Bigotry on Both Sides?
By:
Neal Pierson
March 12, 2007
If you're at all familiar
with the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill Maher, what I'm about to tell you won't probably come as a surprise. Both individuals
are very radical thinkers. Both have said outrageous things in the past. But this past week, they may have topped all past
escapades.
Ann Coulter is a Far-Right Columnist. She is a lawyer. She is a very intelligent individual. She has said
some humorous things in the past. I've always disliked her ways of going about business, such as demonizing democrats and
liberals, but I've never really considered her a bad person, even after her "Jersey Girls" remarks. If you missed this, she
basically said that some 9/11 widows were enjoying their husbands' death. That got a lot of negative attention, on the left,
as well as the right, and it definitely should have. That kind of hate is irresponsible, and damages the country. Then, when
I thought she had crossed the line for the last time, she dropped another bomb, one that is irresponsible, tasteless, humorless,
and unnecessary. While speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, she said the following about John Edwards:
“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you
have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk
about Edwards.” Ms. Coulter is yet to apologize, and has defended herself many times in the past week. Now to Bill Maher.
Bill Maher is a Far-Left comedian who has a talk show on HBO. I don't have HBO, so I can't watch his show, but I know
some things about him from watching him on other programs. First things first, Bill Maher hates President Bush, Dick Cheney,
pretty much everything conservative, along with all organized religion. He recently said something very bad to Vice President
Cheney on his HBO program. "I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn‘t be dying needlessly
tomorrow. [If] he did die, other people would live. That‘s a fact." Any fair minded people can see that this is completely
outrageous, just like Coulter's attack. Every American, on both sides of the political spectrum, should not resort to name
calling in order to win an argument. We should all respect each other. We should all put aside our differences, and stand
together as Americans. We shouldn't hate people just because they disagree with us. We should challenge people on what they
say, but making personal attacks will get us no where. It only increases the divide between the people on different sides.
So, all in all, both individuals, Maher and Coulter, were over the line in their comments. Which one was worse, well
that's for you to decide. I for one, think that both individuals were equally out of line. But I'd like to know what you think,
so, if you want to tell me who you think was worse with their comments, or just call me names or something, you can email
me at tko212121@yahoo.com.
www.YodasWorld.org
 Anna Nicole Story Overblown?
By: Neal Pierson
February 26, 2007
I don't feel sorry for Anna Nicole Smith. There, I said it. Everyone dies eventually in life, especially if you overdose
on drugs. Its time to stop kidding ourselves, that is exactly what happened. At least, thats what I think. If I turn out to
be wrong (which is always possible), I will apologize. But I'm not worried.
But I'm rambling here. Back to my original point, I don't feel sorry for the woman. I feel sorry for the baby that she
left. I feel sorry for the legions of men, who have nothing better to do than say that they're the father of the baby. But
I don't feel sorry for Anna. Why should I? She never did anything noteworthy. She was quite possibly the most worthless twit
on the planet. I don't hate the woman, I'm just indifferent to her. This, I believe, is God's message to the people. If you
do hard drugs, eventually, it will catch up to you.
People die every day. Why is this woman so important. Why do people, besides her family and friends, care about her?
She was famous for being famous. She wasn't like Elvis, who was a soldier and one of the greatest singers of the 20th century.
She wasn't like Joe DiMaggio, who, while he may have done some questionable things in his personal life, he behaved like a
gentleman in his public life, which is much more than I can say for Anna Nicole Smith.
So the question is that, why do the American people care about Anna Nicole Smith? I really don't have the answer to that.
So if one of you enlightened souls out in the internet has the answer to that question, you can email me at tko212121@yahoo.com. Keep the comments nice and pithy.
I like watching the news. I like learning whats going on with the war on terror or the 2008 presidential candidates,
but I do have to say that this Anna Nicole Smith baby case with 25 guys claiming to be the father of little Dannielynn Hope
Marshall Stern is a total bore. I really don't care about the case and I don't need updates on the O'reilly Factor from Greta
Van Susteren. I'm sorry, I just don't care.
So my final point today is directed to the media. Please, stop reporting the story so much. I'd love it if you'd cut
it down to every other day or something like that. Because every person I've talked to has said they are fed up with this
case and Anna Nicole Smith. Lets just let her rest in peace.
Anti-War or Anti-America?
By: Neal Pierson
February 5, 2007
First of all, I completely
understand freedom of speech. I also completely understand freedom of expression. I also completely understand the Right to
Protest.
Therefore, I have no problem with the Far Left individuals who protested the war in Washington this past
week.
Here’s what I do have a problem with, during the protest, one of the "activists" spit on an American soldier.
What is the problem that the Far left has with the American military. After all, if it wasn't for the U.S military, Jane Fonda,
Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins couldn't say the things that they said at the "protest."
The protesters
said, "The war in Iraq is illegal and immoral." That is nonsense, at least the illegal part. After the Persian Gulf War ended
in '91, Saddam signed a UN ceasefire agreement. Then, he promptly violated the agreement 17 times. The agreement, among other
things, made Saddam let UN weapons inspectors come into Iraq, to, you guessed it, inspect weapons. Saddam kicked the UN inspectors
out of the country. That is just part of the treaty violations that happened under Saddam. When asked by a reporter from the
Fox News Channel, "And some are concerned that [Iran] might develop nuclear weapons. How do you think we could handle that
kind of a situation?" Sean Penn replied, "By understanding that they're concerned that we've already developed nuclear weapons.
And by talking to them having not defied the United Nations ourselves."
When Jane Fonda was asked, "What do you think
about what happened to the three million Vietnamese and Cambodians who died after the U.S. troops left Vietnam?” Fonda
replied, "It's too bad that we caused it to happen by going in there in the first place."
There we go. Jane Fonda
blames us, the United States of America, for the North Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge killing 3 million people after the Vietnam
War. Its our fault. We're a bad country. She believes the same thing about our role in "the illegal and immoral War in Iraq."
When a reporter asked Tim Robbins what would happen if Iran took over part of Iraq, Robbins dodged the question and
said this, "You seem to have some kind of support for the war. You're pretty young guy. So maybe you should enlist."
If
the far left had a clue, it just might be dangerous.
Here's the final word. I'm okay with it if you want to protest
the war. That’s a valid point. But, don't you EVER disrespect our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan who are dying
for the country that they love, that I love, and that you seem to hate. They are the best and brightest in this country. Leave
them alone. If you want to take potshots at politicians, be my guest, but leave the troops alone.
www.YodasWorld.org
Trouble in Vermont
By: Neal
Pierson
January 29, 2007
There is a troubling sexual assault
case in Vermont. But, if you've watched The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel within the past year, you'd know that
this is nothing knew. Last year, District Judge Edward Cashman handed out a Sixty-day sentence to a man, Mark Hulett, who,
for 4 years, raped a little 6 year old girl, who he was babysitting. Hulett ruined the girl’s life, and Cashman gave
him SIXTY DAYS IN JAIL. can you believe this? The little girls niece said this at the trial, "The thought of my niece enduring
years of sexual abuse sickens me. For four years she was a prisoner in her own home. For four years she had to fear going
to bed at night.
She's already developed behavioral problems that help to alienate herself from her peers...When she
is an adult, she won't be able to reminisce about her first kiss and experience the laughter and joy that should come with
that memory. For her, the thought of her first kiss will probably evoke pain and anger. Her first kiss should not have been
shared with some pervert."
This strategy of giving light sentences to Child Molesters and other criminals isn't a
one time deal. Hell, there's even a name for it, Restorative Justice. This means that the offender gets let off easily, so
that he/she can undergo therapy and other treatment. These predators can't be healed, because they don't have a disease, they
are sick sick people who need to rot in jail.
But I'm reminiscing too much. That case is over with, Cashman has retired,
and Hulett has been put in jail for much longer than 60 days, but not too much. he got 3 to 10 years in jail, but he'll probably
be out in 3.
So, this year we have a new case in Vermont, a case that is very similar. Here is the story:
This
time the victim is a 4-year-old boy. He was molested by 37-year-old Andrew James. James has 2 previous assault beefs; one
is a felony that involves him attacking his wife in front of his children, with a screwdriver. And how much time is James
doing in the big house you may ask? If you said Sixty days you'd be dead wrong. If you said none, you'd be exactly right.
The judge in this case, David Howard, sentenced James to probation so he could get treatment. Restorative Justice strikes
again. When Fox News' Bill O'Reilly sent his producer to talk to the Judge, the judge dodged him.
The local newspaper
in the Vermont town, Manchester, where this case is taking place, did not originally report the story. Bill O'Reilly said
this on January 16, "The local newspaper, The Bennington Banner, is in the tank for the prosecution..." O’Reilly’s
sent his producer to talk to the editor of the paper, to dig some dirt up. The editor, like the judge, dodged Jesse Watters,
O'Reilly’s producer.
You may notice that I've talked a lot about Bill O’Reilly today. Well, my reason
for that is that, he is pretty much the only person who reports stuff like this. There are a few other personalities on Fox
news Channel who report these cases, but that’s pretty much it. I've not heard, read, or seen any other news agency
reporting this case, or anything like it. Why? Who knows? But if someone does report this case, they'll be attacked viciously.
Here are some examples of how O’Reilly has been attacked since reporting this troubling case:
1. The Times Argus
newspaper said, "Another year, another national condemnation of Vermont by right-wing cable talk show host Bill O'Reilly...
O'Reilly... called for a national boycott of Vermont." This is a lie. O’Reilly never called for a boycott, because lots
of innocent people would be hurt by it.
2. The Bennington Banner, said this, "Everyone in the news business knows
O'Reilly's reputation for slanting, smearing and sensationalizing."
After O’Reilly criticized Judge Cashman
in the previously mentioned case, The Brattleboro Reformer called O’Reilly "a demagogue." They also called Cashman,
"One Tough Judge" in the headline.
So, my final thoughts are directed to the rest of the media: Start reporting these
horrific cases. Start standing for something. Start bringing justice to Vermont, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and every other
state that has big problems like this.
www.YodasWorld.org
President Bush's New Iraq Strategy
By: Neal Pierson
January 15, 2007
As you probably know, President
Bush announced on Wednesday that he plans to send 21,000+ more U.S troops over to Iraq. 17,000 will go to Baghdad, while 4,000
will go to the Anbar Province. Of course, the American people are upset that this war has gone so badly for the U.S. they
have every right to be upset. But as for me, I’ll give the President another chance to improve the situation in the
troubled nation of Iraq. But I don't expect the majority of the American people to agree with me. That is understandable.
Things have gone horribly in that country. going back, I wish we hadn't gone there in the first place. But now that we're
there, we have to finish the job, and accept the consequences. Here is my analysis of the situation:
I think it’s
going to take another 9/11 (thousands more dead in the streets) in order for the American people/the media to take terrorism
seriously. Of course, I don't want another terrorist attack on us, that’s exactly what I think we need to avoid. But
that’s what it’s going to take.
There is an argument to be made that history repeats itself. After the
attack on Pearl Harbor during WWII, the American people were angry, enlistment was way up, and we trained our military for
6 months, then went over to Europe/Asia, and kicked the Nazi/Japanese asses. We ripped them up, destroyed them. Know why?
Because we were angry. We were mad that the Japanese had killed all of those people at Pearl Harbor.
Why don't we
see people more angry about what happened on 9/11. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were, in many ways, much worse. 3,000 innocent
people (or, "Little Eichmanns" if you're Ward Churchill) were slaughtered in three different places all over the country.
The people killed during the attack on Pearl Harbor were mostly military personnel, while 9/11 killed mostly civilians.
If
we could return to the mentality we had right after 9/11, or even after Pearl Harbor, no one, not Iran, not Syria, not North
Korea, not even Russia and China, could stop us. After 9/11 every American felt hurt, afraid, angry, frustrated. We knew that
something horrible had happened to us, and we didn't know why. We were united. If we could stay that way, we'd crush the terrorists,
Iran, and North Korea.
www.YodasWorld.org
|
