[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 17 most recent journal entries recorded in
|Tuesday, June 13th, 2006|
The beast herself is going to be on the Tonight Show tomorrow (Wed.) night. Tune in to see what kind of stupid crap she will say this time.
|Monday, October 10th, 2005|
Kanye West was wrong
George W. Bush cares about Black people.
He just doesn't care about poor people.
isn't writing on LJ any more, but I thought I should post something to keep the group she started alive. Current Mood: blank
|Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005|
Some questions for my state's "pro-life" governor
As a concerned Floridian, I'd like to write a letter to the governor of my state. I'd address three points.
1. Polite person that I am, even to those with whom I ideologically disagree, I would inquire about his family--particularly, his daughter. Considering he seems to devote more attention to the likes of Terri Schiavo than poor Noelle--well, we all heard about that trouble she got into a few years back.
2. I would also remind him that the last time I checked, Florida leads the nation in violent crime, & millions of Floridians need his help in order to make our cities, towns, & streets safer.
3. Finally, I would remind him that hurricane season has begun. So far, parts of the state suffered through a somewhat nasty tropical storm. Considering the damage those 4 hurricanes did last year, I'd beseech him to please stop looking back 15 years &, instead, focus on getting through the next 4 months.
|Thursday, April 21st, 2005|
Time magazine has done a cover article
on everyone's favorite crazy right-wing pundit.
Apparently you have to be a subscriber to read the whole article, but they've got a great collection of Coulter quotes that you can look through, if you're looking to get your indignancy on.
Here's my favorite: "I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning. Boom!...They're a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to...the world."
Awesome. It's the sort of thing a comedian in a Saturday Night Live sketch would say in a parody of the Republicans, but she seems to say these kind of things in all seriousness.
And here's something even better: Coulter feels that Time's cover photo of her
is unflattering (because it was shot using a wide angle lens), and that this is evidence of the media's liberal bias
|Thursday, April 14th, 2005|
Tom DeLay: He STILL doesn't get it
Anyone read that article on Tom DeLay in The New York Times today? When NEWT GINGRICH suggests that you explain what you did, it's time to stop whining about the Democrats & the "liberal media."
And seriously--if DeLay really was clean, wouldn't he have explained everything he's done by now? His utter contempt for the intelligence of the American people never ceases to amaze me (although I suspect not as many Americans as there should be pay attention to what goes on in Congress).
|Monday, February 28th, 2005|
Social Security hypocrisy
Earlier today, I was reading "The Death of Social Security," a debate between James K. Glassman & Tyler Cowen, in the April issue of REASON. Glassman basically thinks we don't need Social Security, & is all for private retirement accounts. One point he makes seems, at first, pretty sensible: that Americans should be encouraged (although he really thinks they should be pressured) to save/invest more money than they do (rather than, Glassman says, expect Uncle Sam to take care of them in their golden years).
Personally, I've always been a big fan of saving most of what I make. Part of that has to do with the fact that I'm a freelancer, so I'm not exactly rolling in dough, but there also aren't many material things I want...so why not put something away for the future? (Of course, that's what bank accounts & the voluntary private accounts we ALREADY have, like IRAs, are for, but we'll overlook that inconvenient fact for just a second.)
But if encouraging Americans to save is seriously part of Dubya's plan for Social Security reform, he SERIOUSLY needs someone other than himself to push it. Why? Bill Maher said it best when he said that if he was dating a woman who spent money like Dubya spends it, he'd dump her. Dubya is capable of spending money in ways those "tax-and-spend Democrats" could never dream of. I remember this president, soon after 9/11, encouraging Americans to shop & eat at restaurants & basically spend like drunken sailors because otherwise, the terrorists would win! And whenever there's a new tax cut & we get those checks in the mail, aren't we advised to spend them, in order to help stimulate the economy? Are we EVER told to put them in the bank, or to even save them for the next rainy day?
The hypocrisy...it just never ends.
|Saturday, February 19th, 2005|
I wish he was STILL president!
I was reading about the Bill Clinton/George H.W. Bush trip
to the places that were hit by the tsunami earlier today, & I was reminded of one of the main reasons why Mr. Clinton should go down in history as one of our greatest presidents. I think he's capable of being friends with anyone, which is especially admirable when you consider what the Republicans put him through over Monica Lewinsky--err, I mean just about everything he did the entire time he was in office. (Just imagine what would have happened to him if, as Bill Maher pointed out on "Real Time" last night, the Jeff Gannon scandal
had broken while he was still in power.)
Things have gotten too ugly in politics in recent years. Each side is too eager to brand the other a "traitor" or a "fascist" (although I've found that the Republicans have been throwing the terms "traitor" & "unpatriotic" around much more than the other side's been throwing "fascist" around in recent years). No one listens to each other anymore, & there's no diplomacy (& we're learning about the ramifications of a lack of diplomacy every time we read about the low opinion most countries have of the U.S.). Despite the weaknesses he may have had in his personal life (& plenty of politicians have had similar weaknesses, so it wasn't fair to treat him as he was treated), Bill Clinton was a diplomat, & it makes me feel good that, several years after he left office, he's still striving to be a uniter rather than a divider.
|Monday, January 31st, 2005|
Ah, Ms. Schlussel...you're too much
may not be as closely related to politics as other stuff that's been posted here, but it's too precious to not share with others. (I love when she says the Netherlands "has little value for human life.")
The ironic thing is, isn't Clint Eastwood one of the few open Republicans in Hollywood?
|Saturday, January 29th, 2005|
Like, ohmigod! Michelle Malkin's criticizing her own!
That sound you may have just heard came from me...falling out of my damn chair.
I was all prepared to thank conservatives for helping me appreciate the fine art of irony. After years of hearing about how "liberal" reporters and columnists are nothing more than mouthpieces for the Democratic Party & other left-wing groups, so far, THREE columnists have been found to have accepted payment from the Bush Administration to promote its agenda. You just gotta love the hypocrisy of it all.
And I thought I'd laugh my butt off when I Googled "Michael McManus" & came across what Michelle Malkin had to say about it
. I normally find Malkin unintentionally amusing (particularly since the woman seems to have no sense of humor whatsoever...her appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher" over the summer was priceless), & I was sure she'd defend this guy, along with Maggie Gallagher & Armstrong Williams. After all, conservative pundits seem to almost always do that. But it sounds as though she's actually chastising these "journalists," doesn't it? (Of course, as someone who's studied media ethics, I think the most ethical thing to do is to not accept payment at all, rather than accept it & disclose it. But I supported Kerry, so what do I know?)
|Monday, January 17th, 2005|
The $40 Million Inauguration
First of all, I've noticed that this community has a few new members. Welcome! I hope more people will start posting soon. I can't believe my last post was almost 2 months ago.
I'm one of the folks who found it in poor taste that Dubya's going to have a $40 million inauguration even though we're still at war & the tsunami disaster was 3 weeks ago (& also, we've got a lot of poor people in this country, not to mention the millions of Americans who aren't poor, per se, but don't have health insurance, either). However, I've been reading comments from the other side (& even from Paul Begala, in yesterday's NEW YORK TIMES), stating that inaugurations are important historical events & that we have to go on & put our best foot forward whenever possible. And even though I don't really agree, I see where these people are coming from. What I have the biggest problem with, I think, is why the Bush crowd can't celebrate on a SMALLER budget than $40 million. Do they have to have quite as many balls & other lavish events? Did they absolutely HAVE to get Hillary Duff & Kid Rock to perform? This is his SECOND inaugural, after all.
I've always been of the opinion that, whether you're a student or a businessperson or the Leader of the Free World, you can show you're prosperous & all that WITHOUT flaunting it. It seems to me that this administration is constantly going out of its way to flaunt its & its buddies' wealth, & this irks the rest of the world.
I believe Jan. 20--Inauguration Day--is Bill Maher's birthday. I mean, jeez...think of how many Playboy Playmates Bill could wine & dine on $40 million!!!! (Sorry--someone had to say it.)
|Tuesday, November 23rd, 2004|
Graciousness: NOT a G.O.P. value
When I watched Bill Maher interviewed on Larry King earlier tonight, one thing he said that stuck out in my mind was how ungracious so many Republicans seem to be after the election. For some reason, they're not as busy celebrating as we thought they'd be--instead, they seem intent on emphasizing to liberals how they don't "get it." I think this made such a strong impression on me because I read two letters in THE SUN-SENTINEL (my local paper) that show that, instead of just feeling good about winning, the Republicans have to shove how RIGHT they think they are in our faces any time they get the chance.
The first letter
is something else, is it not? I could practically taste the bile coming out of this gentleman's ears. I've always gotten annoyed when a right-winger couldn't make his or her case without almost immediately lapsing into a personal attack. I see this deplorable behavior won't be going away anytime soon.
Here's the second letter
. Gee, this sure is a nice, mature way for "winners" to act, isn't it?
|Saturday, November 20th, 2004|
I'm becoming obsessed with House Republicans changing their rules so that Tom DeLay can still serve as Majority Leader even if he's indicted. The behavior of Congressional Republicans acting like they're above the law since the election has me completely outraged, & I sure hope the majority of Americans who don't follow anything that goes on in Congress start paying attention.
I'm getting so mad over all this that I desperately need to think of things that make me laugh. This morning, I thought, if Tom DeLay can keep his position even if he's indicted, JIM TRAFFICANT SHOULD BE FREE! Remember him? Honestly, I don't know if the guy's guilty or if he was "railroaded," as he claimed. I wouldn't be surprised either way. I just know, after listening to a bunch of the dude's speeches
, that the guy could have one of the best stand-up acts in recent years. I will be very disappointed if, after he's released from prison, he doesn't put that wig back on & tour...or, at least, try out for "Last Comic Standing."
|Wednesday, November 17th, 2004|
(This was also posted in libragirly1313 )
Someone at the NY TIMES may be reading my mind, because an article today was titled, "Some Democrats Believe the Party Should Get Religion," & discussed how a lot of Democrats are wondering if they should change their approaches on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion rights. (I'd post a link, but you have to register at the NY TIMES web site, & I don't have the energy to do that right now.) As I said in my post last night, I'm hoping the Dems aren't so desperate to win again that they abandon some of their core positions, but I'm not optimistic.
One thing that bugs me is when I read something like, "The culture is not ready for [same-sex marriage]" (quote from NYT article from Jim Wallis of Sojourners) Excuse me, but WHY should we care if these people are "ready" for same-sex marriage or not? Whether they're ready or not, the fact of the matter is that they're denying a group of people what many believe should be a fundamental right, & whenever you deny a group of people a fundamental right, you are DISCRIMINATING against that group of people. It's the same thing with abortion rights. I had a Republican teacher in the early '90s who said that, at the time, something like 70% of Republicans were pro-choice because they didn't believe the government should be involved in that issue. Whatever happened to, "What I think doesn't matter--it's whether the government has any business getting involved"? Especially since the G.O.P. is supposed to be the party that, traditionally, wanted LESS government intrusion in our lives?
|Tuesday, November 16th, 2004|
I loved how this article started out in today's NEW YORK TIMES: "Wasting no time distancing himself from President Bush on an issue that has long divided them, Senator John McCain yesterday called the White House stance on climate change 'terribly disappointing' and said inaction in the face of mounting scientific data was unjustified." ("Election Over, McCain Criticizes Bush on Climate Change," by Andrew C. Revkin.)
It's nice to know my man McCain, like the true, Teddy Roosevelt Republican that he is, is still raisin' hell in the Senate, because I'm worried that, in order to appeal to more Red State voters, the Dems may start adopting more conservative positions on a lot of issues. For example, it already seems to me as though the pro-life Democrats (i.e. Harry Reid) have more of a voice now than they did before the election. I read another article in today's TIMES that mentioned how West Virginia's governor-elect is a very conservative, pro-life Democrat. I know they're probably still a minority, but still...
|Saturday, November 13th, 2004|
Hi. I think John McCain and Wes Clark should run against each other in 2008, or John McCain and John Kerry. Current Mood: thoughtful
|Tuesday, November 9th, 2004|
I've been expecting Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee to leave the Republican Party even before I read last week that he was considering switching parties if Dubya won a second term. But he seems to be sticking around
I thought at first that it might be good if Chafee switched sides, or at least went Independent, like Jim Jeffords. However, I think his staying in the party is a good thing, for two reasons. First of all, there should be room in every political party for people with different views. For example, I read in a New York Times editorial today that Harry Reid of Nevada, who will probably take the position Tom Daschle had before he was, well, "Daschled," is pro-life, & I know there are other pro-life Democrats. I'm not defending their position, but hey...if there are still some conservative Democrats, there should be enough room in the G.O.P. for moderate or liberal Republicans like Chafee. (You might say Chafee symbolizes a blue voter in a red state, & Reid may be a red voter in a blue state. That's kind of a simplistic way of putting it, but it's also the condition our country is in right now, so I think it's appropriate.) And second, I agree that Chafee can express his views more effectively from within his own party, as he points out in the article. I believe this is one of the reasons John McCain is so good at what he does.
In the end, it's how Chafee votes that matters, & I'm relieved when I say I don't see him voting with Rick Santorum & other conservative Republican senators anytime soon. While it's not cool that the Democrats will remain outnumbered, I think they'll still have Chafee as an ally on a lot of issues, & that's a relief.
I've also been paying attention to the controversy
surrounding Sen. Arlen Specter's promotion. I haven't liked everything Specter's stood for, but I admire that he's been vocally pro-choice for so long. I sure hope he sticks to his guns, no matter how much heat he's getting.
|Saturday, November 6th, 2004|
According to today's NY POST, Rudy Giuliani & Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton are the leading contenders for their parties' nominations for the 2008 election.
Other possible Democratic contenders:
Sen. Evan Bayh (Indiana)
Gen. Wesley Clark
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (Tennessee)
Gov. Mark Warner (Virginia)