Kurtz Poses a Dumb Question (Of Course)

Instead of focusing on the part of Howard Kurtz's article that *REALLY* steamed me, (the part where he talks about the Dems in disarray or the part where the media is biased in terms of Murtha - Hey Howie, how about paying attention to the polls? When America was gung-ho for war, how much did you media types put emphasis on giving voice to those of us screaming that there were NO connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Huh? What's that? Less than your paper's giving voice to Joe (I've got my head up Bush's ass) Lieberman?) I'm going to focus on the trivial.

Simply cause it really isn't so trivial.

In this current post, he talks about Jennifer Aniston forbidding photos (through an attorney) that were taken WITHOUT PERMISSION from a papparrazi to be published on the internet nor any magazines

This is what Howard the Yuck says:

Observation No. 1: They're already on the Internet.

Observation No. 2: How come it's okay for her to pose for a topless shot (only partially hidden by an arm) for the cover of GQ?

Okay, Howie. How about I come over and take a picture of your wienie for publication? You have problems with it? Why? Cause you didn't give permission? Cause you don't want people to see it?

Look, it was okay for her to POSE for a topless shot because it was her decision you DOLT! Do you even friggin realize that the equivalent of your inane question is: just cause someone had sex before, it's okay to rape her/him.