Tuesday, May 31, 2005

The "Paris Ad": Yes, get a life!

So the moralists are up at arms about the Carl Jr. Ad featuring Paris Hilton in a swimsuit that is less revealing than most evening gowns at the Oscars. She's washing an SUV while chowing down on a big burger.

And the bible-thumpers and freedom-haters are screaming bloody murder over this! They are demanding that the FCC punish the sponsor for DARING TO OFFEND THEM!

You know what? Mike Straka over at Fox News got it right... so I'll just drop a link and let you read it for yourself.

And I agree... yes, these moralist groups like the Parents Television Council (a.k.a. the "Right To Censor") and the American Family Association (who?) need to desperately get a life.

The problem is, though, that THIS IS their life! This is the only thing that gives these pathetic dysfunctional people purpose. This gives them exposure and respectability... and, more importantly, it gives them POWER! If they had a life, then they wouldn't have all of this power and attention. So for them it's a pretty good exchange.

Conversely, the more these moralists get their Jesus Underroos in a bunch over Paris Hilton, the more attention she gets, which feeds her own ego and her own publicity machine.

You have to wonder sometimes if the moralists are actually working for the groups that they claim to be offended at.

The big question of the day...

If the news hasn't become "entertainment", as some of my Brutally Honest supporters object to it being called, then why is the engagement of Paris Hilton considered to be BIG NEWS? In fact, why is ANYTHING that Paris Hilton does considered to be news?

I know the answer, of course, but I want you guys to figure it out.

Monday, May 30, 2005

Movie Review: Star Wars - Episode III

Saw "Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Jedi" over the weekend, and I have to say that in many ways it is better than the first two episodes. But at the same time I think that George Lucas tried TOO much to connect it to Episode IV.

We know that Chancelor Palpetine is the bad guy and he finally reveals himself in Episode III. We know that Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader. That comes out here too. We know that Padme Amidala, Anakin's secret wife, is pregnant and that she gives birth to twins. But there's too much of a push to get these things out and lead things to Episode IV.

There's also a hint to how Anakin's own birth actually came about... but you have to listen carefully to catch it.

Episode III is very violent. I'm not just talking violence in terms of space battles or disappearing after a wave of a lightsaber; I'm talking about people losing limbs and getting murdered on screen. In fact, given what happens near the end of the movie, I'm surprised that this wasn't given an R rating!

This is definately not something that you would want children to see, which is going to drive parents crazy. "This is STAR WARS," they'll cry out. "It's marketed towards CHILDREN! They have toys and games and children's books! How dare George Lucas BETRAY us like that and put in something so VIOLENT?"

Of course, Lucas is a storyteller, and the story of Darth Vader's transformation isn't a pleasant one. It's just something that needs to be told to wrap up this three-part prequel.

Anyway, guys, I know its a little after the fact, but don't bring the little kids to see it. Let them grow up a bit before letting them watch it when it comes out on DVD. But for all you big kids out there, it's definately one to watch.

Friday, May 27, 2005

TV Venting

We have two people who are pissed off about what they saw on TV who basically need to be slapped upside their heads and have their sense of reality reset.

TV Flake #1: Corey Clark - Hey, you had a nice roll in the hey with Paula Abdul. I'm jealous, I'll admit it. But ABC gave you FAR more airtime than your story deserved, and they made your little plight about "American Idol" into something it really wasn't.

Paula Abdul isn't married anymore. She's not trying to promote some kind of celibate lifestyle, nor should she expect to be celibate just because she's a celebrity. If you don't believe me, then ask Survivor host Jeff Probst, who's dating one of the show's finalists. Paula also never had any real influence over who continues in the show. THE VIEWERS DO! She can give all the advice she wants, it still doesn't make a difference when it comes down to it.

People ARE going to make light of your primetime exposure and about making a mountain out of a molehill, Corey. Deal with it.

TV Flake #2: Congressman Tom DeLay - So let's see if I get this straight, "Hammer"... you've been going on a tirade about judges in America for about a month. You've screamed and shouted and jumped up and down about so-called "activist judges" and how they NEED to be held "accountable" for their actions. You've bitched and cried about wanting judges investigated and removed from office.

So now here comes a TV show on NBC called "Law & Order: Criminal Intent" and they do an episode on NY judges getting killed. One of the detectives handling the case suggests "Maybe we should put an APB out for somebody wearing a Tom DeLay t-shirt."

And you want to get upset about that??? WHY??? You're the one stoking the fires of hatred against judges who rule against your beliefs!

What's next, flake? Are you now going to declare a jihad against NBC? Retaliate against parent company General Electric? Resurrect the Alien and Sedition Acts?

You want an apology, DeLay? I've got a few here for you...

I'm sorry for the Republican Party for having a twisted self-centered, self-righteous egomaniac as their House Majority Leader. If the GOP loses power in 2006, they can quickly point to people like YOU as the chief reason behind it.

I'm sorry for every conservative and neo-conservative who now has to rush to the defense of your bruised ego. Rather than talking about REAL issues like runaway federal spending, Social Security, or trying to fix the tax system to make it equitable for ALL Americans, your fellow self-appointed "champions of decency" now have to waste time bashing a FICTIONAL TELEVISION PROGRAM simply because they DARED to besmirch you!

I'm sorry for the people in Texas for having to be represented by an egomaniac who can't take in a fraction of what he dishes out. It's bad enough that they have to be represented by someone facing more ethics charges than Edwin Meese, and is possibly a stone's throw away from being indicted.

And lastly I'm sorry that American has to put up with such a thin-skinned member of Congress who finds more diversions from his ethics charges than Bill Clinton. How many times has Hillary Clinton or Teddy Kennedy been the subject of joke or ridicule?

You're a public figure, DeLay. Your actions are subject to parody, review, reference, and ridicule just like anyone else in your line of work. If you can't handle that, then do America a favor and RESIGN FROM OFFICE!

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Moralist group ends Disney boycott

The American Family Association has decided to finally give up the ghost and end their boycott of all things Disney. The AFA declared a holy war against Disney about nine years ago over their corporate policy to allow benefits to same-sex couples, thinking that their simple declaration of a boycott would force Disney execs to change their ways.

The AFA hierarchy has publicly declared that there were other "more important" issues to deal with... but that' s not the real reason why they pulled a Schiavo on their own boycott.

The truth of the matter is that their boycott WAS A PATHETIC JOKE!

Disney didn't lose any money over this declaration. People were still flocking to see the theme parks. They were still buying the videos and the merchandise and they were still watching the Disney Channels.

If anything, MORE people were giving money to Disney, just because the AFA declared a holy war against it!

But there was more to Disney than just the Mouse... and that was something that the moralists forgot about. The Walt Disney Corporation is a HUGE corporation, with its hand in a lot of things.

  • Every time an AFA member turned on the TV to their local ABC affiliate, they were violating their own boycott.
  • Every time they watched ESPN, they were violating their own boycott.
  • Every time they listened to Rush Limbaugh, they were violating their own boycott.
  • Every time they listened to Paul Harvey, they were violating their own boycott.
  • Every time they watched certain syndicated shows like "Home Improvement", they were violating their own boycott.
  • Every time they watched a Mirimax movie, they were violating their own boycott.

Basically they couldn't do anything without violating their own anti-Disney boycott.

But they can't admit to their own failure! They never will admit that this boycott of theirs didn't work, because it would lead to doubt about future boycotts. If they had to admit to their own failure, then they won't be able to bully the next company that does something to offend them. It would neuter their own effectiveness.

I mean, the AFA would basically be treated like Alec Baldwin did when he took on Michael Eisner in the 90's.

"We're with the AFA."


"The AFA, the American Family Association... and we're pissed off about your corporate policy."

"Who are you again?"

"The AFA! You have to change your ways, because your policy is offensive to us."

"And... WHO are you again?"

"THE AFA! We're the ones that took on Disney and Pepsi!"

"You did?"

"Yes! And if you don't change your policy, then we will boycott your company's products!"

"Funny, they're both still in business. Doesn't sound like your boycotts have any effectiveness. Who are you with again?"


"Sorry, doesn't ring a bell."


Update 06/01 - Sure enough, the AFA have set their moralist sights on another corporate target... the Ford Motor Company. It seems that for every Jaguar sold, Ford gives $1000 to a gay and lesbian group and the AFA has decided that they they will not stand fo that!

What a bunch of pathetic losers!

Look for sales of Jaguars to go up.

The strange twist on "Activist Judges"...

Fox News recently did an article about "activist judges" which finally sets the record straight about the term.

"There is no such thing as an activist judge," said FOX News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey superior court judge from 1987 to 1995.

"An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and intelligent and honest. If you disagree with them, you call them activists."

That's it right there in a nutshell! It's purely a political term!

So why did it take Fox News this long to set the record straight? I mean the term has been spewed for so long by the conservative that it almost became an entry in Webster's Dictionary!

Well it could quite well do with the fact that the liberals started using the term to decry Bush Junior's judicial nominees.

Oh yeah, there was no problem whatsoever with the term so long as the CONSERVATIVES were wielding the term. As long as Tom DeLay was using the term to try to impeach some sitting judges, it was completely fine and dandy for Fox News. But the minute the liberals borrow the term for their own purposes, THEN it's time for a clarification! THEN it's time to tell people what an "activist judge" really is! THEN it's time to tell people that the term is just a political catchphrase.

If people were looking for a conservative bias in Fox News, I think you may have finally found hints of it here.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Quick thought of the day...

The folks at the First Amendment Center came up with a really great quote for the day...

''A right is not what someone gives you; it’s what no one can take from you.''
- Ramsey Clark,
U.S. attorney general, 1977

And if you think about it, it's pretty much the truth. Whether you believe that these rights are bestowed upon you by birth or through some deity, these rights are YOURS to begin with.

Unfortunately we have way too many people in government (i.e. Bush Imperium) who believe that these rights come first from GOVERNMENT and then to you. As such, they believe that your rights are conditional to whatever limits they set and thus can be taken away from you at their whim.

So here are a couple of thoughts...

* If your rights are yours to begin with, and the government takes them away from you, would that be considered criminal theft (criminal case) or intellecutal theft (civil case)?

* If you believe that your rights are given to you by God, does that mean that any religious figure who claims to speak on behalf of God can take those rights away from you?

And finally...

* If a right is something that nobody can take away from you, why is it done on a routine basis by governments large and small with not even an appology afterwards?


Saturday, May 21, 2005

Senator Santorum's REAL "Mistake"

So Senator Rick "The Dick" Santorum has uttered the dreaded "H-word" on the floor of the Senate this past week.

No, he didn't say "Hell" or even "Heck". He said the OTHER "H-word". The one that you can't say in Germany.

He invoked the name of Adolf Hitler and compared it to the Democrats when it came to changing the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster.

This is what he said:

The audacity of some members to stand up and say, "How dare you break this rule". It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 declaring,"I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me! How dare you bomb my city! It's mine".

Ooh! He invoked HITLER! On the floor of the Senate no less! For shame! (All sarcasm intended, of course.)

Of course the liberals and the Democrats have been invoking the H-word to attack the Bush Imperium since day one. If you ever listen to the liberals talk about Bush Junior, you'll see more references and comparrisons to Hitler than in Senator Robert Byrd's diary!

And personally I have no problem with Santorum invoking his role model's name. Oh.. wait a minute... I'm sorry, Santorum's role model is Torquamada, not Hitler. Sorry. You know how it is, we can't tell one self-righeous thug from another. Anyway, the point is that if Santorum wants to invoke the "H-word" and use it to insult the Democrats, by all means do so. That's what free speech is all about anyway!

What bothers me is that now Santorum is backpeddling. He said that it was "a mistake" to use the "H-word".

Well I'm sorry, Rick "The Dick", but I gotta call BS on that!

This the same US Senator who went into an unsolicited tyrade on the record about the U.S. Suprme Court even CONSIDERING to rule anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional. This is the same U.S. Senator who believes that YOU do not have a right to privacy AT ALL! He considers EVERY aspect of your life to be an open book for people like him to view at will and without permission.

Simply put, Senator Richard Santorum is a self-rightous THUG!

Not only that, but he's the Republican Whip, which means that it is his job to inflame the passions of his party! He can't have moderate Republicans calling the shots and trying to take away from HIS faction's power-grab.

It's not a mistake for Santorum to invoke the "H-word". He truly sees any oppostion to his faction's power-grab to be a form of tyranny, because HE'S supposedly on the side of the "good-guys". He's on the side of GOD and JESUS and everything that he considers to be good and just in the world. THEY aren't with him, so THEY are the enemy in his eyes. THEY are scum. THEY are evil. THEY are everything he despises, and it's his mission to paint THESE PEOPLE in as vile terms as possible... hence the Hitler remark.

No, invoking Hitler's name wasn't a mistake. Santorm's real mistake is that he's in the wrong country! Santorum should be in Singapore or Iran, where such self-rightousness and thuggish behavior is accepted in government. His mistake is that his party is busy trying to be a bunch of "polite" thugs. They want power, but they don't want to be seen a being tyrannical. They want to be a "dainty" 800-pound gorilla who applogizes before stepping on you.

In short, Santorum's real mistake is not that he made the statement, but that people from both sides of the outdated 2-dimensional spectrum had the audacity to CALL him on it.

Friday, May 20, 2005

Quick Apprentice Finale...

A quick Apprentice Finale deserves a quick blog comment...

First, I'm glad Donald Trump decided against dragging the finale into three hours like he did the last time. That was just stupid.

Second, the hour-long finale show had just too many damned commercials! Nobody could really make their point without being pressed to go to another commercial! That was just as bad as trying to stretch it out to three hours and then try to find something to say to pass the time away. Someone didn't do their job in mapping out the commercial breaks.

So the worst that Trump could pin on Kendra was that she cried after the final challenge? Hey, after pulling off a great show like that, she deserves a cry or two.

Trump constantly brought out the fact that Tana privately belittled her workers at the start of the final challenge. Hey, how many times did Trump hound Raj for being a horndog? How many times did he hound Chris for chewing tobacco? I'm sure Trump had a few choice things to say about Kristin, Brian, and Chris as well, the only difference is that he didn't say them with a camera in his face.

So they brought up the whole Pontiac challenge again... so Tana is trying to take the credit for their success while Kendra did all of the work? That's pathetic! Trump should have berated Tana for abandoning Kendra and leaving her to do all of the work herself.

I'm glad that Kendra won. She deserved it. And another first... the first female Apprentice!

I get the sneaky suspicion, though, that this show may have jumped the shark... simply because of how they wrapped things up this time around. No real promos, just quick plugs for future shows. "The Apprentice - The Musical"? Yeah, I'll go see that one right after I spend one penny to watch "Jerry Springer - The Musical".

The previous Apprentice finale sucked because it was way too long. This one sucked because it was way too short. I think that making it 90 minutes would be a nice balance.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

You wanna filibuster? Then filibuster away!

We have a pissing contest about to start in the US Senate between arrogant Republicans and uppity Democrats over judicial nominees.

Now during the Clinton Regime, Republicans used the committees to block Clinton's judicial picks and the Democrats were screaming bloody murder over that. But now that we're in the middle of the Bush Imperium, it's the Democrats that are using what they have to block judicial nominees.

Hey, I agree with the idea that all nominees deserve a straight up-or-down vote. But then again, all laws also deserve to be likewise voted on their merits, not tacked onto some spending bill where they can't be removed and nobody has the nerve to pass. Senate Majority Leader Bill "Quick" Frist really has no moral high ground to take on this issue.

Yet at the same time, I'm a little pissed off about how lackadaisical things are in the Senate. There really hasn't been a filibuster in a while. It's all a matter of "procedure". It takes 60 Senators to end debate on a subject, but not having that 60 doesn't mean the debate continues. They just table the matter until a later date.

So if the Republicans really want to bring this pissing contest to an end, they don't have to eliminate the filibuster to do it. After all, they won't be in charge forever, and they may need that little power themselves. What they need to do is make a modest rule change to eliminate tabling that debate.

In other words, force the Democrats to engage in a REAL filibuster!

If the Democrats want to talk, then TALK! Talk away! Strap on some Depends, slip on some comfortable shoes, and stock up on coffee if you have to. Keep on talking for days on in if you can. But don't you dare stop, because if you do, then the debate will be over and the Senators will vote right then and there.

Hey, it's not like these guys don't know HOW to talk! They could talk their mothers out of their life savings! (How do you think they ended up with Social Security in the first place?) I just have to wonder how many of them would have the strength to keep on talking for days on in. You think Teddy Kennedy or "The Banshee" would ever have the fortitude to go at it for that long? I think most of them would collapse after a couple of hours.

So there! Problem solved! The filibuster is not only saved, but also restored to the political weapon of last resort that it was meant to be.

That's a far better "nuclear option" than anything those self-righteous Republicans can come up with!

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Will the PTC hydra strike down THIS Hercules?

NBC aired their big sweeps special... "Hercules"... the other day. And to be honest, I wasn't impressed by it. Seriously. It was stupid.

But it also touched on issues that no doubt would piss off the freedom-haters. We're talking half-naked nymphs, women having sex and crying out "rape" afterwards, hermaphrodites, animal abuse (lifting horses), and more violence than you can swing a club at. Even kids get killed in this one! But then again, they're pretty evil and spoiled kids to begin with.

So the question is, will L. Brent Bozell and his freedom-hating hydra called the Parents Television Council declare a jihad against NBC for airing this pathetic excuse of a special? Will they offer a curse against the network, or will they demand that their Zeus (the FCC) strike down that which offends them?

I guess we'll have to wait and see, huh?

Sunday, May 15, 2005

"... Enterprise out."

"Space, the final frontier.. these are the voyages of the starship Enterprise..."

Or at least they were...

Okay folks, "Star Trek: Enterprise" gave its farewell show this past Friday, and I gave a fitting farewell this week in my column. By all means, PLEASE check it out... even if you're not a Trekker or Trekkie (and I do explain the difference for those of you who just don't get it).

But I do want to give my thoughts on the farewell show because they do need to be said.

I was somewhat disappointed by the story. If this was a "Next Generation" episode, then I'd think it was right on par with the series, but this was a farewell to Star Trek. The Federation was being formed and Enterprise was being decommissioned, and we don't get to see either! Trip dies, and we don't get to see either his actual death or the funeral service. Instead, we see Will Riker and Deanna Troi walk off the holodeck just before Captain Archer makes his history-making speech. Hey, just because THEY had to memorize it doesn't mean the viewers knew what he would say! Parts of the show focused on Archer agonizing over what he was going to say, and then we don't get to see the finished product.

It was almost as if the whole episode was just slapped together at the last minute. Yeah, let's go back to Rigel X, where the whole series started, and NOBODY WILL RECOGNIZE T'Pol or a bunch of humans wearing Starfleet uniforms and carrying phase rifles. Trip sacrifices his life to save Shran and his daughter, and we don't get to hear from Shran about what he thought of the sacrifice. What about Reed? Is he still part of super-secret Section 31? How about Mayweather? Did he get married? He was pretty tight with the reporter in the previous episode and talked about settling down. (Nice to see he finally got laid too.) Did he stay with the hot babe? Did Engineer Kelby, Trip's temporary replacement, finally hit puberty? Did he manage to let his hair grow out of that cheap "Backstreet Boys" look?

These are all little things, but they are all loose ends that needed to be tied up and they weren't. Instead, we have to settle with the so-called "Valentine"... a montage of starships and starship captains from Picard to Kirk to Archer. I'm sorry, but even for a die-hard Trekker like yours truly, that just comes up short.

Anyway, it was just something that had to be said. I'm not your typical Trek critic, and I don't spend my time trashing every episode of every series since the original three seasons ended like CERTAIN Trek critics did. There are some high points and some low ones with "Enterprise", but in terms of a farewell, this one just came up way too short.

Folks, if you want to see how a farewell should be done, watch "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country", or the final episodes of "Babylon 5". THAT is how to honor your show and say thanks to the fans who stuck through every episode.

You guys want to sound off? By all means, do so!

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

"American Idol" hysteria

Okay folks, from what I've been seeing from this whole "American Idol" crap, I've come to a couple of conclusions:

- Paula Abdul likes sex. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that! She's not married, but she's not dead either. She was smoking hot before hooking up with Emilio Estevez, and every time I see her on TV she still looks hot.

- Paula may be a "judge" on the show, but she obviously doesn't have any pull over who wins, because her alleged boy-toy got voted out. So she gave him some hints about looks and songs... big hairy deal! It's the VIEWERS who decides who wins here.

- Fox News threatening to "escalate" this matter by "investigating" ABC News is stupid and childish. In fact, the retaliation threatened by Fox only served to keep the hysteria going.

- It must be a REALLY slow news time for ABC and Fox to come up with this pissing contest and to have it last longer than 24 hours.

- ABC wasted an hour of broadcasting over something that should have lasted maybe fifteen minutes. If that.

- And finally... hey, hey, Paula! If you're still looking to get freaky, stop playing with the boy-toys and hook up with a guy more your age. Did you know I used to do musicals on stage and was once a part of the choir? Let's trade auditions.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Took a moment to take a stand...

Took a quick break from the move chaos to take a new stand for freedom in America.

There's a new political group called TV Watch which firmly opposes government regulations over all TV content and encourages parental responsibility instead of censorship. This is to counter the continual screed from pro-censorship groups like the Parents Television Council and their leader, L. Brent Bozell, who have bullied and wormed their way into controlling the Federal Communications Commission, essentially turning it into the Federalist Christian Censors.

Of course Bozell and his brood are already screaming about this group, calling it a "network-bought hired gun". Well that sounds very familiar...

A little over a decade ago, I joined in a lawsuit against the Communications Decency Act. The unconstitutional and anti-American law faced three lawsuits from literally THOUSANDS of individuals and a wide variety of corporations and organizations involved with computers and telecommunications. And yet the pro-censorship groups at the time were saying that these lawsuits were filed by the ACLU and the porn industry.

The CDA got eviscerated by the courts because of an organized counterattack, and hopefully the PTC's new push for censorship will also be eviscerated by this counterattack.

The time has come to pick a side in this "culture war", folks. Pro-freedom or pro-censorship. I made my choice for freedom years ago.

Monday, May 02, 2005

The great move of 5/5/5...

For those of you who didn't hear the Brutally Honest rant of a few weeks ago, yours truly will be moving the Brutally Honest Command Center.

I've been doing these hour-long commutes to and from my bill-paying job for eight years now, and quite frankly I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the insanity. I'm sick of paying $60 per week on gas when it used to cost me half that much when I first started playing this game. I'm sick of spending a fortune on car service every month-and-a-half instead of every three months.

So on 5/5/5 (that's May 5th, 2005), I'll be starting the big move from my nice and scenic place to a smaller place that's well within the Greater Atlanta Area. Of course, as always, I'm not going to tell you specifically WHERE it is, but friends and family know exactly were this place is, and it does come well-recommended.

As a matter of fact, if you read the Brutally Honest article entitled "The Atlanta Revolution", you'll have some idea of where I'm moving to.

In the meantime, though, I'll be taking a few pictures that I'll share with you on the move. The first one is already up at the Brutally Honest album.

So for the next week or so, please bear with me if things seem a little chaotic, or even a tad late. As you can understand, I've got a lot of stuff to deal with right now.

Update (05/04): I'll be updating the Brutally Honest album over at Fotki pretty often, so be sure to check in to get more on the move. The next pic of "box city" is up now.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Wilbanks Disappearance: Where are the apologies?

Okay, here's the skinny: Jennifer Wilbanks was supposed to be married this past weekend. Everybody who knew her were ready for this to happen. All of the arrangements were made for this. She comes from a very successful family, so you know that this would be a big, extravagant ceremony.

So she tells John Mason, her fiancee, that she's going out jogging. No big deal, right? She jogs all the time. But this time she goes out jogging and she doesn't come back. There are manhunts to try to find this woman, but they can't find her anywhere in the area.

Meanwhile people are pointing fingers at John! They start suspecting that he killed her, much like Scott Peterson did to his pregnant wife a couple of years ago! The GBI wants to question him and force him to take a polygraph. The media starts suspecting him of being another "Peterson", and if you listen to talk radio even the listeners start sounding off and pointing their fingers at him. "He has something to hide," they kept on saying.

Well it turns out that Jennifer has been alive and well all this time! She just hopped on a bus to Las Vegas to clear her head because she had wedding jitters.

So where are the apologies, people?

Where is the public apology from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation for insisting that John Mason take a polygraph and considering him to be a suspect to a crime that never happened? Where's the public apology from the media for ever suspecting he had anything to do with his fiancee's disappearance? Where are the apologies from every person who started comparing him to Scott Peterson?

Look, I'm glad that she's alive and that it was all just an extreme case of wedding jitters. She certainly needs some help, and she needs to hear some of the things that her family, friends, and especially the man she loved went through because of this. But at the same time it doesn't excuse the deplorable actions of those who were quick to declare this to be something it wasn't, or for them to try and convict an innocent man. We've been down this road before, my friends, and needlessly ruined one man's life because of it.

So let's get some apologies out there. John Mason certainly deserves them.