The Oscars?
In a word …. who cares?
Why do so many Americans want to watch a bunch of Hollywood elitist, predominantly left-wing secular-progressive airheads pat each other on the back for getting paid obscene amounts of money to do something they love to do … pretend to be somebody else?
I don’t! In fact, I think it’s one of the most narcissistic … genuinely patronizing … “look how wonderful we are” … in your face bunch of nonsense there is; especially in light of the quality (or lack there of) of the movies released over this last year.
And … once a year is not enough. These Hollywood folks are so insecure and so lacking in self-esteem, that they have to hold a huge self-love fest several times a year; The Academy Awards (Oscars), the Golden Globe awards, and the Screen Actors Guild Awards, and the MTV Movie Awards. Thats one per quarter … can we shoot for one per month?
I think trades-people should also have their award nights, and we could broadcast them as well! I mean, lets be truthful here; we can live without actors … but can we live without plumbers? We could call it the “The Crack Awards” and pay homage to some real working class Americans who work very hard as true unsung hero’s … taking care of all our crap!
Howard Dean strikes Again!
Howard Dean is claiming that Sen. John McCain is engaged in the “height of hypocrisy” by reversing his decision to take public financing during the primary season. The Democratic National Committee officials say they plan to file a complaint Monday with the Federal Election Commission.
“The crucial issue here is John McCain’s integrity. John McCain poses as a reformer but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him,” DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated during a media conference call Sunday. “He used taxpayer money to guarantee a loan so he could raise money from lobbyists and special interests – it’s the height of hypocrisy. This is just the latest example of his do as I say, not as I do double standard, and it’s unlikely to be the last. McCain financially benefited from this legally binding contract – he got free ballot access, saving him millions of dollars, and he secured a $4 million line of credit to keep his campaign afloat by using public financing as collateral. He should follow the law.”
In response, the McCain campaign is calling Dean’s criticism as “absurd,” arguing there is precedent for their decision and also disputing his assertion that they used their existing request for FEC funds as collateral for a loan.
The McCain campaign is also pointing out what they call “Howard’s Hypocrisy,” noting that Dean also pulled out of the FEC system after initially applying for public funds during his 2004 presidential bid.
Are we surprised … not really … hypocrisy is a hallmark trait for progressive liberal democrats.
“Howard Dean’s hypocrisy is breathtaking given that in 2003 he withdrew from the matching funds system in exactly the same way that John McCain is doing today,” McCain Spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement.
When asked about the issue at a press conference Friday, McCain said his campaign is proceeding with their decision to return to private financing, noting that a 2003 FEC ruling allowing former Rep. Dick Gephardt’s to opt out of the FEC system gives his campaign confidence to move forward.
McCain stated during an Indianapolis press conference that, “We have a precedent for it so we will proceed.”
Howard Dean’s Hypocrisy
- Howard Dean first entered, and then pulled out of, public financing in 2003. Now he is attacking John McCain for doing exactly the same thing. In March of 2003, Howard Dean committed to public financing, and promised to attack any opponent who opted out: stating that “It will be a huge issue”
- Then in August 2003, Howard Dean backed away from his pledge by saying “Could we change our mind? Sure.” “Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean backed away from his pledge to adhere to spending limits, saying some advisers want to explore opting out of the Watergate-era public financing system because of his sudden fund-raising success. … ‘Could we change our mind? Sure,’ he said.” (Ron Fournier, “Dean Pulls Back On Spending Limits Pledge,” The Associated Press, 8/15/03)
- Dean stated: “I think public financing is a good thing. The question is what do you do with an opponent who can murder you from March to December?” (Ron Fournier, “Dean Pulls Back On Spending Limits Pledge,” The Associated Press, 8/15/03)
- In November 2003, became the first Democrat to opt out of the presidential public financing system in 30 years, striking a severe blow to the Watergate-era program. Dr. Dean, who has raised $25 million to become the best-financed Democrat in the race, will rely on private contributors to fuel his campaign in the primaries, turning away almost $19 million in taxpayer financing and avoiding the spending limit of about $45 million that comes with it.” (Glen Justice, “Dean Rejects Public Financing In Primaries,” The New York Times, 11/9/03)
Craig Smith, a spokesman for Joe Lieberman stated that, “It’s a shame that Howard Dean has broken his word and abandoned his earlier pledge never to bypass the public financing system …” (Ronald Brownstein, “Dean Won’t Accept Public Financing,” Los Angeles Times, 11/9/03)
John Edwards stated, “It sends exactly the wrong signal to voters in this country …” (Jim Drinkard and Jill Lawrence, “Dems Decry Dean Move,” USA Today, 11/10/03)
McCain answers these wild and absurd charges by pointing to the following:
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has repeatedly held that candidates who enter the Presidential Primary Matching Funds System have a right to withdraw, provided they do so before the United States Treasury pays them the funds and provided they do not use the matching fund certificates they hold as collateral for a loan. The campaign has been paid no funds by the United States Treasury and never used the certificates issued by the FEC as collateral for its bank loan.
Previous candidates in this same situation included Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, who entered and then withdrew from the primary funding system in the 2004 election. The right to withdraw from the system is a constitutional right, which prevents the FEC from blocking Senator McCain’s withdrawal without cause. Of course … we all know how left-wing liberal democrats fee about Constitutional rights … just look at their collective stance on the Second Amendment!
Senator John McCain notified the FEC and the United States Treasury of his withdrawal from the system in a letter dated February 6th. The only dispute is simply over whether the FEC has to take any action in response to the withdrawal notice.
It is clear to the McCain campaign, as it is to most FEC experts, that no FEC action is necessary in response to Senator McCain’s notice of withdrawal given the constitutional nature of the right. In most expert’s view, the Senator’s letter is all that is legally required to exit from the system.
Nevertheless, the campaign is fully responding to Chairman Mason’s request for information and is confident that the new commissioners, when appointed and confirmed, will take whatever action they conclude is necessary to confirm Senator McCain’s withdrawal from the system as of February 6, 2008.
UT Concealed Carry
Tennessee state representative, Stacey Campfield, has proposed a bill that would allow full-time faculty and staff who are licensed with concealed-carry permits to carry handguns for self-protection purposes on college campuses. Campfield stated that the recent shootings and Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University happened because campuses are “kill easy” zones. And he is right! Illinois has some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States … right up there with Washington, D.C.; the violent crime capital of the U.S.
If the proposed law is passed by the state government, those who wish to carry weapons on campus must complete annual firearms training and be a full-time employee of the University. This is a proposed bill that is past its due, and hopefully will make it into law.
Disarming law-abiding citizens has, and never will, stop criminals, killers, or psychopaths from carrying or using guns. A “gun free” zone basically creates a pool of helpless victims who, according to Campfield, can be shot “like fish in a barrel.”
Officially, the UT Police Department is opposed to the bill, but stated it will abide by any changes in the law if they occur. However, several UT police Officers … on the condition of anonymity … stated that they supported the idea, stating that they simply cannot be everywhere. Armed, responsible, law-abiding citizens could make the difference in having a bad situation turn into another Virginia Tech type of massacre.
The state of Utah has already passed similar legislation, and to the dismay of the liberal anti-gun nuts … and despite their dire predictions, Utah’s universities and colleges have not disappeared in a wild blaze of gunfire!
The following FAQS are from the Students For Concealed Carry on Campus’ website. They are thoughtful, direct, and based in fact … and not simply the same old emotional, fear-based tirades anti-gun nuts like to resort to:
Argument: “Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime.”
Answer: “Since the fall semester of 2006, state law in Utah has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of all public colleges. Also, concealed carry has been allowed for several years at both Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) and Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA). This has yet to result in a single act of violence at any of these schools. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to be arrested for violent crimes.”
Argument: “Guns on campus would distract from the learning environment.”
Answer: “Ask anyone in a concealed carry state when he or she last noticed another person carrying a concealed handgun. The word ‘concealed’ is in there for a reason. Concealed handguns would no more distract college students from learning than they currently distract moviegoers from enjoying movies or office workers from doing their jobs.
Argument: “Colleges are too crowded to safely allow the carry of concealed weapons.”
Answer: “Colleges are no more crowded than movie theaters and office buildings, where concealed handgun license holders are already allowed to carry their firearms. The widespread passage of concealed handgun laws has not let to a spate of shootings or gun thefts at movie theaters and office buildings.”
Argument: “A person with a gun could ‘snap’ and go on a killing spree.”
Answer: “Contrary to popular myth, most psychiatric professionals agree that the notion of a previously sane, well-adjusted person simply ‘snapping’ and becoming violent is not supported by case evidence. A person’s downward spiral toward violence is usually accompanied by numerous warning signs.”
Argument: “A dangerous person might jump someone who was carrying a gun, take the gun, and use it to do harm.”
Answer: “Even assuming this hypothetical dangerous person knew that an individual was carrying a concealed handgun, which is unlikely, there are much easier ways for a criminal to acquire a firearm than by assaulting an armed individual.”
Argument: “It’s possible that a gun might go off by accident.”
Answer: “Accidental discharges are very rare—particularly because modern firearms feature multiple safety features and because a handgun’s trigger is typically not exposed when it is concealed—and only a small fraction of accidental discharges result in injury. SCCC feels that it is wrong to deny citizens a right simply because that right is accompanied by a negligible risk.”
Argument: “It’s unlikely that allowing concealed carry on college campuses could help prevent a Virginia Tech-style massacre because most college students are too young to obtain a concealed handgun license.”
Answer: “Nineteen of the thirty-two victims of the Virginia Tech massacre were over the age of twenty-one (the legal age limit for obtaining a concealed handgun license in Virginia).”
Argument: “Self-defense training is as effective as a handgun against an armed assailant.”
Answer: “If you’re going to try to manually disarm an assailant, you’d better be within an arm’s length of him, be standing on firm ground, not have any obstacles between you and him, and be in relatively good physical condition. If the assailant is standing four feet away, you’re probably out of luck. If you’re sitting in a chair or lying on the floor, you’re probably out of luck. If there is a desk between you and the assailant, you’re probably out of luck. And if you’re elderly or disabled, you’re probably out of luck. Even a well-trained martial arts expert is no match for a bullet fired from eight feet away. Why should honest, law abiding citizens be asked to undergo years of training, in order to master an inferior method of self-defense?”
Argument: “Colleges are emotionally volatile environments. Allowing guns on campus will turn classroom debates into crime scenes.”
Answer: “Before concealed handgun laws were passed throughout the United States, opponents claimed that such laws would turn disputes over parking spaces and traffic accidents into shootings. This did not prove to be the case. The same responsible adults–age twenty-one and above–now asking to be allowed to carry their concealed handguns on college campuses are already allowed to do so virtually everywhere else they go–office buildings, shopping malls, movie theaters, grocery stores, banks, etc. They clearly do not let their emotions get the better of them in other environments; therefore, no less should be expected of them on college campuses.”
Argument: “The college lifestyle is defined by alcohol and drug abuse. Why would any sane person want to add guns to that mix?”
Answer: “This is NOT a debate about keeping firearms out of the hands of college students. This is a debate about allowing licensed individuals to carry their concealed firearms into campus buildings, the same way they carry them virtually everywhere else they go. College students can already legally purchase firearms, and every state that provides for legalized concealed carry has statutes prohibiting license holders from carrying while under the influence. Legalizing concealed carry on college campuses would neither put guns into the hands of more college students nor make it legal for a person to carry a firearm while under the influence.”
Argument: “In an active shooter scenario, like the one that occurred at Virginia Tech, a student or faculty member with a gun would only make things worse.”
Answer: “What is worse than allowing an execution-style massacre to continue uncontested? How can any action with the potential to stop or slow a deranged killer intent on slaughtering victim after victim be considered ‘worse’ than allowing that killer to continue undeterred?”
Argument: “The last thing we need is a bunch of vigilantes getting into a shootout with a madman, particularly since it’s been proven that trained police officers have an accuracy rate of only about 15%, in the field.”
Answer: “Citizens with concealed handgun licenses are not vigilantes. They carry their concealed handguns as a means of getting themselves out of harm’s way, not as an excuse to go chasing after bad guys. Whereas police shooting statistics involve scenarios such as pursuits down dark alleys and armed standoffs with assailants barricaded inside buildings, most civilian shootings happen at pointblank range. In the Luby’s Cafeteria massacre, the Columbine High School massacre, and the Virginia Tech massacre, the assailants moved slowly and methodically, shooting their victims from pointblank range. A person doesn’t have to be a deadeye shot to defend himself or herself against an assailant standing only a few feet away. It is highly unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed citizen and a deranged killer would lead to more lives lost than would simply allowing an onslaught of execution-style murders to continue unchecked. Contrary to what the movies might have us believe, most real-world shootouts last less than ten seconds*. Even the real Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, a shootout involving nine armed participants, lasted only about thirty seconds and ended with only three of the participants being killed. It is unlikely that an exchange of gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen would last more than a couple of seconds before one or both parties were disabled. And if the assailant were disabled, he would be unable to do any more harm.”
Argument: “How are first responders supposed to tell the difference between armed students and armed assailants?”
Answer: “This hasn’t been an issue with concealed carry license holders in other walks of life for several reasons. First and foremost, real-world shootouts are typically localized and over very quickly. It’s not realistic to expect police to encounter an ongoing shootout between assailants and armed civilians. Second, police are trained to expect both armed bad guys AND armed good guys–from off-duty/undercover police officers to armed civilians–in tactical scenarios. Third, concealed handgun license holders are trained to use their firearms for self-defense. They are not trained to run through buildings looking for bad guys. Therefore, the biggest distinction between the armed assailants and the armed civilians is that the armed civilians would be hiding with the civilians, and the armed assailants would be shooting at the civilians.”
And if you are still not convinced:
“I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn’t happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen. No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.” — Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97
“I … [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless.” — Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes, Dallas Morning News, 12/23/97
“Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated.” — Fairfax County, VA, Police Major Bill Brown, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97
“I was wrong. But I’m glad to say I was wrong.” — Arlington County, VA, Police Detective Paul Larson, Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97
“The concerns I had – with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons – we haven’t experienced that.” — Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97
Every day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.
Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.
Campus “gun free zones” may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.
Ev
Every day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.
Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.
Campus “gun free zones” may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.
ery day millions of licensed Americans legally carry concealed handguns in movie theaters, office buildings, shopping malls, banks, churches, etc.
Numerous studies show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.
Campus “gun free zones” may make some people feel safer, but as recent events demonstrate, feeling safe is not the same as being safe.
D.C. Gilbert 