, great, in fact more power to you. I believe Christina Aguilera's has one of best voices of all time, but I am not petitioning the government to make law my beliefs. OK, maybe that's is a false analogy, but I think you get my point.

If the government is going to play a part in marriages-making them legally binding contracts, then they do not need to specify in terms of gender [only opposites sexes] who can participate. If two consenting adults want to express their love in a marriage ceremony, then it is unconstitutional to try and deny them the right to do so. Well, what about the polygamist; Big love style, could they make the same argument? Possibly, but there is not a big movement in this country to legalize polygamy. As a feminist, I believe polygamist's practices tend to exploit and diminish the roles of women, therefore I can't really make a case for it, but it is an interesting question to raise. Once again CHEERS TO MASSACHUSETTS and JEERS to all who want to impose and legalize their faith on our entire nation.

Visit this address

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1447670620070614?feedType=RSS

The Secret....No such thing

I guess you would have been living under a rock for the past few months; I'll say two, if you haven't heard about "The Secret." This self-help book that with Oprah's endorsement has become a hot seller in Books stores across the nation. Author Rhonda Byrne has given the American public this very awesome thing; she has shed some light on "the secret" because "we" the very uninformed American public did not realize that positive thinking could garner such great results in our daily lives. Okay, maybe I am oversimplify things, slightly. I have not read the book, but I have read many articles about it and to be quite honest; what's the big deal? I think a little common sense should tell us all that a positive attitude, actually truly believing in that thing (whatever) it may be in your life can effect some serious change. Well maybe not, maybe a more unsuspecting public will need someone to point out how positive vibes can create, no, even influence positive changes in your life. Still, not a new concept by any means. For example, I will refer to the Bible to make this point. Even if the Bible, the teachings in, it is not your thing; I am not advocating that it should be, but the Bible is filled with stories about "faith" which correlates to maintaining positive energy. So the saying goes "seek and ye shall find," I am compelled to think that maybe these same sentiments are echoed in Bryne's book, too. Again, I ask where's the secret; what's the big deal? I think the bigger secret is Bryne's motives. At the end of the day, and I can't believe I am using that phrase, but it works well here; an author wants to, no needs to make a profit. Byrne knows her audience. She knows their likes, dislikes, fears, anxieties, trials and tribulations. Now, how do you exploit information about your intended audience? You write a book that claims to answer all the problems they (the audience) seem to face. You give them light at the end of a long tunnel.

That is what the secret is my friends; it's not that she is introducing some new way of thinking about life; she is simply doing what advertisers have done for years, repackaging, reinventing-what's old is now new. Of course, I am not trying to short change or belittle the positive experiences anyone has had from reading this book. I am a firm believer that someone can bring you into new knowledge and understanding with a new interpretation or perspective on a topic. Nonetheless, I am a skeptic; I have to question "the Secret" because I really believe that we have heard it all before.

Dissenting Voices and Progressive Thinkers

Al Gore’s eloquently written and in-depth analysis of the American ethos, the Bush Administration’s policies, and the War in Iraq are all critically chronicled in his new book The Assault on Reason. I must admit; before I read this book, I had no idea Gore was such a scholar. He has been a champion of environmental issues for years, but I never equated his lust for a safer environment, one that I share, too, with his informative and well-reason political insight evidenced in his latest book. Of course, I know that most political writing has a very clear purpose and scope. Gore asks his reader to believe as he does in the detrimental state of our nation’s most fundamental characteristics. But, he asks that you not only believe his analysis, but that you are moved to action. I have only read the first two chapters, “The Politics of Fear” and “Blinding the Faith” both speak volumes to the how “reason” is slowly losing its place in American government. Once I finish the book, I will blog away and offer my complete response