Sheryl Crow-The Nasty Ass Of The Year

People that have read my blog might recall from time to time I've mentioned a late uncle by marriage. He was badly injured in World War II, and never quite recovered. In his last years, he suffered from two serious conditions-prostrate cancer and Alzheimers disease. It was the first one that killed his body, but the second one that caused the gradual, long term disintegration of his mind.

No, this isn't another rant about the Veterans Hospitals that have suffered severe funding shortages. It would hardly be fair to blame them for the mental deterioration he suffered, which manifested in many ways.

Once, he looked for a chain saw in the drawer of the microwave cabinet. Another time, he looked for a set of bed rails in the cab of another uncle's pick-up truck. His perspective in many ways was that screwed up.

It only got worse with time. But perhaps the grossest, nastiest way it manifested itself was in the way he went to the bathroom, and most especially in the way he wiped his ass afterwards. With one square of toilet paper.

He was that much of a tight ass. I shit you not.

Diarrhea? No difference. One square. A normal, healthy shit? One square. Just passing gas? Hell, one square, just to be on the safe side. Just in case there was a little turd hanging around up there somewhere, I guess.

Sounds nasty, huh? Yeah, it does to me too. I didn't know it for a while, but since I learned of this peculiar behavior, I still get sick when I think of all the times I shook his hand. Wouldn't you?

So is Sheryl Crow that much of a nasty assed bitch? Or does she just think all the rest of us should be? Is she really that determined to save trees that she wants to ration toilet paper, with no regard for just how unhealthy and fucking nasty that would be? Isn't there a better way?

Can you imagine how chapped that ass would have to be, and all that shit caked on it. Listen, you know she doesn't really do the crap she's advising.

On the other hand, well, she did start out as the opening act for Michael Jackson, and according to her, her friends a communist, so I guess this all makes a degree of sense.

For me, even a normal healthy shit requires the use of, oh, about three squares per turd. Make that four. Otherwise, I would have no other option than to drop my pants and drag my ass on the ground about four feet like a dog with worms.

I don't intend to do that, nor do I intend to limit myself to one square of toilet paper per shit, or even per turd. Fuck that. If Sheryl Crow really wipes her ass that way, she's welcome to be a nasty ass all she wants. I think she's full of shit myself.

As for anybody else that might buy into this crap, well, you know, if you insist. If it makes you happy, I guess it can't be that bad. Just don't take it hard if I keep my distance.

In the meantime-earth to Crow: When Rosie O'Donnell makes fun of you, you know you've made an ass of yourself.

Wackjobs Have Rights Too

I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?

Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".

She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.

She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.

I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-

Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.

Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.

My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?

As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.

Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.

Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.

Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.

Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.

As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.

True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?

Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.

Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).

And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.

So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.

To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?

Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.

As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.

Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.

So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-

Congratulations, Universe. You win.

Scientology-Cruise Needs A psychiatrist

I had to make a comment as regards the subject of the previous post. Cruise is obviously losing his mind, so it is only natural and perhaps fitting that he should grasp so whole-heartedly onto the Scientologist belief on the matter of psychiatry. There is something about religion as a general rule that makes a person so crazy he or she just has to "spread the word". I was this way when I first began my ventures into Wicca, which lead to my own Hellenic Pagan Path. It's an exciting new world, and you can't help but want to share it, sametimes to your own detriment. He will calm down in time, just as I did, as do most of us. In the meantime-

Cruise needs to consider the following facts. The brain is an organic part of the body, and there are times when certain medications may be vital to it's oerall functioning, the same as with all other parts of the body. Not to say that there are not abuses, there most certainly are. I myself have great qualms about the tendency of childrens' parents to put them on Ritalin when the fucking television doesn't seem to keep them out of their hair for very long at a time. Far too many kids are misdiagnosed, and I suspect a great breach of medical ethics here, as well as parental ones.

Nevertheless, there are times when it may be necessary, as is the case of prescriptions to anti-depressants, again a potentially dangerous and probably abused procedure. But Cruise wants to level a blanket indictment against all psychiatrits and their patients, and this is really unjust. He seems to think that a regimen of healthy food, exercise, and vitamin supplements will cure all ills. Prescription drugs, he claims, merely mask the problem. This is really quite extraordinary. I am a big fan of vitamin supplements, as well as herbs, minerals, and amino acids. Having researched these thoroughly, I can state with a degree of knowledge that vitamins and other such supplements can as well be abused. In fact, they too can mask the symptoms of illnesses by making the person who takes them feel better than may be the reality concerning his or her health. Somebody needs to explain this to Cruise. Then, somebody needs to slip him a good tranquilizer.