John Smith

I thought it was compensating for something...

I think it is different in the execution, but not in the results. The results are similar...people who claim to desire privacy open themselves up and give fans or the press more private information. For fans this opens to door to the types who think they are your buddy because they share your personal knowledge. In the mind of the obsessed fan it invites into the stars life the very people who he is nto wishing to invite.

I don't think anyone called him a prick for hitting the guy in his bus after the show. I can fully understand his before and after show routine and the need for them. No body called him aprick for mourning the loss of his wife (common law) and daughter or for writing about it. Nobody called hima prick for not signing every autograph. No person can do that. If he nnever signed a single autograph, that would in no way make him a prick. No he was called a prick for who he is or rather who he expresses himself to be through his writing. The whole notion of "I am a musician when on stage and

One thing I found ironic about the books are that he is writing them in the first place. He seems to want his distance from his fans and the freedom to live his life as he does. If that is the case why put out books describing how he lives his life? If he really craves the privacy, why not keep it private? Putting so much personal information out there about himself is what I would consider to be almost an invitation to a stalker. Not that stalking is ok, but to a stalker the more they know about a person the closer they feel they are to them. Now he probably has a person who has sat in

I've read roadshow and I am torn between him being an elitist prick and a guy who is living a very conflicted life. I think the fact that he will eat at Dairy Queen and stay in cheaper hotels while riding his motorcycle around the country speed viewing national parks pulls him out of the elitist prick category (his descriptions of stops at various national parks reminds me of the Griswold's at the grand canyon). I think he is a prick of a different kind. I believe that he enjoys the music, but not necessarily touring it. Touring is a necessary evil that they have to do, but not necessarily

It does not matter one bit what the rank and file of faux might be, though a center right person probably passes for liberal at faux. What really matters is the direction of the news and they always present news (Nationally not necessairly locally) with an conservative, but ore importantly anti-democrat point of view. Editorially they lean so far right that the legitimate center looks like like the far left. It is not a liberal bias on my part either it is pretty much fact, all thhat need be done is to listen to them objectivly. I have yet to hear a national news story on faux news thhat

Apparently I don't listen to the same news that you do as there was plenty of blame being spread around. It just seems though that whenever Bush is blamed for anything, anything at all, that when anyone in the media reports on the problem they immediately get accused of Bush-bashing. Heck they can use his direct words and stilll they get accused of Bush bashing. There is this notion out there among Bush supporters that you do not criticize him regardless of what he does, though they never say as much. I have friends who say they do not support everything Bush does, but can not name a sing

The Year before katrina (An election year) FEMA worked spectacularly after a Hurricane (or was it three in succession?) in Florida (a battleground state). I believe France had two or three water purification ships in the regions that were offered within a day or so of katrina. I also think for some reason that offer was turned down.

Thout shall not kill was followed fairly closely in the bible by god comanding his people to commit genocide against the peoples inhabiting the promised land. So I think religiously and morally war is an exception to the "thou shalt not kill" comandment.

Sadly yes.

Sadly too many war supporters say this exact thing...our very way of life depends upon this war, or this is the gravest threat ever to face our nation. But when pressed on joining, they invariably have more important things to do, but they support the troops... What is more important than your way of life the survival of our society? None of them can answer. My frined who is a recruiter has zero enlistments from college age war supporters, but he gets lots of pats on the back! I say if it is that big, then send in a million troops and get the job done entirely (though I recognize you can

Black Flag

Pearl Jam not first to be censored by AT&T August 11, 2007 BY JIM DeROGATIS Pop Music Critic AT&T

Bad: When People Were Shorter and Lived near the Water Good: X

I happen to think that it all lies with the PNAC and their enormous presence in the administration. Look at the members Elliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, William J Bennett, Dick Cheney, Elliot Cohen, Steve Forbes, Scooter Libby, Norman Podhertz, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and other less well known. Read their position papers, read about their history. These guys have been advocating war with Iraq since the mid 1990's. Their main goals are to take area's of the world with critical resources and make sure

I'm simply pointing out that your end of the poltical spectrum always accuses the other end of the politcal spectrum yet sloganeering is what the right wing lives by. Moreso in the last 7 - 8 years than any other time in my lifetime.

Stewart also jumped on Krstol the other day for re-asserting that O'Hanllon(?) and Pollack were staunch war critics, when in fact they have been staunch war supporters since day one. I'm still waiting for them to get all over the admin for saying for months that they will not pass judgement on the surge until Patreaus sends in his report in September, and now we find out that the report is actually being written in the White House. Hmmm I wonder what it will say?

It is all in the persepctive on which side of the picture you are looking at. From the days prior to the Bush admin labeling AQ and OBL as freedom haters their goals were to target the Saudi Monarchy and over thrown them. Why? because the monarchy was not safeguarding the land, or taking care of the people. They allowed Foreign forces to extablish permanent bases on what they consider to be sacred ground, base used to attack other arabs. Is this right or wrong? From my perspective it is a non-issue, from their perspective it was the biggest issue. But since then our government and our me

While I don't think the White House Ordered AT&T to do what they did, i think they did it to appease the White House. Remember AT&T is at the heart of the warrentless wiretapping saga. That said, if it is corporate policy I welcome AT&T doing what they did as long as they also do it to both sides of the coin. Ikol remember one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Menachim Begin was a terrorist to the AArabd and a freedom fighter for the Israeli's. The Nicaraguan Contra's were terrorists to the Ortega Regime and freeedom fighters here at their home base. The Mujah

Anyone who has worked in the corporate world knows that you make more as a contractor than as an employee. They can pay him a whole lot more now. And he will be free to freelance with the speech circuit and advisind candidates individually.

If that is their corporate policy I am fine with it. But only if the apply it equally across the board.

I wouldn't see them if the tickets were free. They were the worst show I ever saw. W&CF tour, b section at Assembly hall. The band was horrible. I can live without 25 minute guitar solos, 15 minute drum solos and lead singers who forget the words to their own songs.

My daughter buys singles only now via downloads, it's what most of her friends do. They buy very few CD's thesedays. I'm all for them buying the one or two songs they want and ignoring the rest of the crap on the crappy albums. (she listens to mainly pop music). As to how they are accounted for and the validity of the counts, I have no idea what will get you that accurate figure.

That is a big leap of faith to assume that this was unintentional. Was anything else censored other than cussing & stuff that might get an FCC fine levied (I know this did not fall into that category, but am assuming those were the standards used). What if the only thing censored all weekend was the PJ stuff? Would it still follow that since AT&T said it was unintentional that it truely was? I think it is too early to make that call in the reality based world. I personally will wait till I hear what else was censored, if anything. If in the long run it is only the Anti-Bush stuff

Kids buy singles via downloads thesedays. Ultimately this leads to AT&T determining what you hear...i.e. they have the ability to control the message.