March 20, 2009
I think it is a pleasure to listen to President Obama, and he is a pretty funny guy to boot. A very good interview.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Destruction Delayed
March 17, 2009
Well, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is apparently the way we measure the success of our president) is up nearly 850 points over a six-day span.
Why aren't people shouting that the economy is on its way to recovery? Why aren't people cheering that Barack Obama has saved us? Okay, so I am kidding. Just a little.
But I do think it's interesting that when the economy is down, the president gets criticized because Wall Street apparently is very worried about his economic plans. So when the economy improves, and the administration starts to sound more positive about the general situation, then they get criticized for sounding too optimistic.
I just know that deep down in the conservative gut, there is utter hatred at the site of the stock market rising. Even though it doesn't prove Obama is not going to destroy the country, as they have so energetically predicted, it at least means that they will have to wait for armageddon at least one more day.
Well, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (which is apparently the way we measure the success of our president) is up nearly 850 points over a six-day span.
Why aren't people shouting that the economy is on its way to recovery? Why aren't people cheering that Barack Obama has saved us? Okay, so I am kidding. Just a little.
But I do think it's interesting that when the economy is down, the president gets criticized because Wall Street apparently is very worried about his economic plans. So when the economy improves, and the administration starts to sound more positive about the general situation, then they get criticized for sounding too optimistic.
I just know that deep down in the conservative gut, there is utter hatred at the site of the stock market rising. Even though it doesn't prove Obama is not going to destroy the country, as they have so energetically predicted, it at least means that they will have to wait for armageddon at least one more day.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Fox News Porn
March 15, 2009
It warms my heart to know so many people watch Fox News, mostly because it's "fair and balanced," especially when these moral folks are supporting the garbage they put on there. I lost the little respect I had for Bill O'Reilly when he did several segments years back about Carl's Jr.'s commercial with Paris Hilton all soaped up and nearly nude, doing a car wash. It was one of the most hypocritical expositions I've ever seen. O'Reilly bloviated about angry parents whose kids could have been exposed to such filth, since the commercials were on at such an early hour. And here he was, on a show that airs at 6 p.m. MST, repeatedly showing clips of the practically naked Hilton.
The current issue is with Fox News reporting on the violence happening in Mexico and the threat to college students who want to go there for spring break. So, naturally (any clear-thinking person would do the same), the segments airing on "The O'Reilly Factor," whatever Hannity calls his show now, and "On the Record" with Greta, were teased with dozens of pictures of buxom women in bikinis dancing around, partying, and drinking beer. When these "fair and balanced" anchors reported on the story, as well as discussed the issues with their guests, naturally, they again repeatedly aired the soft-pornographic material. And why not? You can't talk about the story without showing scantily clad women. It just wouldn't work out.
I certainly will not embed the video, since it is so disgusting, but I couldn't help but comment about another example of how Fox News is so often trash television - the likes of which I would expect to see more from MTV or E!
Bravo. Keep watching, because it's definitely more fun to get informed on the issues while women in bikinis are giving you repeated encouragement. Only a serious news channel would cover stories with such class and conservatism.
Not surprisingly, Jon Stewart picked up on "bad habit" Fox has sometimes exhibited in a clip in 2006, and though I felt it would be wrong to have such inappropriate content posted on such a wholesome website like mine, I suddenly remembered this was coverage by Fox News. So what is there to worry about?
Don't these people realize how they undermine themselves and their imagined "moral" position? Bill O'Reilly has branded himself as a "Culture Warrior." He and his colleagues at Fox are devoted to telling people what is moral and immoral: gays, sex education, abortion, Brittany Spears, etc. When they show this garbage on their shows, how can one take them seriously when they act like they have any authority in moral matters? They are a joke, and I think Bill O'Reilly showing footage like this in prime time is probably more harmful to society than a couple of gay people getting married in California. But people will keep watching him tell us morality is under attack, somehow oblivious to the overt display of hypocrisy, all the while undermining their own "moral" positions.
I've happened upon one of the little secrets on the issue. The following was published in the current issue of "The Week" magazine:
The porn paradox
Guess which states are most interested in online pornography? That’s right—those with the highest concentrations of politically conservative and traditionally religious people. Of the top 10 porn-buying states in the nation, says a new Harvard University study, eight voted Republican in the last presidential election. In states in which laws have been passed banning gay marriage, subscription rates to porn sites are 11 percent greater than in states without gay-marriage bans. In Utah, most people agreed with the statement, “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.” Yet Utah boasts the highest porn-buying rate in the entire nation. Why are people in “red” states more likely to indulge in online porn? Perhaps they’re simultaneously repulsed and fascinated by sexuality, study author Benjamin Edelman tells New Scientist. “One natural hypothesis is something like repression: If you’re told you can’t have this, then you want it more.”
So while they point fingers and condemn society for its moral depravity, maybe a simple answer for why this junk is on a "news" channel is that people who watch Fox News like it.
It warms my heart to know so many people watch Fox News, mostly because it's "fair and balanced," especially when these moral folks are supporting the garbage they put on there. I lost the little respect I had for Bill O'Reilly when he did several segments years back about Carl's Jr.'s commercial with Paris Hilton all soaped up and nearly nude, doing a car wash. It was one of the most hypocritical expositions I've ever seen. O'Reilly bloviated about angry parents whose kids could have been exposed to such filth, since the commercials were on at such an early hour. And here he was, on a show that airs at 6 p.m. MST, repeatedly showing clips of the practically naked Hilton.
The current issue is with Fox News reporting on the violence happening in Mexico and the threat to college students who want to go there for spring break. So, naturally (any clear-thinking person would do the same), the segments airing on "The O'Reilly Factor," whatever Hannity calls his show now, and "On the Record" with Greta, were teased with dozens of pictures of buxom women in bikinis dancing around, partying, and drinking beer. When these "fair and balanced" anchors reported on the story, as well as discussed the issues with their guests, naturally, they again repeatedly aired the soft-pornographic material. And why not? You can't talk about the story without showing scantily clad women. It just wouldn't work out.
I certainly will not embed the video, since it is so disgusting, but I couldn't help but comment about another example of how Fox News is so often trash television - the likes of which I would expect to see more from MTV or E!
Bravo. Keep watching, because it's definitely more fun to get informed on the issues while women in bikinis are giving you repeated encouragement. Only a serious news channel would cover stories with such class and conservatism.
Not surprisingly, Jon Stewart picked up on "bad habit" Fox has sometimes exhibited in a clip in 2006, and though I felt it would be wrong to have such inappropriate content posted on such a wholesome website like mine, I suddenly remembered this was coverage by Fox News. So what is there to worry about?
Don't these people realize how they undermine themselves and their imagined "moral" position? Bill O'Reilly has branded himself as a "Culture Warrior." He and his colleagues at Fox are devoted to telling people what is moral and immoral: gays, sex education, abortion, Brittany Spears, etc. When they show this garbage on their shows, how can one take them seriously when they act like they have any authority in moral matters? They are a joke, and I think Bill O'Reilly showing footage like this in prime time is probably more harmful to society than a couple of gay people getting married in California. But people will keep watching him tell us morality is under attack, somehow oblivious to the overt display of hypocrisy, all the while undermining their own "moral" positions.
I've happened upon one of the little secrets on the issue. The following was published in the current issue of "The Week" magazine:
The porn paradox
Guess which states are most interested in online pornography? That’s right—those with the highest concentrations of politically conservative and traditionally religious people. Of the top 10 porn-buying states in the nation, says a new Harvard University study, eight voted Republican in the last presidential election. In states in which laws have been passed banning gay marriage, subscription rates to porn sites are 11 percent greater than in states without gay-marriage bans. In Utah, most people agreed with the statement, “I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.” Yet Utah boasts the highest porn-buying rate in the entire nation. Why are people in “red” states more likely to indulge in online porn? Perhaps they’re simultaneously repulsed and fascinated by sexuality, study author Benjamin Edelman tells New Scientist. “One natural hypothesis is something like repression: If you’re told you can’t have this, then you want it more.”
So while they point fingers and condemn society for its moral depravity, maybe a simple answer for why this junk is on a "news" channel is that people who watch Fox News like it.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A Clarification
March 14, 2009
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Internet is that while it gives the illusion of making communication amongst users all the more possible, what it often really does is inhibit quality interactions. Words on a screen can convey a thousand different thoughts and feelings, but there is no human sitting there to explain if there are misunderstandings.
I want to make it clear that many of the things I argue on this site, are more for the sake of argument, and giving a contrary point-of-view, rather than this just being a place for me to establish, unequivocally, exactly what I believe for any out there interested.
There is probably more equivocalness than not in what I'm saying. Therefore when I argue, for instance, that I think this or that about President Bush, or some other defenseless conservative bystander, I am not saying I don't think there are positive things about that person, or that it is impossible for someone to support George W. Bush, or vote for a conservative/republican.
On the other hand, I do make a lot of my observations with the idea (at least in my mind) that there are many conservatives out there today who question my intelligence completely just because I would even consider, for even a second, a liberal perspective, let alone endorse one. Thus, one of the main reasons I exist is to point out the inconsistency that for the last two presidential terms, many of my associates have pointed out how awful it was that liberals hated Bush for no apparent reason, other than to hate (and they - conservatives - are probably right); yet now that the president is a democrat, these same people have turned around and are doing exactly the same thing, justifying it all the way.
I know they probably don't see it that way. But when you've made up your mind, evidence to the contrary be damned, that's what it looks like. When you've established in your mind that the president is a liar, then it is easy to say he is a socialist, even if he says he is not, or that he wants socialized medicine, when he doesn't. Or, the converse: it is easy to believe that a president is a war criminal, even though he says he had America's best interests at heart, because he lied about going to war in the first place.
My purpose is at least a tiny (probably insignificant) attempt at avoiding such extreme positions. Because arguing that someone is less intelligent than me just because they disagree, or because there is no possible rational explanation for liberal (or conservative, for that matter) ideas, is really just evidence of the absence of a good argument.
P.S. I've gotten a couple comments that people are unsure what I believe exactly, and I take it as a compliment. It means I have not been ferociously defending and fighting for one particular viewpoint. I am perfectly comfortable with people wondering whether I'm really a liberal, or a conservative, or some weirdo in between.
One of the biggest disadvantages of the Internet is that while it gives the illusion of making communication amongst users all the more possible, what it often really does is inhibit quality interactions. Words on a screen can convey a thousand different thoughts and feelings, but there is no human sitting there to explain if there are misunderstandings.
I want to make it clear that many of the things I argue on this site, are more for the sake of argument, and giving a contrary point-of-view, rather than this just being a place for me to establish, unequivocally, exactly what I believe for any out there interested.
There is probably more equivocalness than not in what I'm saying. Therefore when I argue, for instance, that I think this or that about President Bush, or some other defenseless conservative bystander, I am not saying I don't think there are positive things about that person, or that it is impossible for someone to support George W. Bush, or vote for a conservative/republican.
On the other hand, I do make a lot of my observations with the idea (at least in my mind) that there are many conservatives out there today who question my intelligence completely just because I would even consider, for even a second, a liberal perspective, let alone endorse one. Thus, one of the main reasons I exist is to point out the inconsistency that for the last two presidential terms, many of my associates have pointed out how awful it was that liberals hated Bush for no apparent reason, other than to hate (and they - conservatives - are probably right); yet now that the president is a democrat, these same people have turned around and are doing exactly the same thing, justifying it all the way.
I know they probably don't see it that way. But when you've made up your mind, evidence to the contrary be damned, that's what it looks like. When you've established in your mind that the president is a liar, then it is easy to say he is a socialist, even if he says he is not, or that he wants socialized medicine, when he doesn't. Or, the converse: it is easy to believe that a president is a war criminal, even though he says he had America's best interests at heart, because he lied about going to war in the first place.
My purpose is at least a tiny (probably insignificant) attempt at avoiding such extreme positions. Because arguing that someone is less intelligent than me just because they disagree, or because there is no possible rational explanation for liberal (or conservative, for that matter) ideas, is really just evidence of the absence of a good argument.
P.S. I've gotten a couple comments that people are unsure what I believe exactly, and I take it as a compliment. It means I have not been ferociously defending and fighting for one particular viewpoint. I am perfectly comfortable with people wondering whether I'm really a liberal, or a conservative, or some weirdo in between.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The World Turned Upside Down
March 12, 2009
I have been cognizant of the workings of politics for a relatively short amount of time. Nevertheless, it doesn't take long for one to figure out that politics is very easy to predict, since the topic is very cyclical in nature (some might replace the word cyclical with "hypocritical").
With this in mind, I wondered for several years before the last election, what would happen if a democrat were elected president? For nearly two years, conservatives complained and complained about an evil media machine that would bend over backwards to get Barack Obama elected; the same media were a huge enemy to President George W. Bush for eight years.
I literally had conversations with people who told me with the utmost conviction that if Obama got elected, we would be screwed, but that the media would actually make us think everything was wonderful, being the democratic whipping children that the media were.
So, given the premise that the media are hopelessly biased, it was no surprise how Obama practically cleaned John McCain's clock in the election. There then followed the transition period, after which Barack actually became President Obama.
Not much later, I was absolutely astounded to see storys about layoffs, crashing stock markets, forclosures, and all other sorts of economic turmoil. I was surprised to see actual criticisms of President Obama - his stimulus plan, his failure to forge bipartisan inroads, not vetoing the $410 billion spending bill, failing to bring ALL troops home from Iraq like he said he would, etc. Not only was I surprised, I was incredibly dumbfounded to see that such criticisms came from conservative AND liberal writers.
And now, conservatives who spouted off for at least the last eight years that a person was unpatriotic to criticize the president, have gotten out the clubs, and are going to town, now that the president isn't a republican anymore.
While everything has changed - the Democrats have considerable majorities in both houses of Congress, and control the presidency - nothing has really changed. Liberals who bashed Bush incessantly are now critical of people who can't stand Obama, and conservatives who justified every move President Bush (because you have to respect him, he's our president for crying out loud) made, are now venomously on the prowl to attack Obama.
And the biased, far-left media machine have disappointed me tremendously. An obviously biased media would not allow so many conservatives to publish disparaging opinions toward Obama. They reported job losses and facts about a faltering economy to make Bush look bad, because they simply hated the man. So why would they report negative press about the economy now that Bush is gone? How are Rush Limbaugh and his conservative clones on the radio not being silenced?
Of course, the only answer I seem to get from conservatives is a fake, theoretical argument: sure, the press still report the negative things, but if John McCain (or any other republican name) were in charge, the press would be out for blood, blaming everything on him, and calling for his impeachment, yada, yada.
My favorite response: theoretically, pigs could fly, but I'm not sure what point that proves.
I guess the most predictable fact about politics: those ideologues on both sides will continue to see what they want to see, and turn a blind eye to anything else, all the while decrying the biases of others, remaining hopelessly entrenched in their own biased worldview.
If nothing else, I suppose it gives me the right to call myself a prophet. And that ain't so bad.
I have been cognizant of the workings of politics for a relatively short amount of time. Nevertheless, it doesn't take long for one to figure out that politics is very easy to predict, since the topic is very cyclical in nature (some might replace the word cyclical with "hypocritical").
With this in mind, I wondered for several years before the last election, what would happen if a democrat were elected president? For nearly two years, conservatives complained and complained about an evil media machine that would bend over backwards to get Barack Obama elected; the same media were a huge enemy to President George W. Bush for eight years.
I literally had conversations with people who told me with the utmost conviction that if Obama got elected, we would be screwed, but that the media would actually make us think everything was wonderful, being the democratic whipping children that the media were.
So, given the premise that the media are hopelessly biased, it was no surprise how Obama practically cleaned John McCain's clock in the election. There then followed the transition period, after which Barack actually became President Obama.
Not much later, I was absolutely astounded to see storys about layoffs, crashing stock markets, forclosures, and all other sorts of economic turmoil. I was surprised to see actual criticisms of President Obama - his stimulus plan, his failure to forge bipartisan inroads, not vetoing the $410 billion spending bill, failing to bring ALL troops home from Iraq like he said he would, etc. Not only was I surprised, I was incredibly dumbfounded to see that such criticisms came from conservative AND liberal writers.
And now, conservatives who spouted off for at least the last eight years that a person was unpatriotic to criticize the president, have gotten out the clubs, and are going to town, now that the president isn't a republican anymore.
While everything has changed - the Democrats have considerable majorities in both houses of Congress, and control the presidency - nothing has really changed. Liberals who bashed Bush incessantly are now critical of people who can't stand Obama, and conservatives who justified every move President Bush (because you have to respect him, he's our president for crying out loud) made, are now venomously on the prowl to attack Obama.
And the biased, far-left media machine have disappointed me tremendously. An obviously biased media would not allow so many conservatives to publish disparaging opinions toward Obama. They reported job losses and facts about a faltering economy to make Bush look bad, because they simply hated the man. So why would they report negative press about the economy now that Bush is gone? How are Rush Limbaugh and his conservative clones on the radio not being silenced?
Of course, the only answer I seem to get from conservatives is a fake, theoretical argument: sure, the press still report the negative things, but if John McCain (or any other republican name) were in charge, the press would be out for blood, blaming everything on him, and calling for his impeachment, yada, yada.
My favorite response: theoretically, pigs could fly, but I'm not sure what point that proves.
I guess the most predictable fact about politics: those ideologues on both sides will continue to see what they want to see, and turn a blind eye to anything else, all the while decrying the biases of others, remaining hopelessly entrenched in their own biased worldview.
If nothing else, I suppose it gives me the right to call myself a prophet. And that ain't so bad.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Was God Wrong?
March 4, 2009
I was cleaning out my inbox yesterday when I stumbled across a pre-election gem in the form of a story about Sarah Palin. I know, most of you have probably already forgotten her, but I'm sure there's a few staunch conservatives who still want to canonize her, or at least adopt her in place of their real mother.
Anyway, the article quotes Palin as saying to James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” (soon to be "formerly of") that she was confident God would do the right thing on election day.
I would love to have a follow up on that statement. If Palin was right, then God
obviously wanted Barack Obama to be president. However, cutting through the shrubery to arrive at the obvious, Palin was saying no more, no less than "John McCain will be president because that is what's best for the country, and God will do what is best for the country."
Here's an exact quote: “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”
Which is exactly why I am now going to go search for information about Sarah Palin changing her faith, since it seems very unlikely she would want to continue worshipping a God that is not even wise enough to pick the right president of the United States.
If that is too much of a stretch, I'm sure I will find loads of evidence that Palin is firmly behind Obama as president, since I assume she is just as confident God did the right thing on Nov. 4 as she was that he would do the right thing prior to the actual election.
If you find anything on either subject, please inform me. I'm not optimistic about the endeavor. But I'm sure God will do the right thing.
I was cleaning out my inbox yesterday when I stumbled across a pre-election gem in the form of a story about Sarah Palin. I know, most of you have probably already forgotten her, but I'm sure there's a few staunch conservatives who still want to canonize her, or at least adopt her in place of their real mother.
Anyway, the article quotes Palin as saying to James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” (soon to be "formerly of") that she was confident God would do the right thing on election day.
I would love to have a follow up on that statement. If Palin was right, then God
obviously wanted Barack Obama to be president. However, cutting through the shrubery to arrive at the obvious, Palin was saying no more, no less than "John McCain will be president because that is what's best for the country, and God will do what is best for the country."Here's an exact quote: “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”
Which is exactly why I am now going to go search for information about Sarah Palin changing her faith, since it seems very unlikely she would want to continue worshipping a God that is not even wise enough to pick the right president of the United States.
If that is too much of a stretch, I'm sure I will find loads of evidence that Palin is firmly behind Obama as president, since I assume she is just as confident God did the right thing on Nov. 4 as she was that he would do the right thing prior to the actual election.
If you find anything on either subject, please inform me. I'm not optimistic about the endeavor. But I'm sure God will do the right thing.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Jon Stewart/Media Matters make my day
March 3, 2009
I already watched episodes 11 and 12 of this season of 24, so I needed something to pass the time. I watched thankfully as Jon Stewart made fun of Rush Limbaugh and people who use Twitter in the same hilarious episode. Then I found an all new page on Media Matters for America's website dedicated exclusively to Limbaugh. If Limbaugh is the new leader of conservatives, then I am definitely not a conservative.
How has this happened? How have I allowed the lying, biased, partisan media to deceive me and brainwash me? Well, I guess because of the massive conspiracy that won't allow funny conservative guys on TV.
Update 3/4/09
Just a thought about Rush saying he wants President Obama to fail. I am reluctant to admit that many years ago, I impersonated Limbaugh for a 7th grade project on the person I most admired.
It is impressive to me how so many have such a poor memory of history. Aside from the fact that Rush regularly resorts to five-year-old playground behavior - name-calling and using childish voices to mock his detractors - he has spent at least the last eight years shouting that people who hate George W. Bush were unpatriotic for not supporting the ex-president. Now he opens right up and admits he is waiting for Obama to fail. I know he's a smart guy. I am not even kidding. It is just shameful that he has a hold on so many dittoheads who don't even seem to understand pompous, repulsive, hypocrisy, even when it's playing on the radio three hours a day.
I already watched episodes 11 and 12 of this season of 24, so I needed something to pass the time. I watched thankfully as Jon Stewart made fun of Rush Limbaugh and people who use Twitter in the same hilarious episode. Then I found an all new page on Media Matters for America's website dedicated exclusively to Limbaugh. If Limbaugh is the new leader of conservatives, then I am definitely not a conservative.
How has this happened? How have I allowed the lying, biased, partisan media to deceive me and brainwash me? Well, I guess because of the massive conspiracy that won't allow funny conservative guys on TV.
Update 3/4/09
Just a thought about Rush saying he wants President Obama to fail. I am reluctant to admit that many years ago, I impersonated Limbaugh for a 7th grade project on the person I most admired.
It is impressive to me how so many have such a poor memory of history. Aside from the fact that Rush regularly resorts to five-year-old playground behavior - name-calling and using childish voices to mock his detractors - he has spent at least the last eight years shouting that people who hate George W. Bush were unpatriotic for not supporting the ex-president. Now he opens right up and admits he is waiting for Obama to fail. I know he's a smart guy. I am not even kidding. It is just shameful that he has a hold on so many dittoheads who don't even seem to understand pompous, repulsive, hypocrisy, even when it's playing on the radio three hours a day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)