Tag Archives: george-bush

‘The Other Guys’: Will Ferrell Lecturing On Economics…Really?

The last thing I was worrying about was that The Other Guys would be too preachy. Sure, Will Ferrell has a long history of deep, thought-provoking critiques of society and culture, so that should have been my big concern. Also subtitles. And having the last shot of the film be the word “Fin” superimposed over the freeze-framed image of a crying child alone on a beach symbolizing death or something. You know, sometimes you just want to go, have a drink or two, or three, or ten, and then sit in a movie theater and tune out the seemingly endless parades of nimrods, pinkos and sanctimonious deadbeats who make up so much of our society today. You just want some guys to come on the screen and to do and say some funny stuff. Maybe you want an explosion or two, perhaps a gratuitous shower scene – strike that, as shower scenes are never gratuitous. Unless it’s a dude. Or Kathy Bates. The point is the last thing you want after a Dos XX prep and handing over $11.75 each for yourself and your life partner/designated driver is for a bunch of Hollywood half-wits to stop the fun to give you a PowerPoint briefing on their insights into modern politics – without even the PowerPoint. And it appears that this is exactly what The Other Guys intends to do . Look. Will Ferrell is an intermittently amusing guy with a bizarre sense of humor and an ability to be oddly compelling in his usual role as an utterly unself-aware buffoon. However, I’d put my level of eagerness to drop $23.50 for the privilege of hearing out his political views at somewhere between passing a kidney stone made of broken glass and helping Ernest Borgnine with his bi-monthly Brazilian wax. Someone out there might be interested in seeing Ferrell’s phallocentric George Bush play – they pimped the stupid thing on HBO enough – but I’m not one of them. I have plenty of geniuses providing me the full benefit of their lefty echo-chamber reinforced clichés on Twitter every day. I don’t need to pay for them – there are countless dumbasses out there who give it away for free. The problem isn’t that Will Ferrell wants to talk about politics on stage or on the screen. It’s that I don’t want to see it in The Other Guys. Let’s leave out the fact that the message itself appears to be a confused mishmash of pseudo-populist ire and hazily understood recent history. I just don’t want to deal with it in a Will Ferrell comedy. Hell, I’m not being unreasonable here. I’m willing to tolerate having that Marky Mark guy in the movie – that’s a major concession for a straight man. So, now I and I’m guessing a significant number of other conservative folks are going to have to sit this one out. Will the filmakers even notice? Perhaps, perhaps not. But the consequences of alienating at least half your audience with some free-form pinko propagandizing will only grow more consequential over time. Now, not so many years ago – before sites like Big Hollywood, as here , let the cat out of the bag on lefty sucker-punchery – our number would have been small. No one would think to warn us, mostly because to the extent that most mainstream critics would notice these politics they would probably find them not nearly leftist enough. Even now, the Rolling Stone review – yeah, Rolling Stone is still a thing, if you can believe it – does not even mention The Other Guys’ politics. Hacky puff- pieces whitewash it. But then, “Hollywood journalism” is a contradiction in terms – like the phrases “Democratic fiscal responsibility” and “Lady Gaga’s talent.” If it weren’t for the alternative media, we’d have walked into the theaters, sat down, quietly popped the tops on our beers – everyone does that, right? – and stared wide-eyed and smiling until … WHAM! The liberal sucker punch would have landed. And we never saw it coming. Well, we see it coming now, and there are quite a few of us who are a bit reluctant to walk right into a left cross. The point is not that Hollywood should not make left-wing movies – though it shouldn’t, considering leftism’s unbroken track record of total failure and human misery. The point is that it should not cater to the delusions of the pampered stars and producers who think that years of toiling in detergent commercials and taking roles as “Second Delivery Man” before hitting it big have provided them with unique, valuable insights that simply must be shared with their unwilling, unsuspecting audience. You want to make a left-wing film? Make it, but be honest about it. Let people know. Spread the word. Sit there during one of those insipid Access Hollywood pseudo-interviews, tent your fingers, lean your enormous movie star head into the camera and say, “In this movie, I don’t hold back my poorly articulated thoughts about how the ownership of the means of production should reside in the hands of the proletariat. Plus, I do some really hilarious bits involving farting nuns.” If I want preaching, I’ll go to church. When I go to a Will Ferrell movie, I want to laugh. I want to drink my beer, not feel like I need to huck it at the screen. And, while you’re at it, no subtitles or “Fin” freeze-frames either. Crossposted at Big Hollywood .

Read the original:
‘The Other Guys’: Will Ferrell Lecturing On Economics…Really?

‘Media Mash’: Networks Celebrate Obama’s Birthday, CBS’s Smith Lobs Softball in Interview

After watching a highlight reel of network news reporters lamenting how President Obama was spending his 49th birthday alone and that the office is discernibly graying his hair, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell told Fox News viewers last night that the same media outlets ignored how, the day before Obama’s birthday, “The voters of Missouri absolutely crushed, clobbered, masaquered his ObamaCare program by 71 to 29 percent.” Bozell appeared on the August 5 edition of Sean Hannity’s program for the latest installment of “Media Mash,” a look at the media’s most egregious bias of the past week. The second topic in last night’s segment was this doozy from CBS’s Harry Smith: HARRY SMITH to President Obama:  Do you feel sometimes that your administration is not given the credit it deserves? President OBAMA: Yes. “You know, this wah-wah whining has got to stop. What they’re saying is that the media aren’t pro-Obama enough,” Bozell observed, adding: Look, the Obama people have got the political defibrillators out. He’s at 41 percent [approval] in the polls. George Bush didn’t get this low until the second term after Katrina…. They’re in an absolute free-fall. So what do they doing?  First they go to “The View,” and then they go to Harry Smith. It’s a likely progression.  For the full segment, click here for MP3 audio . To watch the video, click the play button on the embed above or click here to download the WMV video file . 

The rest is here:
‘Media Mash’: Networks Celebrate Obama’s Birthday, CBS’s Smith Lobs Softball in Interview

Maine “Michael Nifong on steroids”

Maine: Supreme Court Hears Case on Out-of-Control DV Prosecutor Tuesday, June 15, 2010 By Abusegate Bob This is an update on a case currently being argued in front of the Maine Supreme Court about an out-of-control prosecutor named Mary Kellet, who has wrongfully charged and prosecuted many innocent men in Maine… The Maine Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the State of Maine vs. Vladek Filler. National Director of the Domestic Abuse Helpline Jan Brown attended the hearing as did some others. The “Michael Nifong on steroids” Mary Kellett has prosecuted countless innocent men on trumped up charges and false evidence. When it becomes easy for a prosecutor to lie to judges and juries with impunity, it is also easy for them to lie to the Supreme Court. Mary Kellett mislead the Supreme Court about her misconduct and the trial record. When the trial court found Mary Kellett guilty of prosecutorial misconduct against Vladek Filler she continued to abuse her power as the representative of the State of Maine. She filed an appeal of her prosecutorial misconduct, then wrote the appeal herself, and then argued it herself before Maine Supreme Court. It is equivalent to a corrupt police officer investigating himself then writing a report finding the victims at fault. The prosecutor brazenly lied to the Supreme Court about her misconduct and explicit court order violations at trial, pointed the finger at the defense attorney, and argued for Vladek Filler to be denied acquittal or even a new trial. One Justice asked Mary Kellett whether she considered a custody battle for the children important in a case where the wife is alleging spousal rape against the husband. Mary Kellett responded that it is the defense who should be concerned with the importance of child custody battle evidence. The admission of the State’s unconstitutional “burden shifting” is stunning. The State of Maine has admitted that it is less concerned with evidence ulterior motives and false allegations, and relies on defense to seek the truth and be concerned with such evidence. Vladek Filler’s attorney argued the systematic and flagrant prosecutorial misconduct committed by Mary Kellett and the insufficiency of evidence to support Vladek Filler’s conviction or even for bringing charges against him. That in fact, the evidence showed this prosecutor brought numerous charges of rape against a man where the accuser herself made admissions that it was consensual. This highly politicized appeal is pending in the Maine Supreme Court. Not a single media outlet in Maine has covered the State’s appeal or the systematic prosecutorial abuse of innocent men in the Bar Harbor region. The prosecutorial and civil rights crimes against Vladek Filler and men like him must be exposed. For more information, see: www.fillerfund.com added by: choice

Poll: 26% Of U.S. Clueless On Who We Declared Independence From !

Now you know why George Bush got elected……TWICE! added by: kennymotown

Rachel Maddow Asks Her MSNBC Audience: ‘Is It OK’ to Ridicule al Qaeda?

Check out this curious query from MSNBC cable show host Rachel Maddow on her show June 21 while describing a video statement released by Adam Gadahn, the so-called “American al Qaeda” — MADDOW: I know that al Qaeda is al Qaeda, right? But is it OK to point out that they’re ridiculous, that their propaganda is inadvertently funny, as in ha ha I’m laughing at you? Consider for a moment what Maddow is doing here — she is asking permission of her audience, which also occupies the fringe left, if it’s “OK” to ridicule al Qaeda, to laugh at them even. Suffice it to say, the notion of destroying al Qaeda never gets out of committee with this crowd. Begs the question — why would Maddow even ask? My theory — old habits are hard to break. The same audience watching Maddow has spent most of the last decade blaming Bush, Cheney, et al., for terrorism — instead of the more obvious culprit, al Qaeda. The fact that Obama’s been president nearly a year and a half doesn’t change this habit of thought. Notice how often liberals and Democrats still blame the Bush administration for all manner of evil coming down the pike, such as the BP oil spill, economic stagnation, massive government debt, etc. I’d be inclined to give Maddow the benefit of a doubt, but her track record undermines that inclination. Such as back in December when UN ambassador Susan Rice, not exactly a Tom Delay Republican, interrupted Maddow to point out that the threat from al Qaeda is not “hypothetical.” Or a month earlier after the Fort Hood bloodbath when Maddow questioned whether the mass murder of Americans by a radical Muslim yelling “Allahu Akbar!” while he gunned them down constituted “terrorism.” Yet after abortion doctor George Tiller was shot to death in May 2009, Maddow quickly described it as “terrorism.” Or in February 2009 when Maddow oversold a former Guantanamo guard’s allegations of abuse, from a man who promptly returned to well-deserved obscurity and hasn’t been heard from since. Never let it be said, though, that Maddow doesn’t believe in the presumption of innocence — which she does for captured al Qaeda but not for George Bush and company, as shown in November 2008 . My favorite example of Maddow’s tendency to provide lip service in her condemnation of al Qaeda came in August 2008, back when she was still working for Air America Radio. One of her guests that month was Jonathan Mahler, author of “The Challenge: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and the Fight Over Presidential Power” and a writer for the New York Times Magazine. Mahler was on Maddow’s show Aug. 6 to discuss the trial by military commission of Salim Hamdan, bin Laden’s bodyguard and driver ( link here for audio) — MADDOW: What exactly was he convicted of? I felt like there was a lot of sort of loosy-goosy hinting today in the coverage about the fact that he had these missiles in his vehicle when he was actually apprehended by US forces. As far as I understand it, he wasn’t convicted of anything that had anything to do with those missiles. He was convicted of this material support for terrorism charge. MAHLER: That’s right, that’s right. He was, in fact, captured with two surface-to-air missiles in the trunk of his car. He had basically, what had happened is that he had just left his wife and daughter, his wife was actually eight months pregnant at the time, and he had left his wife and daughter at the border of Pakistan. They were basically fleeing the al Qaeda compound and he was captured then sort of on his way back into Afghanistan with these two missiles in his car. But they were not really part of the conviction. I think the defense argued that there was a civil war going on in Afghanistan at the time and you can’t say that he was going to be using these missiles against US forces (with mild sarcasm). What he was … MADDOW (interrupting): Although it should be noted, it’s not like the Northern Alliance or the Taliban had an awesome air force, if they really were surface-to-air missiles. MAHLER (laughing): Good point, Rachel! Good point! MADDOW: Unless we’re talking magic carpets here! (laughs) Yeah, all right. Carry on. MAHLER: But what he was convicted of was material support, so basically what he was convicted of was driving bin Laden around in the aftermath, in particular, of say the 1998 embassy bombings in east Africa, the US embassies that were bombed in east Africa by al Qaeda in 1998. And as bin Laden’s driver, Hamdan presumably helped him elude capture in the wake of those attacks. (emphasis added and again) MADDOW: So literally what he was convicted of was not quitting his job. MAHLER (pauses, then laughs): That’s one way of looking at it, certainly.   MADDOW: Right? I mean, not that they’re saying there was anything criminal about his driving. MAHLER: They, what they did was, they convicted a driver of driving. MADDOW: Yeah!  From Maddow’s perspective, Hamdan was guilty of nothing more than “not quitting his job.” A job, not incidentally, that entailed protecting bin Laden as he prepared for 9/11, abandoning his pregnant wife and child on the Afghan-Pakistan border after 9/11, then rushing back into Afghanistan with surface-to-air missiles for use against non-existent aircraft of the Northern Alliance. And if only John Wilkes Booth had given up acting, he’d never have been in Ford’s Theater that night. At the end of the same segment on June 21, Maddow thanked her guest, former Petraeus adviser and author David Kilcullen, a native Australian, and alluded to a helicopter crash in Afghanistan that killed three Aussie soldiers and injured seven others. Maddow comes across as upbeat and bizarre in mentioning this to Kilcullen, as can be seen in second part of the embedded video. 

Read the rest here:
Rachel Maddow Asks Her MSNBC Audience: ‘Is It OK’ to Ridicule al Qaeda?

The psychopathic criminal enterprise called America

The Government uses the law to harm people and shield the establishment. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19536 Has anybody seen any thing from Obama that would earn him the Nobel Peace prize? The whole world believes that Tony Blair and George Bush and Cheney are criminals of the highest degree, yet they are shielded from justice. Obama is still carrying on George Bush's agenda, does this also make him a criminal of the highest degree? Or should this be the norm for modern civilizations. I once seen a movie called Logans Run and somehow I see this world today as the early plans for making world war III that will certainly bring oppression of the meanest degree. The eagles claws are sharp and vicious and the eagle must be fed a bloody dinner everyday. There are and have been many hungry eagles with the power and the hunger for our blood in our history. GlobalResearch.ca has many articles of truth and reality and real news. I recommend that everybody should try is if you want to read about the real world. added by: Ragan

Obama’s Knowing ‘Whose Ass to Kick’ Pledge Continues to Delight TV Network Journalists

More than 24 hours after NBC’s Matt Lauer prompted him to say it in an interview, the morning programs all showcased it – and even after day-long playback on the cable channels – CBS and NBC on Tuesday night delighted in again highlighting President Barack Obama’s boast that he’s gathering information on the oil leak “so I know whose ass to kick.” Katie Couric put the soundbite, from a competitor, at the top of the CBS Evening News: “In a TV interview aired today, the President said if BP’s CEO worked for him, he’d be fired. And Mr. Obama defended his handling of the disaster.” NBC Nightly News provided a re-run. A day after anchor Brian Williams trumpeted as “just into us” the bite illustrating how Obama “showed some anger on the topic of his handling of this spill so far,” reporter Anne Thompson touted: “Criticized for not conveying his anger over the nation’s greatest environmental disaster, President Obama fired back during an exclusive interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer.” Earlier, from Geoff Dickens: “ NBC’s Lauer Prompted Obama’s Use of the ‘A’ Word ” From the start of the Tuesday, June 8 CBS Evening News: KATIE COURIC: Good evening, everyone. The President is heading back to the gulf coast, his fourth trip there since the oil rig exploded seven weeks ago today. It will be a two-day visit to once again see for himself what’s going on in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Meanwhile, here’s what we’re seeing tonight– fire on the water as BP burns off some of the leaking oil. And this video just released shows the power of the gushing crude before the well was capped. Government scientists confirmed today that plumes of oil are spreading far below the surface of the gulf and far away from that leaking well. In a TV interview aired today, the President said if BP’s CEO worked for him, he’d be fired. And Mr. Obama defended his handling of the disaster. PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick. From the NBC Nightly News: ANNE THOMPSON: …Criticized for not conveying his anger over the nation’s greatest environmental disaster, President Obama fired back during an exclusive interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer. OBAMA: A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there standing in the rain, talking about what a potential crisis this could be. And I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick. THOMPSON: The President expressed particular displeasure with BP’s CEO Tony Hayward, who said last week he wanted his life back. OBAMA: He wouldn’t be working for me after any of those statements.

Read the rest here:
Obama’s Knowing ‘Whose Ass to Kick’ Pledge Continues to Delight TV Network Journalists

HuffPo Column is a Microcosm of the Liberal Mindset – EVERYTHING is Bush’s Fault

Huffington Post writer and author of poetry and fiction, Anis Shivani, demonstrated what we have seen in bits and pieces throughout the liberal MSM, though it is rarely seen in such dramatic and sweeping fashion.  Shivani harnessed all of the rational thought he could muster, gathered a bevy of intelligent rhetoric, armed himself with a cache of well-reasoned arguments and… quickly dispensed with them prior to writing his recent column .  The gist of the piece?  Every major catastrophe to hit America can be traced to one singular event – George Bush and the 2000 Presidential election results. No, seriously. Shivani starts off by listing examples of American catastrophes – 9/11, Enron, Katrina, Wall Street, the BP spill. He then explains (emphasis mine throughout): ” It all began with the Florida election theft in 2000 (all of the now-familiar excuses were first used in full force, in total conjugation, for this first disaster). It gave a signal to everyone managing and regulating and overseeing any kind of operation, public or private, that henceforth it was the day of the jackals , that accountability and honesty and certitude were out the door.” For good measure – and in tune with his liberal colleagues – the BP oil spill is singled out as being directly Bush’s fault: “In such an open culture of deceit, why do we expect BP not to cut corners, or to be afraid of being brought to account should its recklessness go awry? Nobody has been held responsible for the eight years of war crimes under the Bush administration. Everyone knows that you can get away with whatever you want , and if you mess up on your watch, it’s all right. You’re certainly not going to jail.” Never mind those pesky Transocean/Deepwater safety awards handed out by the Obama administration.  Certainly the only culpability lies with the previous administration. On a side note, if getting away with whatever you want caused these catastrophes, then William Jefferson has some ‘splainin’ to do. The liberal media have consistently blamed Bush for every one of the aforementioned disasters.  That trend has continued with the disaster in the Gulf, as the following list demonstrates: Frank Rich Blames Oil Spill on Bush, Cheney, Beck, Palin, Tea Party and Rand Paul Behar on Oil Spill: Bush-Cheney ‘Started It, And Now This Poor Guy Has to Mop It Up’ Huffington on ABC’s This Week: ‘Absolutely a Thousand Percent Bush-Cheney’s Fault’ Now however, the bar has been raised by explaining away every single American catastrophe as being caused by the 2000 election.  No mention of what caused the devastation in Haiti, the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, or the earthquake in Chile, but the people of those nations should seriously consider the effect of hanging chads on plate tectonics.  In the middle of the article, Shivani does exhibit a moment of clarity, finally criticizing the Obama administration for not stemming the flow of these disasters because – wait for it – they didn’t prosecute Bush administration officials for war crimes. “At no point has the circuit been broken. Obama, if he’d prosecuted officials in the previous administration for war crimes, would have slowed down the flow of disasters. How is BP connected to torture? In every way imaginable. Once this administration took charge, it refused to send any signals that those who committed crimes against the people would be brought to justice.” Hold on there Crazy McCrazypants.  Election results cause earthquakes?  Fighting a War on Terrorism and more specifically, waterboarding, causes oil spills?  I’ve heard it all now.  Next you’ll be telling me that excessive cleavage causes … well, nevermind. The best part about this piece is the end, where Shivani wraps it all up by hinting that any eventual disasters will also be Bush’s fault. “It is a huge, unmistakable signal that lawlessness is all right. It goes back to Florida, the original sin, it really does , and there’s no putting this Humpty Dumpty back together again…  These disasters are merely the exclamatory end points of this particular bloated empire. Get ready for the next ‘completely unprecedented,’ even larger one .” In the meantime, we’ll simply get ready for the next bout of Bush Derangement Syndrome from the Huffington Post.  – Send comments or tips to rustyweiss@verizon.net . Please join me on Facebook.

See more here:
HuffPo Column is a Microcosm of the Liberal Mindset – EVERYTHING is Bush’s Fault

Former NYT editor asks the question that ALL real journalists should ask. Why is Fox News considered a legitimate source of news?

Here just an excerpt from Howard Raines ballsy opinion piece from the Washington Post : Why has our profession, through its general silence — or only spasmodic protest — helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting. Why can’t American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher’s political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation’s airwaves to Murdoch’s cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post. These are very obvious questions which should have been asked way back when Fox News started blurring the line between news and opinion. You know I do believe that was the day of their premiere. Maybe the real journalists thought that the American people would catch on. That they would not be so easily seduced by salacious stories delivered by large breasted blond women accompanied by state of the art graphics and catchy background music. Apparently these journalists gave their fellow Americans way too much credit. The first time that Fox News definitively demonstrated to the world that they were a propaganda arm of the GOP was during the 2000 election when they helped George Bush steal the election. Since then they have been instrumental in helping George Bush fabricate the lie of WMD’s in Iraq to justify the invasion, made up falsehoods about presidential candidate John Kerry, openly attacked the science behind Climate Change, and are currently working non-stop to put a halt to Obama’s Health Care reform . Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, can seriously call what Fox does “reporting the news”. Personally I think their slogan of “Fair and Balanced” was always supposed to be ironic. I have little doubt it still causes Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch to giggle every time they hear it. So far the only cable news (or fake news) people to consistently take Fox News to task has been the amazing Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central, and of course THIS guy. You know if tomorrow EVERY OTHER news outlet suddenly decided, in unison, to call Fox News out on their bullshit, that audiences all across the world would have their eyes opened and that Fox would lose a huge section of its audience in one fell swoop. I mean if CNN took one of their broadcasts on Global Warming for instance, and pointed out all of the made up data and inconsistencies contained with in it, that would have an impact. And if ABC did the same with their coverage of the health care debate, and NBC revealed the manipulations behind their coverage of elections, and CBS spanked them for misrepresenting poll numbers, just think how quickly people would turn a critical eye toward this “cable news source”. I mean it is not like they are going after a colleague. The people on FOX are not “journalists” they are performers. It would be like if a ballet company called out a strip club for promoting their workers as classically trained dancers. Nobody would accuse the ballet company of being jealous or petty, they would just be pointing out the obvious. But you know they won’t do it. Because they are afraid. They are afraid that Fox New will use its money, and its easily manipulated audience, to attack and punish the other news networks. And they are afraid to stand up to that kind of a backlash. And to that I say, “What a bunch of pussies!” Are the other networks so afraid of losing viewers and sponsors that they would refuse to do their duty to inform the American people that they are the victim of a fraud? They have reported when cars are unsafe to drive, when foods may cause our children to be sickened, and when scams are being perpetrated on the elderly, how is this any different? Sometimes it is important to defy a powerful enemy and take a stand for your profession, for your country, and for the truth. After all being attacked by Fox News is not the end of the world. And I should know.

Originally posted here:
Former NYT editor asks the question that ALL real journalists should ask. Why is Fox News considered a legitimate source of news?

New Orleans Natives React To Lil Wayne’s ‘We Are The World’ Katrina Comment

During recording session, rapper praised what’s been done for Haiti while condemning efforts in his hometown. By Gil Kaufman Lil Wayne Photo: MTV News Lil Wayne was vocal about how humbled and honored he was to be taking over folk icon Bob Dylan’s part on Monday night’s remake of “We Are the World.” But at the end of his soft-spoken comments to reporters during the recording session, the New Orleans-bred rapper added one more thought that instantly sent a buzz through the room

Go here to see the original:
New Orleans Natives React To Lil Wayne’s ‘We Are The World’ Katrina Comment