So-I'm stuck at home tonight because my car was struck by another car earlier this week while I was stopped at a stop sign in rush our traffic. The experience was upsetting and painful. But, my car looks like dirt-nothing like a trashy looking phone cord to tie your trunk shut at the Holidays.
I'm missing class and my final for a graduate program. Luckily, the teacher is okay with me turning in the final early and missing the class. The downtime has allowed me to think. And what I think of is how much I hate the Holidays. Christmas is one of the most likeable Holidays ever. I love saying 'Merry Christmas' to people. Holiday parties, singing songs, going to church, snow, dressing my dog up in costumes, and food, food, food.
But the fact is-Christmas is about love and reconciliation. It's about having good relationships with the people you value. And it's about Peace on Earth and good will to all. And I don't feel good will towards all-I feel annoyed by ridiculously happy people. I feel overtaxed by the cost of gifts. I feel exasperated by making gifts. And I can't get to all the parties I want to go to and I'm not even solidly booked every day with parties.
I think the biggest reason Christmas is so hard is because it commands joy whether you have joy or not. And the most joy I have felt this season is from the way my life no longer is and the sadness I feel is from realizing the way my life will not ever be...I have 24 years of horrible Christmas' behind me. Too many bad memories and nothing good to make me enjoy the season when I look back.
I enjoy the little things that I like-that I think anyone would like any time of year. But, the decorations, the excitement, and the pressure to fake liking my family and liking Christmas only serve to make me feel less happy. Occasionally, I am happy because I think about nothing but this year and this moment.
But Christmas isn't just about me, it's about harmony, it's about forgivness and being giving to others. Ads, churches, friends, and even partygoers make donations to the poor at shelters in the city. What if the poor are my own family?
The very people who have provided me with so many bad holidays and so many bad memories are now the people who need me to be generous with them. I know I'm not the only person in this city to feel this way. There are rooms of them trying to decide where they will go for the Holidays and who they will spend time with during their vacation.
I like that the House closes this week and that the Senate will be done next week by Tuesday. It gives me a feeling that people are taking a time out from the world. I listened to Senator Coburn today speak about his relationships to people in Congress. He said Barney Frank was the easiest person for him to relate to from the House. It is because Rep. Frank (D-MA) is so honest about what he thinks and tells you.
I've wondered how many times this kind of mantra would have made my home life better. Except that no one in my family can deal with too much brutal truth. Luckily none of us are fat cat beaurocrats either. So, we can live if I don't tell them everything I think and we're happier for it.
But, that doesn't help me like the season. It's full of problems and I think it's mostly that the general culture has such high expectations for money spent, time wasted, and attitudes. The truth is the Holidays are hard because they are costly and require work both physically, materially, and emotionally. I'm jealous of people who have a good family without addicts, ragers, liars, or jerks. And I wish I could tell people who have a good family that they should appreciate that-but, when I talk to my friens and co-workers I don't know many people who have that...I think it's a rare gift. One that is idealized in 'It's a Wonderful Life' the movie with Jimmy Stewart that annoyed me as a child. I got sick of listening to the man who had a good family and reasonable life have to be run through all the things he had that he did not appreciate.
And I think that Christmas is too much about delineating what we do not have at this time. I think anyone who can appreciate this time of year is lucky. I find it to be a hard troubling time of year that doesn't show signs of getting better.
So, I know this isn't much of a commentary on the media. But, it's the best I can give and besides the media isn't trying very hard anymore either for the next two weeks. The Iraq election went off without a hitch, Brittney Spears is getting divorced, Nick and Jessica are getting divorced (called that two years ago!), and the President's poll numbers are increasing...at least I can always forget this season and read the news papers. :)
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Monday, November 28, 2005
What have Women lost??
I read this article yesterday from Tech Station. It seems to counteract Maureen Dowd's article and provide some insight into how the Women's movement has changed things and also how Men have lost out.
http://techcentralstation.com/112705A.html
The main point being that in the sexual revolutions changes Men lost the ability to have good families and be part of a productive society that raises healthy children that allows them to be healthy sane people.
And women have lost the right to have children in wedlock without first giving up the goodies before marriage so to speak-or never getting married. In the meantime it's true that women have gained better career experiences and more autonomy and respect.
It's certainly true that women have lost a great deal, but the article seems to put Men squarely at the front of the architecture for society. I just don't feel this is true.
It is true that women who are smart are not considered as attractive to men who are insecure and feel threatened by them. I know this from my own experiences in the classroom, dating room, and work world. There are too many men who see only MEN as the ones who can tell them things, give advice, or truly run things. There are also a lot of women who feel this way.
It is certainly true that Women are petty about Men and tend to give up more important things in the rush for a good man, except for Lesbians who seem content to be annoyed by the rest of us. Many women will trade in a good friendship for a date or put down a female simply to get themselves ahead... and by the way-MEN BANK ON THIS BEHAVIOR.
It allows Men to maintain control of society. The Female Heterosexual's obsession with getting a good man has allowed them to loose the right to have sex in marriage, to loose good jobs, to loose power in the government, and to end up on their own more often when raising kids.
Yes, men need to take responsiblity for their children, they also need to take responsibility for their behavior and not sleep around like silly sluts. The option to be a Hugh Hefner type is very desireable-except that it leads to depression, lack of money, and well watch the reality show on E! sometime documenting his life-it doesn't lead to a good life, not really. One that might satisfy for 10 years or so..but by 15 leaves little.
I constantly hear Women talk about how they don't need a man to raise a child and they are right. But, the children need their fathers and any career women who wants to have kids and a great career that is satisfying-NEEDS A HUSBAND. The institution of marriage is good for relieving stress and allowing people to live productive lives.
And if Women are so good at raising kids and be super mommy's why do we let Men and society allow us to be so much less? I think it's because a lot of women are not interested in working hard. REALLY. I think they are lazy, they don't want to work hard at having a good marriage, raising kids, and a career. They don't want the responsibility of war or taxes on their heads. And really, so many women have been taught to be submissive or cut off at the knees too many times to keep trying. How can you blame them?
But as Women strive to survive and be productive, we must keep trying, keep ignoring the buffoons who grab your butt, the codgers who hate getting good solid advice from a female or the lazy vindictive women who seek to undermine them.
And I need to say-there are a good number of Men out there who want and respect smart, hardworking women. They love them for it, maybe their own Mom was that way-maybe she wasn't and they needed her to be more that way. Because you see as the number of single Mom's has grown so has the number of Men raised by them who have come to respect that a women can be strong and do so much more than society credits them for beyond making cookies and changing diapers. I know-I've dated them and some of my best male bosses were those kinds of men.
It's a sad way to gain equality for Women, but it is one upside to the Hugh Hefner effect of the Sexual revolution. So maybe it does come back to men, but I think women need to take responsibilty for themselves-you can't be made into a cupcake-but you can let someone make you into one. You can save yourself for marriage and the right relationship to have kids. That's the benefit of living in the U.S. and I for one intend to use it!
http://techcentralstation.com/112705A.html
The main point being that in the sexual revolutions changes Men lost the ability to have good families and be part of a productive society that raises healthy children that allows them to be healthy sane people.
And women have lost the right to have children in wedlock without first giving up the goodies before marriage so to speak-or never getting married. In the meantime it's true that women have gained better career experiences and more autonomy and respect.
It's certainly true that women have lost a great deal, but the article seems to put Men squarely at the front of the architecture for society. I just don't feel this is true.
It is true that women who are smart are not considered as attractive to men who are insecure and feel threatened by them. I know this from my own experiences in the classroom, dating room, and work world. There are too many men who see only MEN as the ones who can tell them things, give advice, or truly run things. There are also a lot of women who feel this way.
It is certainly true that Women are petty about Men and tend to give up more important things in the rush for a good man, except for Lesbians who seem content to be annoyed by the rest of us. Many women will trade in a good friendship for a date or put down a female simply to get themselves ahead... and by the way-MEN BANK ON THIS BEHAVIOR.
It allows Men to maintain control of society. The Female Heterosexual's obsession with getting a good man has allowed them to loose the right to have sex in marriage, to loose good jobs, to loose power in the government, and to end up on their own more often when raising kids.
Yes, men need to take responsiblity for their children, they also need to take responsibility for their behavior and not sleep around like silly sluts. The option to be a Hugh Hefner type is very desireable-except that it leads to depression, lack of money, and well watch the reality show on E! sometime documenting his life-it doesn't lead to a good life, not really. One that might satisfy for 10 years or so..but by 15 leaves little.
I constantly hear Women talk about how they don't need a man to raise a child and they are right. But, the children need their fathers and any career women who wants to have kids and a great career that is satisfying-NEEDS A HUSBAND. The institution of marriage is good for relieving stress and allowing people to live productive lives.
And if Women are so good at raising kids and be super mommy's why do we let Men and society allow us to be so much less? I think it's because a lot of women are not interested in working hard. REALLY. I think they are lazy, they don't want to work hard at having a good marriage, raising kids, and a career. They don't want the responsibility of war or taxes on their heads. And really, so many women have been taught to be submissive or cut off at the knees too many times to keep trying. How can you blame them?
But as Women strive to survive and be productive, we must keep trying, keep ignoring the buffoons who grab your butt, the codgers who hate getting good solid advice from a female or the lazy vindictive women who seek to undermine them.
And I need to say-there are a good number of Men out there who want and respect smart, hardworking women. They love them for it, maybe their own Mom was that way-maybe she wasn't and they needed her to be more that way. Because you see as the number of single Mom's has grown so has the number of Men raised by them who have come to respect that a women can be strong and do so much more than society credits them for beyond making cookies and changing diapers. I know-I've dated them and some of my best male bosses were those kinds of men.
It's a sad way to gain equality for Women, but it is one upside to the Hugh Hefner effect of the Sexual revolution. So maybe it does come back to men, but I think women need to take responsibilty for themselves-you can't be made into a cupcake-but you can let someone make you into one. You can save yourself for marriage and the right relationship to have kids. That's the benefit of living in the U.S. and I for one intend to use it!
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
CNN no le gusta Cheney.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm
Matt Drudge posted an article today noting that during VP Dick Cheney's speech yesterday on the CNN broadcast-an X flashed over his face as he was speaking-twice.
I don't know if it was incompetence or a devilish accident. But, I think they are one and the same-only an incompetent and mal-contented person or group of people would let a black X flash directly over the Vice President's face during a speech.
Really, whether it was personal to Cheney or not-I think the message is clear-CNN is having problems that are affecting the way they do business. And the fact is-it is their job to clearly air their chosen broadcasts both in sound, visibility and content. At least if they want to keep reporting the 'news'.
Matt Drudge posted an article today noting that during VP Dick Cheney's speech yesterday on the CNN broadcast-an X flashed over his face as he was speaking-twice.
I don't know if it was incompetence or a devilish accident. But, I think they are one and the same-only an incompetent and mal-contented person or group of people would let a black X flash directly over the Vice President's face during a speech.
Really, whether it was personal to Cheney or not-I think the message is clear-CNN is having problems that are affecting the way they do business. And the fact is-it is their job to clearly air their chosen broadcasts both in sound, visibility and content. At least if they want to keep reporting the 'news'.
Monday, November 21, 2005
1960's Democrats
In a recent conversation with a friend, I discussed the oddity of the Liberal base these days. They believe it's okay to classify people by race and class. They deny that the war in Iraq is obviously different from Vietnam. And most importantly, they are hateful. I mean they are really hate filled and mean these days.
I don't understand how the party once filled with love and tolerance, hippy convictions allegiances to tents and helping your fellow man-have just gone. The Democratic party today seems to be filled with obviously power driven (Hillary Clinton types.) There is no place for the more moderate Joe Lieberman's who support the war, family values and are only moderately in favor of spending for the government. Their party does not embrace them the way John McCain for all he the furor he causes-is still respected. I think this became obvious when Gore backstabbed Liberman who had once been his running mate during the last presidential cycle by endorsing Dean behind his back.
Anyways, the Democratic party today endorses anger and hate. They seek to raise a frenzy of hysteria through anti-war protests like the one here in DC a few months ago. And the one coming up in the next week with Cindy Sheehan. These protests are filled with foul mouthed and hurtful signs. Pictures and signs saying 'f---- the war' and the www.911truth.org website sign that proudly goes through a series of arguments that say the President knew about 9/11 and let it happen-so he could invade Iraq and Afghanistan???? If you don't believe me-check out Michelle Malkin's new book. It has plenty of pics that would show you this material. Or simply hit the next anti-war protest.
You'll find the new Nazi skin head outpost, where anti-semitic hate is acceptable along with the term Neo-Con meaning not a new type of conservative-but someone who likes Jews and is manipulated by them into believing the war inIraq is good. This group of skinheads follows the Cindy Sheehan club around the country basking in the chance to express their hatred of Jews and other humans freely. The pictures and actions of these people when shown to an audience move them to tears and crying that is hard to ignore. Imagine if your child were in the military and your neighbor were putting up effigies of soldiers with signs saying 'Bush Lied, People Died'. It's certainly not the action of caring and considerate-peace loving people.
And scarely enough the Democratic party along with Fenton Communications values the chance to gather bodies and energy for their work. They don't care about the dangerous, racist anger that these people harbor for the world at large. The irony is that the Democractic party was once the party of the Civil Rights movement for Women and Minorities.
The most recent example was of Michael Steele being pelted with cookies as he made his senatorial campaign speeches in Maryland. Tell this story to a Democrat and they will laugh-tell them it's racist and they will ignore it. Why? They are ignorant, they really believe no smart Black person would choose the Republican party. The party of Lincoln, they still think it's 1969 and Jesse Helms still calls HIV a gay disease-both of which have changed.
This behavior on the part of the Democrats is blatantly racist and unfair. They would rather limit minorities and women to their limited ideas of freedom and equality than loose votes. It means they really do not believe in freedom for all and equality. In an equal country where people are truly free, they can choose whatever political party they want without racists telling them what political party they can vote with or support.
The problem is-that they don't get it! We are living in a Post Modern Society. The 1960's are over. The fight to integrate acceptance and tolerance into the U.S. civil society has been won. Accepting others, allowing women to strut their stuff, and opening the doors to minorities is part of being an educated person living today.
There will always be bigots, liars, and disgusting chauvinistic men (GUESS WHAT THEY ARE IN BOTH PARTIES and some don't even vote!), and above all racists. It is the duty of a responsible educated person to combate these behaviors-not encourage them for political gain.
But, the Democratic party in all it's Upper crust snobbery and desire to create and control a poor undernourished herd-doesn't see these facts. And they don't see how they themselves are the racists, the bigots, and the liars these days.
If you don't believe me, examine Howard Dean telling Fox News saying against the nasty protestors who threw oreo's at Michael Steele. He was on the channel the day after it happened and again last week. He said nothing the first time and when asked about it again, he told them that it was questionable-implying that it was a lie. Check it out for yourself. Don't believe me. www.foxnews.com He had a great chance to denounce these people, but he said nothing because he wants to encourage and support them. He thinks their behavior was acceptable-I guess free speech for racists is important to Howard Dean-but not denouncing them, he endorses them.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why the Democractic party is failing, they have turned nastier and nastier as they have been brought low. If they cannot let go of their race baiting, hate inspiring tendencies-they will be lost as the rest of civilized society moves forward. Or I could be wrong, people really may be so base and ignorant as to continue believing their lies. That's what Howard Dean wants to happen.
Additionally, the House vote on Friday for withdrawal from Iraq was voted down 403-3 with a few absences..it was a great move because it showed how little the Democrats stand behind their chants for ending the war. It showed that they only encourage anti war protests and their nastiness out of bitterness and anger over their own lack of power. Funny, it was a Democrat President who got us into Vietnam, and the Bosnia Herzogovina conflict. But, it was a Republican President who took those wars down to a minimum and withdrew troops. And it will be a Republican President that ends the operation in Iraq when it is time.
I don't understand how the party once filled with love and tolerance, hippy convictions allegiances to tents and helping your fellow man-have just gone. The Democratic party today seems to be filled with obviously power driven (Hillary Clinton types.) There is no place for the more moderate Joe Lieberman's who support the war, family values and are only moderately in favor of spending for the government. Their party does not embrace them the way John McCain for all he the furor he causes-is still respected. I think this became obvious when Gore backstabbed Liberman who had once been his running mate during the last presidential cycle by endorsing Dean behind his back.
Anyways, the Democratic party today endorses anger and hate. They seek to raise a frenzy of hysteria through anti-war protests like the one here in DC a few months ago. And the one coming up in the next week with Cindy Sheehan. These protests are filled with foul mouthed and hurtful signs. Pictures and signs saying 'f---- the war' and the www.911truth.org website sign that proudly goes through a series of arguments that say the President knew about 9/11 and let it happen-so he could invade Iraq and Afghanistan???? If you don't believe me-check out Michelle Malkin's new book. It has plenty of pics that would show you this material. Or simply hit the next anti-war protest.
You'll find the new Nazi skin head outpost, where anti-semitic hate is acceptable along with the term Neo-Con meaning not a new type of conservative-but someone who likes Jews and is manipulated by them into believing the war inIraq is good. This group of skinheads follows the Cindy Sheehan club around the country basking in the chance to express their hatred of Jews and other humans freely. The pictures and actions of these people when shown to an audience move them to tears and crying that is hard to ignore. Imagine if your child were in the military and your neighbor were putting up effigies of soldiers with signs saying 'Bush Lied, People Died'. It's certainly not the action of caring and considerate-peace loving people.
And scarely enough the Democratic party along with Fenton Communications values the chance to gather bodies and energy for their work. They don't care about the dangerous, racist anger that these people harbor for the world at large. The irony is that the Democractic party was once the party of the Civil Rights movement for Women and Minorities.
The most recent example was of Michael Steele being pelted with cookies as he made his senatorial campaign speeches in Maryland. Tell this story to a Democrat and they will laugh-tell them it's racist and they will ignore it. Why? They are ignorant, they really believe no smart Black person would choose the Republican party. The party of Lincoln, they still think it's 1969 and Jesse Helms still calls HIV a gay disease-both of which have changed.
This behavior on the part of the Democrats is blatantly racist and unfair. They would rather limit minorities and women to their limited ideas of freedom and equality than loose votes. It means they really do not believe in freedom for all and equality. In an equal country where people are truly free, they can choose whatever political party they want without racists telling them what political party they can vote with or support.
The problem is-that they don't get it! We are living in a Post Modern Society. The 1960's are over. The fight to integrate acceptance and tolerance into the U.S. civil society has been won. Accepting others, allowing women to strut their stuff, and opening the doors to minorities is part of being an educated person living today.
There will always be bigots, liars, and disgusting chauvinistic men (GUESS WHAT THEY ARE IN BOTH PARTIES and some don't even vote!), and above all racists. It is the duty of a responsible educated person to combate these behaviors-not encourage them for political gain.
But, the Democratic party in all it's Upper crust snobbery and desire to create and control a poor undernourished herd-doesn't see these facts. And they don't see how they themselves are the racists, the bigots, and the liars these days.
If you don't believe me, examine Howard Dean telling Fox News saying against the nasty protestors who threw oreo's at Michael Steele. He was on the channel the day after it happened and again last week. He said nothing the first time and when asked about it again, he told them that it was questionable-implying that it was a lie. Check it out for yourself. Don't believe me. www.foxnews.com He had a great chance to denounce these people, but he said nothing because he wants to encourage and support them. He thinks their behavior was acceptable-I guess free speech for racists is important to Howard Dean-but not denouncing them, he endorses them.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why the Democractic party is failing, they have turned nastier and nastier as they have been brought low. If they cannot let go of their race baiting, hate inspiring tendencies-they will be lost as the rest of civilized society moves forward. Or I could be wrong, people really may be so base and ignorant as to continue believing their lies. That's what Howard Dean wants to happen.
Additionally, the House vote on Friday for withdrawal from Iraq was voted down 403-3 with a few absences..it was a great move because it showed how little the Democrats stand behind their chants for ending the war. It showed that they only encourage anti war protests and their nastiness out of bitterness and anger over their own lack of power. Funny, it was a Democrat President who got us into Vietnam, and the Bosnia Herzogovina conflict. But, it was a Republican President who took those wars down to a minimum and withdrew troops. And it will be a Republican President that ends the operation in Iraq when it is time.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Happy Halloween
This morning both Laura Ingraham and James Carville AGREED that Harriet Miers would not pass Senate confirmation. It was when they were supposed to square off on ABC's Good Morning America 10/25/05
It's good and scary for Halloween.
I suppose it must have been really weird for the show's producers who expected a good argument from a liberal vs. a conservative. But, the only argument was Ingraham and Carville trying to out predict when Miers would be tossed out of the nomination process...it's actually funny.
It's good and scary for Halloween.
I suppose it must have been really weird for the show's producers who expected a good argument from a liberal vs. a conservative. But, the only argument was Ingraham and Carville trying to out predict when Miers would be tossed out of the nomination process...it's actually funny.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Tom Cruise Jr?
Forget the terror threat on the NY trains..KATIE HOLMES is pregnant with Tom Cruise's baby!!! I'm so confused, I thought he was gay and she was the cover up or that it was just to promote their careers, they weren't even supposed to be together still..it's actually true-he's having a baby-must be to celebrate his mental milkdown over the Summer. Do you think it's a Scientology impant?
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Awful/cauth/Archive2005/051006.html
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Awful/cauth/Archive2005/051006.html
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Uh Oh! It's getting nasty out there...
Harriet Miers is a good woman this is true by her actions and lifestyle according to the standards of reasonable conduct. She has overcome great odds by becoming a leading woman from Texas-in Texas and at the White House. It is not her fault that the President made a bad decision... when he passed over a great number of minority and female candidates for the nomination. In 10 years if she is passed and has done a good job as a constitutional representative-no one will remember this time period.
But the fact of the matter is that her nomination has broken the heart of the Conservative movement. It's obvious in this article by George Will:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp We aren't like Democrats we don't suffer our pains lightly inside ourselves and cover them in an effort to put on a good face-like the member of an alcoholic family. We cleanse out our disagreements loudly, angrily - to the embarassment of our party and the delight of the Democrats.
I sat through a meeting yesterday in which Ed Gillespie fought-I mean literally fought the entire room to convince them 50 people or so-that Harriet Miers was a good nominee. No one cared. David Keene bluntly stated that 'this nomination was not our nominee-it was the White House's nominee.' It's gets worse. Ed then went on to accuse the whole room of sexism and bigotry. The whole room was stunned-Richard Lesner shot back pounding his fist on the table as he said 'No one here has said that! No one!' and Ed replied that 'I said it.' Lesner then explained angrily ' There were plenty of candidates, good conservative judges who have put in their time and worked hard and this nomination undoes all the hard work they have done.' Accusations of a prejudice against people who had not gone to Harvard or Yale flew. They might be true, but I'm just as happy with a Stanford, Berkley or Swathmore grad...Lesner finished with ' This was a stealth nomination designed to avoid a fight. '
It's true, I wanted a woman or a minority on the Supreme Court. I think it's important to have a diverse body for the highest court-one that reflects the country. But, the fact of the matter is that if equality means that a woman is just as likely to be the benefactor of cronyism as a man-I feel sick. Because as a conservative I want to see a leader who makes choices based on qualifications and ability and creating a balanced Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of female judges out there for this job. People whose core values are not questionable-who would respect the constitution and not legislate from the bench.
The movement had $100 million dollars ready to help the battle. And now all that money is just being put aside for some other time.
The White House asked for help and the movement has decided there will be no problems with getting her through the Senate and if there are..that's the White House's problem now. In fact it may be interesting to see if she is passed. I am not sure she will be-the movement has flatly stated they won't accept her I repeatedly heard people saying 'Give us a militant conservative black woman'. I don't know what Bush thinks or how Harriet Miers would vote but the adminstration has lost the support of the movement. And it's going to be a long 2 1/2 years for them unless they find a way to make amends. Accusations of sexism are unfair and unwarranted-we are a party of white men, but we are also the party of women and minorities who believe in limited government, strong constitutional values, a good family, and a strong national defense.
Accusations of sexism are only a boon to the Democrats and a kick in the face at this time.
Now, I think that our arguments are the result of a strong party, and movement.
But the fact of the matter is that her nomination has broken the heart of the Conservative movement. It's obvious in this article by George Will:
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp We aren't like Democrats we don't suffer our pains lightly inside ourselves and cover them in an effort to put on a good face-like the member of an alcoholic family. We cleanse out our disagreements loudly, angrily - to the embarassment of our party and the delight of the Democrats.
I sat through a meeting yesterday in which Ed Gillespie fought-I mean literally fought the entire room to convince them 50 people or so-that Harriet Miers was a good nominee. No one cared. David Keene bluntly stated that 'this nomination was not our nominee-it was the White House's nominee.' It's gets worse. Ed then went on to accuse the whole room of sexism and bigotry. The whole room was stunned-Richard Lesner shot back pounding his fist on the table as he said 'No one here has said that! No one!' and Ed replied that 'I said it.' Lesner then explained angrily ' There were plenty of candidates, good conservative judges who have put in their time and worked hard and this nomination undoes all the hard work they have done.' Accusations of a prejudice against people who had not gone to Harvard or Yale flew. They might be true, but I'm just as happy with a Stanford, Berkley or Swathmore grad...Lesner finished with ' This was a stealth nomination designed to avoid a fight. '
It's true, I wanted a woman or a minority on the Supreme Court. I think it's important to have a diverse body for the highest court-one that reflects the country. But, the fact of the matter is that if equality means that a woman is just as likely to be the benefactor of cronyism as a man-I feel sick. Because as a conservative I want to see a leader who makes choices based on qualifications and ability and creating a balanced Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of female judges out there for this job. People whose core values are not questionable-who would respect the constitution and not legislate from the bench.
The movement had $100 million dollars ready to help the battle. And now all that money is just being put aside for some other time.
The White House asked for help and the movement has decided there will be no problems with getting her through the Senate and if there are..that's the White House's problem now. In fact it may be interesting to see if she is passed. I am not sure she will be-the movement has flatly stated they won't accept her I repeatedly heard people saying 'Give us a militant conservative black woman'. I don't know what Bush thinks or how Harriet Miers would vote but the adminstration has lost the support of the movement. And it's going to be a long 2 1/2 years for them unless they find a way to make amends. Accusations of sexism are unfair and unwarranted-we are a party of white men, but we are also the party of women and minorities who believe in limited government, strong constitutional values, a good family, and a strong national defense.
Accusations of sexism are only a boon to the Democrats and a kick in the face at this time.
Now, I think that our arguments are the result of a strong party, and movement.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Harriet Miers
I must begin again by apologizing for not writing in so many weeks. My last post was a rather angry blunt post on doing something about the gas prices.
My post today is on Harriet Miers, I watched the Roberts proceedings with some amusement as Senator's made speeches and everything seemed to pass with no real problem. Roberts is now Chief Justice and it is time for the next round of fighting to begin-it's no secret that this time we(the conservative and liberal groups) will be more involved in this process.
The fact of the matter is that I am not sure the conservative movement is prepared to fight this time. I have read blog after blog on the issue and none-of them seem ready for anything other than criticism. I think the bloggers will not be much support to the movement or the administration as they act out the Republican party's own confusion over the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Questions abound: Is she a crony of the President? A repeat of Souter or Abe Fortas. Is she really conservative? I mean she did support GORE of all people in the 1988 presidential race. Is she well enough to serve? The woman looks a little unhealthy if you ask me-but no one did :)
Does she have enough experience? She has tons of legal experience-just not as a judge. Did the President wuss out by picking a woman and thereby bend to the PC forces? No.
I have no doubt in my mind that her relationship to the President has made her a candidate for this position. But, the reality is that no one gets nominated for the Supreme Court without being known to the President. The Leader must have had time to understand how the person works and to judge for themself whether the candidate can handle a post like the Supreme Court.
I am mystified by the President's position at this time. I, like many others in the Conservative movement-think 'Did we miss the joke?' 'Is this another dodge?' We are waiting for someone to pop out from behind the curtain and say 'Just kidding! Gotcha! Now for the real nominee to the Supreme Court!' Well everyone, that is not going to happen.....
I can only at this time think that the President- in his almost prophetic actions that have over time made more sense to me-knows something I don't..well duh. And I cannot imagine that anyone at the White House would be stupid enough to jeopordize their career and the fate of the country with a Crony appointment.
Yesterday, as I read article after article on how the President had chosen someone for this post who has been known by the former head of the RNC to be a Democrat. The woman gave money to GORE!!! AAAAAAAAAH! Well, this is what I can say- A.) She can't be a true Democrat and work for Bush. B.) Maybe she was orginally a conservative Democrat on Social Issues whose only vice is big government. C.) Reagan was a Democrat before he became the ultimate Republican Conservative and revitalized the country. Done.
My major concern is really that this woman does not look healthy. Maybe she just needs an acid peel? Her skin shows sun spots which could be pre cancerous but, I am not a doctor. I am the daughter of a doctor whose mother has fought skin cancer a few times in life. This makes me no expert-only paranoid. Whatever the case-she looks like she is only good for 10 years, I suggest she get some rest-go see my Doctor-Dr. Ella Toombs in Dupont and get that skin freshened up so that she looks ready for the battle in the next few months. Also, she really needs to lighten up on the heavy black eyeliner. (Don't do the whole eye! I love black eyeliner too-but seriously woman!)
Harriet Miers served as the Head of the American Bar Association for Texas-no simple job. She asked the Association to take a neutral stance on Abortion in stead of being pro-choice-because she felt that it was wrong to say the Association was pro-choice when all of their membership was not-and was in fact in half on the issue at the time. That smacks to me of someone who is very draconian in their administration practices. She is known to be a Christian Fundamentalist and very practical. (I mean that in a good way.) And well people, she has the Left scared-just look at the article linked to below.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002538146_miersviews04.html
She has done a good job of working in the legal world and balancing the law with politics-maybe that makes her overly qualified-because she can be a judge who follows the constitution and see through the emotional appeals to the law. The fact of the matter is that judges on smaller circuits make sweeping and unconstitutional decisions everyday that hurt this country. And I believe that the longer a person has served as a judge-the more likely they are to make these kind of choices...
Finally, the Conservative movement needs to wake up! We can only survive and grow if we take notice of this country and respond to the needs of the people. This is a diverse country-we are made up of not just men or women or blacks or whites, or any other color. In order to have a truly representative Supreme Court-or Congress, or White House-we need to have people of both genders and different races serving the country. It is strong and ambitious to pick a woman or a minority for a job-that reflects so much on you if that person does not perform well.
I recently, sat through a meeting at ATR for gathering volunteers to support Roberts. I watched incredulous as a person asked a room full of hardworking people to take time off from work to hang out and attend a rally for Roberts???Sure, my boss would love that... The fact of the matter is this woman was in the wrong room. She needed to approach the stay at home Moms, the college students, and the temporarily unemployed for this effort. These are the people who the movement can count on to support our efforts when we are hard at work. These are the people who need us to recognize them and their contribution to our efforts.
The Conservative movement relys too much on white men, in their suits and collars to motivate people-well they motivate a certain group and without help their leadership will cause the slow suffocation of the movement. The country and the movement must be reflective of the world-not globalism-but the actual social world we live in..and therefore our leadership must be reflective of the people we intend to influence, serve, and ultimately inspire.
Harriet Miers needs the Conservative movement to stop complaining and get organized.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,377932,00.html
My post today is on Harriet Miers, I watched the Roberts proceedings with some amusement as Senator's made speeches and everything seemed to pass with no real problem. Roberts is now Chief Justice and it is time for the next round of fighting to begin-it's no secret that this time we(the conservative and liberal groups) will be more involved in this process.
The fact of the matter is that I am not sure the conservative movement is prepared to fight this time. I have read blog after blog on the issue and none-of them seem ready for anything other than criticism. I think the bloggers will not be much support to the movement or the administration as they act out the Republican party's own confusion over the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Questions abound: Is she a crony of the President? A repeat of Souter or Abe Fortas. Is she really conservative? I mean she did support GORE of all people in the 1988 presidential race. Is she well enough to serve? The woman looks a little unhealthy if you ask me-but no one did :)
Does she have enough experience? She has tons of legal experience-just not as a judge. Did the President wuss out by picking a woman and thereby bend to the PC forces? No.
I have no doubt in my mind that her relationship to the President has made her a candidate for this position. But, the reality is that no one gets nominated for the Supreme Court without being known to the President. The Leader must have had time to understand how the person works and to judge for themself whether the candidate can handle a post like the Supreme Court.
I am mystified by the President's position at this time. I, like many others in the Conservative movement-think 'Did we miss the joke?' 'Is this another dodge?' We are waiting for someone to pop out from behind the curtain and say 'Just kidding! Gotcha! Now for the real nominee to the Supreme Court!' Well everyone, that is not going to happen.....
I can only at this time think that the President- in his almost prophetic actions that have over time made more sense to me-knows something I don't..well duh. And I cannot imagine that anyone at the White House would be stupid enough to jeopordize their career and the fate of the country with a Crony appointment.
Yesterday, as I read article after article on how the President had chosen someone for this post who has been known by the former head of the RNC to be a Democrat. The woman gave money to GORE!!! AAAAAAAAAH! Well, this is what I can say- A.) She can't be a true Democrat and work for Bush. B.) Maybe she was orginally a conservative Democrat on Social Issues whose only vice is big government. C.) Reagan was a Democrat before he became the ultimate Republican Conservative and revitalized the country. Done.
My major concern is really that this woman does not look healthy. Maybe she just needs an acid peel? Her skin shows sun spots which could be pre cancerous but, I am not a doctor. I am the daughter of a doctor whose mother has fought skin cancer a few times in life. This makes me no expert-only paranoid. Whatever the case-she looks like she is only good for 10 years, I suggest she get some rest-go see my Doctor-Dr. Ella Toombs in Dupont and get that skin freshened up so that she looks ready for the battle in the next few months. Also, she really needs to lighten up on the heavy black eyeliner. (Don't do the whole eye! I love black eyeliner too-but seriously woman!)
Harriet Miers served as the Head of the American Bar Association for Texas-no simple job. She asked the Association to take a neutral stance on Abortion in stead of being pro-choice-because she felt that it was wrong to say the Association was pro-choice when all of their membership was not-and was in fact in half on the issue at the time. That smacks to me of someone who is very draconian in their administration practices. She is known to be a Christian Fundamentalist and very practical. (I mean that in a good way.) And well people, she has the Left scared-just look at the article linked to below.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002538146_miersviews04.html
She has done a good job of working in the legal world and balancing the law with politics-maybe that makes her overly qualified-because she can be a judge who follows the constitution and see through the emotional appeals to the law. The fact of the matter is that judges on smaller circuits make sweeping and unconstitutional decisions everyday that hurt this country. And I believe that the longer a person has served as a judge-the more likely they are to make these kind of choices...
Finally, the Conservative movement needs to wake up! We can only survive and grow if we take notice of this country and respond to the needs of the people. This is a diverse country-we are made up of not just men or women or blacks or whites, or any other color. In order to have a truly representative Supreme Court-or Congress, or White House-we need to have people of both genders and different races serving the country. It is strong and ambitious to pick a woman or a minority for a job-that reflects so much on you if that person does not perform well.
I recently, sat through a meeting at ATR for gathering volunteers to support Roberts. I watched incredulous as a person asked a room full of hardworking people to take time off from work to hang out and attend a rally for Roberts???Sure, my boss would love that... The fact of the matter is this woman was in the wrong room. She needed to approach the stay at home Moms, the college students, and the temporarily unemployed for this effort. These are the people who the movement can count on to support our efforts when we are hard at work. These are the people who need us to recognize them and their contribution to our efforts.
The Conservative movement relys too much on white men, in their suits and collars to motivate people-well they motivate a certain group and without help their leadership will cause the slow suffocation of the movement. The country and the movement must be reflective of the world-not globalism-but the actual social world we live in..and therefore our leadership must be reflective of the people we intend to influence, serve, and ultimately inspire.
Harriet Miers needs the Conservative movement to stop complaining and get organized.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,377932,00.html
Monday, August 22, 2005
Oil-Gas
Hey Peeps,
I know I haven't written a post in awhile-there are so many things I could talk about-Cindy Sheehan, Brad Pitt's drop in popularity-the fact that the government want's to take away pseudoephedrine because it can be used for making Crystal Menth! AAAAH! Why is that the few idiots always ruin the good things in life??
But, I have a beef. WHY? WHY? Is the government not doing anything about the cost of gas??? We can't get social security fixed, definitely not healthcare-no way when we can't even get the cost of gas down. Don't talk to me about it! I paid $32. 63 today for a full tank of gas at $2.79 a gallon for REGULAR!!! This was in Alexandria, VA and it was not a pretty picture. I think the President needs to fix this problem and his approval rates would go up-irregardless of what 'hater's' say about the war in Iraq, forget Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and focus the administration on getting these ridiculous rates down!!! I shake at the thought of what someone driving a gas guzzling SUV would be paying...not good for the car manufacturers-even if the oil companies are having a good time.
This situation only increases the need for alternative sources of energy and coal is just not the answer.
I know I haven't written a post in awhile-there are so many things I could talk about-Cindy Sheehan, Brad Pitt's drop in popularity-the fact that the government want's to take away pseudoephedrine because it can be used for making Crystal Menth! AAAAH! Why is that the few idiots always ruin the good things in life??
But, I have a beef. WHY? WHY? Is the government not doing anything about the cost of gas??? We can't get social security fixed, definitely not healthcare-no way when we can't even get the cost of gas down. Don't talk to me about it! I paid $32. 63 today for a full tank of gas at $2.79 a gallon for REGULAR!!! This was in Alexandria, VA and it was not a pretty picture. I think the President needs to fix this problem and his approval rates would go up-irregardless of what 'hater's' say about the war in Iraq, forget Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and focus the administration on getting these ridiculous rates down!!! I shake at the thought of what someone driving a gas guzzling SUV would be paying...not good for the car manufacturers-even if the oil companies are having a good time.
This situation only increases the need for alternative sources of energy and coal is just not the answer.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
First this on the Today Show from Tom Cruise,
"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with psychiatry," Cruise said. "And when I started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in psychology. ... And I know that psychiatry is a pseudo science."
Disputing the effectiveness of antidepressants generally, Cruise said, "all it does is mask the problem." He added, "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."
Then this from Brooke Shields, "To suggest that I was wrong to take drugs to deal with my depression, and that instead I should have taken vitamins and exercised shows an utter lack of understanding about postpartum depression and childbirth in general," the actress wrote.
"If any good can come of Mr. Cruise's ridiculous rant, let's hope that it gives much-needed attention to a serious disease."
AND now this,
'Tom ought to pipe down about people he doesn't know and [health] situations he hasn't experienced. You're an actor, Tom, not a med student.--Al Roker, the nicest guy in the world, in the National Enquirer. He's weighing in on the Tom Cruise versus Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer psychiatry brouhaha. In other words, Tom needs to shrink…not his head but his ego- From Eonline.
This statement supposedly made by Al Roker-really tops things off, wouldn't you say?? I mean, really, there was a BOMBING last week in London by Jihaadists and yet the Brooke Shields vs. Tom Cruise statements go on..and on..and on...while Brooke Shields promotes her new book 'Down came the Rain: My Journey through Post Partem Depression' and Tom Cruise promotes his movie 'War of the Worlds'.
And I understand no one likes a cat fight better than the American public or the media that sells to it. But, I think there is one major issue no one has bothered to consider-I mean it's been totally over looked.
THEY ARE BOTH PROMOTING PRODUCTS. Brooke wants to stand up for herself and women who are depressed? Okay. And she tells people about her issues, okay, publicly through a book, okay, then gets offended when some hyper anti-depressant vigilante doesn't like her statements???
Granted it's Tom Cruise and he is the world's biggest star, who knows how long he will last at this rate-. But that's beside the point, the point is Tom Cruise then turns around and criticizes Brooke for using anti-depressants while at the same time proclaiming the importance of SCIENTOLOGY and his movie?
What? Hello. I know he's been doing this for years, promoting his work and Scientology, but this was way over the top. He's criticizing someone for promoting something they believe in...and he's promoting what he believes in at the same time. Anti-depressants and Scientology could both be considered crutches-who knows which is worse for you-that are both used to cope with everyday albeit serious problems in life.
How one person can be right and another wrong-whatever you think about either-when they are both out promoting a product? They can't, they can only be hypocrites and annoying at that....Tom, you used to be so hot in Top Gun. Brooke, you were a pretty baby. Now, stop fighting and act like adults..oooh, that might be hard when you are on a Hollywood press junket....
"Before I was a Scientologist, I never agreed with psychiatry," Cruise said. "And when I started studying the history of psychiatry, I understood more and more why I didn't believe in psychology. ... And I know that psychiatry is a pseudo science."
Disputing the effectiveness of antidepressants generally, Cruise said, "all it does is mask the problem." He added, "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance."
Then this from Brooke Shields, "To suggest that I was wrong to take drugs to deal with my depression, and that instead I should have taken vitamins and exercised shows an utter lack of understanding about postpartum depression and childbirth in general," the actress wrote.
"If any good can come of Mr. Cruise's ridiculous rant, let's hope that it gives much-needed attention to a serious disease."
AND now this,
'Tom ought to pipe down about people he doesn't know and [health] situations he hasn't experienced. You're an actor, Tom, not a med student.--Al Roker, the nicest guy in the world, in the National Enquirer. He's weighing in on the Tom Cruise versus Brooke Shields and Matt Lauer psychiatry brouhaha. In other words, Tom needs to shrink…not his head but his ego- From Eonline.
This statement supposedly made by Al Roker-really tops things off, wouldn't you say?? I mean, really, there was a BOMBING last week in London by Jihaadists and yet the Brooke Shields vs. Tom Cruise statements go on..and on..and on...while Brooke Shields promotes her new book 'Down came the Rain: My Journey through Post Partem Depression' and Tom Cruise promotes his movie 'War of the Worlds'.
And I understand no one likes a cat fight better than the American public or the media that sells to it. But, I think there is one major issue no one has bothered to consider-I mean it's been totally over looked.
THEY ARE BOTH PROMOTING PRODUCTS. Brooke wants to stand up for herself and women who are depressed? Okay. And she tells people about her issues, okay, publicly through a book, okay, then gets offended when some hyper anti-depressant vigilante doesn't like her statements???
Granted it's Tom Cruise and he is the world's biggest star, who knows how long he will last at this rate-. But that's beside the point, the point is Tom Cruise then turns around and criticizes Brooke for using anti-depressants while at the same time proclaiming the importance of SCIENTOLOGY and his movie?
What? Hello. I know he's been doing this for years, promoting his work and Scientology, but this was way over the top. He's criticizing someone for promoting something they believe in...and he's promoting what he believes in at the same time. Anti-depressants and Scientology could both be considered crutches-who knows which is worse for you-that are both used to cope with everyday albeit serious problems in life.
How one person can be right and another wrong-whatever you think about either-when they are both out promoting a product? They can't, they can only be hypocrites and annoying at that....Tom, you used to be so hot in Top Gun. Brooke, you were a pretty baby. Now, stop fighting and act like adults..oooh, that might be hard when you are on a Hollywood press junket....
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Angelina Jolie adopts Ethiopian child.
Hello!
Well, the London Terrorist attacks have been well covered-maybe too well sinc e there is now controversy over who, and why they bombed those poor Londoners last week. And I feel a bit sheepish devoting a blog to it. But, I can't help myself, I'm a huge Angelina Jolie fan. She's an actress go here if you need a summary
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001401/- She is the daughter of Jon Voight who is divorced from her mother a french actress named Marcheline Bertrand. She was raised by Bertrand along with her brother James Haven.
.. You know that she adopted a son-maybe? Named Maddox from Cambodia. You probably know her as someone who is crazy, likes tattoos-in fact I believe buys tattoos that don't mean anything-her latin'what nourishes me destroys me' has got to have been translated wrong or she just got half a phrase. I would like to think it means 'What does not destroy me, nourishes me' or 'What nourishes me, cannot destroy me' or something...because the other phrase makes no sense in translation. I really need to find a latin scholar to work on that one..
Anyways, you know she is crazy, I'm sorry here we go again" CRAZY". Yes that's better and beautiful. Really she is probably one of the most beautiful women in the world. And I believe her lips are her own, I mean her father has a big pucker too. So, we can say she is probably au naturel for the time being since nothing stays that way for long in Hollywood.
I find this newest event in the news of her life to be very interesting, no not Brad. Her new daughter..which confused reporters who thought she was pregnant when she was seen shopping for girl's baby clothes, they thought it meant a pregnancy by Brad had begun...eeew.
http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1188033,00.html-Confusion over her plans for a child. Hindustan News
Silly paparazzi, Hollywood actresses don't like to have kids the natural way!! They like to have them through adoptions!
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20050706/112066470000.html-
She is just crazy to adopt another little girl, but I have to hand it to her. She's dealing with the world's poor orphan population one child at a time. And I admire her for that...I hate the U.N. but I love the fact that she does not go around talking about politics. And the best of all is when she poses with my other favorite person Condileeza Rice! Recently when I was sick my boyfriend put a picture of Condileeza Rice on my computer with Angelina Jolie!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/56747294e77933ff0dd7de1aa210cd31.htm
It's a weird thing to imagine this woman who travels the world for refugees, makes movies, and sleeps with men on EVERY SINGLE FILM SHE MAKES..yeah, if I were Brad I would not expect this to be a long relationship. Who knows? Maybe she's serious this time....but I doubt it..I mean she can't be serious, she's crazy. I do know this though while I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They were totally having some sort of affair-whether emotional or physical. And maybe Brad wasn't going to make with Jen Aniston but, as I and all my other gal pals are ashamed to admit that we follow the US weeklys-they were definitely involved before the marriage was over...maybe not seriously until after papers were filed. But, the trips to Africa and time Brad spent in England and on the set of their movie Mr. And Mrs. Smith(very good). PLEASE. I don't care what Angelina told Diane Sawyer, she is or was involved with a man who was married. Her careening love affairs are now up for grabs though since her
Jolie's love life: From real to reel –
former assistant, Patricia Ebert is planning to make her love life into a movie. And I think it would make a great one, if you can include the babies she keeps adopting and her relationship to her father, and her mother, and explain why she kisses her brother on the mouth (Academy Awards 2000) and Billy Bob. If she does drugs(duh), the tattoos, and if she is anorexic?
She's crazy and somehow she gets her work done for the U.N. and Hollywood....oh and adopts babies from Ethiopia and dates Brad Pitt, and eh.....
Well, the London Terrorist attacks have been well covered-maybe too well sinc e there is now controversy over who, and why they bombed those poor Londoners last week. And I feel a bit sheepish devoting a blog to it. But, I can't help myself, I'm a huge Angelina Jolie fan. She's an actress go here if you need a summary
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001401/- She is the daughter of Jon Voight who is divorced from her mother a french actress named Marcheline Bertrand. She was raised by Bertrand along with her brother James Haven.
.. You know that she adopted a son-maybe? Named Maddox from Cambodia. You probably know her as someone who is crazy, likes tattoos-in fact I believe buys tattoos that don't mean anything-her latin'what nourishes me destroys me' has got to have been translated wrong or she just got half a phrase. I would like to think it means 'What does not destroy me, nourishes me' or 'What nourishes me, cannot destroy me' or something...because the other phrase makes no sense in translation. I really need to find a latin scholar to work on that one..
Anyways, you know she is crazy, I'm sorry here we go again" CRAZY". Yes that's better and beautiful. Really she is probably one of the most beautiful women in the world. And I believe her lips are her own, I mean her father has a big pucker too. So, we can say she is probably au naturel for the time being since nothing stays that way for long in Hollywood.
I find this newest event in the news of her life to be very interesting, no not Brad. Her new daughter..which confused reporters who thought she was pregnant when she was seen shopping for girl's baby clothes, they thought it meant a pregnancy by Brad had begun...eeew.
http://www.sky.com/showbiz/article/0,,50001-1188033,00.html-Confusion over her plans for a child. Hindustan News
Silly paparazzi, Hollywood actresses don't like to have kids the natural way!! They like to have them through adoptions!
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20050706/112066470000.html-
She is just crazy to adopt another little girl, but I have to hand it to her. She's dealing with the world's poor orphan population one child at a time. And I admire her for that...I hate the U.N. but I love the fact that she does not go around talking about politics. And the best of all is when she poses with my other favorite person Condileeza Rice! Recently when I was sick my boyfriend put a picture of Condileeza Rice on my computer with Angelina Jolie!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/UNHCR/56747294e77933ff0dd7de1aa210cd31.htm
It's a weird thing to imagine this woman who travels the world for refugees, makes movies, and sleeps with men on EVERY SINGLE FILM SHE MAKES..yeah, if I were Brad I would not expect this to be a long relationship. Who knows? Maybe she's serious this time....but I doubt it..I mean she can't be serious, she's crazy. I do know this though while I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. They were totally having some sort of affair-whether emotional or physical. And maybe Brad wasn't going to make with Jen Aniston but, as I and all my other gal pals are ashamed to admit that we follow the US weeklys-they were definitely involved before the marriage was over...maybe not seriously until after papers were filed. But, the trips to Africa and time Brad spent in England and on the set of their movie Mr. And Mrs. Smith(very good). PLEASE. I don't care what Angelina told Diane Sawyer, she is or was involved with a man who was married. Her careening love affairs are now up for grabs though since her
Jolie's love life: From real to reel –
former assistant, Patricia Ebert is planning to make her love life into a movie. And I think it would make a great one, if you can include the babies she keeps adopting and her relationship to her father, and her mother, and explain why she kisses her brother on the mouth (Academy Awards 2000) and Billy Bob. If she does drugs(duh), the tattoos, and if she is anorexic?
She's crazy and somehow she gets her work done for the U.N. and Hollywood....oh and adopts babies from Ethiopia and dates Brad Pitt, and eh.....
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Chirac-is that your best?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1521483,00.html
Dredge posted this yesterday.
You know a country is not doing well when their leader thinks a good insult is to make fun of a superior country's food. Seriously, Chirac sounds like a kindergartener-or a disenfrachised, quickly loosing respect, frustrated, and spoiled leader...oh wait. Heh. That's what he is.......Is he going to start telling us that no one in the U. S. knows haute couture like he does???? Ouch!Hello!!!
And take this Chirac!
Today, it was announced that London will host the 2012 Olympics. I'm sure it will be a great boon to the English economy. I bear no hard feelings over New York's loss-we just had the games in Utah not too long ago.....here is a blog on it.
http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/07/2012_olympic_ga.php
And Dredge has pictures up today-on July 6, 2005.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Oooh! And today is International Kissing Day! Check out the link. I celebrated by waking up to a series of kisses from my uber cute schnauzer pup. It's better than an alarm clock!
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2005/07/today-is-international-kissing-day.html
Full Article On Chirac:
Chirac's reheated food jokes bring Blair to the boil Patrick BarkhamTuesday July 5, 2005The Guardian Take one unpopular president, a brace of struggling statesmen and a couple of global summits. Heat up a hoary national stereotype, leaven with wit, sit back and watch "les rosbifs" simmer.
Jacques Chirac stirred the pot at a meeting in Russia on Sunday when he joked to Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder that the British could not be trusted and worse food was only found in Finland.
The French president declared that the only thing the British have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease, the French daily Libération reported.
Mr Chirac then reportedly said: "You can't trust people who cook as badly as that. After Finland, it's the country with the worst food."
His jibes may have amused Mr Putin and Mr Schröder, but they are unlikely to have pleased members of the Paris 2012 bid team lobbying the International Olympic Committee in Singapore. Mr Chirac's absence while Tony Blair has been working on London's behalf has been noted, but Paris officials have excused it by insisting that the president would arrive in time for the final presentation on Wednesday, which Mr Blair will miss.
As a Michelin-starred Scottish chef put the final touches to his French-inspired menu for G8 leaders at Gleneagles, Mr Chirac recalled how the former Nato secretary general George Robertson, a Scot, once insisted he try a Scottish speciality, believed to be haggis.
"That's where our problems with Nato come from," he said.
The chef advising on the menu, Andrew Fairlie, who trained under Michel Guérard in France, describes his cooking as "unashamedly French but with a Scottish twist".
French aides said the quotes attributed to Mr Chirac did not "reflect the tone or the content" of the meeting in Russia. But Mr Blair made what appeared to be a reference to Mr Chirac's outburst when asked if Gleneagles would be an anticlimax after Singapore.
"I won't say the G8 summit would be an anticlimax to it because that would be undiplomatic and I know when I go there I will be in the presence of very diplomatic people," he said.
British chefs were less restrained. "Bollocks," said Antony Worrall Thompson. "Chirac doesn't get out enough.
"Our beef is the best in the world ... All the langoustines they eat are Scottish. So I'd serve him langoustines followed by good Aberdeen Angus beef and then give him a heart attack with some sticky toffee pudding."
Meanwhile Egon Ronay, the food critic, said: "A man full of bile is not fit to pronounce on food."
And today German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he was looking forward to a "decent steak" at this week's G8 summit in Scotland.
Schroeder refused to discuss Chirac's reported remarks at a news conference. "No word from me on these secret talks," the chancellor said.
He also responded cautiously when asked whether he was looking forward to the food at the G8 summit, which opens Wednesday in Gleneagles, Scotland.
"I'm no fan of salmon, and I hope I will get a decent steak - I'm sure I will get one," a smiling Schroeder said. "Beyond that, I don't know English - or Scottish - cuisine well enough that I could really talk as an expert."
Dredge posted this yesterday.
You know a country is not doing well when their leader thinks a good insult is to make fun of a superior country's food. Seriously, Chirac sounds like a kindergartener-or a disenfrachised, quickly loosing respect, frustrated, and spoiled leader...oh wait. Heh. That's what he is.......Is he going to start telling us that no one in the U. S. knows haute couture like he does???? Ouch!Hello!!!
And take this Chirac!
Today, it was announced that London will host the 2012 Olympics. I'm sure it will be a great boon to the English economy. I bear no hard feelings over New York's loss-we just had the games in Utah not too long ago.....here is a blog on it.
http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/07/2012_olympic_ga.php
And Dredge has pictures up today-on July 6, 2005.
http://www.drudgereport.com/
Oooh! And today is International Kissing Day! Check out the link. I celebrated by waking up to a series of kisses from my uber cute schnauzer pup. It's better than an alarm clock!
http://bamber.blogspot.com/2005/07/today-is-international-kissing-day.html
Full Article On Chirac:
Chirac's reheated food jokes bring Blair to the boil Patrick BarkhamTuesday July 5, 2005The Guardian Take one unpopular president, a brace of struggling statesmen and a couple of global summits. Heat up a hoary national stereotype, leaven with wit, sit back and watch "les rosbifs" simmer.
Jacques Chirac stirred the pot at a meeting in Russia on Sunday when he joked to Vladimir Putin and Gerhard Schröder that the British could not be trusted and worse food was only found in Finland.
The French president declared that the only thing the British have ever done for European agriculture is mad cow disease, the French daily Libération reported.
Mr Chirac then reportedly said: "You can't trust people who cook as badly as that. After Finland, it's the country with the worst food."
His jibes may have amused Mr Putin and Mr Schröder, but they are unlikely to have pleased members of the Paris 2012 bid team lobbying the International Olympic Committee in Singapore. Mr Chirac's absence while Tony Blair has been working on London's behalf has been noted, but Paris officials have excused it by insisting that the president would arrive in time for the final presentation on Wednesday, which Mr Blair will miss.
As a Michelin-starred Scottish chef put the final touches to his French-inspired menu for G8 leaders at Gleneagles, Mr Chirac recalled how the former Nato secretary general George Robertson, a Scot, once insisted he try a Scottish speciality, believed to be haggis.
"That's where our problems with Nato come from," he said.
The chef advising on the menu, Andrew Fairlie, who trained under Michel Guérard in France, describes his cooking as "unashamedly French but with a Scottish twist".
French aides said the quotes attributed to Mr Chirac did not "reflect the tone or the content" of the meeting in Russia. But Mr Blair made what appeared to be a reference to Mr Chirac's outburst when asked if Gleneagles would be an anticlimax after Singapore.
"I won't say the G8 summit would be an anticlimax to it because that would be undiplomatic and I know when I go there I will be in the presence of very diplomatic people," he said.
British chefs were less restrained. "Bollocks," said Antony Worrall Thompson. "Chirac doesn't get out enough.
"Our beef is the best in the world ... All the langoustines they eat are Scottish. So I'd serve him langoustines followed by good Aberdeen Angus beef and then give him a heart attack with some sticky toffee pudding."
Meanwhile Egon Ronay, the food critic, said: "A man full of bile is not fit to pronounce on food."
And today German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he was looking forward to a "decent steak" at this week's G8 summit in Scotland.
Schroeder refused to discuss Chirac's reported remarks at a news conference. "No word from me on these secret talks," the chancellor said.
He also responded cautiously when asked whether he was looking forward to the food at the G8 summit, which opens Wednesday in Gleneagles, Scotland.
"I'm no fan of salmon, and I hope I will get a decent steak - I'm sure I will get one," a smiling Schroeder said. "Beyond that, I don't know English - or Scottish - cuisine well enough that I could really talk as an expert."
Silly Democrats! Tricks are for kids!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/04/AR2005070400924_pf.html
I have been saying this for months and now the proof is in the pudding-or shall I say in the Washington Post. See the link above. This article was listed on Drudge today. It basically states that-and I urge you to read it-Nancy Pelosi had unreported trips paid for by lobbyists. One must understand this only the tip of the ice berg for the democratic party's members of Congress. The article clearly states they take more 'perk's' from lobbyists than Republicans do....so one must ask why Pelosi would dare admit that she took these trips??
Well, it's simple, she can either admit and give into defeat or be exposed by someone else. She is far better off admitting to her actions and thereby letting it be known how truly common this behavior is by Congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle. She cannot both castigate Delay and call for his removal from the office of Majority Leader and ask forgiveness for her own actions.
SO, What I have been saying is that the Democrats made a brave move to try and remove Delay from office by creating a media frenzy and tying up the House Ethics committee by prying into Delay's trips and interactions with lobbyists. But, it was ultimately STUPID, because as everyone who has worked on Capitol Hill or in DC KNOWS-virtually ALL Congressmen receive some kind of financial compensation for work done or a perk from interaction with lobbyists. POINT BLANK.
At the very least- Most congressional staffers supplement their meager salaries with free food from Assocation receptions or dinners. There are a few people like Senator Feingold who do not allow their staff to take any of this free food. Mind you, these events do not really influence people the way a nice dinner at Oceanaire-the kind Legislative Assistants get treated to-does, but everyone is guilty on some level of taking food at the least from Lobbyists and special interest groups on the Hill. It has been this way for years, and most people think it is a fair trade for time spent listening to some groups spokesperson.
However, it doesn't leave room for the little people who don't have money for lobbying and have to depend on an issues personal ethos to a staff or Congressmen. OR a personal relationship that was developed over years of contact-which probably required some sort of prestige- money, social status, respect in a field of work, etc.
If we are really going to change politics-then you have to take the money out of it-I mean, stop letting the government administer the big bags of money through Appropriations collected by taxes. This is a sticky wicket no one wants to deal with and so we are stuck with lobbyists who are paid to send money to certain groups. And maybe we don't really want to know what is lost or gained by allowing the lobbyists to continue their work.
In short, the Democrats were completely drowned by their own hubris-because I don't hear them talking about abolishing the practice of lobbyists anytime soon..it was just a hollow attempt to unseat a good and strong leader.
I have been saying this for months and now the proof is in the pudding-or shall I say in the Washington Post. See the link above. This article was listed on Drudge today. It basically states that-and I urge you to read it-Nancy Pelosi had unreported trips paid for by lobbyists. One must understand this only the tip of the ice berg for the democratic party's members of Congress. The article clearly states they take more 'perk's' from lobbyists than Republicans do....so one must ask why Pelosi would dare admit that she took these trips??
Well, it's simple, she can either admit and give into defeat or be exposed by someone else. She is far better off admitting to her actions and thereby letting it be known how truly common this behavior is by Congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle. She cannot both castigate Delay and call for his removal from the office of Majority Leader and ask forgiveness for her own actions.
SO, What I have been saying is that the Democrats made a brave move to try and remove Delay from office by creating a media frenzy and tying up the House Ethics committee by prying into Delay's trips and interactions with lobbyists. But, it was ultimately STUPID, because as everyone who has worked on Capitol Hill or in DC KNOWS-virtually ALL Congressmen receive some kind of financial compensation for work done or a perk from interaction with lobbyists. POINT BLANK.
At the very least- Most congressional staffers supplement their meager salaries with free food from Assocation receptions or dinners. There are a few people like Senator Feingold who do not allow their staff to take any of this free food. Mind you, these events do not really influence people the way a nice dinner at Oceanaire-the kind Legislative Assistants get treated to-does, but everyone is guilty on some level of taking food at the least from Lobbyists and special interest groups on the Hill. It has been this way for years, and most people think it is a fair trade for time spent listening to some groups spokesperson.
However, it doesn't leave room for the little people who don't have money for lobbying and have to depend on an issues personal ethos to a staff or Congressmen. OR a personal relationship that was developed over years of contact-which probably required some sort of prestige- money, social status, respect in a field of work, etc.
If we are really going to change politics-then you have to take the money out of it-I mean, stop letting the government administer the big bags of money through Appropriations collected by taxes. This is a sticky wicket no one wants to deal with and so we are stuck with lobbyists who are paid to send money to certain groups. And maybe we don't really want to know what is lost or gained by allowing the lobbyists to continue their work.
In short, the Democrats were completely drowned by their own hubris-because I don't hear them talking about abolishing the practice of lobbyists anytime soon..it was just a hollow attempt to unseat a good and strong leader.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Before Sunrise?
Hello Moviewatchers,
This bloggie will be about a film I saw recently, called Before Sunrise, click here for a link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112471/, the sequel called Before Sunset was recently released in movie theaters. I had always meant to see the original film and now with the advent of the sequel my recalcatrance has been removed.
To summarize the film is about two people ; an american named Jessie played by Ethan Hawke, and a french grad student named Celine played by Julie Delpy. They meet on a train traveling to Vienna. Jessie convinces Celine to prolong her trip back to grad school at the Sorbonne by 8 hours and spend his last night in Europe with him before he travels home by plane to the U.S in the morning. So, they spend a night outdoors in Vienna talking, walking, and generally begining a relationship which can go nowhere and therefore goes everywhere conversationwise.
I must tell you to start that I had very high expectations for the film. My law school neighbor loves the film so much she watches it over and over and over....and lucky me-because I got to borrow it from her for free. And THEY DID MAKE A SEQUEL to it-now almost 9 years later-which picks up where the last movie left off 9 years later. (And the sequel link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/) The film did reasonably well, Richard Linklater directed again and wrote much of the script with Kim Krizan just like the first. But, I digress.......
This film for me was wholly unrealistic and pretentious-but it was gripping-unlike most films where people are just talking the whole time-this film held my interest- in the same way that a play can hold your interest through long winding conversations.
Realistically, the story just seems implausible-the poet in the street asking for words to create beautiful poetry, the enchanting and exotic fortune teller(who is not stinky or rude-this was my experience in Europe), the bar owner who 'loans' them a bottle of wine-to the fact that you are expected to believe that Jessie really wants company and not a quick roll in the hay with a beautiful french girl before heading back to the U.S.
Jessie and Celine share the secrets of their relationships. Jessie has just been unceremoniously dumped after traveling to Spain to visit his Master's of Art history girlfriend.(It is so trendy for her to have been an Art History major-she could have been an accounting major for all it mattered.) Celine has just been dumped by a jerk. Just after the dumping, Celine visited a shrink to get some help for her depression-the shrink takes a story about a woman planning to kill her boyfriend as real that Celine has written-and decides she is nuts and alerts the police. (I must say I don't completely disagree with the Psychiatrist's actions.)
You believe the two could hang out because they are both broken by recent bad experiences-what they both really need is a rebound to forget their problemsif you ask me, but no one did-). There is a definite theme of loneliness and searching between them. Jesse talks about reincarnation, and how we could all just be broken pieces of other people as a way to explain the higher number of people supposedly reincarnated today than when the world began....OKAY. Celine recounts how her Grandmother was always in love with this guy she never saw again and married Celine's Grandfather. Jesse tells her that the guy wasn't so great and this is a cue to the audience that really JESSE is not one to remember or pine over in the future of Celine's life. OKAY. There are certain moments which jarr one out of the film, like these:
Jesse talks about how the fortune teller should have to tell 'true' fortunes like that to an old woman, life will be dull, boring, and meaningless until the day she dies after she leaves the fortune teller. The lines sound like a vain youthful person (and I am only 25 myself!) And btw, Jesse is a really sketchy character- I don't know if this is Ethan Hawk's inate skeeziness coming out-but he's really sketchy and looks like a child molester part of the time. This is not romantic at all! Maybe I would have liked him better in 1995 when the whole grunge look was still the rage and I could translate it to that....OR NOT.
Celine describes how much she hates the way the Media-especially American media tries to control people's minds. HEY, this was back in 1995! She describes it as a new type of Fascism-right on Celine! Except she says this is a subtle thing-and it is not-and it was not even 9 years ago.
Celine and Jesse pretend to exchange phone calls with their friends after their night in Vienna to one another-each posing as the other's friend. They use this as an excuse to tell each other how they really feel-and I am completely aware that this moment is ridiculous. It is roaringly female and cotton candy fluffed. So much so, that my male companion couldn't stop laughing during it and neither could I.
End point.
There is a theme of sexuality and gender roles. Celine and Jesse spend a good ten minutes arguing about whether men or women are worse in relationships. Celine refers to the preying mantis female insect who ripes off the head of the male to begin copulation-except she thinks it's a spider-OKAY.
Celine thinks that Feminism may have just been a plot by Men to get women to sleep with them-no strings attached, okay. And I think I might agree-as the two plod towards their inevitable make out and sex. I say inevitable because of the film type and their conversations beforehand.....it actually makes me sad that she does sleep with him. Only because she so bluntly tells the audience and Jesse that it will make her sad afterwards-and I have to agree, in real life most people would miss someone they bonded with so deeply on one night.
They confront their fears of not seeing each other again by talking about how boring long relationships are in life. How no one can stand being together very long and knowing one another truly is boring....until Celine says she would prefer to know someone really, really-boringly well. And I felt than like I had a piece of truth from the movie-because to know someone that well and like them-means you actually LOVE them. This is a deep moment in the movie-past the neurotic and shallow talk of how relationships become boring over time. They are only boring if you never really loved the person. This line of thought is conforting to people who are not in relationships, have let them fail, been failed on by another person, or fear they are missing something-and it may be true that some people get really bored in their romantic relationships and loose interest because-(gasp!) they choose to let them loose all their energy.
And Celine's omission is that she can see herself in a relationship-whereas Jesse has told us over and over-that he is somewhat broken by his recent experience in Spain. If I were there, I would tell her to stop wasting her time and get back on the train to Paris. But, if I were her-I would have stayed too-I think I did at the time. Jesse-We also know that he is not to be trusted too much-beyond the time he has with Celine. As he has told Celine and the audience over and over....he has things to do in the U.S. and a silly ex to get over in the future.
It most importantly reminded me of my own travels to Europe and that horrible feeling one gets when you meet someone you would love to date or even get to know and you have no time but the present. And so inevitably if you spend enough time hanging out-that you get to know each other in a fastforward faux intimate sort of way. The two of you exchange stories and share secrets, but it feels sick and nauseous for the reality that the two of you are parting ways inevitably....it's a common experience for Americans abroad in Europe especially to meet new people briefly-make contact and be pulled apart again by their career interests, school, or geography. And I think this is where the movie is right-it has captured an experience that many people have had who travel abroad in their early 20's. It has captured it, made it sweeter, sillier and wholly unbelievable for me. It is not the great romantic epic-my Mom's middle adged friends sighed over. It is not even overly scintilating all the time. The funny part is, I still watched the whole movie and will watch the Sequel because it was for the most part a mildly entertaining-easy to watch movie. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are good actors and they have good chemistry-this makes the movie most palatable.
This bloggie will be about a film I saw recently, called Before Sunrise, click here for a link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112471/, the sequel called Before Sunset was recently released in movie theaters. I had always meant to see the original film and now with the advent of the sequel my recalcatrance has been removed.
To summarize the film is about two people ; an american named Jessie played by Ethan Hawke, and a french grad student named Celine played by Julie Delpy. They meet on a train traveling to Vienna. Jessie convinces Celine to prolong her trip back to grad school at the Sorbonne by 8 hours and spend his last night in Europe with him before he travels home by plane to the U.S in the morning. So, they spend a night outdoors in Vienna talking, walking, and generally begining a relationship which can go nowhere and therefore goes everywhere conversationwise.
I must tell you to start that I had very high expectations for the film. My law school neighbor loves the film so much she watches it over and over and over....and lucky me-because I got to borrow it from her for free. And THEY DID MAKE A SEQUEL to it-now almost 9 years later-which picks up where the last movie left off 9 years later. (And the sequel link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/) The film did reasonably well, Richard Linklater directed again and wrote much of the script with Kim Krizan just like the first. But, I digress.......
This film for me was wholly unrealistic and pretentious-but it was gripping-unlike most films where people are just talking the whole time-this film held my interest- in the same way that a play can hold your interest through long winding conversations.
Realistically, the story just seems implausible-the poet in the street asking for words to create beautiful poetry, the enchanting and exotic fortune teller(who is not stinky or rude-this was my experience in Europe), the bar owner who 'loans' them a bottle of wine-to the fact that you are expected to believe that Jessie really wants company and not a quick roll in the hay with a beautiful french girl before heading back to the U.S.
Jessie and Celine share the secrets of their relationships. Jessie has just been unceremoniously dumped after traveling to Spain to visit his Master's of Art history girlfriend.(It is so trendy for her to have been an Art History major-she could have been an accounting major for all it mattered.) Celine has just been dumped by a jerk. Just after the dumping, Celine visited a shrink to get some help for her depression-the shrink takes a story about a woman planning to kill her boyfriend as real that Celine has written-and decides she is nuts and alerts the police. (I must say I don't completely disagree with the Psychiatrist's actions.)
You believe the two could hang out because they are both broken by recent bad experiences-what they both really need is a rebound to forget their problemsif you ask me, but no one did-). There is a definite theme of loneliness and searching between them. Jesse talks about reincarnation, and how we could all just be broken pieces of other people as a way to explain the higher number of people supposedly reincarnated today than when the world began....OKAY. Celine recounts how her Grandmother was always in love with this guy she never saw again and married Celine's Grandfather. Jesse tells her that the guy wasn't so great and this is a cue to the audience that really JESSE is not one to remember or pine over in the future of Celine's life. OKAY. There are certain moments which jarr one out of the film, like these:
Jesse talks about how the fortune teller should have to tell 'true' fortunes like that to an old woman, life will be dull, boring, and meaningless until the day she dies after she leaves the fortune teller. The lines sound like a vain youthful person (and I am only 25 myself!) And btw, Jesse is a really sketchy character- I don't know if this is Ethan Hawk's inate skeeziness coming out-but he's really sketchy and looks like a child molester part of the time. This is not romantic at all! Maybe I would have liked him better in 1995 when the whole grunge look was still the rage and I could translate it to that....OR NOT.
Celine describes how much she hates the way the Media-especially American media tries to control people's minds. HEY, this was back in 1995! She describes it as a new type of Fascism-right on Celine! Except she says this is a subtle thing-and it is not-and it was not even 9 years ago.
Celine and Jesse pretend to exchange phone calls with their friends after their night in Vienna to one another-each posing as the other's friend. They use this as an excuse to tell each other how they really feel-and I am completely aware that this moment is ridiculous. It is roaringly female and cotton candy fluffed. So much so, that my male companion couldn't stop laughing during it and neither could I.
End point.
There is a theme of sexuality and gender roles. Celine and Jesse spend a good ten minutes arguing about whether men or women are worse in relationships. Celine refers to the preying mantis female insect who ripes off the head of the male to begin copulation-except she thinks it's a spider-OKAY.
Celine thinks that Feminism may have just been a plot by Men to get women to sleep with them-no strings attached, okay. And I think I might agree-as the two plod towards their inevitable make out and sex. I say inevitable because of the film type and their conversations beforehand.....it actually makes me sad that she does sleep with him. Only because she so bluntly tells the audience and Jesse that it will make her sad afterwards-and I have to agree, in real life most people would miss someone they bonded with so deeply on one night.
They confront their fears of not seeing each other again by talking about how boring long relationships are in life. How no one can stand being together very long and knowing one another truly is boring....until Celine says she would prefer to know someone really, really-boringly well. And I felt than like I had a piece of truth from the movie-because to know someone that well and like them-means you actually LOVE them. This is a deep moment in the movie-past the neurotic and shallow talk of how relationships become boring over time. They are only boring if you never really loved the person. This line of thought is conforting to people who are not in relationships, have let them fail, been failed on by another person, or fear they are missing something-and it may be true that some people get really bored in their romantic relationships and loose interest because-(gasp!) they choose to let them loose all their energy.
And Celine's omission is that she can see herself in a relationship-whereas Jesse has told us over and over-that he is somewhat broken by his recent experience in Spain. If I were there, I would tell her to stop wasting her time and get back on the train to Paris. But, if I were her-I would have stayed too-I think I did at the time. Jesse-We also know that he is not to be trusted too much-beyond the time he has with Celine. As he has told Celine and the audience over and over....he has things to do in the U.S. and a silly ex to get over in the future.
It most importantly reminded me of my own travels to Europe and that horrible feeling one gets when you meet someone you would love to date or even get to know and you have no time but the present. And so inevitably if you spend enough time hanging out-that you get to know each other in a fastforward faux intimate sort of way. The two of you exchange stories and share secrets, but it feels sick and nauseous for the reality that the two of you are parting ways inevitably....it's a common experience for Americans abroad in Europe especially to meet new people briefly-make contact and be pulled apart again by their career interests, school, or geography. And I think this is where the movie is right-it has captured an experience that many people have had who travel abroad in their early 20's. It has captured it, made it sweeter, sillier and wholly unbelievable for me. It is not the great romantic epic-my Mom's middle adged friends sighed over. It is not even overly scintilating all the time. The funny part is, I still watched the whole movie and will watch the Sequel because it was for the most part a mildly entertaining-easy to watch movie. Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy are good actors and they have good chemistry-this makes the movie most palatable.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Birthday Hoo Ha.
So, this is it in less than 12 hours-I will be 25 years old. I thought it would only be appropriate for me to write about the frustration that birthdays bring at this time of my life. I can only begin with the fact that Birthdays after the age of 21 begin to suck. Really, they just start to suck.
Why? Because after that age you start to pay more attention to the fact that time is ticking away and you literally are not getting any younger. When I was in my teens it was great-I was moving upward and onward-each birthday meant I was closer to freedom by driving, drinking legally, and voting. (Note: Do not do all of these together or at the same time-may cause problems.)
Now, as each year passes I find myself depressed by the slow movement of my career, I'm not a millionaire yet or running my own company. I learn to be more cynical about people and less hopeful about them. For a brief period I was getting less cynical and more excited about my career. This all stems from working doggedly and ceaselessly to attain my goals. And really I am getting to these goals-but very slowly and the progress made does not balance out my need to save money prepare for retirement and work on the big picture.
A lot of people would say my problems are common to those in their 20's and especially people in my age group working in a competitive industry. The struggling, the abusive jobs, all of it, I think what would cure my birthday blues is a guarantee of success and knowing it was worth it...but this is not possible.
Then there are the logisistics of birthdays-what day to celebrate it on? The actual day or the closest Saturday? Whether or not to have a party? Will someone throw you a party? I have had people surprise me with cakes and presents before-it's always a treat. If you do plan a party, there are complaints from even your most well meaning friends about locations, times, costs, the weather-(Hello, this is my birthday party!!!! As one friend pointed out, your friends should do what you want to do for that special day.) And of course you only care about their feelings and concerns if you are someone who is truly considerate-or maybe too considerate in my case. I.E. you don't want to be that person who holds their birthday at the 4 Seasons Hotel in Georgetown and expects everyone to splurge on expensive drinks themselves and you!
Then there are the details of a party, once the location and date have been chosen, the RSVP's for example-our culture is defunct in the most basic way when it comes to considering a host or hostess's needs. People say they will come and do not show up-or even call to cancel, they bring extra people, or no people after they have put in a specific number for dinner reservations. Sometimes they don't reply at all to invitations, simply showing up when it is inconvenient and expect special exceptions to be made for them. And at the end of the day-who wants to be picky with their friends??? It's a gross disregard for the birthday person on the part of the friend-but it's how most people conduct parties.
The planning process can make even the most happy and fun loving person weary. But, no birthday party at all would be even worse so-an admittance to defeat is not an option. And I must admit throwing a party is great fun and really the best part of the day. It's an excuse to shop and prep, to dress up and be fun. I think that's really what birthdays are about-celebrating life-even though your life at the moment may not be that great-or only as good as it gets(horrifingly enough). You can make a million changes to your life and you will still find yourself back at square one-working on your flaws, wanting to take a nap, and trying to be positive in the face of set backs. It's all you can do to plan a party, get dressed up, and smile. It's all you got and it does make you happier in the end, I think......
Why? Because after that age you start to pay more attention to the fact that time is ticking away and you literally are not getting any younger. When I was in my teens it was great-I was moving upward and onward-each birthday meant I was closer to freedom by driving, drinking legally, and voting. (Note: Do not do all of these together or at the same time-may cause problems.)
Now, as each year passes I find myself depressed by the slow movement of my career, I'm not a millionaire yet or running my own company. I learn to be more cynical about people and less hopeful about them. For a brief period I was getting less cynical and more excited about my career. This all stems from working doggedly and ceaselessly to attain my goals. And really I am getting to these goals-but very slowly and the progress made does not balance out my need to save money prepare for retirement and work on the big picture.
A lot of people would say my problems are common to those in their 20's and especially people in my age group working in a competitive industry. The struggling, the abusive jobs, all of it, I think what would cure my birthday blues is a guarantee of success and knowing it was worth it...but this is not possible.
Then there are the logisistics of birthdays-what day to celebrate it on? The actual day or the closest Saturday? Whether or not to have a party? Will someone throw you a party? I have had people surprise me with cakes and presents before-it's always a treat. If you do plan a party, there are complaints from even your most well meaning friends about locations, times, costs, the weather-(Hello, this is my birthday party!!!! As one friend pointed out, your friends should do what you want to do for that special day.) And of course you only care about their feelings and concerns if you are someone who is truly considerate-or maybe too considerate in my case. I.E. you don't want to be that person who holds their birthday at the 4 Seasons Hotel in Georgetown and expects everyone to splurge on expensive drinks themselves and you!
Then there are the details of a party, once the location and date have been chosen, the RSVP's for example-our culture is defunct in the most basic way when it comes to considering a host or hostess's needs. People say they will come and do not show up-or even call to cancel, they bring extra people, or no people after they have put in a specific number for dinner reservations. Sometimes they don't reply at all to invitations, simply showing up when it is inconvenient and expect special exceptions to be made for them. And at the end of the day-who wants to be picky with their friends??? It's a gross disregard for the birthday person on the part of the friend-but it's how most people conduct parties.
The planning process can make even the most happy and fun loving person weary. But, no birthday party at all would be even worse so-an admittance to defeat is not an option. And I must admit throwing a party is great fun and really the best part of the day. It's an excuse to shop and prep, to dress up and be fun. I think that's really what birthdays are about-celebrating life-even though your life at the moment may not be that great-or only as good as it gets(horrifingly enough). You can make a million changes to your life and you will still find yourself back at square one-working on your flaws, wanting to take a nap, and trying to be positive in the face of set backs. It's all you can do to plan a party, get dressed up, and smile. It's all you got and it does make you happier in the end, I think......
Friday, April 22, 2005
BIG MEDIA vs. little bloggers
For the start of this blog I would like to feature another writer's work to explain a dicussion of blogs versus the media at large. As a student of Public Relations, many of my classes and revolve around the blogosphere:How it has affected the mainstream media, what it means for journalism, and how far it can be trusted. The fact of the matter is that the big media: newspapers, major networks, and magazines do not like bloggers. They resent the control that bloggers have over them and the public. Until the advent of bloggers rise to power with the demise of Dan Rather at CBS News and Eason Jordan's resignation from CNN; Nobody was giving them much credit or paying any attention to them.
Since the past election cycle though the public and the big media have become very aware and wary of these people who are called 'bloggers'.
Will Collier, from VodkaPundit, pointed me towards another article:
'PR and the MSM'
Very interesting piece on here by Paul Graham, who was around in the early days of web start-ups. It's about how public-relations firms inject memes into the mainstream media for their clinets. In Graham's words,
PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by feeding them mere propaganda.
If anyone is dishonest, it's the reporters. The main reason PR firms exist is that reporters are lazy. Or, to put it more nicely, overworked. Really they ought to be out there digging up stories for themselves. But it's so tempting to sit in their offices and let PR firms bring the stories to them. After all, they know good PR firms won't lie to them.
Further down, Graham notes that the standard PR methods aren't working so well with one particular manifestation of new media:
Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where you had to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether the author was telling the whole truth? If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all.
Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler. Most people who publish online write what they write for the simple reason that they want to. You can't see the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as you can in so many print publications-- which is one of the reasons, though they may not consciously realize it, that readers trust bloggers more than Business Week.
I was talking recently to a friend who works for a big newspaper. He thought the print media were in serious trouble, and that they were still mostly in denial about it. "They think the decline is cyclic," he said. "Actually it's structural."
In other words, the readers are leaving, and they're not coming back.
Why? I think the main reason is that the writing online is more honest. Imagine how incongruous the New York Times article about suits would sound if you read it in a blog:
The urge to look corporate-- sleek, commanding, prudent, yet with just a touch of hubris on your well-cut sleeve-- is an unexpected development in a time of business disgrace.
The problem with this article is not just that it originated in a PR firm. The whole tone is bogus. This is the tone of someone writing down to their audience.
Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think.)
In my opinion the big media has become too corporate, I think once maybe as recently as the early 80's journalists were people looking for a good story. They were writers who wanted to report the facts. Newspapers wanted to sell copy but, they were more creative in their day to day work. Journalists were asked to be unbiased and focus on keeping their morals intact. This is what I was taught in college for journalism, never accept gifts, keep out of your personal opinions and respect the integrity of the subjector subjects involved. But, jounalists have stopped being asked as group to adhere to these principles. Some do and some don't..so who do you trust for information?
You trust the people who you have come to know on a certain level through regular reading, personal contact, whose opinions you know how to judge, and who have not openly failed you when it comes to the facts. Trust is hard to gain these days and easy to loose, especially in readers. Cynicism seems to be the mark of an educated mind. But for all the cynicism that has been drummed into us, bloggers provide information we feel we can digest free of contamination.
Why is this true? Because bloggers openly disclose what they think and where they are coming from as they write their work. Case in point: I just told you I am a student of PR, and I want to work in the field somewhere in DC. I have nothing to gain or loose by this action. I do not get paid to write this blog and write for my own edification as a writer.
This brings me to another point:
Big PR people don't like bloggers- especiall those well the over 40 set, in Media PR, these people really look down on bloggers-they can't relate to them and don't trust them-assume they are just really easily swayed writers and inauthentic because their sources can't be traced. Another way to look at is this: Bloggers aren't on a money crunch timeline, they do their posts as apart of their personal self actualization. They don't need or even want some PR person giving them a press release to help them form a story. In addition, those bloggers who are paid and have deadlines depend on the authenticity of their work to continue blogging. Otherwise, they would be no different than a paid journalist. (It is important to distinguish bloggers from corporate website blogs as well such as GM's which is written by some ghostwriter for the CEO in the Communications office of the corporation.)
Bloggers start by developing a small base of readers who trust them or know them personally, if they are good and trustworthy their base grows-they form relationships with other bloggers who pass along their information. But, Bloggers are also under a strict adherence to the truth or to at least openly sharing where they stand on issues. If they are not honest, it seems to take about a minute for their credibilty to be shattered. It boggles the minds of PR professionals and defensive jounalists.
I can't tell you how many of my elders in this field of Media Relations have expressed an extreme dislike for bloggers. They think they are freaks, people who hang out in their underwear and eat two day old pizza off the floor-ultimately because they don't understand them and cannot control them some members of the PR profession resent bloggers as much as the mainstream media. Think about it like this: Media relations professionals had a great relationship full of perks for everyone-free information for journalists as well as meals and food(who knows), but bloggers changed that, journalists can't take free story ideas and media relations professionals can't easily give them out anymore without the public or at least some part of the public questioning the motives....the biggest question is what will happen to mainstream media. Will we all have to start logging onto our computers just get our weather report??? NO.I think the mainstream publications will stay around. The truth is bloggers work best as a compliment to what the major media outlets produce. Due to the medium and the fact that most bloggers really do have lives their will always be a space for some kind of daily newsource for current events. But, the big media producers are going to find their world changed-I think the rule of giant media is over-it only lasted 15 years anyways....I point to the fact that the newspapers have become very corporate and a lot of people who used to be journalists have left the industry altogether finding themselves embittered and angry at what has happened to journalism. In fact, a lot of ex journalists have become bloggers or dare I say it-CURRENT JOURNALISTS HAVE BLOGS, outside of their normal articles and columns. The blogosphere is a place where you can escape from the monopoly of certain subjects that run in an obnoxious repitition on the major news outlets like so many MTV videos. OR a person can find a much needed set of facts or a different opinion to fill out a current issue in their mind. But this does not really signal the end of CNN, or Fox News, or even really CBS. It does signal a change.
Additionally, in college many of my English professors hypothesized that one day the reign of the free press would end-fearing government regulation of information would take over and calling my college years the twilight of the free press. They feared this action as a result of journalists wild and often careless mistakes in publications. It was an analysis that made sense given the strength and power of the newsworld in the U.S. Journalists are both loved and feared by politicians, admired by the public and the educated, and most importantly they were believed to be truthtellers and benevolent entities. I think this stereotype still exists, but this belief is a great weight to be carried by humans and the practically non-divine. Journalists ulitmately do not like bloggers because they disempower them and smudge this image of divinity. It is the bloggers who ended the reign of big media and not the loathsome government. And this new era where the big media is enforced by the little bloggers, as a back up system of media, to produce better material is a far better solution. The development of bloggers preserves the fundamental American practice of freedom for the press and maybe even the place of traditional journalism-for this big media should be grateful to the little bloggers-no matter how much they annoy them.
Since the past election cycle though the public and the big media have become very aware and wary of these people who are called 'bloggers'.
Will Collier, from VodkaPundit, pointed me towards another article:
'PR and the MSM'
Very interesting piece on here by Paul Graham, who was around in the early days of web start-ups. It's about how public-relations firms inject memes into the mainstream media for their clinets. In Graham's words,
PR is not dishonest. Not quite. In fact, the reason the best PR firms are so effective is precisely that they aren't dishonest. They give reporters genuinely valuable information. A good PR firm won't bug reporters just because the client tells them to; they've worked hard to build their credibility with reporters, and they don't want to destroy it by feeding them mere propaganda.
If anyone is dishonest, it's the reporters. The main reason PR firms exist is that reporters are lazy. Or, to put it more nicely, overworked. Really they ought to be out there digging up stories for themselves. But it's so tempting to sit in their offices and let PR firms bring the stories to them. After all, they know good PR firms won't lie to them.
Further down, Graham notes that the standard PR methods aren't working so well with one particular manifestation of new media:
Remember the exercises in critical reading you did in school, where you had to look at a piece of writing and step back and ask whether the author was telling the whole truth? If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all.
Online, the answer tends to be a lot simpler. Most people who publish online write what they write for the simple reason that they want to. You can't see the fingerprints of PR firms all over the articles, as you can in so many print publications-- which is one of the reasons, though they may not consciously realize it, that readers trust bloggers more than Business Week.
I was talking recently to a friend who works for a big newspaper. He thought the print media were in serious trouble, and that they were still mostly in denial about it. "They think the decline is cyclic," he said. "Actually it's structural."
In other words, the readers are leaving, and they're not coming back.
Why? I think the main reason is that the writing online is more honest. Imagine how incongruous the New York Times article about suits would sound if you read it in a blog:
The urge to look corporate-- sleek, commanding, prudent, yet with just a touch of hubris on your well-cut sleeve-- is an unexpected development in a time of business disgrace.
The problem with this article is not just that it originated in a PR firm. The whole tone is bogus. This is the tone of someone writing down to their audience.
Whatever its flaws, the writing you find online is authentic. It's not mystery meat cooked up out of scraps of pitch letters and press releases, and pressed into molds of zippy journalese. It's people writing what they think.)
In my opinion the big media has become too corporate, I think once maybe as recently as the early 80's journalists were people looking for a good story. They were writers who wanted to report the facts. Newspapers wanted to sell copy but, they were more creative in their day to day work. Journalists were asked to be unbiased and focus on keeping their morals intact. This is what I was taught in college for journalism, never accept gifts, keep out of your personal opinions and respect the integrity of the subjector subjects involved. But, jounalists have stopped being asked as group to adhere to these principles. Some do and some don't..so who do you trust for information?
You trust the people who you have come to know on a certain level through regular reading, personal contact, whose opinions you know how to judge, and who have not openly failed you when it comes to the facts. Trust is hard to gain these days and easy to loose, especially in readers. Cynicism seems to be the mark of an educated mind. But for all the cynicism that has been drummed into us, bloggers provide information we feel we can digest free of contamination.
Why is this true? Because bloggers openly disclose what they think and where they are coming from as they write their work. Case in point: I just told you I am a student of PR, and I want to work in the field somewhere in DC. I have nothing to gain or loose by this action. I do not get paid to write this blog and write for my own edification as a writer.
This brings me to another point:
Big PR people don't like bloggers- especiall those well the over 40 set, in Media PR, these people really look down on bloggers-they can't relate to them and don't trust them-assume they are just really easily swayed writers and inauthentic because their sources can't be traced. Another way to look at is this: Bloggers aren't on a money crunch timeline, they do their posts as apart of their personal self actualization. They don't need or even want some PR person giving them a press release to help them form a story. In addition, those bloggers who are paid and have deadlines depend on the authenticity of their work to continue blogging. Otherwise, they would be no different than a paid journalist. (It is important to distinguish bloggers from corporate website blogs as well such as GM's which is written by some ghostwriter for the CEO in the Communications office of the corporation.)
Bloggers start by developing a small base of readers who trust them or know them personally, if they are good and trustworthy their base grows-they form relationships with other bloggers who pass along their information. But, Bloggers are also under a strict adherence to the truth or to at least openly sharing where they stand on issues. If they are not honest, it seems to take about a minute for their credibilty to be shattered. It boggles the minds of PR professionals and defensive jounalists.
I can't tell you how many of my elders in this field of Media Relations have expressed an extreme dislike for bloggers. They think they are freaks, people who hang out in their underwear and eat two day old pizza off the floor-ultimately because they don't understand them and cannot control them some members of the PR profession resent bloggers as much as the mainstream media. Think about it like this: Media relations professionals had a great relationship full of perks for everyone-free information for journalists as well as meals and food(who knows), but bloggers changed that, journalists can't take free story ideas and media relations professionals can't easily give them out anymore without the public or at least some part of the public questioning the motives....the biggest question is what will happen to mainstream media. Will we all have to start logging onto our computers just get our weather report??? NO.I think the mainstream publications will stay around. The truth is bloggers work best as a compliment to what the major media outlets produce. Due to the medium and the fact that most bloggers really do have lives their will always be a space for some kind of daily newsource for current events. But, the big media producers are going to find their world changed-I think the rule of giant media is over-it only lasted 15 years anyways....I point to the fact that the newspapers have become very corporate and a lot of people who used to be journalists have left the industry altogether finding themselves embittered and angry at what has happened to journalism. In fact, a lot of ex journalists have become bloggers or dare I say it-CURRENT JOURNALISTS HAVE BLOGS, outside of their normal articles and columns. The blogosphere is a place where you can escape from the monopoly of certain subjects that run in an obnoxious repitition on the major news outlets like so many MTV videos. OR a person can find a much needed set of facts or a different opinion to fill out a current issue in their mind. But this does not really signal the end of CNN, or Fox News, or even really CBS. It does signal a change.
Additionally, in college many of my English professors hypothesized that one day the reign of the free press would end-fearing government regulation of information would take over and calling my college years the twilight of the free press. They feared this action as a result of journalists wild and often careless mistakes in publications. It was an analysis that made sense given the strength and power of the newsworld in the U.S. Journalists are both loved and feared by politicians, admired by the public and the educated, and most importantly they were believed to be truthtellers and benevolent entities. I think this stereotype still exists, but this belief is a great weight to be carried by humans and the practically non-divine. Journalists ulitmately do not like bloggers because they disempower them and smudge this image of divinity. It is the bloggers who ended the reign of big media and not the loathsome government. And this new era where the big media is enforced by the little bloggers, as a back up system of media, to produce better material is a far better solution. The development of bloggers preserves the fundamental American practice of freedom for the press and maybe even the place of traditional journalism-for this big media should be grateful to the little bloggers-no matter how much they annoy them.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Movies for a Twenty Something
I must admit as much as I hate to say it 'I heart Huckabees' and 'Gardenstate' have really captured my generation. I don't mean the Gen'x'ers. I mean the rest of us, who wallow in the shadow of 'Reality Bites'. We question ourselves, we probably think too much of therapy. But, we find some meaning in our questioning and our therapies. If you've been to college, you've been told to think with your feelings too many times. And yet, you have never really asked yourself the hard questions that would end the whole bloody narcissistic process.
What do I really want to do? Can I do it? Why do I want to do it?
Whether you are a Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, or Moderate with a hard d-you will find a small part of yourself in these films-even if you say you are 'apolitical' I will write more later..in the meantime-watch these movies.
What do I really want to do? Can I do it? Why do I want to do it?
Whether you are a Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, or Moderate with a hard d-you will find a small part of yourself in these films-even if you say you are 'apolitical' I will write more later..in the meantime-watch these movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)