http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
NBC's recent decision not to run the Dixie Chicks movie is a good one-for one reason the Dixie Chicks while talented musicians have no place on the main networks. There desire to continue political infighting with the right and most of midwestern america plus their old fan base is not good for the interests of a major network like ABC, CBS, or NBC.
The Chicks have a right to say what they want and do what they want and they certainly don't deserve death threats but then again-most celebrities don't deserve the death threats that they recieve from crazy people simply for being famous. It's the paradox of fame- a lot of people really love you and some people love you sooo much-they hate you. Throw in some inflamatory remarks at a trying time on the American psyche coupled with traitor like behavior on the part of the lead singer and it's no surprise people went nuts and threatened to kill the poor silly Natalie Maines.
She should have had more control and composure being a celebrity comes with responsiblity and the response should have been expected. At the very least she should have made the statements in the U.S. and not to a foreign audience-duh. The fall out has left the Dixie chicks with no where to go but more liberal and to loose their core audience and look for a new set of fans altogether-which may not be hard or may be career suicide. I suppose there are lots of liberal women who like country music and they are talented musicians...sooo. They may change their tune once they see how the bottom line suffers from reminding people of their ingnorant mistake.
I would still think the continuation of this strange event from 2003 is not good for the Dixie Chicks and at the least there management should be smart enough to know a documentarty on their Bush hating and fall from grace belongs on HBO or Showtime.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Leave Jess Simpson Alone!
It seems these days that picking on celebs is the next best thing to liking them. On page 34 of this weeks Us Weekly the gossip magazine shows Jessica Simpson in a hard to find pose comparing her to Courtney Love. The comparison is ridiculous and stupid making me wonder if they need their vision checked. In the past 6 months I have noticed that the magazine has taken a lot of time to write nasty articles about the actress/singer.
My impression is that some silly syncophant that's s-y-n-c-h-o-p-h-a-n-t, of Nick Lachey's has been driving the agenda. Well get over it, Nick Lachey is moderately talented and not interesting in the slightest. I was personally hoping he would quit showbiz and go back to Ohio. He was cute-8 years ago when he was in 98 degrees and that was still in a beefcake-who probably would get lost in a large parking lot sense-.
What mystifies me is the backlash against her when he is so obviously the player and less likeable person-sympathy for his divorce must play a part. He acted like a bonehead on the show Newlyweds and his personality was carved into the more steady and house hubby character that was needed to balance Jess' obvious driving of the show with her personality.
Most important, I don't feel sorry for someone who cheats on their wife early in a marriage and wonders why it didn't work out. YEP, that's right. Go look at the early shows, he repeatedly went out and talked to other women about their marriage problems. And any crack psychologist can tell you that a man who discusses his problems openly with other women is not going to stay married and faithful. Try the early episodes with all his female dancers where he complains to them about her. 'Oh poor Nick, rich and married to a hot woman! Let me help you out of that dreadful marriage!!'
And now he is happily bonking Vanessa Minnilo an MTV VJ, and singing songs about heartbreak. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him or believe he is heartbroken at this date. And it's annoying to watch him dance across the country doing promos for the now old release while smugly smiling at the camera. It's like you can hear him thinking 'Now I'm finally getting the attention Jessica got!' Aaah, poor Nick, there's a reason she gets more attention than you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Lachey
If you look at this posting it says that neither Jess or Nick would have a career without the machinations of Joe Simpson and the show Newlyweds-and this could be true. But Joe Simpson his dadager skills, their marriage and Jessica Simpson are another post and an entirely different blog. The point is Nick Lachey owes his current career success to his marriage and divorce of Jessica Simpson at this point. (Ouch, that hurts!)
Time could prove me wrong, but he faded in the late 90's next to the other boy bands of the time-that being N'Sync and Backstreet Boys- not a good sign for him, and I don't see him turning this current renaissance into anything long lasting. In fact the last two Us Weeklys don't even mention the Lanillo couple and it's a good thing because seeing them together makes him look bad and far from the pitiful image he put out to promote the album. Call me cold but seeing someone rich and out with a former Miss Teen USA doesn't bring pangs of sympathy to my heart.
There is some entertainment in covering the slings and errors of fate for celebs (duh!). But the ribbing of Simpson for her failed relationships, bad clothing choices(they picked on her for wearing sweaters last week!), and flub at the MTV VMA's are dumb and not entertaining-think lighter and less jealous girl nasty US. I can honestly say the jealous petty female attitude is not fun and if it doesn't work for Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie- and it doesn't work for you.
At the same time some publicity is better than no publicity for Jess and she is in every issue of US Weekly as she should be at this time. Time will tell which part of this fallen couple will survive and thrive in the entertainment world. My money is on Jess Simpson especially with the new film 'Employee of the Month' opening this week. It promises to be entertaining and fun-love DANE COOK.
So it would be prudent for Us Weekly and other gossip mags to go easy on the charasmatic JS and back off LANILLO coverage which just makes Nick Lachey look bad. I mean it's just good business....
My impression is that some silly syncophant that's s-y-n-c-h-o-p-h-a-n-t, of Nick Lachey's has been driving the agenda. Well get over it, Nick Lachey is moderately talented and not interesting in the slightest. I was personally hoping he would quit showbiz and go back to Ohio. He was cute-8 years ago when he was in 98 degrees and that was still in a beefcake-who probably would get lost in a large parking lot sense-.
What mystifies me is the backlash against her when he is so obviously the player and less likeable person-sympathy for his divorce must play a part. He acted like a bonehead on the show Newlyweds and his personality was carved into the more steady and house hubby character that was needed to balance Jess' obvious driving of the show with her personality.
Most important, I don't feel sorry for someone who cheats on their wife early in a marriage and wonders why it didn't work out. YEP, that's right. Go look at the early shows, he repeatedly went out and talked to other women about their marriage problems. And any crack psychologist can tell you that a man who discusses his problems openly with other women is not going to stay married and faithful. Try the early episodes with all his female dancers where he complains to them about her. 'Oh poor Nick, rich and married to a hot woman! Let me help you out of that dreadful marriage!!'
And now he is happily bonking Vanessa Minnilo an MTV VJ, and singing songs about heartbreak. Excuse me if I don't feel sorry for him or believe he is heartbroken at this date. And it's annoying to watch him dance across the country doing promos for the now old release while smugly smiling at the camera. It's like you can hear him thinking 'Now I'm finally getting the attention Jessica got!' Aaah, poor Nick, there's a reason she gets more attention than you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Lachey
If you look at this posting it says that neither Jess or Nick would have a career without the machinations of Joe Simpson and the show Newlyweds-and this could be true. But Joe Simpson his dadager skills, their marriage and Jessica Simpson are another post and an entirely different blog. The point is Nick Lachey owes his current career success to his marriage and divorce of Jessica Simpson at this point. (Ouch, that hurts!)
Time could prove me wrong, but he faded in the late 90's next to the other boy bands of the time-that being N'Sync and Backstreet Boys- not a good sign for him, and I don't see him turning this current renaissance into anything long lasting. In fact the last two Us Weeklys don't even mention the Lanillo couple and it's a good thing because seeing them together makes him look bad and far from the pitiful image he put out to promote the album. Call me cold but seeing someone rich and out with a former Miss Teen USA doesn't bring pangs of sympathy to my heart.
There is some entertainment in covering the slings and errors of fate for celebs (duh!). But the ribbing of Simpson for her failed relationships, bad clothing choices(they picked on her for wearing sweaters last week!), and flub at the MTV VMA's are dumb and not entertaining-think lighter and less jealous girl nasty US. I can honestly say the jealous petty female attitude is not fun and if it doesn't work for Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie- and it doesn't work for you.
At the same time some publicity is better than no publicity for Jess and she is in every issue of US Weekly as she should be at this time. Time will tell which part of this fallen couple will survive and thrive in the entertainment world. My money is on Jess Simpson especially with the new film 'Employee of the Month' opening this week. It promises to be entertaining and fun-love DANE COOK.
So it would be prudent for Us Weekly and other gossip mags to go easy on the charasmatic JS and back off LANILLO coverage which just makes Nick Lachey look bad. I mean it's just good business....
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Why ask Hastert to resign? Foley's the Guilty One.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html
If you haven't read the newest round of messages that Foley sent to pages during the last Two congress' including the current one. Then you may have heard about his behavior through Fox News, CNN, or your local neighbor. And you probably can't decide what's worse, the guy in Pennsylvania shooting little Amish girls execution style or the former Florida Congressman who headed up a Panel in Congress to extend laws to protect children from sexual predators only to turn out to be one himself. (Whew that was a long sentence!) See above link for newest round of messages on Foley.
IF you don't read or watch or listen to the news at all, then this blog will make no sense to you. In the days since Friday the 29th of September 2006 many pundits, and Journalists, and politicos have expressed a rising dismay over the fact that Foley took advantage of his position of power to entice and use young adolescent men, specifically House pages, for what looks like phone sex. It seems that much more was possible with these men since one email points to a future date that would include underage drinking for Foley and one of the boys.
Really, many people knew Foley was gay. That was not a secret. I have known for years that he was gay and I believe the constituents he served also knew that about him. He seemed to be a man who cared about children in a good way. But the impact of his email messages is that they involve children who are victimized by his predatory behavior.
Conservatives express dismay at the unseemly behavior of this leader and how he behaved as someone in power in the Government; he has reinforced the idea that a powerful government is not a good thing.
Liberals have spearheaded a campaign to make Hastert resign or at least admit to knowledge of Foley's illicit behavior. It seems to be a bit ahead of the real problem: no one ever wants to admit that they know someone with a perversion like pediphilia. And anyone who says they have never denied that someone they knew committed an act like theft, rape, lying, or any of the other 7 deadly sins is flat out lying to themselves. Even if Hastert had been aware of the issues with Foley it would have only been in some vague degree and easy for anyone and I mean anyone to dismiss. Frankly, if he had known than that means everyone knew in the House and that makes the Democrats in the House look pretty bad too. It's just a fact that once a secret travels that far in the House; it's no longer a secret.
Until someone releases strong evidence that Hastert knew about the behavior and it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt; the call to remove Hastert from House leadership is nothing but a partisan campaign time trick. And the real issue is what needs to be done in the House to prevent male as well as female pages from being misused by the Congressmen or staff in the future.
Most importantly, this is not the first time a Congressman has misused their power to take advantage of a person-period. And it won't be the last.
If you haven't read the newest round of messages that Foley sent to pages during the last Two congress' including the current one. Then you may have heard about his behavior through Fox News, CNN, or your local neighbor. And you probably can't decide what's worse, the guy in Pennsylvania shooting little Amish girls execution style or the former Florida Congressman who headed up a Panel in Congress to extend laws to protect children from sexual predators only to turn out to be one himself. (Whew that was a long sentence!) See above link for newest round of messages on Foley.
IF you don't read or watch or listen to the news at all, then this blog will make no sense to you. In the days since Friday the 29th of September 2006 many pundits, and Journalists, and politicos have expressed a rising dismay over the fact that Foley took advantage of his position of power to entice and use young adolescent men, specifically House pages, for what looks like phone sex. It seems that much more was possible with these men since one email points to a future date that would include underage drinking for Foley and one of the boys.
Really, many people knew Foley was gay. That was not a secret. I have known for years that he was gay and I believe the constituents he served also knew that about him. He seemed to be a man who cared about children in a good way. But the impact of his email messages is that they involve children who are victimized by his predatory behavior.
Conservatives express dismay at the unseemly behavior of this leader and how he behaved as someone in power in the Government; he has reinforced the idea that a powerful government is not a good thing.
Liberals have spearheaded a campaign to make Hastert resign or at least admit to knowledge of Foley's illicit behavior. It seems to be a bit ahead of the real problem: no one ever wants to admit that they know someone with a perversion like pediphilia. And anyone who says they have never denied that someone they knew committed an act like theft, rape, lying, or any of the other 7 deadly sins is flat out lying to themselves. Even if Hastert had been aware of the issues with Foley it would have only been in some vague degree and easy for anyone and I mean anyone to dismiss. Frankly, if he had known than that means everyone knew in the House and that makes the Democrats in the House look pretty bad too. It's just a fact that once a secret travels that far in the House; it's no longer a secret.
Until someone releases strong evidence that Hastert knew about the behavior and it was proven beyond a shadow of doubt; the call to remove Hastert from House leadership is nothing but a partisan campaign time trick. And the real issue is what needs to be done in the House to prevent male as well as female pages from being misused by the Congressmen or staff in the future.
Most importantly, this is not the first time a Congressman has misused their power to take advantage of a person-period. And it won't be the last.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Travis Barker n' Paris Hilton
So Jenna Moakler has an article in Us Weekly of the September 25, 2006 edition-who is famous I assume because she's cute and had show with Travis Barker of blink 182 on MTV about their wedding and life. Davd and Electra they were not...Jenna's rather sweet and cute, but Travis had the personality of a goldfish and oddly looks like one too...
Anyways, the article claims Travis hooked up with Paris Hilton when he was supposed to be on break from Jenna. I mean he was separated and not legally divorced yet...
I have to say as a just a normal everyday girl. I think Paris just wanted to hook up with a guy that was newly single and formally 'owned' by a very attractive girl that made Paris jealous. PH obviously hates all the girls she is friends with who are successful at some point or get more attention than her.
And she's running out of girls to hate and fight with on a fresh basis. So why not take make out with Jenna Moakler's husband?? Aaah to be vapid, too wealthy and have everything you want..or does she? Paris Hilton's antics make it obvious that she has nothing that she wants since she wants everything other people have...
And may I add-Travis Barker is ugly and acts like he has the borderline IQ of a border collie. Shoot, that makes border collies sound dumb. And this makes Paris look desperate.
I think personally Jenna Moakler will be better off without tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.
Anyways, the article claims Travis hooked up with Paris Hilton when he was supposed to be on break from Jenna. I mean he was separated and not legally divorced yet...
I have to say as a just a normal everyday girl. I think Paris just wanted to hook up with a guy that was newly single and formally 'owned' by a very attractive girl that made Paris jealous. PH obviously hates all the girls she is friends with who are successful at some point or get more attention than her.
And she's running out of girls to hate and fight with on a fresh basis. So why not take make out with Jenna Moakler's husband?? Aaah to be vapid, too wealthy and have everything you want..or does she? Paris Hilton's antics make it obvious that she has nothing that she wants since she wants everything other people have...
And may I add-Travis Barker is ugly and acts like he has the borderline IQ of a border collie. Shoot, that makes border collies sound dumb. And this makes Paris look desperate.
I think personally Jenna Moakler will be better off without tweedle dee and tweedle dumb.
Monday, August 28, 2006
Cruise on Tom Boy, Cruise On...
I know, you expect me to write something searing about Tom Cruise. Really I can write about that later it's all pretty clear he deserved this from my previous posts. And I think Paramount did the absolute right thing. It makes perfect sense for the head of the board to come out on the issue and take the heat for the studio's CEO and management. And what makes it even better is the New Yokr Times article that sums it all up perfectly. But the nail in the coffin is that the other producers at Viacom were willing to back up the head of the studio.
I find it all fascinating because no matter how many other celebrities love you or back you up as a celebrity : AKA, Leah Remini, John Travolta, or Will Smith. It's the people with the money to fund your films that matter in Hollywood.
It's a PR fiasco gone unmanaged and un hinged. Damage control should have been done a year ago for his hits on Brooke Shields, Matt Lauer and the weird scientology stunts. I mean as weird as Scientology is none of the other Scientologists act quite this weird. John Travolta is still a man people like to watch twist, Leah Remini plays moms well on TV, it's all fine for them.
He should have come out and talked about how sensitive he is to women's issues after giving birth. How he loves women and would never want to downplay their feelings-that would be the women who make up his largest and most loyal audience. The Matt Lauer incident just drove how out there he is home to that once loyal demographic in case they tried to convince themselves otherwise. It's like someone created a targeted PR strategy to ruin his career with his core demographic money producing audience. Yes I know women in their 20's and 30's don't run to movies the way 14 yr olds do-but they have a cult like allegiance to certain stars. One of whom is no longer Tom Cruise.
The New York Times article basically asks the question why did Paramount sign cruise for Mission Impossible III. That's easy, a star as big as Cruise deserved a last chance and there was hope that he would recover, I mean he was once Joe Cool, Maverick, and he even pulled off the sexually homoerotic Lestat. But he just did not recover himself PR wise, he needed to do a big campaign sans the scientologists to show how considerate and sorry he was to his audience and fans. He didn't do it because he ultimately believes he was right ( I guess), hubris anyone??
But the weirdest stuff with Katie Holmes, the no account baby who I believe does not exist, why would you say do I think that?? Well I've never seen it, Katie Holmes stomache changed sizes daily getting bigger and then smaller, it looked like a prosthetic. And because Tom Cruise is gay. I say this because I have two sisters living in Hollywood since 1994 and they swear everyone says he is gay. They believe he is gay. The rumor has been around since the 1980's and I often tell people this piece of advice about Tom Cruise. "When tempted to ask yourself why does Tom Cruise act so weird? Why does he do Scientology? Why did he dump Nicole? Don't ponder, just say to yourself, TOM CRUISE IS GAY. HE's GAY, and if he would just admit it and deal with it instead of holding young starlets hostage to prove he's not-heck his career might improve...
I once loved Tom Cruise, he now makes me feel uncomfortable and embarassed for him.
I find it all fascinating because no matter how many other celebrities love you or back you up as a celebrity : AKA, Leah Remini, John Travolta, or Will Smith. It's the people with the money to fund your films that matter in Hollywood.
It's a PR fiasco gone unmanaged and un hinged. Damage control should have been done a year ago for his hits on Brooke Shields, Matt Lauer and the weird scientology stunts. I mean as weird as Scientology is none of the other Scientologists act quite this weird. John Travolta is still a man people like to watch twist, Leah Remini plays moms well on TV, it's all fine for them.
He should have come out and talked about how sensitive he is to women's issues after giving birth. How he loves women and would never want to downplay their feelings-that would be the women who make up his largest and most loyal audience. The Matt Lauer incident just drove how out there he is home to that once loyal demographic in case they tried to convince themselves otherwise. It's like someone created a targeted PR strategy to ruin his career with his core demographic money producing audience. Yes I know women in their 20's and 30's don't run to movies the way 14 yr olds do-but they have a cult like allegiance to certain stars. One of whom is no longer Tom Cruise.
The New York Times article basically asks the question why did Paramount sign cruise for Mission Impossible III. That's easy, a star as big as Cruise deserved a last chance and there was hope that he would recover, I mean he was once Joe Cool, Maverick, and he even pulled off the sexually homoerotic Lestat. But he just did not recover himself PR wise, he needed to do a big campaign sans the scientologists to show how considerate and sorry he was to his audience and fans. He didn't do it because he ultimately believes he was right ( I guess), hubris anyone??
But the weirdest stuff with Katie Holmes, the no account baby who I believe does not exist, why would you say do I think that?? Well I've never seen it, Katie Holmes stomache changed sizes daily getting bigger and then smaller, it looked like a prosthetic. And because Tom Cruise is gay. I say this because I have two sisters living in Hollywood since 1994 and they swear everyone says he is gay. They believe he is gay. The rumor has been around since the 1980's and I often tell people this piece of advice about Tom Cruise. "When tempted to ask yourself why does Tom Cruise act so weird? Why does he do Scientology? Why did he dump Nicole? Don't ponder, just say to yourself, TOM CRUISE IS GAY. HE's GAY, and if he would just admit it and deal with it instead of holding young starlets hostage to prove he's not-heck his career might improve...
I once loved Tom Cruise, he now makes me feel uncomfortable and embarassed for him.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
ANTI-SEMITIC ANTI WAR MOVEMENT????
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206576,00.html
The above link describes an interview with The Big Story With John Gibson, featuring Ariel Cohen a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation and Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition. This article adequately describes the intrinsic hate on the part of the anti-war movement for Israel run mostly by ANSWER. The group has completely shifted its focus over the past year from wanting the world to be at peace which-you would think should include Israel's happiness-to anti-semitic blaming of Israel for the U.S's problems with terrorists.
A person may question why I would determine that it is anti-semitic on the part of ANSWER to take the side of Palistine, Iran, Hezbollah, or Al-Qaeda. Well these countries leaders and these groups specifically site Israel's existence-period-as a reason for their anger. Never mind that Palistine is a country that any number of Arab nations could help if they did not value it's agitation against Jews, that Iran's leader has stated that he wants to bring about the end of the world, that Hezbollah was founded and funded by the Iranians who hate Israel, and that Al Qaeda is run by extremists who couldn't survive in their home country of Saudi Arabia. My point is that Israel is not at fault for the insanity of these people and extremist groups.
Israel has done everything they can, especially under the dear Ariel Sharon who painfully withdrew his own people and troups from Gaza last Fall to no avail from these corrupt organizations that want nothing but complete demolition of Israel. And it's pretty hard to fault a country for trying to protect themselves. More importantly, ANSWER constantly says the people of Lebanon and Syria like Hezbollah. Well I am part Syrian and Lebanese and my family has traveled there many times and I can tell you that children and families just want to live their lives in peace. And there is no love for a group like Hezbollah which brings this war on them.
The crux of ANSWER's faulty logic is not that they hold Israel to be an equal partner in the conflict because they fight back aggressively. But that ANSWER maintains any action on the part of Israel to defend itself in a WAR is wrong. More importantly, they defend the action of Hezbollah, Iran, and pretty much any other terrorist group that goes after Israel. ANSWER can hold up Jewish peace activists as examples of Jewish disapproval of Israel, but anyone can express disapproval of a country's method for dealing with violence. Anyone can say 'I am not happy with how my country has dealt with this situation' that is completely different from saying that the country is a terrorist group when they defend themselves against people who are obviously terrorists.
I think someone needs to remind ANSWER what the definition of a terrorist is-Webster's anyone?
Worse yet, the group ANSWER is run by FENTON COMMUNICATIONS, that's right, the entire anti-war movement is funded by donor political money from the DNC, Dem lobbying groups, and run by the Left's powerhouse communications firm-FENTON COMMUNICATIONS. Just contact Fenton Communications or go to their website and you will find out the truth. They run Answer's campaigns and their parent groups campaigns.
Not from peace loving hippies who gather of their own free will like back in the 'glorious' 1960's Vietnam movement to smoke weed and practice free love.
And this leads to a disturbing thought, if the movement is run by a large communications firm like Fenton and sponsored by these Democrat donors. That means that this anti-semitic movement, which is what it is since it squarely blames Israel and the U.S. for supporting Israel, is sponsored with money from Jewish people since they are some of the biggest donors to the DNC, it's affiliated left groups and is institutionalized.
It should be no surprise that people like Mel Gibson in drunken stupors say crazy things about Israel-I mean he lives in Hollywood which is by definition soaked in the anti-semitic alcohol of the liberal anti-war movement. He's only saying what I have heard people in Hollywood say repeatedly never realizing the defunct logic and hate they were hashing out. Maybe it's a good thing.
It's definitely time for the Jewish people to reexamine their allegiance to the Democrats, the left, and the reality of the Anti-War movement.
The above link describes an interview with The Big Story With John Gibson, featuring Ariel Cohen a policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation and Brian Becker of the Answer Coalition. This article adequately describes the intrinsic hate on the part of the anti-war movement for Israel run mostly by ANSWER. The group has completely shifted its focus over the past year from wanting the world to be at peace which-you would think should include Israel's happiness-to anti-semitic blaming of Israel for the U.S's problems with terrorists.
A person may question why I would determine that it is anti-semitic on the part of ANSWER to take the side of Palistine, Iran, Hezbollah, or Al-Qaeda. Well these countries leaders and these groups specifically site Israel's existence-period-as a reason for their anger. Never mind that Palistine is a country that any number of Arab nations could help if they did not value it's agitation against Jews, that Iran's leader has stated that he wants to bring about the end of the world, that Hezbollah was founded and funded by the Iranians who hate Israel, and that Al Qaeda is run by extremists who couldn't survive in their home country of Saudi Arabia. My point is that Israel is not at fault for the insanity of these people and extremist groups.
Israel has done everything they can, especially under the dear Ariel Sharon who painfully withdrew his own people and troups from Gaza last Fall to no avail from these corrupt organizations that want nothing but complete demolition of Israel. And it's pretty hard to fault a country for trying to protect themselves. More importantly, ANSWER constantly says the people of Lebanon and Syria like Hezbollah. Well I am part Syrian and Lebanese and my family has traveled there many times and I can tell you that children and families just want to live their lives in peace. And there is no love for a group like Hezbollah which brings this war on them.
The crux of ANSWER's faulty logic is not that they hold Israel to be an equal partner in the conflict because they fight back aggressively. But that ANSWER maintains any action on the part of Israel to defend itself in a WAR is wrong. More importantly, they defend the action of Hezbollah, Iran, and pretty much any other terrorist group that goes after Israel. ANSWER can hold up Jewish peace activists as examples of Jewish disapproval of Israel, but anyone can express disapproval of a country's method for dealing with violence. Anyone can say 'I am not happy with how my country has dealt with this situation' that is completely different from saying that the country is a terrorist group when they defend themselves against people who are obviously terrorists.
I think someone needs to remind ANSWER what the definition of a terrorist is-Webster's anyone?
Worse yet, the group ANSWER is run by FENTON COMMUNICATIONS, that's right, the entire anti-war movement is funded by donor political money from the DNC, Dem lobbying groups, and run by the Left's powerhouse communications firm-FENTON COMMUNICATIONS. Just contact Fenton Communications or go to their website and you will find out the truth. They run Answer's campaigns and their parent groups campaigns.
Not from peace loving hippies who gather of their own free will like back in the 'glorious' 1960's Vietnam movement to smoke weed and practice free love.
And this leads to a disturbing thought, if the movement is run by a large communications firm like Fenton and sponsored by these Democrat donors. That means that this anti-semitic movement, which is what it is since it squarely blames Israel and the U.S. for supporting Israel, is sponsored with money from Jewish people since they are some of the biggest donors to the DNC, it's affiliated left groups and is institutionalized.
It should be no surprise that people like Mel Gibson in drunken stupors say crazy things about Israel-I mean he lives in Hollywood which is by definition soaked in the anti-semitic alcohol of the liberal anti-war movement. He's only saying what I have heard people in Hollywood say repeatedly never realizing the defunct logic and hate they were hashing out. Maybe it's a good thing.
It's definitely time for the Jewish people to reexamine their allegiance to the Democrats, the left, and the reality of the Anti-War movement.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Paris Hilton has got to go!
So, I was tricked for 5 minutes into listening to Paris Hilton's song 'Stars Go Blind' and thinking it was cute. Then I found out it was by her! I was grossed out. Now, it turns out that she STOLE UB 40's song Kingston Town from the 1980's??? I mean really, it took her two years to get a song out and it's not even close to being original, really, just listen to the UB 40 song and it's totally the same song just speeded up a bit. And I doubt she can sing publicly. Just check it out for yourself! This blog has the UB 40 song on it!
http://www.thesuperficial.com/2006/06/07/paris_hilton_stars_are_blind_m.html
And there is the fact that even though she is so obnoxious even this event can't get people totally turned off on her. http://www.stereogum.com/archives/002675.html I need a break from her,
http://www.perezhilton.com/boardroom/viewtopic.php?p=13081&
Really. First she ruins her friendship with Nicole Richie, then Mischa Barton and now Lindsey Lohan. It's quite obvious she can't handle being friends with any females who are successful in their own right. I supposed she still talks to Kimberly Stewart because she's just not that interesting and could never take over Paris' well paid for limelight. It was interesting to watch Paris try to replace Nicole Richie with Kimberly Stewart last Summer for the Simple Life, too bad. Paris doesn't get that talent can't be replaced by PR. I have to say that is actually sad.
That's what makes it all very funny and annoying, Paris Hilton would be nothing without all her family's money and work to make her famous. She would just be a slutty cheap girl who needs a thick layer of lacquer to get her face together every day. Her sister is obviously saner and more talented by her avoidance of the public and her own clothing line.
The most ironic thing is that the one time Paris Hilton did something 'good' and took a stab at political activism-she promoted Puffy Combs 'Vote or Die' campaign?? It turned out she was not even REGISTERED to vote. I think that says it all, I can say she probably single handedly undermined his campaign with that action, it proved everything that was wrong with the idea. And whomever thought she would appeal to the voting audience is nuts.
She appeals to-I don't know-I figure at this point her appeal is more because of her stupidity, her ridiculous and artless sluttiness, and her complete disregard for other people. Case in point, she drives away all her friends. I honestly believe if she died today no one would mourn her but her close family and the paparazzi. And she doesn't know that..I actually speculate that she will die an early death unless she changes her life.
You know, stop partying so much, start doing charity work, develop a sense of the world outside the camera and herself, oh you know-grow up!
http://www.thesuperficial.com/2006/06/07/paris_hilton_stars_are_blind_m.html
And there is the fact that even though she is so obnoxious even this event can't get people totally turned off on her. http://www.stereogum.com/archives/002675.html I need a break from her,
http://www.perezhilton.com/boardroom/viewtopic.php?p=13081&
Really. First she ruins her friendship with Nicole Richie, then Mischa Barton and now Lindsey Lohan. It's quite obvious she can't handle being friends with any females who are successful in their own right. I supposed she still talks to Kimberly Stewart because she's just not that interesting and could never take over Paris' well paid for limelight. It was interesting to watch Paris try to replace Nicole Richie with Kimberly Stewart last Summer for the Simple Life, too bad. Paris doesn't get that talent can't be replaced by PR. I have to say that is actually sad.
That's what makes it all very funny and annoying, Paris Hilton would be nothing without all her family's money and work to make her famous. She would just be a slutty cheap girl who needs a thick layer of lacquer to get her face together every day. Her sister is obviously saner and more talented by her avoidance of the public and her own clothing line.
The most ironic thing is that the one time Paris Hilton did something 'good' and took a stab at political activism-she promoted Puffy Combs 'Vote or Die' campaign?? It turned out she was not even REGISTERED to vote. I think that says it all, I can say she probably single handedly undermined his campaign with that action, it proved everything that was wrong with the idea. And whomever thought she would appeal to the voting audience is nuts.
She appeals to-I don't know-I figure at this point her appeal is more because of her stupidity, her ridiculous and artless sluttiness, and her complete disregard for other people. Case in point, she drives away all her friends. I honestly believe if she died today no one would mourn her but her close family and the paparazzi. And she doesn't know that..I actually speculate that she will die an early death unless she changes her life.
You know, stop partying so much, start doing charity work, develop a sense of the world outside the camera and herself, oh you know-grow up!
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Law and Order Hits Cruise
It's really bad when Law and Order starts using Tom Cruise's neurosis for characters in their episodes. Tonight's episode featured a rock star Derek Lord who encouraged fans to stop using their psychiatric medications. One female high school age fan Jamie Hoskins in particular stops using her bi-polar medications (she's on two) and she ends up accusing several male classmates of raping her. She runs over and kills a young girl and accuses her parent's of ruining her life-all while not taking her medications.
NFLUENCE - SEASON FINALE
10pm 2006-05-16ALL NEW!
The episode the the young girl's trial comes to an end with the placement of the Tom Cruise like character being placed on the stand. This character then admits that he received treatment in a mental institution for depression and received shock treatment which helped him overcome suicidal behavior.
Tonight's show spent time debating the use of drugs, high amounts of treatment vs. smaller more helpful amounts of drugs. It confronted the fact that many people who seek help for their problems by using medications are made into social pariahs by their peers and penalized.
It also pointed out that the Norman Reedus (Tom Cruise) character had no college education-just like Tom Cruise-and that he had only 'read many books' on the subject of psychiatric treatment.
The obvious point of the show being that a celebrity with no medical education or training had no business advocating that fans give up medications and seek alternative treatments. I have to applaud NBC for going on a limb by putting this mock up of Tom Cruise into the the show for their Season Finale.
He just can't avoid the Matt Lauer/Brooke Shields debacle. If people are still talking about this in 10 years it will be an Exxon Valdez type disaster in the Entertainment PR world. Frankly, he deserves it for the irresponsible statements that he made.
NFLUENCE - SEASON FINALE
10pm 2006-05-16
ARE PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS NECESSARY? - In SVU's season seven finale, former rock star Derek Lord (guest star Norman Reedus) goes on a national talk show and lectures about the abuse of psychiatric drugs. Meanwhile, an unstable young woman Jamie Hoskins (guest star Brittany Snow), who loses her virginity, goes off her prescribed medication, gets behind the wheel of a car, and mows down 10 people. As these events are played out in a highly charged way, the argument about prescribed "meds" is challenged. Mariska Hargitay, Chris Meloni, Tamara Tuni, B.D. Wong, Richard Belzer, Ice-T and Dianne Neal also star. TV-14 D
The episode the the young girl's trial comes to an end with the placement of the Tom Cruise like character being placed on the stand. This character then admits that he received treatment in a mental institution for depression and received shock treatment which helped him overcome suicidal behavior.
Tonight's show spent time debating the use of drugs, high amounts of treatment vs. smaller more helpful amounts of drugs. It confronted the fact that many people who seek help for their problems by using medications are made into social pariahs by their peers and penalized.
It also pointed out that the Norman Reedus (Tom Cruise) character had no college education-just like Tom Cruise-and that he had only 'read many books' on the subject of psychiatric treatment.
The obvious point of the show being that a celebrity with no medical education or training had no business advocating that fans give up medications and seek alternative treatments. I have to applaud NBC for going on a limb by putting this mock up of Tom Cruise into the the show for their Season Finale.
He just can't avoid the Matt Lauer/Brooke Shields debacle. If people are still talking about this in 10 years it will be an Exxon Valdez type disaster in the Entertainment PR world. Frankly, he deserves it for the irresponsible statements that he made.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Tom Cruise Has Lost His Momentum
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/movies/08impo.html?ei=5065&en=ca7bdb379a6d5553&ex=1147752000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
So the numbers have come back from MI-3's opening week-end and it looks like the movie has done nowhere as well as the last MI-2. It's interesting that the executives at Paramont are denying that anything about the films success has been affected by the star (Tom Cruise) 's antics over the last year.
It is easy for them to deny that Cruise has lost star power , but it is hard to deny in the face of the film's numbers this last week-end. And more imporantly there is no accurate way to know if the film would have done better if it had been made sooner but-audiences seemed excited about the film. There was a large gap between MI-1 and MI-2 and the second still did well.
The problem seems lay with the fact that Tom Cruise has broken his star quality seal. First he divorced Nicole Kidman while she was pregnant and the stress caused her to have a miscarriage. Then there was the weird 'She knows what she did statements' to the cameras and paparazzi about his wife and the divorce which would give anyone the willies.
Then he got into trouble by fighting with Brooke Shields over the use of Anti-Depressants for post partem depression. And he made it worse by getting in Mark Lauer's face on the Today Show and behaving quite frankly like an arrogant dupe. His lack of understanding and sympathy that displayed- arrogance, ignorance and a sense of superiority over the rest of us-turned people off. More importantly, it turned off the biggest audience that has made Tom Cruises' career. WOMEN.
Aaah yes, the power of women at the box office, women of all ages, creeds, and races liked Tom Cruise-he was at least-cute and charismatic who didn't love Joe Cool? Well, all the women who have suffered from post partem depression or known a woman who suffered from post partem depression didn't like his attitude. How about all the husbands, brothers, and sons of these women who felt annoyed by his attitude that really put down their experience with this problem?
Or what about all the Moms, sisters, and wives who have lived with a loved one who depended on Ritalin, or some other mild anti-depressant to control a problem with Depression or ADD? Anyone can argue and some might agree to use less of these drugs, and the argument is reasonable as an opinion. But for a Hollywood actor without a medical degree of ANY KIND, much less a college degree to make the statements this man made over 2005, is career suicide and plain old stupid.
And no one can forget Oprah, his jumping and screaming, his catapulting around stage frankly made me uncomfortable to watch for all it's fakeness. Then there is the quick relationship with Katie Holmes, a woman far younger than him, pregnant out of marriage and to the chagrin of her parent's and the Public. Most Americans may write off Hollywood values as incomplete and silly, but this relationship has pressed too many boundaries and asked too much of Tom Cruises' corn fed midwestern fan base. He appeals to the wholesome and the chipper part of the human psyche-he's Jerry Maguire-not Mr. Vanilla Sky. He just can't get that through his head.
No one would blame him for wanting some freedom but with Katie Holmes looking like a trapped animal-she succors sympathy from his once partial female fan base. She appears to be a trapped woman who has been saddled with a too fast too sudden and too controlling relationship. Her demeanor has become fodder for US weekly and The Soup, shows that appeal to the general population of Women.
Most importantly, Women's interest in Cruise has fueled his career when Men grew tired of him, he was hot and cute, Men admired that woman liked him. He was an action hero that brought women and teens into the theater. The general population ignored the rumors that he is gay and poo poo'd the control of the Scientologists over him. But, he lost all of that when he let his cult the Scientologists run his career for him and became so publicly open about his relationship with them. Maybe the Scientologists can't work with him anymore either-maybe their own tender grasp on him has suffered and failed.
I ate lunch yesterday and 9 out of 10 woman at the table believed Tom Cruise is gay and that Katie Holmes was not pregnant with his child. The one person who did not care is a friend who doesn't go to the movies and cares nothing for Hollywood. The child Katie Holmes carried is maybe a fake or even worse yet, someone elses other than Tom's because as you know-he's been remored to be sterile and his fan base now believes it. The best he could do for his career is give up the charade, back off from films, apologize to Brooke Shields, stop promoting Scientology and his weird relationship with a too young too freaked out Katie Holmes because no one believes him anymore. Heck at this point he might gain back some points with his fan base or get a new one by admitting he is gay. At least that would allow people to write off his weird behavior and forgive him for his actions.
If the President can allow Porter Goss to cry Uncle and leave the CIA to be replaced by a better appointee who can kick some butt to clean up the agency-Tom Cruise can do better too. In the meantime, a huge vacuum of fame has been left open in Hollywood with none of the too young, too imperfect, and not quite ready for superstardom male actors ready to fill the void.
Woman have been isolated by his actions and free to move onto who? Brad Pitt? He's tarnished by Angelina Jolie. George Clooney? He's gone too political. It seems that whenever a famous person looses touch with their base audience who what they do for a living and starts using their fame as a bully pitt-their career takes a dive. Affairs and divorces are actually slightly more forgiveable by the American Public's standards than political and social badgering by the people they trust to help them relax.
Oddly enough the only major Hollywood stars with untarnished reputations these days are Women, namely Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon who have not only garnered the attention of men as attrative women, but gained the respect of a female fan base as likeable and cute people.
Maybe this is all the better for Woman to finally take over Hollywood and gain a better place for equality at this time. In that case, I would have to Thank Tom Cruise for his actions. He may have even done us all a favor.
So the numbers have come back from MI-3's opening week-end and it looks like the movie has done nowhere as well as the last MI-2. It's interesting that the executives at Paramont are denying that anything about the films success has been affected by the star (Tom Cruise) 's antics over the last year.
It is easy for them to deny that Cruise has lost star power , but it is hard to deny in the face of the film's numbers this last week-end. And more imporantly there is no accurate way to know if the film would have done better if it had been made sooner but-audiences seemed excited about the film. There was a large gap between MI-1 and MI-2 and the second still did well.
The problem seems lay with the fact that Tom Cruise has broken his star quality seal. First he divorced Nicole Kidman while she was pregnant and the stress caused her to have a miscarriage. Then there was the weird 'She knows what she did statements' to the cameras and paparazzi about his wife and the divorce which would give anyone the willies.
Then he got into trouble by fighting with Brooke Shields over the use of Anti-Depressants for post partem depression. And he made it worse by getting in Mark Lauer's face on the Today Show and behaving quite frankly like an arrogant dupe. His lack of understanding and sympathy that displayed- arrogance, ignorance and a sense of superiority over the rest of us-turned people off. More importantly, it turned off the biggest audience that has made Tom Cruises' career. WOMEN.
Aaah yes, the power of women at the box office, women of all ages, creeds, and races liked Tom Cruise-he was at least-cute and charismatic who didn't love Joe Cool? Well, all the women who have suffered from post partem depression or known a woman who suffered from post partem depression didn't like his attitude. How about all the husbands, brothers, and sons of these women who felt annoyed by his attitude that really put down their experience with this problem?
Or what about all the Moms, sisters, and wives who have lived with a loved one who depended on Ritalin, or some other mild anti-depressant to control a problem with Depression or ADD? Anyone can argue and some might agree to use less of these drugs, and the argument is reasonable as an opinion. But for a Hollywood actor without a medical degree of ANY KIND, much less a college degree to make the statements this man made over 2005, is career suicide and plain old stupid.
And no one can forget Oprah, his jumping and screaming, his catapulting around stage frankly made me uncomfortable to watch for all it's fakeness. Then there is the quick relationship with Katie Holmes, a woman far younger than him, pregnant out of marriage and to the chagrin of her parent's and the Public. Most Americans may write off Hollywood values as incomplete and silly, but this relationship has pressed too many boundaries and asked too much of Tom Cruises' corn fed midwestern fan base. He appeals to the wholesome and the chipper part of the human psyche-he's Jerry Maguire-not Mr. Vanilla Sky. He just can't get that through his head.
No one would blame him for wanting some freedom but with Katie Holmes looking like a trapped animal-she succors sympathy from his once partial female fan base. She appears to be a trapped woman who has been saddled with a too fast too sudden and too controlling relationship. Her demeanor has become fodder for US weekly and The Soup, shows that appeal to the general population of Women.
Most importantly, Women's interest in Cruise has fueled his career when Men grew tired of him, he was hot and cute, Men admired that woman liked him. He was an action hero that brought women and teens into the theater. The general population ignored the rumors that he is gay and poo poo'd the control of the Scientologists over him. But, he lost all of that when he let his cult the Scientologists run his career for him and became so publicly open about his relationship with them. Maybe the Scientologists can't work with him anymore either-maybe their own tender grasp on him has suffered and failed.
I ate lunch yesterday and 9 out of 10 woman at the table believed Tom Cruise is gay and that Katie Holmes was not pregnant with his child. The one person who did not care is a friend who doesn't go to the movies and cares nothing for Hollywood. The child Katie Holmes carried is maybe a fake or even worse yet, someone elses other than Tom's because as you know-he's been remored to be sterile and his fan base now believes it. The best he could do for his career is give up the charade, back off from films, apologize to Brooke Shields, stop promoting Scientology and his weird relationship with a too young too freaked out Katie Holmes because no one believes him anymore. Heck at this point he might gain back some points with his fan base or get a new one by admitting he is gay. At least that would allow people to write off his weird behavior and forgive him for his actions.
If the President can allow Porter Goss to cry Uncle and leave the CIA to be replaced by a better appointee who can kick some butt to clean up the agency-Tom Cruise can do better too. In the meantime, a huge vacuum of fame has been left open in Hollywood with none of the too young, too imperfect, and not quite ready for superstardom male actors ready to fill the void.
Woman have been isolated by his actions and free to move onto who? Brad Pitt? He's tarnished by Angelina Jolie. George Clooney? He's gone too political. It seems that whenever a famous person looses touch with their base audience who what they do for a living and starts using their fame as a bully pitt-their career takes a dive. Affairs and divorces are actually slightly more forgiveable by the American Public's standards than political and social badgering by the people they trust to help them relax.
Oddly enough the only major Hollywood stars with untarnished reputations these days are Women, namely Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon who have not only garnered the attention of men as attrative women, but gained the respect of a female fan base as likeable and cute people.
Maybe this is all the better for Woman to finally take over Hollywood and gain a better place for equality at this time. In that case, I would have to Thank Tom Cruise for his actions. He may have even done us all a favor.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
United Arab Emirates Agreement on Ports w/ U.S. Administration
Okay, now I can relax on this issue, I agree with what the article says that the Administration would have made the arrangement sound more strict if they had realized what it meant to the public without the information on the private documents from the UAE owned Dubai Ports World.
I still feel scared whenever Jimmy Carter backs up a decision..whatever it is..the man seems to be a harbinger of future trouble. But maybe he would not have supported the President if he knew that the Administration had gone to all this trouble to find out what the UAE port company was planning to do with the ports. Oh yes, I have that little faith in Past President Carter.
Read the article below.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html
Arab Co., White House Had Secret AgreementFeb 22 9:20 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By TED BRIDISAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.
In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.
"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.
McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.
"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
___
Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.
I still feel scared whenever Jimmy Carter backs up a decision..whatever it is..the man seems to be a harbinger of future trouble. But maybe he would not have supported the President if he knew that the Administration had gone to all this trouble to find out what the UAE port company was planning to do with the ports. Oh yes, I have that little faith in Past President Carter.
Read the article below.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/22/D8FUHNM00.html
Arab Co., White House Had Secret AgreementFeb 22 9:20 PM US/Eastern Email this story
By TED BRIDISAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
1d08c5bfc6d0@news.ap.org The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions _ described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies _ reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.
Senate and House leaders urged the president to delay the takeover, which is set to be finalized in early March. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further.
In Saudi Arabia, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the agreement was thoroughly vetted. "We have to maintain a principle that it doesn't matter where in the world one of these purchases is coming from," Rice said Wednesday. She described the United Arab Emirates as "a good partner in the war on terrorism."
Bush personally defended the agreement on Tuesday, but the White House said he did not know about it until recently. The AP first reported the U.S. approval of the sale to Dubai Ports on Feb. 11, and many members of Congress have said they learned about it from the AP.
"I think somebody dropped the ball," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y. "Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information."
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush learned about the deal "over the last several days," as congressional criticism escalated. McClellan said it did not rise to the presidential level, but went through a government review and was determined not to pose a threat.
McClellan said Bush afterward asked the head of every U.S. department involved in approving the sale whether there were security concerns. "Each and every one expressed that they were comfortable with this transaction going forward," he said.
Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez told the AP the administration was being thoughtful and deliberate approving the sale.
"We are not reacting emotionally," Guiterrez said in an interview Wednesday. "That's what I believe our partners from around the world would like to see from us is that we be thoughtful. That we be deliberate. That we understand issues before we make a decision."
___
Associated Press writers Jeanine Aversa in Washington, Anne Gearan in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and John Christoffersen in Danbury, Conn., contributed to this report.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Arab run U.S. Seaports
It does seem like an insanely bad idea to allow arab run companies to run U.S. seaports when they cannot be sure of their own employees intentions-heck most of the 9/11 terrorists hate the Saudi royal family-more than the U.S. Just imagine if they had a chance to ruin business for another group of elitest Arabs who are not Wahabi enough for them...and hurt U.S. Citizens???
Does anyone besides me think that if Jimmy Carter is supporting the U.S. decision to let these Arab companies run U.S. seaports that it must be a bad idea?? The man is notorious for letting elections in foreign countries go wrong and supporting foreign government's that treat their people badly.
Or is this just a move by the Democrats to make the President look even worse to his supporters-like the problems with Erhlich and Pataki coming out against this plan aren't bad enough...read the article below..
U.S. SECURITY
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
lclark@MiamiHerald.com
WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.
''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''
The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.
Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.
''This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.
REPUBLICANS WORRIED
Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.
''After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern,'' said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.
Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.
''I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. ``We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches.''
Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a ''rigorous review process.'' His comments came after he was asked if Bush was ''comfortable'' with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.
The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter ``raises issues.''
At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.
Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.
Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.
''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''
PREJUDICE ALLEGED
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''
But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.
''They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.
Miami Herald staff writer Steve Harrison contributed to this report from Miami.
Does anyone besides me think that if Jimmy Carter is supporting the U.S. decision to let these Arab companies run U.S. seaports that it must be a bad idea?? The man is notorious for letting elections in foreign countries go wrong and supporting foreign government's that treat their people badly.
Or is this just a move by the Democrats to make the President look even worse to his supporters-like the problems with Erhlich and Pataki coming out against this plan aren't bad enough...read the article below..
U.S. SECURITY
Carter backs Bush's stand on seaport-operations deal
Former President Jimmy Carter downplayed criticism of White House support of an Arab-owned company's purchase of a major seaport-operations firm.
BY LESLEY CLARK
lclark@MiamiHerald.com
WASHINGTON - President Bush is taking a battering from fellow Republicans, even the governors of New York and Maryland, over the administration's support for a decision that gives an Arab company control of some commercial operations at six major seaports -- including Miami-Dade's.
But he got a boost Monday from an unlikely source, frequent critic and former president Jimmy Carter, who downplayed fears that the deal poses a risk.
''The overall threat to the United States and security, I don't think it exists,'' Carter said on CNN's The Situation Room. ``I'm sure the president's done a good job with his subordinates to make sure this is not a threat.''
The show of support from the Democrat, who has not hesitated to criticize Bush, underscores the odd political lines that have emerged since news broke last week that the United States gave the thumbs-up to the $6.8 billion sale of the British firm P&O Ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
Both Democrats and Republicans have called on the president to scrap the deal. On Monday Republican Govs. George Pataki of New York and Robert Ehrlich of Maryland questioned the decision. And congressional outrage persisted even as the White House signaled it's unlikely to block it.
Political analysts suggested that challenging the president gives Republican lawmakers a chance to deflect Democratic criticism.
''This is a homeland security, national security issue and I think Republicans think they own this issue and they don't want to give Democrats an opening,'' said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of The Rothenberg Political Report, a Washington newsletter.
REPUBLICANS WORRIED
Republicans said they're simply worried no one was paying enough attention to security concerns.
''After Sept. 11 we can't blindly follow the president in a way that seems to create a homeland security concern,'' said Rep. Mark Foley, a Palm Beach County Republican. Foley said he's working on legislation to give Congress the authority to approve or reject all applications made through the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, the top-secret group that OK'd the transaction.
Port security officials have dismissed the congressional concerns, but Republicans suggest an administration that is usually politically attuned has sorely misread public reaction.
''I don't know if they were tone deaf, but they certainly didn't have a pulse on what people were thinking in terms of security,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican. She and Foley plan news conferences today in Miami. ``We haven't forgotten Sept. 11. I know the president hasn't either, but that has to extend to more than just speeches.''
Traveling with the president, White House spokesman Scott McClellan on Monday repeated the administration's contention that the sale was thoroughly vetted by a ''rigorous review process.'' His comments came after he was asked if Bush was ''comfortable'' with the deal after Sunday morning talk shows featured Republicans criticizing it.
The Port of Miami-Dade is taking a neutral position, stressing that DP World would only be the majority owner in one of three terminals. But Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez said Monday the matter ``raises issues.''
At Miami's port, P&O Ports owns 50 percent of the Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co., which handles about half the cargo containers at the port.
Senate hearings are already planned and Sen. Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, vowed Monday to push legislation to block the sale if President Bush doesn't act by March 2 -- the day the sale is set to close, affecting ports in Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, New Orleans and New Jersey, as well as Miami.
Visiting Dubai, Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes sought to rebuff suggestions that Congress' criticism is based on anti-Arab sentiment, according to the Associated Press.
''The lawmakers are questioning about security concerns in light of the fact that a couple of the Sept. 11 hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates,'' Hughes said, adding that the Middle Eastern nation has been ``a strong partner in the war against terror.''
PREJUDICE ALLEGED
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington group that seeks to promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims, said some of the reaction smacks of prejudice.
''No one seems to be criticizing the company itself, but they're most concerned with the religion and ethnicity of its owners,'' said spokesman Ibrahim Hooper. ``It's what we have to deal with in the post-9/11 era.''
But lawmakers like Ros-Lehtinen, who is aiming to become the next chair of the House International Relations Committee, were unapologetic about their stance.
''They've been a strong ally, but what about tomorrow?'' Ros-Lehtinen said of the United Arab Emirates.
Miami Herald staff writer Steve Harrison contributed to this report from Miami.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday
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. :)
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. :)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)