Paint it Prim: Miranda Lambert- Beckley, West Virginia (2010)

Source:Pain It Prim- Country Baby Miranda Lambert, in Beckley, West Virginia, in 2010.

"Miranda Lambert at Beckley WV" 

From Paint it Prim

Miranda Lambert is one of my favorite country girls because of her attitude and style. She's a no nonsense (to put it nicely) woman who always keeps it real and never afraid to let everyone know what she's thinking and how she's feeling. Miranda also has a presence both physical and otherwise is impossible to ignore. She's a sexier Jessica Simpson as far as body with the great curves and perhaps just as adorable and even immature. They both have a tendency to come off as somewhat childish (to put it lightly) and their high pitch voice and baby faces, just adds to that. 

Miranda is a beautiful, baby-faced, adorable country girl from Texas, who represents that lifestyle as well as it can be done. A skin-tight jeans and cowgirl boots girl, who loves tank tops and tight t-shirts as well. Sort of like the Daisy Duke (played by the great Catherine Bach) of the Millennial Generation. And even has a style of music that I can follow combining classic rock with her country and at the very least giving her a country rock, if not full rock sound. 

You can also see this post at The Action Blog, on Blogger.

Liberty Pen: 'PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry'

Source:Liberty Pen- welcome to America.

"Americans do not have a right to not be offended. They do have a right to free speech. Jackie Mason. Liberty Pen." 

Source:Liberty Pen 

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

Source:Real Life Journal- I believe that's Ally MacGraw from Love Story.

From Paper Rosesx

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. 

Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.

So-called PC Warriors also believe that if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose (like right-wingers) well, thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth. So it's not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly: freedom of speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.

The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common: they tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot, by the New-Left in America.

The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will loose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Reason Magazine: 'LA to Pet Stores: You Can't Sell Animals Unless They're Rescued'

Source:Reason Magazine- a local Los Angeles TV newscast talking about pet mills.

"Washington DC might pull a Bloomberg (as in soda ban) and Florida officials have put the kibosh on the latest in kiddie shindigs (alligator pool parties). But top dishonors come from the City of Angels. 

The once mighty city now teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. It suffers from double-digit unemployment, awful schools, ridiculously bad traffic, and ambulances that have a deadly, decades-long habit of showing up late. Yet city officials never fail to find new ways to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The latest example: banning pet stores from selling cats, dogs or rabbits that come from breeders. We all want more pets to be adopted, but c'mon LA. 

This month we highlight the councilman who spearheaded the effort that will almost certainly make Los Angeles the largest US city to command its pet store owners to sell only rescue animals. 

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month: Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz!" 

From Reason Magazine

You would think with double digit unemployment, that Los Angeles would be looking to increase business and unemployment, rather than restricting how pet stores make money. I believe this is an example of why California and perhaps Los Angeles as well, being the largest city and metropolitan are in the state, is behind the national average when it comes to job creation and business creation, because they say no to new business's because they don't exactly like what they do, or how they run business's. 

So-called pet farms that should be shut down. Places that abuses animals and potential pets and are essentially animal concentration camps. But telling pet stores that they can't sell animals, animals that would otherwise end up at the pound, or going to some concentration camp, or being put to sleep, is not the way to go. 

When you have regulations like this you might as well put a sign up in your city that say: 

"Closed for business! We don't want your business and jobs here. We rather be on Welfare instead! A pleasure not doing business with you.

The Objective Standard: Craig Biddle- 'Is Objectivism a Cult?'

Source:The Objective Standard- Craig Biddle speaking on Ayn Rand's objectivism.

Source:FreeState Now 

"Craig Biddle addresses the question, "If an Objectivist is someone who accepts Ayn Rand's entire philosophy as true, how is Objectivism different from a cult?" In answering, Biddle discusses the essence of Objectivism, the nature of a cult, and the absurdity of positing that the former has anything to do with the latter. 

To explore more of these ideas visit:The Objective Standard." 

From The Objective Standard

I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. 

Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.

Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that: "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, then somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.

So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives (who are actually Socialists) will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. 

Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems.

Sky News: Cesar Millan- 'Dog Whisperer, Rejects Cruelty Claims'

Source:Sky News- Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan.

"Dog whisperer Cesar Millan has defended himself against claims that he is cruel to animals.

The allegations were made recently in a TV interview with presenter Alan Titchmarsh after tweeting animal-lover critics said the Mexican-born trainer used violence and even electric shocks to train the dogs.

But, Millan told Sky News, he made physical contact with the dog to distract the dog from the action it was about to take - for instance, stop the dog from going into fighting mode." 

Source:Sky News

Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them, before they will open up to you and trust you. And once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. 

I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.

He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all, she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in and teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. 

It's hard to imagine someone like Cesar Millan as a bullshit artist, who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.

Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around when your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. 

I have a hard time believing that someone like Cesar Millan, who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Review, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Henry Hanrahan: ‘The 100 Greatest Movie Insults of All Time’

Source:Method Shop- I hope you get the point of this post. Otherwise you are going to have to answer to the Sergeant.

“As you might have guessed from its title, “The 100 Best Movie Insults of All Time” is a video montage of the greatest movie insults. It was made by an evil genius named Harry Hanrahan. Check out his YouTube page when you get a sec and watch this clip of the best movie insults when the kids are not around! Also, it’s definitely NSFW.”

From Method Shop

"The 100 Greatest Film Insults of All Time"

Source:Carl Barter- Paul Gleason, in the great comedy The Breakfast Club from 1985. Speaking of greatest insults: that movie has a lot of the best insults ever. RIP

From Carl Barter

What I get out of this video, is that we shouldn’t beat around the bush. If we are really pissed at someone or see them as complete losers and don’t give a damn about what they think, we should simply just tell them: “don’t beat around the bush, tell them what you really think”.

I’m perfectly cool with that, the only thing is I tend to go out-of-my-way not to be around people I see as complete assholes or morons. Call me crazy, but I don’t like hanging out with assholes or morons. I know more than I care to admit to and I tend to want to be at least a zip code away from them so I don’t have to admit that I actually know that person. Like if I’m ever under oath having to testify about their latest boneheaded screwup.

Now, if I just happen to be around an asshole who thinks they are as big and great as Godzilla, even though a baby could step on them and they get in my face and we have a little argument, by all means I’ll more than defend myself especially verbally, if simply laughing at them and trying to move on doesn’t work. There are times that assholes need to know what they are, if anything to give them incentive not get into someone else’s face in the future and bring a squirt gun to a machine gun fight. And I’m talking about real machine guns with real bullets, not a water machine gun.

Insults obviously have their place in life and without them some people would have no idea about big of a loser or asshole they are. Because they would never get it anyway and need that light to go off in their head and to get the point that they have serious flaws that need to be addressed. My issue is how you go about insulting someone. Do you bring yourself down to the level of the asshole that you’re putting down, or do you actually put some thought into how you critique that person.

Do you tell the asshole:”holy shit, you’re a fucking moron!” Or do you put some thought like: “I would call you a fucking moron, but that would be an insult to fucking morons”. And there was a similar line like that in this video.

Also swearing, if you have to swear to put someone down, you’re probably not much better off than the person you’re putting down. I realize how popular cussing and swearing is today and I get that and use it myself, but mostly when I’m pissed or shocked about something. Something like: “holy shit! The Washington Redskins actually won a game”. If you are familiar with 2012 Redskins, or the Redskins in recent years, you know winning is like a holiday for them. It doesn’t happen that often and sometimes they even go months without winning.

I like put downs or insults that come with thought. I mean if you were to call me an asshole, mother fucker, go down the line, the most you’ll get from me is a smirk, because I’m probably laughing about the brain cramp you just had coming up with that.

If you’re going to call someone stupid, give them an example of how stupid they are. “When God was passing out the brains, it was your day off, so you didn’t get one. Or he passed on you, because he didn’t think you were worth the effort or would try to sell your own brain”. You want to put me down or impress me with an insult, then impress and put some real thought into what you are trying to say. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

News Beat: Mitt Romney- 'Jokes & One Liners at Al Smith Dinner- With Barack Obama'

SourceNews Beat- Governor Mitt Romney, speaking at the 2012 Al Smith Dinner.

"Mitt Romney, Barack Obama to trade jabs at Al Smith dinner

 The two presidential candidates took a break from the caustic criticism of the campaign trail to score political points with biting humor last night in New York City."

Source:News Beat

I guess going casual for Mitt Romney is not wearing a tuxedo, or a tuxedo that he personally owns. Perhaps Mitt takes his tie off before going to sleep and just sleeps in his slacks and sport coat. Mitt during the Republican primaries in the winter and spring this year of course had this reputation as being too stiff and too formal. So he sort of overcompensated and started wearing what young cool people call mamas jean. Which are somewhat baggy denim jeans that you might see your grandmother wearing around the house. Men, good-looking like in Mitt's case or not so good-looking, look horrible in baggy jeans.

Baggy jeans or mamas jeans, would be like country music singer wearing bandanna and a LA Raiders cap at a country music festival. It just doesn't seem right. If you're going to wear jeans especially denim jeans, they should fit you and you should fill them out. But Mitt doesn't have to worry about fitting in at an event like the Al Smith Dinner where all the men there probably own their tuxedos and perhaps even go to bed in them. Mitt is right at home where he belongs at an event like this. But at a sports bar in Cleveland or some place, he would probably look like the astronaut who landed on Mars by accident and had no idea where he was.