Friday, December 17, 2010
Here's the thing, though. When I heard John Boehner crying (I still haven't seen it, only heard it on talk radio) I thought, my God, man, compose yourself. And then I had to wonder, is this like when I start crying and it's just unstoppable? There have been a few instances in my life where I've just started crying, say, at work, and it was really bad timing, or unwarranted, and I don't even know why I started crying. And I don't mean weeping uncontrollably, just tearing up and needing a moment to compose myself, but still, crying like Mr. Boehner. I completely chalked it up to hormones, honestly. I thought, well, I'm a chick and we have all of those hormones to deal with all the time. Yeah, that must be it. And for the most part, guys don't do that. At least not that I've seen.
Obviously, men cry. They're not robots. Okay, so they're robots that can cry. And carry heavy things for us. But they have feelings and passions and are fully justified in crying if they need/want to. I think this is one of those double standards that is going to die hard. If at all. And so what? It makes me uncomfortable when guys cry around me. That doesn't mean they shouldn't or won't. On the scale of double standards that deserve our time and attention, this one is of minimal importance.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Her tone and commentary were predictably mocking and inane. She didn't make one mention of the fact that what conservatives have a problem with is the seemingly unending extensions of unemployment by democrats in the past 18 months. Also infuriating was that she quoted John Kyle, Sharon Angle and various high profile republicans making what were actually quite honest and accurate statements about unemployment benefits, but since she was making specific note of their feelings about people on unemployment, she could have very easily included Harry Reid's famous statement about how unemployment has led more men to beat their wives! And that's why we should extend unemployment benefits for 2 years...to buy abused wives some time? She also made many mentions of how very very moral it is to give out unemployment benefits.
The question I am left with whenever I spy on the enemy by watching a bit of Chris Matthews or Olberman or Maddow is, have they ever met an actual person? Or more accurately, when is the last time they were around people who weren't either in the industry or in politics or related to them? Oh, or works for them? Chris Matthews literally laughed at a guy from the Heritage Foundation who said that people who have unending unemployment benefits are discouraged from moving to a new city or state to seek employment if they can't find work in their town. I mean he threw his head back and belly fucking laughed at the guy.
The fact is that there are people who game the system. And "the system" is any and every entitlement program in America. And the fact is also that there are people who need a safety net. But it's really only liberals who don't accept the reality that the dynamic has shifted to majority scammers on these programs. The people receiving entitlements aren't Vietnamese boat people or the lost boys of Sudan, they're people who are simply taking advantage of what is available. I guess that's more the point I should make: a lot of the people receiving entitlements are convinced it's owed to them simply because they qualify for them, but the reason they qualify for them is because the standards have been lowered so that more and more people who are able bodied, fully capable of working, maybe in debt or living beyond their means, and they don't even think twice, fuck, they don't even think once, about whether it's right or wrong to take government money just because it's there.
And let's not forget, people who are in "poverty" in the US have cell phones and SUVs. People who are in poverty in third world shit hole countries literally give up their children in the hope of a better life for them. There is no comparison.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
On the days I work out of the house, I start my day with a little of the Mancow show - that guy is funny! And it's such a fun mix of infantile potty humor and political talk and celebrity guests - it's just nuts! I only listen for about 45 minutes or an hour until Laura Ingraham starts.
I discovered Laura probably 5 years ago, and she's just fantastic. She can be really annoying at times, say, when she goes off on a rant about being a Catholic convert or sometimes her sense of humor is just really dorky, but she's overall very funny and smart.
Then, of course, I listen to the Maha Rushie. Rush is my personal inspiration. He's the best. I will never understand why he is so reviled..wait, I take that back. He scares the Left because he's effective, he's right, he's popular, so they demonize him. Don't believe the hype that he's hated. He wouldn't have the most most listened to radio program in America if he was everything they say he is. I'm a full-time student of the EIB Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies. I even have the t shirt to prove it.
When Rush is over, I log into TRN and catch the previous day's episode of Michael Savage. If ever a man was misunderstood and lied about, it's Dr. Savage. If you've never listened to the Savage Nation or read any of his many, many books, (some written as Michael Weiner) and you've only heard commentary about him, your opinion should not yet be fully formed. I've been a loyal member of the Savage Nation since I stumbled upon his show driving home one day several years ago, and he was recounting the story "dead man's pants," which, if you're a fellow fan of Dr. Savage, you will immediately recognize.
He's a perfect mixture of old man grumpitude, (often belittling and hanging up on his less intelligent callers,) wise old world traveler, very educated and successful and financially successful, but without an ounce of elitism ever coming across. He's clearly proud of his accomplishments, his family, loves the beauty of the area he lives in, despite the liberal domination. He's the son of immigrants and proud of it. He values this country and would stop at nothing to protect it, and that's exactly how I feel-the main difference being I have an audience of one, and he's married to me, whereas Dr. Savage has the third listened to radio program in America.
So, when Dr. Savaged made mention of a WSJ article about him and said he was going to read it for us, but then suddenly changed his mind and his mood was noticeably affected by this, I was concerned. So I read the article for myself. What a load of tripe. Worse than that, it was a blatant, hit piece. And I mean hit piece literally. The opening line states specifically where Dr. Savage lives-information he intentionally does not give out publicly. It then goes on to report when he enjoys having dinner other places he frequents, all the while interspersing little factoids about how he live with the awareness of death threats and is careful as possible. I read this lame article several times over and over trying to find a point. Any redeeming quality. I could find none. I actually think the article should be pulled and the WSJ should be ashamed of themselves. If anything should happen to Dr. Savage over this information being disseminated, there will be hell to pay with the members of the Savage Nation. the WSJ will be held responsible.
I would like to do a quick compare and contrast between the Savage Nation and The World, on PRI. What actually inspired this whole rant, prior even to reading the WSJ article, was just how pretentious and out of touch the PRI gang really comes across as. Don't misunderstand, I enjoy PRI and the international stories they have are stories often not covered anywhere else in the mainstream media. I give them credit for that, and that's why I'm a fan. I could do without the outright liberal bias, but even that is less bothersome than those little sound quote things they do in between programming. I don't know exactly how to describe it, but you'll hear someone say something random like "I was standing in line and I saw a guy in a cowboy hat next to a Hasidic jew." And she says it as if she was retelling the tale of the time she saw a ghost and one-armed naked midget hold up a bank. I mean, if the most exciting people you've ever seen were a guy in a cowboy hat, made all the more exciting because he was next to a hasidic jew, you need to get out more. One other random quote played a lot as filler between shows is an obviously older lady saying "Most people make clay cups and then make the handle and then put them together. Well, what if I want to hang the handle on the wall?" She says it with such indignation as if someone taunted her in the first grade about how she made pottery and she's still harboring latent anger. Lady, nobody cares if you want to hang your shitty pottery pieces on you wall. Go for it! But it doesn't make you an artist. Sorry.
Anyway, I was overcome in response to the cowboy hat jew statement that I had "known" more colorful people just from simple life stories shared by Michael Savage. They are funny, heart-felt, genuine, and they take you there-wherever "there" is. His dad's antique shop, taking the train to visit cousins, making an after hours delivery to the half man, half woman. I could go on.
I would like to recommend whoever those hippies who make those inane statements that are meant to come across as, I guess deep and showcasing observed diversity, you could learn a thing or two from Dr. Savage. His stories are real and have meaning. A contrived quick statement about seeing a guy in a cowboy hat standing next to a hasidic jew sounds like a trip to the grocery store to me, to be honest with you. I can be in line behind a guy in a turban, a 12 year old girl dressed up like a 25 year old hooker, an American solder, in full-fatigues just getting a few things to take wherever he may be going, and me, I'm in line wearing my "Chris Christie for President" t shirt that nobody ever comments on. I had it made to stir up controversy, but nobody in Texas seems to know who he is. I guess I have to make a pamphlet to go with my shirt.
Whatever, in sum, PRI tries too hard to say things that "portray diversity caught in daily life" that might be their purpose, I don't know. Sadly, they are coming across as lame and elitist.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
This Christmas Eve, America got one gift early; and it's one we can't give back, no matter how much we don't want it. So-called "healthcare reform" passed in a straight party-line vote early this morning. Even though the majority of Americans, Senators and Congressmen have NOT even read the bill, not to mention the fact that it will surely become an even bigger monstrosity in committee, there are a few facts we do know...and they are quite telling.
"The approved Senate bill would reform health insurance regulations, require individuals to purchase insurance, and create a subsidy from the federal government for those who cannot afford it to purchase it on a health exchange managed by the federal government. To pay for the expanded coverage, the bill raises payroll taxes for income over $250,000, imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-dollar insurance policies, and creates new taxes and fees for medical suppliers."
The road that lies ahead for America is not uncharted territory. It is not some healthcare utopia as Democrats and socialized medicine supporters might have you believe. We need only to look to European socialized medicine, Canadian socialized medicine, and to our own American states that have already implemented socialized healthcare--Wisconsin, Massachusetts, for example.
The result we await is both predictable and deadly. Nations and people of nations with socialized healthcare do not prosper under these systems-they wait for rationed healthcare, they are dependent on government boards of non-medical professionals who are somehow "experts" to decide their fate, which tests and procedures they are deemed worthy of or deemed the appropriate age for.
The bottom line is that "healthcare reform" does NOT cover all Americans, which was it's stated purpose; it will NOT lower the deficit, in fact it will have a devastating effect on our economy; it penalizes people who currently have decent health insurance--as if we are somehow responsible for the fact that there are people without health insurance; and the enormity of the new government beaurocracy that we are witnessing being born at this moment is sickening.
But, I guess it's too late. I am left wondering where all of the people of the world who currently come to America for healthcare they are denied in their countries with socialized medicine are going to go. We are literally the last great bastion of freedom on the planet. But we are so many years removed from the hardships of the Great Depression, or even the gas lines of the 1970s that we have grown complacent in our freedom and prosperity and take it for granted. Well, as we sit and take America for granted, we are losing her. We have elected a president who doesn't see our greatness, and proudly tells us as much. He and his administration look to Europe and Asia for inspiration instead of to the founding fathers and our founding documents. Healthcare reform is simply a way to grow the government. It's not going to fix anything-in fact it's going to make it worse. Democrats got what they wanted: a symbolic victory of passing the healthcare reform they've been attempting to get implemented for decades, and they got it under the first black president. They are absolutely giddy about the symbolism. As for the substance? Don't bother them for details, that's not what's important.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The money quote from this piece of tripe is the following tidbit of wisdom, seeming to come as either an afterthought or simply a mindless platitude:
"In retrospect, my experience is trivial when I think of dear friends who did have breast cancer that was found and treated early thanks to regular mammograms. Or the ones for whom detection came too late. "
Then she actually goes on to pose the question, "Still, I can't help but think: Wouldn't it have been nice if these new standards had been in place back then? " Hello, McFly! What makes you think women of any age can't have suspicious findings on their mammograms that require further testing and then turn out to be nothing? The answer to that question is that you aren't thinking. You're towing the liberal line and supporting a ridiculous recommendation that is nothing more than the first attempt at health care rationing, and we all know it.
This whole "article" is completely pointless and maddening. What would she prefer have happened? Doctors simply not do any follow up or doctors use their psychic powers to determine if there was a serious problem? Let's all get real here, dealing with medical problems sucks. It isn't fun. But you know what is fun? Finding out you don't fucking have cancer! How is she not just relieved and grateful? I guess I just don't get it.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
He went off to Asia to tell the Chinese a thing or two about world trade, to prepare the world for a treaty to make the sun change its spots, and of course to pay his respects to assorted heads of state, with particular attention to any royal head (perhaps even including Miss Universe) who crosses his path.
So far it's a memorable trip. He established a new precedent for how American presidents should pay obeisance to kings, emperors, monarchs, sovereigns and assorted other authentic man-made masters of the universe. He stopped just this side of the full grovel to the emperor of Japan, risking a painful genuflection if his forehead had hit the floor with a nasty bump, which it almost did. No president before him so abused custom, traditions, protocol (and the country he represents). Several Internet sites published a rogue's gallery showing how other national leaders - the prime ministers of Israel, India, Slovenia, South Korea, Russia and Dick Cheney among them - have greeted Emperor Akihito with a friendly handshake and an ever-so-slight but respectful nod (and sometimes not even that).
Now we know why Mr. Obama stunned everyone with an earlier similar bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, only the bow to the Japanese emperor was far more flamboyant, a sign of a really deep sense of inferiority. He was only practicing his bow in Riyadh. Sometimes rituals are learned with difficulty. It took Bill Clinton months to learn how to return a military salute worthy of a commander in chief; like any draft dodger, he kept poking a thumb in his eye until he finally got it. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, seems right at home now giving a wow of a bow. This is not the way an American president impresses evildoers that he's strong, tough and decisive, that America is not to be trifled with.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
And that was on full display this season on MTV’s America’s Best Dance Crew. It's about to come to an end, with the final two crews being Afroborike, representing Latinos and We are Heroes, an all-girl crew of various ethnicities. This season also featured a transgender man leading a troop of Vogue-ers from New York City.
It seems like a concerted effort was made when choosing crews for this season to choose dancers who were diverse rather than the most talented, with an emphasis on all-female crews and those with a "different" factor. I say that with all due respect to the dancers who represented this season, but with much more respect for all of the crews of the past seasons.
Last season, with crews that represented a wide range of dance styles including clogging, I don't recall any special mention of how diverse the dancers were. The judges mentioned the diversity of this season's dancers at every possible opportunity when judging the performances each week. To their credit, however, they also pointed out this is the weakest season by far. They had to, there’s not one crew this season that would have made it past week one up against literally any crew from any past season.
I wonder if the irony was not lost on the judges. Each week they ripped into the dancers telling them how they need to step it up, while simultaneously praising their diversity. It seems to me diversity for the sake of diversity has to be applauded in the absence of talent.
You shouldn't stack the deck and lower the bar just to get the result you want-and you don't have to. With a nation full of talented, eager dancers who would love to audition for this show, you organically get a range of whatever the gender, nationality or ethnicity of the people would naturally represent. The winners rise to the top based on their talent, and that should be enough.
One of the judges made sure to point out last week that regardless of which crew won, since one crew is all female and the other is half females, "a woman will hold the trophy for the first time this season." That comment spoke volumes and pretty much removed any doubt I had about whether this "season of diversity" was forced or just a natural occurrence.
Isn't the point of the show for the best dance crew to win? Regardless of the gender or ethnicity of the dancers? I guess JabbaWockeeZ had the right idea dancing in masks.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
I would also like to give special thanks to Newsweek for letting me know my baby is racist as well. If it weren't for "researchers at the University of Texas" in one of the most liberal cities in America, I would have continued to live my life totally unaware that my baby just might be a hate-filled bigot behind those big blue eyes. Maybe it's her bright blue eyes that make her a racist - hard to tell what their groundbreaking racist baby study really revealed...other than you can get a book published on how to start the multicultural indoctrination as early as while you're still in labor & delivery.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Honest to god, my reaction is this: I probably would have said the same thing. Not only said the same thing, I would have sat back with indignation the way she did. The difference between me and Hillary Rodham Clinton is that she is, as she reminded that student, the Secretary of State; but she didn't act like it.
The problem I have with libs is that they want all the accolades and respect that comes along with positions of power, but none of the responsibility or expectations. Plus, I think the years and years of not being held accountable by the friendly mainstream media has made them lazy.
As it turns out, it was apparently a "lost in translation" moment, but a very telling and fascinating moment none the less.
The problem with the clip above, from MSNBC, is that it conveniently leaves out the actual question she was asked and just makes her look bad. God, I can't believe I'm defending Hillary, bleh. But the fact is, the commentary about her reaction to this question is biased. Brian Williams has the balls to say "She thought someone asked her..." She thought someone asked her, Brian Williams? I'm pretty sure someone DID ask her a specific sexist question. Yes, it was supposedly an error in the translation, but the question she was asked was offensive.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
I like to think I am more influenced by hormones and deep thought, but how possible is it really that I am but a product of 34 years of market researched advertisements and poll-driven politics?
Am I a philosopher and a poet or merely a member of the mob? An individualized manifestation of the masses?
It doesn't matter that I don't fit the mold, because the mold can be modified to fit me. I wonder if it's too late. If I threw away my tv and computer and moved to a cabin in the woods ala Thoreau can I escape the influence the modern world has had on me or I on it? If I decided to run for president on a platform of honesty and putting what's best for US first would I make it past Katie Couric? I assume not.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
I have been plagued by bad skin since literally junior high, and it sucks. I've tried many topical prescription meds such as Retin A, and also several antibiotic treatments, but to no long-term avail. I read online to put toothpaste on zits to dry them out, and I seriously have toothpaste on my face as I type these words. I recently went on a cucumber salad detox diet that was supposed to cleanse my system and stop diet-related acne. Nothing works with any consistency. It is beyond frustrating and embarrassing to be 34 with a broken out face. The only time I don't feel self-conscious about it is when I'm at home with my family.
I am jealous of people who take their clear skin for granted. I feel like I was cursed with bad skin. It's one thing to have a face full of acne when you're seventeen, but when you're a mom, a woman in the workforce, a wife, an adult, it takes on a whole new meaning. A new level of importance.
I made an appointment to see my doc on Monday to try to start some other form of treatment. We'll see how that goes. I'm doing some research into Accutane; I've heard it works, but had terrible side effects. I'll have to weigh the pros and cons.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
I guess it's a good thing that Whalen received flowers from Gates and all, but why is that all she gets? No beer at the white house with the boys? No public appreciation for her attempt to be a conscientious neighbor? And I am sick of reading/hearing that "the arrest sparked a national debate about race and police relations." Actually, it sparked a debate about how stupid our president is, how even cops who bend over backwards training in "racial sensitivity" are no match for angry old black guys with a chip on their shoulders, and how even liberal cops who probably voted for Obama aren't immune from this kind of bullshit.
Right from the get-go, Obama attempted to draw an illogical parallel between this case and racial profiling when there was obviously no profiling done. And Gates attempted to become the newest black representative in the race hustling business-claiming to represent "poor blacks" whom it turns out he didn't have very nice things to say about in his last PBS special .
Friday, July 17, 2009
Hmmmm. "A group committed to establishing an international Islamic empire and reportedly linked to Al Qaeda is stepping up its Western recruitment efforts by holding its first official conference in the U.S." And the conference is called "The Fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam." Way to endorse the decline of Western civilization, posh Hilton hotel in a suburb of Chicago.
Reading this story brought to mind a recent article about a conference being cancelled.
Muslim Group Shuts Down Conservative Conference
Hmmmm. Seems "The manager of a prominent Nashville hotel cancelled a contract with a conservative foundation to hold a conference this weekend on radical Islam, apparently after learning that the group would feature a keynote address by controversial Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders."
I love how Geert Wilders is "controversial" but a radical Muslim group trying to destroy America is pretty much accepted as mainstream.
I still manage to find it hard to believe and accept that eight years post- 9/11 America seems to have over-corrected in its stance on radical Islam. Every attempt is made to not even appear to hold all Muslims responsible for Islamic terrorism, which is fine, but it's done at the expense of dealing with the fact that there actually are radical Muslim terrorists and they are among us.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
It was obvious from the get-go that this article followed the expected and accepted narrative of every article in every mainstream media outlet since Obama has been elected, nay, since Obama became the presumptive candidate of choice of the mainstream left. The narrative being: Obama administration, good; Bush administration, bad; Clinton administration, meh. No matter what the facts are. I repeat, no matter what the facts in the actual "article" are, the narrative must be followed.
Let's discuss the facts at hand, shall we? The opening paragraph sets the stage rather well, I think:
"The Obama administration has opened the way for foreign women who are victims of severe domestic beatings and sexual abuse to receive asylum in the United States. The action reverses a Bush administration stance in a protracted and passionate legal battle over the possibilities for battered women to become refugees."
One could take from this paragraph that the facts are these: the Bush administration, aka George Bush personally, is against asylum for abused women and he did everything in his power as an evil white man of privilege to assure foreign women deserving of asylum were denied such, even going so far as to kick them in the head and laugh at them as they were delivered back to their attackers to be abused some more. Dear Leader Obama, on the other hand, in stark contrast, has personally saved countless abused women from all over planet Earth; women who, on occasion, did not even know they were being abused until he informed them.
2nd paragraph: "In addition to meeting other strict conditions for asylum, abused women will need to show that they are treated by their abuser as subordinates and little better than property, according to an immigration court filing by the administration, and that domestic abuse is widely tolerated in their country. They must show that they could not find protection from institutions at home or by moving to another place within their own country." This literally applies to all women in Saudi Arabia, as well as several other middle eastern countries. These countries don't try to hide, or feel bad about, the way women are treated. Did Obama tell the Saudi Prince about this policy while he was visiting him, I wonder?
The article then goes on to cite a case of a woman from Mexico who was seeking asylum from her abusive husband. This is the case that is setting the precedent of how the current administration will handle "abused woman" asylum cases, apparently. Here's where they start to lose me, because the woman, whether truly abused or not, is in a country where she has many options to deal with her abuse. If she has the wherewith all to get a lawyer and seek asylum in her neighbor to the north, she could most likely prosecute her husband in Mexico; or seek a divorce or some other form of justice. She is not in Africa or the Middle East where she would have no other recourse than to seek asylum in America.
Then comes this gem of a paragraph: "Moving cautiously, the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately recommend asylum for the Mexican woman, who is identified in the court papers only by her initials as L.R. But the department, in the unusual submission written by senior government lawyers, concluded in plain terms that “it is possible” that the Mexican woman “and other applicants who have experienced domestic violence could qualify for asylum.”
Wow! Such a bold move by the Obama administration! After all, that's what the article is about, right? How fantastic it is that abused women can now seek asylum in the US? Oh, wait, what? "It is possible....that they could qualify for asylum." Halelujah! Praise baby Obama Jesus!
Next, we are informed that " As recently as last year, Bush administration lawyers had argued in the same case that in spite of her husband’s brutality, L.R. and other battered women could not meet the standards of American asylum law." It would appear that she didn't meat the standard of abuse for asylum...and it's still not clear whether she meets the standard for asylum under Obama! Didn't they just say "the DHS did not immediately recommend asylum for the woman?"
Then the article has the nerve to say that "The Obama administration’s position caps a legal odyssey for foreign women seeking protection in the United States..." I'm sorry? The Obama administration position? You'll have to explain this one to me. The official policy doesn't seem to have changed. The woman hasn't received asylum. Nothing has changed, and yet we're supposed to give the Obama administration credit for what? Wanting to give her asylum? Disagreeing with Bush "on principal?" And how does any of this "cap a legal odyssey??" Are abused woman now freely granted asylum in the US thanks to Obama? It doesn't appear so.
"During the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to clarify the matter, but they have never gone into effect." As expected, in deference to Secretary of State Clinton, any reference to the Clinton administration is muted.
Finally, we get to a few facts, which are luckily hard to distort and politicize: "“Although each case is highly fact-dependent and requires scrutiny of the specific threat an applicant faces,” said Matt Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, “the department continues to view domestic violence as a possible basis for asylum in the United States.” He said officials hoped to complete regulations governing the complex cases." The fact is, this is a complex issue that should require a case by case review.
The next sentence, set apart on it's own in a symbolic island being stated simply yet blindly ignored, is the following:
"The new policy does not involve women fleeing genital mutilation."
And here is where I lose my shit. If there is a case where asylum is justified more clearly and obviously, I would like to know. The entire article becomes nothing more than a sham, a less than newsworthy fluff piece making something out of nothing. And it couldn't be more obvious. And it couldn't be more pathetic. There is real news to be reported, and the author, a woman no less, chooses to create a piece of Obama mythology and give him credit for a deed not even done.
The article then fizzles out with details from the cited abuse case from Mexico and some musings about how complex the asylum process is, lamentably so, apparently. The feeling I am left with after reading this drivel is disgust. Disgust at the author, who is merely a representation of the state-run media's intentional bias toward keeping Obama popular-even if it means making him a hero in instances where he has done nothing substantive. The only bit of information gleaned from this piece was that women who are subject to FGM do not qualify for asylum. And for that information I am grateful. I think that should have been the headline.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews
By: Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us...
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I don't really know what to say about this. It speaks for itself, really.
The media and the Obama administration are busy accusing our brave troops of "torture" while they're secretly instituting the reading of Miranda rights to terrorists in Afghanistan.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
So far today I have done scant amounts of actual work, usually when my boss was walking by. I have also read some entries on April Winchell's blog, eaten breakfast and a snack (oatmeal, and almonds,) I created and deleted a new blog on Word Press, and listened to yesterday's Michael Savage show on a website with his shows archives.
I forgot to change my alarm clock to wake me up at 5:15 instead of 5:45 so I didn't get to work out this morning, so that's probably why I'm dragging ass. Monday, Wednesday and Friday I get up early and do workouts from The Abs Diet for Women, and the other days I either do a lighter workout or take the day off. I'm also eating foods recommended in the book and avoiding bad shit like soda and tasty, tasty cheeseburgers. I miss cheeseburgers. We'll meet again one day soon.
(pause to answer phone call from my husband)
So he is "trying" to get a job, apparently utilizing the age-old strategy of waiting for an employer to come knock on our door and offer him a job. He has yet to apply for any jobs. I told him I'm going to quit my job to inspire him to get a job so we don't end up homeless. I think he's calling my bluff on that one. I'm just too fucking responsible. It's in my DNA to work and support myself, and apparenly others, as well.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
President Barack Obama turned the page on 100 days in office with an iffy boast about job creation and claims of fiscal prudence that are hard to square with his spending.
Obama spoke with abundant confidence about his chances for achieving the big-ticket items on his agenda despite economic calamity:
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller for many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits the government is negotiating.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
He pitched a remedy for Social Security's long-term crisis that analysts say won't fix half the problem.
Obama held a prime-time news conference Wednesday and addressed citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school, using both events to review progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.