Saturday, June 27, 2009

Top Ten Entrecard droppers in June

Well, it’s that time again. Another month has passed. This month has been a better month blog-wise for me in a long time. More posts, more drops, more viewers. It’s been a lot of fun. Here’s to July!

Here are the top 10 Entrecard droppers for June:


Dropper      # of drops

60 Were Enough 30

First Door on the Left  30

Denford Magora's Zimbabwe Blog 29

Videos 4 U 27

Top Search Engine Ranking 19

Welcome To Bob's Blog 19

Theresa's Treasures 19

Comedy Plus 18

A World of Progress TeamZine 15

Life, According To Christopher 15


Thanks for dropping by, guys! And hope you enjoyed each visit!

Friday, June 26, 2009

Rest in Peace MJ

I never was a big fan of MJ, but I did like several of his songs. I admire his amazing talent and respect him even though he was a mixed up individual. After all, he was human, right?

Here’s a picture of two of the biggest artists of all time:

Frank Sinatra and Michael Jackson together during a session of Frank’s LA Is My Lady album in 1984. Frank was working with Quincy Jones at the time, who helped MJ produce a string of major pop hits in the 80s.

RIP, MJ, the music world will miss you.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

SC Gov. Mark Sanford admits he's had an affair

COLUMBIA, S.C. – After going AWOL for seven days, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he'd secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he'd been having an affair. He apologized to his wife and four sons and said he will resign as head of the Republican Governors Association.

"I've let down a lot of people, that's the bottom line," the 49-year-old governor said at a news conference where he choked up as he ruminated with remarkable frankness on God's law, moral absolutes and following one's heart. His family did not attend.

The woman, who lives in Argentina, has been a "dear, dear friend" for about eight years but, Sanford said, the relationship didn't become romantic until a little over a year ago. He's seen her three times since then, and his wife found out about it five months ago.

I like how Republicans claim to be pro-family values and Save marriage from homosexuals, but you find that they're always the first ones to be out sleeping around on their wives and/or found in a bathroom somewhere sucking cock. Which amounts to the same thing, really.

Homosexuals are going to destroy marriage! Can you believe that? I don't. You heterosexuals seem to be doing a fine job of that on your own.

Bunch of hypocrites.

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Obama kills fly...PETA gets a hardon over it

Obama Kills Fly, PETA Gets A Hardon over it

Obama kills a fly and PETA wishes he didn't. Last I checked, PETA stood for "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" not the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Insects." It was a fucking fly, not a fucking animal you retards. It's an insect. A pest. One that carries diseases. They live on turds for christ sake! What is wrong with these fucking pussies. Who ever cried about a dead fly? Some two year old? If the fly buzzed around long enough, I bet that kid would swat that motherfucker too. Flies only live for like three days anyway, right? So what's the big fucking deal. Fuck PETA and fuck the fly. I'm glad the motherfucker is dead. One less fly in the world, the better.

Monday, June 15, 2009

51% Say More Government Regulation Likely To Help Reduce Smoking

51% Say More Government Regulation Likely To Help Reduce Smoking
Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans say more government regulation of tobacco is
at least somewhat likely to reduce the number of smokers in this country. That
figure includes 18% who say it is very likely to do so.

I'm not exactly sure how more government regulation is going to reduce the number of smokers in this country. As a result, I have mixed feelings about this. I feel that people should be free to do what they want, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. The problem with smoking is that it does hurt others, and maybe even more than the smoker—second hand smoking can be worse than first hand smoke when inhaled in copious amounts. They say that two hours of inhaling second hand smoke is the equivalent to smoking four cigarettes. I don't know how true this is, but I find it hard not to believe it.

I've never smoked, but have always had bad allergies. The smoking bothers me, probably more than the average person. I'm easily irritated when being around smokers, in the smallest amounts of time. Walking by a building where someone is standing by and lighting up can quickly flare an allergy attack. Headache, itchy eyes, stuffy nose, and fatigue are all the symptoms. I've been around smokers all of my life and the longer I am exposed to it, the worse my health is. I recently lived in a second floor apartment, above two smokers on the first floor. I'd go out during the day, come home at night and the apartment smelled like a barroom. It literally smelled as if my neighbors were smoking in my apartment. After fifteen months of living there, I couldn't take it any longer. I have since found another place to live and my health is noticeably better, but I still feel as if I've developed a case of mild asthma.

Several states have taken some “regulatory” measures regarding smoking such as banning smoking in public places, restaurants, public buildings, etc. I stand by these measures. People should be allowed to enjoy a meal in peace without being aggravated by cigarette smoke. And before someone says there's smoking and non smoking sections—that's bullshit. The smoke is everywhere. Now some might argue that smokers should be able to enjoy a meal and light up as well. Well if they want to do that, then I guess they should eat at home. Though, I fail to see how one can eat and puff it up at the same time. Even the smoking outside of public buildings is aggravating to those with allergies, and asthma who are innocently walking by.

I'm not sure what further regulations the government has in store for cigarette smoke. I know some wish that cigarettes were banned altogether. Sometimes I think that's a good idea, but I know I am biased. I also know that prohibition won't solve the problem. Marijuana is illegal, but that doesn't stop people from smoking it. Alcohol was illegal at one time, but that didn't stop people from drinking it. In a perfect world, these smokers would have the courtesy to smoke with each other, or alone, for that matter, and away from others who are easily irritated by their cigarette smoke. And in that perfect world, people would understand the harmful effects of smoking and wouldn't smoke at all. But alas, this is not a perfect world.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Voters Now Trust Republicans More than Democrats on Economic Issues

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on six out of 10 key issues, including the top issue of the economy.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more.

This is the first time in over two years of polling that the GOP has held the advantage on this issue. The parties were close in May, with the Democrats holding a modest 44% to 43% edge. The latest survey was taken just after General Motors announced it was going into bankruptcy as part of a deal brokered by the Obama administration that gives the government majority ownership of the failing automaker.

Voters not affiliated with either party now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues by a two-to-one margin.

Separate Rasmussen tracking shows that the economy remains the top issue among voters in terms of importance.

Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters. That shows a large shift from May, when Democrats held an 11-point lead on the issue.

This isn't really surprising, is it? Five months into Obama's presidency, three years of a Democratic controlled congress, and still no light at the end of the tunnel. Things have gone downhill since the Democrats have been in charge. And getting worse as the time passes. Methinks the American people will grow impatient and disgusted with the goings on in Washington and will be looking for change in 2010. And in 2012. The change they voted for in 2008 isn't the change they were looking for after all.

When will the right change come? Change for change sake isn't really for the better, is it?

Of course, nothing is going to change. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. I expect that. The American people will grow impatient and will make the two major political parties play musical chairs. And that's alright. I enjoy that. When will they finally see that they are really jerking themselves off and are being played? The politicians don't give a fuck about you. They are in it for themselves. They don't work for you, they work for themselves. You might think they work for you, but you fail to see the big picture. If you really want them to work for you, then vote out all incumbents in the next election. Show these fucks you mean business. And in the election after that, if you're not satifisfied, vote those fucks out too. Maybe that will really change things. Maybe. Or maybe not. But hell, beats having the same old, do-nothing fucks in Washington for thirty fucking years.

Monday, June 8, 2009

People Choose News That Fits Their Views

People Choose News That Fits Their Views

News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.

The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.

Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.

"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."

That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.

However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.

News that fits your views

Previous studies have asked people about their news reading habits and broad political beliefs, such as liberal or conservative.

But the new Ohio State study took that a step further by observing how 156 college students spent five minutes reading online magazine articles on a computer. The computer recorded the time each student spent looking at pro and con articles about four issues that included abortion, gun ownership, health care and minimum wage.

"A survey isn't the greatest way to get hold of issues," Knobloch-Westerwick told LiveScience. "In my study, we just had people click on things so that we could watch unobtrusively."

As a result, she found that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view. They had a 58 percent chance of choosing articles that supported their views, as opposed to a 43 percent chance of choosing an article that challenged their view.

Students also commonly spent time reading both sides on any given issue, according to the study, which is detailed in the June issue of the journal Communication Research. However, very few clicked just on articles that opposed their views.

How political junkies read

Only 5 percent of online news readers go to political blogs on a daily basis, according to a new book by a different researcher, yet many represent the most politically active consumers of the news.

Such readers may prefer blogs over mainstream media sources because they suspect bias in the latter, said Richard Davis, a political scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.

"They're clearly disenchanted with traditional media," Davis said. "That's why they read blogs in the first place - in their view, they see blogs as more accurate."

Davis worked with several independent firms to conduct nationally representative public opinion surveys of both political blog readers and journalists for his book, "Typing Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2009). He also focused on seven of the top political blogs, which at the time included Daily Kos on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right.

Such political blogs are up front with their political views, and typically "echo" the news reported by traditional journalists while adding their own spin or analysis.

But among the hardcore political junkies, 30 percent told the survey that blogs are more accurate, whereas only 8 percent said traditional media was more accurate. About 40 percent gave equal marks to both.

This trust in blogs over traditional media does not carry over to general readers, Davis cautioned. Less frequent blog readers usually give equal weight to blogs and traditional media. And overall, general readers still put more faith in traditional media.

Conservatives buck the trend

Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.

People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.

"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.

The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.

Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.

By contrast, liberal views dominate the blogosphere, but are scant on talk radio.

Winning hearts and minds ... or not

The big question that remains is whether consuming all this news affects or changes people's views, or simply hardens original beliefs.

Experts have fretted for a while about how people tend to read only what agrees with them. But current research suggests that it's amazing that people ever change their views, Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Some researchers have even begun examining how political leanings are rooted in biology, and the combined influences of genetics or life experiences. A separate recent study suggests that men with more daughters are more likely to take a liberal point of view, while women who have more sons may lean more conservative.

Still, having hardened political views bolstered by media messages might not represent all bad news for a democratic society.

"People who spend more time with messages that bolster their views are more likely to engage in political action, something that's very desirable from a democratic point of view," Knobloch-Westerwick said.

What fun is it to only read articles and blogs that adhere to your views? I don't know about you, but I like to hear what everyone has to say. Whether I agree with them or not. I find their opinions interesting. Reading only one side of the political spectrum I find boring. It does make sense, however, that those who aren't secure in their views would only want to read one side or the other.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

NH becomes 6th state to legalize gay marriage

Gay marriage bill signed into law in New Hampshire

CONCORD, N.H. – New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage Wednesday in a move that reflects the state's changing demographics from reliably Republican and conservative to younger and more liberal.

The Senate and House passed key language on religious rights, Gov. John Lynch — who personally opposes gay marriage — signed the legislation Wednesday afternoon.

Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn't clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

"Today, we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law," Lynch said.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa already allow gay marriage, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

This is awesome. Way to go New Hampshire!!

To the opponents of gay marriage: fuck you. Just because you hate homosexuals and don't agree with gay marriage doesn't mean you should get to dictate what rights they should and shouldn't have. What you think shouldn't matter at all. No one gives a shit what you think. And before you start bringing out the bible bullshit, let me inform you of this: marriage has shit to do with religion. All marriage is, legally, is a piece of paper. Got that? There are many legal reasons for gay couples to get married just as there is for straight couples. Ok? So leave your precious religion out of this. It's not even an issue. If the church doesn't wanna marry two homosexuals, then they shouldn't have to. It's their choice. No one has to be religious to get married anyway, so it shouldn't even be an issue.

I don't understand the opposition to gay marriage at all. If two people, regardless of gender, love each other, then what is it to you? How does that bother you? Why does it bother you? I don't get it. Only answer I can come up with is: hatred.

Gay marriage shouldn't have been on the ballot in California or anywhere else for that matter. Who is the majority to decide what rights the minority should have? I'm hoping that all of these states are able to remain "gay-friendly" and that the homophobes won't overturn the legislation like they did in California. California voting against gay marriage really surprised me. I mean, it is one of the most liberal states in the country. Are Californians fucking retarded? Do they realize what they've done? Their state is in fiscal ruin and they don't realize how gay marriage could benefit their economy and the state's bank book. They have no idea. Instead, they let their hatred rule over all. It's sad. Really sad.