It a sick, sad world...

The Hurricane Katrina situation is depressing, difficult and pretty scary. I sincerely hope that those who are out there are able to receive help as soon as possible. For many, it seems that there isn't enough help to go around. My second thought was that maybe politics would be put on hold, differences would be set aside and everyone would pitch in to get those people the heck outta there before more tragedies occur.

I'm tellin' ya, being dead wrong sucks.

I mean, despite this, you still have your morons pointing fingers, exploiting criminals as victims and then not even lift a finger to help. Now, from my stand point, I see many liberals pointing at Bush. From what I know, his mutant power isn't controlling the weather. Unless you're going to tell me he was discharged from the X-men for disorderly conduct. Now, you have A LOT of people say, "If they were white, they would have sent help faster."

Oh, shut the hell up. You "Life is a chess game, kill whitey" people are really starting to get on my LAST nerve. I saw some guy (I didn't care to get his name since he came of like a bloomin' moron) on the Bill O' Riley show a couple nights ago trying to explain how racist the disaster situation was. The thing is, if you're gonna say that the government is racist, then prove it. I mean HARD evidence. Like a video tape with Bush saying, "New Orleans? That nigger town, right? Let 'em drown for a couple days!"

That brings me to what Jade said in the previous post. Kanyae West, was an okay guy until he blurted out "Bush doesn't care about black people" at the WRONG FUGGIN' TIME. Now, in my book, he's no better than 50 Cent (garbage). He's still okay to me as a rapper, but as a person, I just can't respect him anymore.

Okay, back on track!

Okay, looters. Now here's the dealy-o. Not all looters are bad. Some did indeed steal to get the items they needed to survive (food, medicine, etc.). Now, a 32-inch Plasma TV isn't exactly a part of your balanced breakfast. Now, from the articles I've read, there were ARMED looters going around, stealing from people's homes and businesses that were yet to be under water.

Imagine you live in New Orleans and your house is still on land for the time being. You go back home to save whatever you can take without to find strangers telling you to get out of your own house all while waving guns in your face. Not a pretty picture, is it?

"They're getting back at society." My house isn't society. My store isn't society. What the hell does my property have to do with YOUR problem with society? Hell, most problems a lot of those people have with society is that they don't get free rides. Not all of them, though. Of course, the ones with LEGITIMATE reasons against society usually don't go on larceny rampages during TIMES OF CRISIS.

So I hear a lot of people complaining about how bad a job everyone's doing with the rescue....yet offer no help. If you're gonna complain, DO SOMETHING! Get up and donate to disaster funds, or even go there yourself and see what you can do to help. These people are doing the best they can and from what I've seen, they're short handed. If you've got time to blame people, you've got time to at least donate to a disaster fund.

Listen, folks. It's time to cut the racism and the "Bush is evil" b.s. It doesn't matter. People are dying and you're spending your time trying to bash Bush and other people who are actually DOWN THERE. I know someone's gonna try to be a wise ass and say "I donated and this is all Bush's fault , yada, yada, yada." Either way, that ISN'T the point. Spend a little less time bashing and a little more time helping. You'll have plenty of time for your finger pointing bull after we get through this crisis.

Next time on X-men, George, codename 'Dubbya', quits the team to become a politician.

Hurricane Katrina Curry

My heart goes out to all of the victims of Katrina, especially the children. Some family members of my grandfather and members of my boyfriend's family were hit by this massive disaster. A lot of Katrina's victims have lost their livelihood as they know it, the place they called home and for both adults and children, family, friends and their lives. But as I sit here and continue to look at the news unfolding about and around the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, thoughts just keep coming up...

"Mandatory" Evaculation: man·da·to·ry (adj.) - Required or commanded by authority; obligatory, Of, having the nature of, or containing a mandate, Holding a League of Nations mandate over a territory. Why would you tell your people that the evacuation is "mandatory" and then follow up with, "but you don't have to if you don't want to..."? THAT IS NOT MANDATORY. Now after the hurricane they get the term.

"Refugee": ref·u·gee (n.) - One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution. Not properly used to describe the people of New Orleans. I like Michael King's term... survivors.

Who is to blame: Who is to blame? Is it Nagin for not getting his people out with that ample transportation sitting in the parking lot? Is it Blanco for being wishy washy in her decisions about the Katrina situation? Is it Bush for just being Bush? Is it FEMA for not getting there just that minute? Hey, some people are even blaming God! ...Right... Oh yeah. I didn't know the Republicans had a hurricane making machine. I wanna use it! I've talked with people who believe Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Insert Democratic person here would have done better than President Bush in his handling of the Katrina situation. Well, we'll never know will we?

NAACP and the CBC: Have they set up anything for Katrina survivors yet? (Wait! I see the NAACP has a Disaster Relief Fund) Aw, screw it, I'd rather give to my pastor's ministry anyway. ;)

RACE CARD!: I swear this should be a "Yu-Gi-Oh" or "Magic the Gathering" card. Do you know I heard someone actually excuse the black looters (there were white looters too) by saying that they had a right to loot because they were oppressed and they were getting back at society? I can understand the looting of food and water, and even shoes after talking to my mother, but big screen tv's, i-pods, computers, and jewelry? Would the rescue efforts have had been different had it been a place like Boston? If Boston's mayor and Massachusetts' governor weren't flakey like Louisana's, maybe. Everyone who should have been organized was VERY DISORGANIZED (black and white). I'll just say one thing. The poor (whatever color) got SCREWED, but it still doesn't excuse them from bad behavior.

Kanye West: Why is it people I have even a little bit of respect for (and I do mean little) decided to kill it at the WRONG TIME. If he would have said his "President Bush doesn't care about black people" line in a song or on his own time, I would have not had a problem with it. But to do it during a televised benefit for the hurricane survivors irks the living mess out of me. Leave your angry politcial opinions out of an event that doesn't call for them.

CNN: I don't watch CNN. No, let me correct myself, I RARELY WATCH CNN. I watch every other cable news station except for CNN. My friend watched CNN during the Pope's last days and my mom watched CNN during the first days of Katrina news. My friend was horribly offended and my mom kept wondering why it seemed CNN was showing blacks as just looters.

Planned Parenthood: I already don't like you. I doubt the first thing on ANY female Katrina survivor's mind was, "Gee, I need some morning after pills!" How about giving out food, water or other supplies? How wrong timey can you be? You did this during 9/11 too. I'm happy to say my Godmother threw your petition packet you sent her in the mail in the trash. You are as unbelievable as PETA and the ACLU.

The Far Left: You have problems.

'Cuz we don't feel like being parents.

The other day, I was watching X-play on G4 and they were discussing the GTA San Andreas game's "Hot Coffie" patch that apparently allows the player to have semi-detailed sex. This is only the PC version, btw. Because of this, parents and other groups against the game want it off the shelf because it's a bad influence on children. I guess it would be understable if it was a game for children. The same parent who complained that the games need to be rated are the same ones complaining about sexually explicit scenes in games. Now, if you went out and bought your 9-year-old the game because you just can't say no, then blame yourself. The raiting is right on the game. You know, the black and white logo that says "MA- Mature"? Yeah, it means it's not for kids.

Now, now my problem is that most parents only have problems with the sexual situations in GTA game series. Not the fact that you kill policemen, innocent people, steal cars, sell drugs, break into people's homes, and eventually even rumble with the army, all while gaining points for commiting these crimes. I have the game myself, but I wouldn't dare sit a 7-year-old child down to play it. Why? The game case clearly states this game ISN'T for children. Unfortunately, mos parents do the opposite. They simply by the game at the child's request without even looking into it, then complain about the content later.

However, it's no problem for them to let their children watch rated "R" movies where people get mutilated, shot and blown to kingdom come. Not to mention the sexual situations in those. That's just fine, but when it shows up in video games that aren't even meant for children, there's suddenly a game banning party at the angriest parent's house. That's an awful lot of hell to raise just because you don't check what you buy for your kids.

Gun control...A big joke with no punch line.

The NRA is evil!

The NRA promotes violence!

The NRA is for murder!

If you nodded in agreement to any of those, then I suggest kicking back and relaxing with a tall, cool glass of "Shut yer stinkin', rotten, lethal breath pie hole" and keep reading. You might learn something. If not, then maybe ignorance truly is bliss.

Now, I am 100% against gun control. Why? Because I'm a gun nut? Because I watch nothing but action movies where people shoot each other and blow things up? Or maybe because I wanna keep criminals the hell away from my private property. I'll let you decide on which reason makes more sense.

Now, the fact of the matter is there are two kinds of guns in America. Legal and illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but law abiding citizens have the right to purchase these legal guns as long as their background checks out, unless some gun shop owner decides to break the rules. As for illegal guns, criminals buy and sell them on the streets. Most street shootings are committed by these illegal and unregistered firearms. Why? Because criminals know that a registered firearm can be traced back to them.

Now many citizens on the right side of the law own guns. For sport or for protection, they have them in their home. Now, people argue for gun control because kids could find the gun, play with it and seriously injure themselves, or even worse. Well, that's really not the fault of guns as much as it is BAD PARENTING. Why would you leave your gun where little Billy could find it and blow his little brains out? And also, why wouldn't you teach him about gun safety so if he DID find it, he'd think, "Oh, a gun. Daddy explained why this is very dangerous. I'll go play video games now."

And, yes, I understand that some kids just don't follow the rules and might do this anyway. This goes back to parenting. If you knew your child well enough, you'd know whether or not you should leave them by themselves, especially if you have a gun in the house. And from what I've seen, parents who DO have guns in the house take these kind of precautions. That's not a good reason to enforce gun control. That whole "protect people from themselves" theme came and went with the "I Robot" story plot.

Then, they attack the constitution with "The right to bare arms was just for times of civil war". Then why is it seen as valid by the government? Why can I purchase a handgun and it be perfectly legal to have it on my person as long as I have a license? Why is Smith & Wesson still in business? Why are you being a moron? Why? For the love of all that is decent, tell me why! Ahem. Sorry, I get carried away. Anyway, that's another argument destroyed.

Hmm, the next argument is that a gun owner is more likely to injure him/herself than an intruder. Not with practice on how to use it properly. A gun law that I DO think should be passed would be that people who purchase firearms without backgrounds in using them should be required to take a class on gun safety before they can receive the weapon. That would prevent the owner from "injuring his/herself". Funny how simple these problems are to solve, isn't it?

My next point, let's say gun control laws are passed and they make next to impossible for a person to legally buy a gun. Crime will rise significantly. Why? Because when criminals with their illegal guns come for you, they don't have to worry about you returning fire because the law took your legal guns away. Now lay down on the floor as your property is stolen and remember to thank your gun control laws. Sure, you can install a security system, but there are people who know how to get around them due to some actually being former employees of security system companies. It makes more sense to pull out a legally purchased .45 and say "Leave, or leave a corpse. Your choice." I don't think they'd want to try again if that were to happen. Same thing if you were being robbed on the street. The moral of this story is that criminals will NOT obey the gun control laws, if they are passed all over America. All it will do is give them an advantage.

As for in-house safety, it's all a matter of taking responsibility. If you know that your children are liable to play with things they are not supposed to, teach them, let them know, or just don't leave them at home alone at all. Simple. Well, that's all for now.

Now, to find an NRA application....

Take that, you home wrecking scumbags!

Get ready, folks. Following up on Jade's previous post, I bring you supreme irony.

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land. (Read the rest here: http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html)

That's right, peoples. There's a guy seeking justice against Justice Souter. Logan Darrow Clements is his name. I actually saw him doing an interview on television last night and he assured the public that this is far from a prank. He plans on using the eminent domain ruling against one of the justices, David H. Souter, who voted for such a ridiculous thing. So far, I've yet to here of any reactions or comments from Souter, but if he tries to fight it, we'll see how much of a hypocrite he is. I have a feeling it will turn out that way.

Now, as far as the ruling goes, I believe, like everyone else, that this is complete and utter bull. I, myself, hope to build my own house one day. They're basically saying that if I buy the land and build my house for my future family, the government can just come by and say, "We need your land. Here's a hundred bucks, start packing. Let's be honest, sometimes there isn't a large enough amount of money that can compensate for a house with deep emotional value. Some homes have been in families for decades, but they are still at risk of being taken away. Not because of behind mortgage payments, but because someone thinks it would be a great place for a shopping mall.

Um, no. If I built my house, spending massive time, effort and money to do so, I'll be damned if some rich government flunky knocks on my door and tells me I have to leave so they can tear it down. Hell, no. Unless you plan on bombing my house with me still in it, no dice. I believe you know what you can do with you mall, pal. And that's my opinion.

Now, back to the Souter vs. Clements case. All I can say is, GO, CLEMENTS, GO! I sincerely hope that others follow his lead and do the same to the other left-winged justices who voted for this crap. Or better yet, Clements could open up a chain conveniently located over the homes of the other justices. That would be, as Peter Griffin would put it, "frickin' sweet".

WHAT...THE...HECK?!

I'm over at Rambling's Journal, seeing what new stuff is up and I come across THIS entry and THIS article.

I have one thing to ask. What the HECK are Supreme Court Justices Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer smoking?! Now my city or town can swipe my land (and both sides of my family have land that's been with them for generations) and put a MALL or a HOTEL there?!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

You may think you know what's going on in Iraq...

...but these guys really do.

From their site:

THE ALBUM

THE MUSIC EVENT OF A LIFETIME... A year in the making, this album speaks to everything we have seen and been thru as soldiers... Written and recorded in BAGHDAD, IRAQ this is all that we have and continue to endeaur. The reality of a country at war.

And no, this album is not the bullshit answers to the questions you've seen us asked by the media. This is not someone that only parades around Iraq pretending to know whats going on and speaking on the behalf of soldiers whom he knows nothing about. LIVE FROM IRAQ is everything they dont want you to hear... heard. This is what soldiers who have stood beside
their friends as they fell really think about everything thats happening here... what we'll never be allowed to say on camera, or to the press... LIVE FROM IRAQ is the TRUTH .

I'm not a big fan of rap...but this actually interests me...

Hurray For Traditional Women :)

A post by LaShawn Barber today got me thinking. The post in mention talks about her being a “traditional woman” who would love to be married and taking care of her husband and (in the words of Dr. Laura) being her kids’ mom, but at the moment can’t. Some of the response posts got me thinking again about my school’s newspaper article a while back and a night I experienced not too long ago.

About two years ago, my school newspaper, The Spokesman, ran an article on how chivalry is dead. Men on the campus no longer held doors for girls or gave up their seats on crowded shuttles. Some girls were upset over it and some guys were either like “anytime I do that, they give me a mean look” or “tough cookies, get over it.” If I never had read the article I would have never known it was happening on my campus. There have only been rare (and I do mean rare) occasions when a guy on my Alma Mata’s campus wouldn’t hold the door for me. I would usually follow this with a thank you and if there happened to be another set of doors, hold them for him. This usually got me a chuckle from said guy or a “no, no,” and another door being held for me. Even off campus, when I am at the mall or wherever there is a high volume of traffic, if there is a man in front of me (besides my boyfriend), he is more than likely to hold the door for me. The shuttle is trickier, however, since as the years went by, the less I got on them. Most times I got on it, there were ample seats available, so there was no need for seats being given up. I do remember one time after the article came out, however, one guy did give me his seat on one of my school’s crowded shuttles. I thanked him and accepted his offer.

A semester or two ago, my sorority had a forum on “manners”. The presentation included the usual table manners and manners when doing certain other things. Somehow it got into the manners between the opposite sex, like chivalry, who pays for dinner, yatta yatta… Imagine my shock when my sorors were all around me, bemoaning the fact that things are not like they used to be. I wanted to stand up and say (being that my line name is “Amplifier” I probably would have said this very loudly), “Well, that’s feminism for you.” One of my sisters talked about how she thought that men who held doors wanted something and that she always had to nag her boyfriend to do something for her. The power of please goes a long way, ladies. Oh, I’ve nagged to my boyfriend before (many, many times -_-), but then I told myself one day, “You know what? I am his girlfriend, not his mother.” Once you realize that (“I am his wife, not his mother” for the marrieds out there), things get much better and easier. It was amazing to sit there in that room, with all these people and be (seemingly) the only one who wasn’t being treated or treating others like a feminist.

Chivalry isn’t dead. It’s just playing hide and seek.