Just as I was putting the finishing touches on my last “blort,” Virginia Heffernan was actually posting the very retraction I was requesting (about her insanely flawed article about Ron Paul).  The correction itself is pretty weak if you ask me.  She concedes to the journalistic error of posting information without first verifying it, but never really makes much of an effort to apologize for the damage that was done.  She also failed to even address the video that she had included in the original post…instead, only removing it.

Oh well…

This is the kind of crap we can expect to happen more and more as Ron Paul’s numbers keep rising.  After all, the media has reached a point where it can no longer ignore him.  Being cowards, they’ve chosen not to engage him in intellectual arguments, instead painting him as some kind of kook.

The current favorite slander seems to be the implication of racism.  Take the CNN political ticker for example:

When a self proclaimed Neo-Nazi decided to donate $500 to Ron Paul, the media decided that Ron Paul was being unethical by not returning the money!  The Nazi in question admits that Ron Paul is not a racist, but claims to support him because of his stance on “tight borders and opposition to a police state.”  This isn’t good enough for the media, though.  They’d prefer to turn this non-issue into a chance to post a scary low-light picture of Ron Paul under the sensationalist headline, “Paul to keep donation from white supremacist.”  I suppose CNN thinks that Ron Paul should spend his time researching his hundreds of thousands of donations to make sure that none of those people are assholes, too?  I suppose they also think that $500 would be better used by a Nazi than by the peace loving Ron Paul?

Next up was a very important issue for election-goers this year:  The Civil War.  Wait…what?  Why the civil war you ask?  Basically, the host of Meet the Press knew that he couldn’t debate Ron Paul on actual issues, because Paul would win.  Instead, he paraded out a laundry list of (seemingly strange on the surface) one-line Paul quotes from the 80s.  One such short quote was about Ron Paul’s view that the Civil War wasn’t necessary to stop slavery.  When asked about this view, Paul presented some very good points.  He mentioned that every other country in the world abolished slavery before the United States did without ever resorting to civil war.  He also outlined the way that some of these countries did so.  At one point, amid being badgered by an abusive interviewer, Paul even managed to allude to the fact that the Civil War wasn’t even about slavery anyway, and was more about Lincoln trying to keep the union together under his power.  How does CNN decide to sum up his argument about such a complex issue?

“Paul also contended that [..] the United States would have gotten rid of slavery eventually.”

Eventually?  Ron Paul simply contended that there were probably better ways to solve the problem than by killing 600,000 people in a war that wasn’t really about slavery anyway.  He never once said that slavery would simply go away “eventually.”  I don’t believe he even used that word.

Fuck it, though.  It’s not like much of this matters anymore.  People no longer take everything the news says at face value.  I don’t think I know a single person that trusts the media these days.

It will be interesting to see what happens when Paul takes Iowa next week.  A win there is going to force these assholes to actually give him some decent coverage.

As a follow-up to my post yesterday concerning the New York Times and its “Ron Paul and his supporters are Nazis” article…I’d like to present just a few more facts about the incident:

1. The New York Times left the article up for an entire 24-hour period without approving a single comment (all of which were left unseen due to a “moderation” queue).
2. Shortly after they finally decided to start moderating and showing comments, the article was pulled from the front page of the “blog” as well as the list of “recent articles by Virginia Heffernan.”  It’s almost as if the article never existed!  Well…if you ignore the damage it had already done, and the fact that it can still be accessed through its permanent link.
3. I’ve personally skimmed through more than 200 comments, and with only one exception, they all  seemed intent on disputing the lies presented by the article.  Heffernan’s smear essentially created over 27,000 words in response that her readers will probably never have access to!

So, what we really have here is an established and (for some reason) trusted media outlet that prints complete lies for all to read…then removes the article once they’ve finally decided to allow intelligent voices to respond?

I understand that Virginia Heffernan is nothing more than a fluff artist who is better suited weighing the merits of “LonelyGirl15″ against something called “Smosh,” but this seems like a real low even for her.  If the article was decided to be so inaccurate that it warranted removal from public view…where is the retraction?

I’m going to be sending an e-mail requesting this correction.  Any similar requests or respectful demands can be sent to public@nytimes.com.

No…those aren’t just a collection of words thrown together for no reason.  Some clothing designer in Japan actually created a skirt that transforms into the appearance of a soda machine.  The idea is that a woman who is being stalked can easily hide from her potential attacker.

I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure I could figure out which vending machine to rape in this picture…

…apparently!  Or…at least that’s what this New York Times “journalist” claims:

 The Ron Paul Vid-Lash (whatever that means…)

In this “blog” entry, Virginia Heffernan regurgitates a bunch of lies and inaccuracies that she found from some other ”blog.”  She then ends the story with a YouTube video showing around 8 Neo-Nazis who happened to attend the huge Philadelphia rally.  The implication of the article is that all Ron Paul supporters are racist Neo-Nazis…which I assume includes me.  I wish someone would have told me sooner that I was supporting Hitler for this year’s election!

Since the comment I left them will most certainly be lost amongst the (currently) 93 other comments, I’ve decided to repost my response here:

Thank you so much for this article.  I’m glad that someone finally brought attention to this important issue.  Keep up the good work.

Now, that’s how people react to good journalism.  You might have noticed the 90-plus comments above, and not one of them had anything positive to say about your ridiculous article.

Let’s do some simple math.  You’re spreading a video that shows about 8 racists who attended a rally of 5,000.  Because of this video, you contend that all Ron Paul supporters are Nazis?

Really?  That’s only .16% of the crowd you’ve accounted for.

By your incredibly flawed logic, I only have to prove that 120 racists attended Superbowl XLI, before I can claim that everyone in that stadium (especially the teams playing) were Nazis.

I, for one, will never read anything presented by the New York Times again, as I do not particularly appreciate being called a Nazi.  Please, quit your day-job.

People are now making a big stink about a new Huckabee ad that’s been playing in Iowa. They claim that a bookshelf in the background kind of looks like a cross and was therefore intentionally placed as a subliminal message. While I wouldn’t put it past him, I’m not sure I believe the hoopla. Of course, I don’t really see why that would be any worse than the actual content of the message, anyway. Is a psuedo-cross really worse than him flat-out praising Christ in his political message? Also in the ad, Huckabee muses that people must be sick and tired of political advertisements, so instead…here’s a Christmas greeting.

The obvious unspoken post-script reads, “By the way, vote for me…the Christian.”

Here’s the video. Watch how many times this guy blinks. I counted 39:

On December 6th, 2007, at 4:52 AM, someone accessed my site from the ip address 194.83.96.20.  They found the site through a Google search of the phrase:

“how to kill someone without getting caught”

Step one…leave less records of your search for this information.

I read an article on CNN the other day about a new invention for the funeral industry.  They essentially describe it as a “high-tech, weatherproof [scrapbook], with digital images powered by a solar cell.”  That’s right.  It’s a little solar powered 7″ video screen that people can watch slide-shows or videos on…all from the comfort of their loved one’s tombstone!

Of course, those offering these idiotic devices admit to having trouble making sales.  Some of them haven’t even unloaded a single one.  In case any of these people are confused as to why nobody’s buying, I’d like to offer a possible reason:  IT’S A FUCKING STUPID IDEA.

The fact that they want people to pony up $2,000 fucking dollars so they can see a ten minute video every year or so when they visit the cemetery is ridiculous.  First off, it’s a waste of money.  If I want people to have access to a 10-minute photo montage of me after I die…there are better ways to do it.  For $2,000 I could print a DVD for every person I’ve ever known.  Hell…for that matter, I could just put it on YouTube for free!

Secondly, electronics are temporary.  People pay thousands of dollars for engraved tombstones because they’re practically permanent.  Nobody wants to have to pay for repairs on a fucking tombstone every few years.

Let’s not forget that the whole idea is fucking tacky in the first place.  Cemeteries are supposed to be nice serene places where we are allowed peace and quiet to properly mourn the dead.  The desire to bring technology into even these places is almost offensive.

I, for one, applaud society for at least having the common sense to not buy these things.

I’ve always loved reading the search terms that lead people to websites.  In the past few months, my site has been found through some interesting searches as well.  Thought I’d pass them on, for the enjoyment of all.  It’s like a twisted look into the societal mindset:

• SHE WARRIOR
• “fucking lipsyncing”
• most squirrel killed ever
• sugar walls
• tablebreaker
• Vaginaburger
• Andrew Meyer is a douche
• “smack the shit out of your children”
• tentacle-rape forum
• yosho fuck
• well dottie hinkle why aren’t they here yet
• “fuck cuba”
• How to extract cyanide from peach pits
• warehouse for dummies
• where is woogie
• All christians are bastards
• SICK BITCHES

Human resources sent out the following e-mail at work today:

Hello everyone,

Employees may decorate their cubicles or offices with seasonal decorations. The decorations should accentuate a professional and pleasant work environment. Employees are asked to respect other’s beliefs when considering seasonal decorating. Any decorations that are viewed as offensive by reasonable standards may be required to be removed. Please respect employees who may choose not to display seasonal decorations.

Should you have any questions, please contact HR.

Thank you

…and so the so-called “War on Christmas” continues.  Remember when we didn’t need to be worried about offending morons with our “seasonal” decorations (or lack thereof)?

Another Beard Watch has come and gone without any apparent change in my facial hair growing ability.  I’m kind of disappointed, really.  I figured this year might have shown at least some improvement over the last two years.

Here is the “Day 30″ picture (and yes…I fluffed the beard for this final picture to make it appear a little fuller):

Note:  If anyone would care to combine all 30 pictures into a short flash with “play” and “replay buttons” and some snappy music…I’d love to see it.