Why the above question? Here is a current, "featrued" "top story" from the EVIL people at Yahoo "News" and AT&T (names right there together at top of the web page):
"Casey Anthony Is Reading 'Hunger Games,' Book About Kiling Children"
Nope. You may need ME to point out to you that this is EVIL stuff, but it is. Does it make Casey Anthony either a wrose or better person because she is reading a book "about killing children"? Neither. It has NO meaning at all. It is NOT NEWS. It is BACK FENCE GOSSPIP. I wonder, by the way if the AUTHOR of 'Hunger Games" would agree with the characterizatin of the book as "abut killing children". I am swerious.. This is merely PICKING on CaseyAnthony with back fence gossip She was ACQUITTED. She can read what she wants. It is none of my business. More to the ont, it is NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE "NEWS" MEDIA OF THIS COUNTRY. It is PANDERING to the WROST in people (the kind of peole who like to spread, and listen to, back fence gossip--which includes almost ALL of the media people in this country).
You are right if yu understood that the headline is a trick questin. I sort of assume, wihout any real evidence, that most people share my best GUESS on Casey Anthony: that she "got away" with some kind of murder or manslaughger. What I also understand, however, and our media evidently does not, is that I have NO RIGHT to a PUBLIC OPINION on the subject. I, like anyone, can have my private opinion, which I understnad-unlike too many media people--is only a GUESS, wepecailly when I did not hear ALL of the EVIDENCE. Under our system, Casey Anthony is INNOCENT, because she is PRESUMED INNOCENT and wa found "not guilty" (menaning that the jury found that the state did not PROVE her guillty, leaving her presumed innoncent).
Do I think it is "inapproriate", or in bad taste, for Casy Anthony to be reading a book "about" "killing children"? Nope. I consider it INAPPROPRIATE (and criminal) if Casy Anthony actually KILLED her daughter. I consider Casey Anthony's well known conduct after the death of her daughter-whoever kiled her--as 'inappropriate". I consider what Casy Anthony reads to be NONE OF MY BU:SINESS. If Yahoo and AT&T want to ATTACK the BOOK, "Hunger Games", let them do so. Maybe N O ONE shoulid read it!!!!!!!!! But how does Casy Anthony reading it affect ANYTHING. Nope. I REJECT the idea that it will stir up some "criminal tendency" in Casey Anthony's mind. You say it "looks bad". It only "looks bad" to the BACK FENCE GOSSIP MINDS of our mainstream media. I, and th epubic in general, should not even KNOW that Casy Anthony is reading this book. It is ABSURD for me to know. I don't want to know. it makes me feel CREEPY--"creepy" abut our MEDIA, and not abut Casey Anthony--that I know (if you can turst the media to get this right, which I don't).
Now if Casey Anthony went pubic and BRAGGED about reading a book "about killing children", wi ould regard that as inappropirrate. Notice I am NOT saying that it would be "inappropriate" for Casey Anthoy to "talk about" the REAL BOOK (rather than the absurd descriiptin in the media headline0, as to "friends" or to a book club. But if Casey Anthoy were to, HERSELF, highlight that she finds it "funny"--an attractin of the book to her---to be reading ab boo k "about killing children", after she had personal knowledge of the subject, then I would find Casey Anthony CREEPY and "inappropriate". But note that it is NOT Casey Anthony that is so associating "real life" and a BOOK. It is the CREEPS of the mainstream media.
It is obvious why the headline is a "trick questin". Since Casey Anthy is "officially" no more guilty of 'kiling children" than I am, and considerably less guilty than =, say, abortin doctors and women who have more than one abortiion, I have no RIGHT to call her "eveil". I can call her a 'bad mother", and am willnig to do so. But the ONLY thinkg actaully evil that she may have done---to my knowledge, anyway, as I don't try to folow what Casey Anthony has done--is to have POSSIBLY killed her child. Now that is pretty "evil", but she was ACQuTTED. Thus, I have no RIGHT to accuse her of being "efil" on that ground.
But I have all kinds of reasons from calling almsot all of our media EVIL, including this disgraceful story and headline. Read the last decade of articles in this blog (to the extent you can find ththe (surely not back a decade) as to the sheer amount of EVIL I have exosed in the media. This includes KILLING people. In fact, the next planned article for this blog are again about the RACIMS, and incitement to RACE HATRED, in our media (again specifically keyed on an evil story from Yahoo/AT&T). In fact, I wrote this article rather than start on those articles tonight.
Oh. I am perfectly aware that Yahoo "News' does not generate (generally) its own "news" stroies. But if AT&T and Yahoo "News" are going to ut thheri names at the top of this evil sfuff, I am going to hold them responsible. Further, with my eyesight, I am not even sure WHWEW this tory "originated". I suspect ABC "News", the "partner" of Yahoo "News", but Yahoo was not at all cllear (at least to a person with my eyesight) where this story came from. Since the hedline had the first letter of each word capitalized, when AP headlines are usually not, I don't think this came form a wire service. ABC DOES capitalize the words i its headlines, which is why I suspect it. But al I really KNOW is that AlL of the surces for AP 'featured" stories are left wing media sources (Time, the AP, Reuters, ABC, etc.). I regard Yahoo "News" itself as a left wing media source, since i have NEVER seen a "conservative" source "featured" on my AT&T "default" web page. Yahooo "News" at least "selects" these "featured" "top stories', and that makes them REsPONSIBLE. There is NO exucse for even USING this story, as there would nto be for a newpaper to pik up anAP story to the same effect (which may well exist, as the AP is the subject of my decad long, futile, Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter, which is a creature that does not exist).
No. If Casey Anthony does something realy bad, I can see making it a "national" story (even though it probably woulduld not deserve to be if it were not Casey Anthony). But, otherwise, LEAVE HER ALONE, and LEAVE ME ALONE as far as this eVIL back fence gossip is concerned. This sort of thing worries me much more about the future of our country than does Casey Anthony (one sinlge woman accused of a single crime, for which she was acquitted). Yes, a million and more abortins every year also are much more of an "issue' than Casy Anthony's one local murder--IF she committed the murder for which she has been acquitted. Now this "comparison" is somewhat misleading, since one thing has only a llittle to do witht the other. "Skip, how can you say that actual murder of a child has anything tat all to do with abortion/" I won't try to answer that. I will jsut leave it upo to you to read Philip K. Dick's satirical short story that I read under the title: "The Prepersons". Dick's story was abut a future society where childre n were EVALUATED at the age of TEN as to whether they were "qualified" to BECOME "persons". Children below the age of ten wre deemed tnot to yet be persons. And if they were found not to "deserve" to become persons, they were killed before lthey reached that point. Casey Anthony apparently worried moer abut her own "life' and "convenience" more than she worried aobut her child. Is that really that different than the pro-abortion attitude toward abortion? I don't think so. Neither did Dick (author of some celebrated science ficitin books during the period when I was growing up). In all events, abortin is more a PUBLIC POLICY issue than Casey Anthony's ONE alleged mruder, because we do not YET live in a society where killing a child is acceptable up to the age of 10. A state is not even AlLOWED to make abortin on demand a crime, since the left (and oftent the Supreme Court) sdoes nto believe in democracy. Casey Anthony was TRIED for her single crime (haiving NO public olicy implicatins), and was acquitted. I would probably have had no problem convicting her of second degree mruder (the frit degree murder charge was an atrocity, and a mistake, since the EVIDENCE did not exist to support the charge). I was not on the jury, and it is always ossible they knew what they wre doing.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking. By the way, I just "tried", and FAILED, to get through Dean Koontz'' horror novel, "What the Night Knows". To a degree, Koontz' book is "about killing children". I could not stomach it. I say I tried to "read" it, but obviusly I am talking about an audiobook. Maybe I will telll you, sometime, why I culd not stand the book. However, for now, all I can say is that I THINK the media (at least the part that pays attentin to what Casey Anthony reads) would have to agree that I am a BETTER PERSON than Casey Anthoony, the author of "hunger Games", and probably Dean Koontz. Lush descriptions of murders, especially of children (includnig "lovingly" depicted decriptons of the rape, torture and killing of teenage girrls) do not appeal to me. I actualy like some of Koontz' novels quite a bit. This one sort of sickened me, to the pont of not being able to finist it. But you can see how DANGERUS it is to start "evaluating" peole based on the BOOKS THEY READ. would not go so far as to say being abel to get through "What the Night Knows", or "Hunger Games", makes you a bad perosn (or even is 'bad" or "inappropriate" for you as someone who may have committed a murder yourself.