Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Efforts To Filibuster Alito Decimated, Confirmation Today Assured
Alito will be confirmed in less than an hour. Kerry and Kennedy tried to ignite the filibuster yesterday but were stopped hard when the cloture vote was called. They only needed 60 votes to stop the Double K threat of boring the shit out of us from Massachucettts, they got 72.
I want to thank the 19 Democrat Senators that voted with the Republicans to gag the blowhards from Mass. If I had to listen to anymore grandstanding from Ted "Champion of Women's Rights" (unless those rights require me to do anything physical like pull her to shore) Kennedy talk about Alito's past deeds [cough, irony, cough] I would've torn out my hair.
Sam Alito will be confirmed as the 110th Supreme Court Justice today. I will leave you with the immortal words of my favorite Republican, Eric Cartman.
Cartman: Yes! Yesss!! Oh, let me taste your tears, Libs! Mm, your tears are so yummy and sweet.
Cartman image and line stolen from The Jawa Report
Monday, January 30, 2006
Bush Job Approval Rating 50%
According to Ramussen Bush's approval has been inching up recently and they have at 50% now. Many people prefer other pollsters but there is one thing you should remember before you discount Rassmusen.
Rasmussen Reports was the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
What's this mean? Why has it happened? What has changed in the last week for his numbers to come up so fast?
My guess: John Kerry.
When he decided to yodel his plans for a filibuster from Switzerland, people remembered what could have been.
I love chocolate Moon Pies.
Why do they need other flavors?
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Don't You Hate It When...
Some fat person tell YOU that you need to lose weight?
Some ugly chick gives YOU makeup tips?
Some JC Penney shoppin' housfrau gives YOU fashion advice?
Do you know what is more annoyng than all of that?
When some homophobic radio host gets together with Chris "let me quote Michael Savage" Matthews then proceeds to totally "act gay" while happily gay bashing.
From the January 18 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: Have you lost weight?
MATTHEWS: I was at — I was at 240 and gaining a couple years ago, and I've been working down — I was checking, I said — I got down to 215 after I ran the other day, so I'm somewhere in the teens still.
IMUS: You look pretty good.
MATTHEWS: I'm trying to get down to 200.
IMUS: You look pretty good. I mean, I'm not working toward a Brokeback Mountain situation here, I'm just saying — I remarked to Charles — I said, "He looks pretty good to me."
MATTHEWS: I've been reading your comments. I don't think you're working in that direction.
IMUS: Well, I'm trying. So, Al Gore --
MATTHEWS: Have you seen it yet? Have you gone to see it yet? I've seen everything else but that. I guess --
IMUS: No, I haven't seen it. Why would I want to see that?
MATTHEWS: I don't know. I've no opinion on that. I haven't seen it either. So --
IMUS: So, they — I don't know — it was out when I was in New Mexico, and it doesn't resonate with the cowboys — with the real cowboys who I know. So --
MATTHEWS: Yeah --
IMUS: But then, maybe there's stuff going on there, on the ranch, that I don't know about. Not on my ranch, but you know what I'm saying.
MATTHEWS: Well, the wonderful Michael Savage, who's on [WTNT AM] 570 in D.C., who shares a station with you at least, he said — he calls it — what's he call it? "Bareback Mounting." That's his name for the movie.
IMUS: Right. Of course, Bernard calls it "Fudgepack Mountain," but that's probably --
MATTHEWS: You know what? I'll bet it wins. It's either that or Good Night, and Good Luck. [Warner Independent Pictures, 2005] who'll win for an Academy Award, I think, this year. I think it's the mood. Everybody likes the movie, who's seen it, so.
[Yes, I read Kos. I read it every day. I can't hone my wit and sarcasm skills without good material.]
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Hooray! Global Warming Rocks!
We had a record high of 55° today. It was sunny and warm. Jake is outside right now, at 5pm, wearing his windbreaker and riding his bike.
RIDING HIS BIKE.
How freaky? It looks like my annual "Spray The Aerosol Can into the Atmosphere" party every New Year is starting to pay off...
Seriously, I can't remember, in my lifetime, Michigan ever being this warm in January. Of course, it's possible I don't remember because of all those beer bongs in college.
How's your weather?
Friday, January 27, 2006
Backbones Missing !
If any of them are found, please contact Harry Reid.
Massachusetts Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, along with a small number of other Senate Democrats, have threatened a filibuster to block the vote for Judge Samuel Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, FOX News has learned.
"Judge Alito has consistently made it harder for Americans to have their day in court. He routinely defers to the power of the government, no matter how extreme. And he doesn’t believe women have a right to privacy that’s protected by the Constitution," Kerry said in a statement.
"The president has every right to nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. It’s our right and our responsibility to oppose him vigorously and to fight against this radical upending of the Supreme Court," he added before announcing he would return to Washington early on Friday from Davos, Switzerland, where a Senate delegation was attending the World Economic Forum.
But a senior Democratic leadership aide told FOX News on Thursday that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and a majority of Democrats "do not support this action by Kerry and Kennedy. It is not politically advantageous for us."
You'd think that if our very freedoms were threatened by Alito sitting on the SCOTUS, Reid and Co. would fight the good fight and not worry that it isn't politically advantageous for the Democrats to block him.
What's more important political advantage or the Constitution? Yeah, it's a rhetorical question, Democrats only dust off the Constitution for perusal when it is politically advantageous for them.
It certainly isn't advantageous for them because most Americans aren't buying the smear job. Alito's record and those that spoke on his behalf are simply more credible than all the bluster Biden, Durbin and Kennedy could muster.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Boycott Hardball. We need to boycott that radical Rightwing spinmeister Chris Matthews until it hurts. Show this fucker who's boss. I highly recommend you watch The Big Story with John Gibson instead.
1. Contact "Hardball's" Advertisers
MESSAGE: Please stop associating your product with TV shows like "Hardball" that compare stupid, fat, facist propagandist American citizens with poor grooming habits to Osama bin Laden.
- Steve Bennett, Pres.
- Scott Gulbransen, Comm.
- Robert Ingalls, President
- Jerri DeVard, Sr. VP Mktg.
- John Bonomo, PR
- Sharon Cohen-Hagar, PR
2. Contact MSNBC
MESSAGE: I demand an apology from MSNBC and Chris Matthews for comparing stupid, fat, facist propagandist American citizens with poor grooming habits to Osama bin Laden. He's an ugly, skinny, facist, murdering thug with horrible grooming habits AND he's not an American citizen. That is just wrong. Got that! Wrong!
Steve Capus, Pres. NBC News
Rick Kaplan, Pres. MSNBC
Bill Wolff, VP Program.
Jeremy Gaines, VP Comm.
Boycott NBC's Today Show.
How dare that rightwing, Rovian guttersnipe Katie "I love Chimpy McHitlerburton" Couric question Howard Dean about that Republican scandal??
How dare she imply that the Democrats took money from Abramoff? Everyone knows that is a LIE, they took Indian money and they aren't going to give it back because that would be Indian giving and that is racist.
I recommend that you switch to Fox and Friends for your viewing pleasure. No rightwing stuff there, lots of good truth stuff too! Not like that bastion of rightwing propaganda NBC.
Mother Sheehan Is At It Again
Cindy Sheehan: And about Bill Clinton . . . . You know, I really think he should have been impeached, but not for a blow job. His policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush. I don't understand why to rise to the level of being president of my country one has to be a monster. I used to say that George Bush was defiling the Oval Office, but it's been held by a long line of monsters. We don't have to support our administrations to love our country. True patriots of my country dissent when our country's doing something so wrong.
Wow, see what happens when you give "moral authority" to a nutcase?
If You Feel Like Ranting Today
Go over to Three Bulls and read the comments in the first thread about Canada.
Some of them love to spew out their venom, make assumptions about you and then cry foul when you do it back.
An example of their wit and thought processes:
"written by teh: Think about it: Rosemary's cheering increased infant mortality rates, increased pollution, increased crime, perpetual "war", the undermining of civil liberties and Constitutional rights, a craptastic economy, the failing of our public educational system, the crumbling of our infrastructure, unfettered corporate rule, and a lowering of the standard of living for all Americans."
All that because I made a crack about the irony of all those liberals that fled to Canada to escape the Republican controlled govt here.
Hamas Wins Big In Palestinian Elections
Pro-Israeli liberal [no, really I swear, it's not just an oxymoron] blames Bush.
I can't wait to hear how this is Bush's fault. Anyone want to guess?
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Screw You Google!
Think we should give up Google Ads here at QOAE?
"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
What Do The Iraqis and Afghans Know...
...That the liberals and anti-war faction seem to be missing? I'm not sure but it would appear they feel better off under the bootheel of Chimpy McHitlerburton than they did with Saddam.
Evil American Empire = Woodchippers and Rape Rooms?
Apparantly, not so much.
In Afghanistan, 70% say their own circumstances are improving, and 57% believe that the country overall is on the way up.
In Iraq, 65% believe their personal life is getting better, and 56% are upbeat about the country's economy.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Something to Ponder
I love many past Presidents, one of my very favorites said this a while back:
"How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny? How dare you call yourselves patriots and heroes? I say to you, all of you...there is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government."
So very true. I couldn't agree more...
Freedom of Speech For Me, Not Thee
My favorite liberals are going apeshit over the freedom of speech of those they disagree with.
From Ara's post:
What Terrorists Do (and how Karl Rove & Chris Matthews are helping)
- How Rove is helping: by asserting that Democrats are treasonous traitors.
- How Matthews is helping: by comparing bin Laden to Michael Moore, an American exercising his Constitutional rights to free speech.
- How Joe Scarborough is helping: by asserting that you are either with President Bush or you are with the terrorists.
If we allow these men to do this, then the terrorists have won. Period.
They've won because they will have destroyed America by destroying what we stand for: the freedom to say what we think no matter if it agrees with official government policy.
Ours is a government of the people, for the people and by the people as enshrined in the US Constitution. As such, we must always, always, always fight to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Those that tell you otherwise are simply asking you to defend George W. Bush. [You should click the link and read the comments. Priceless]
Liberals believe in Freedom of Speech, unless they disagree with you. If they disagree with you, you are accused of destroying America and letting the terrorists win. If you question them, the call you "Tokyo Rose". When you laugh at them, they say you've proved them right.
Remember: Freedom of Speech is only applicable to liberals and those that hate America.
If they disagree with you, you are the problem. Not them. Never them.
Michael Moore can say the most hateful shit on the planet. Cindy Sheehan can call us whatever she wants. They can call us brownshirts and facists. They call us chickenhawks for supporting our war efforts. They suggest you can't support or even talk about the WOT postively unless you are a veteran. They call us nazis, racists, and any hateful thing they can thing of but we can't reciprocate.
They speak the truth, we are helping the terrorists. You got that everyone?
They can do exactly what they are accusing others of doing, but when they do it, it is right. Not hypocritical because they are telling the truth about us, we are the evil ones.
Blah, blah, blah...
They do all of that and then when they lose election after election, it's because Americans are stupid or the Republicans stole it from them. They are never to blame for anything, it's always someone else. Like a bunch of whiny school kids. Nobody wants a bunch of whiny babies with no clear message running the country.
If you don't come up with a positive vision for the country and have real clear agenda for keeping us safe, you'll lose again in November.
Finger pointing and crying about Americans you disagree with exercising their Right to Free Speech is gonna backfire.
For the record: Matthews was wrong to compare Bin Laden to Michael Moore. He should apologize immediately to Bin Laden.
[Prediction: The libruls will ignore the entire point of this post and argue with me for my little parting shot.]
Election Day In Canada
Hey, it's Election day in Canada. We love Canada, and we hope you'll vote Tory!
Saturday, January 21, 2006
You Have To Try This
Ara, Double+ and I shouldn't be the only ones having this much fun.
My Heritage has face recognition software. It's really fun, just click the Beta version, upload your picture and bam!
My results are from my most current picture. I did it twice, one with a picture from last year and one with a shot from today.
Here is today's result:
- Jodie Foster 70%
- Beyonce Knowles 69%
- Michelle Pfeiffer 66%
- Drew Barrymore 64%
- Christina Ricci64%
- Madonna 60%
- Aishwariya Rai 58%
- Shakira 57%
- Courtney Love 56%
- Priyanka Chopra 56%
Dudes, I'm so freakin' hot!!! Go have some fun. BTW, I did Dean's picture and his results were, um, funny. I'll share them after some full disclosure from y'all.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Blogging has been pretty light this week because I've been really busy. I'm preparing for Drake's 1st Birthday party to be held here tomorrow.
Lots to do!
Whatcha been doin' without me this week?
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Happy 1st Birthday To Draco!!
January 19, 2005
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Grey’s Anatomy, Anyone?
Pathetic as it may seem, I am hooked on a soapy medical drama. Grey’s Anatomy focuses on the life of several medical students doing their surgical internships at Seattle Grace Hospital. One in particular is Meredith Grey, the show’s main character. Interestingly, I am not a devoted fan of the show’s heroine. Instead and contrary to many who watch…I like the show’s villain – Addison Shepherd. I would like to see Addison and Derek Shepherd save their marriage. Yes, I know she cheated on him. But, I would also like to believe that marriages can and should be saved. Addison is also beautiful, smart and confident. Meredith has slept with many men and seems to need them to complete her. I would like to see her act a little less needy and co-dependent. I love the show’s coupling of Burke and Christina. And, I really like all of the characters on the show. Bailey is awesome. George is adorable. I love Izzie and Alex. I hope the new heart patient of Izzie's lives.
Is anyone else willing to admit that you like or watch the show? Are you a devoted Meredith/Derek fan or would you like to see Addison & Derek save their marriage?
To learn more about the show, check out: Greys Anatomy
Submitted by: Alice, 'Lil Sis of All Evil
Gore Calls on Democrats to Act Like Moonbats
Aziz @ Dean's World thinks Gore is really awesome!
I thought Gore did an awesome impression of Nikita Khrushchev. Then I realized he wasn't trying to do an impression...
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what law was supposedly broken by the Bush Administration. Anyone? What law?
Here's a brief glance at Gore's attitude when he had some power.
[Title stolen from Tall Dave @ Dean's World]
Sunday, January 15, 2006
My baby loves his carbs. He just finished his dinner of steamed dumplings (we had Chinese takeout) and was having a couple bites of leftover birthday cake for dessert. Jake asked me a question so I paused feeding Drake a bite of cake to answer him. That is when it happened...
Yes Virginia, even the mighty Draco can be felled by too many carbs!
Saturday, January 14, 2006
I'll be out of town today and tomorrow. We are heading to Grand Rapids for Aidan's first birthday party. Posting will be light to non-existant depending upon my access to a computer. I expect to be back after church on Sunday. Hopefully, I'll have something interesting to say.
Till then, have a great weekend!
Friday, January 13, 2006
There Is A Judge Who'll Be Confirmed
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Happy 1st Birthday To Aidan!!
Today is my nephew's very first birthday.
January 12, 2005
HAPPY BIRTHDAY AIDAN!!!!
More on Alito
The Queen is posting more on the Alito hearings over here.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Funniest blonde joke ever ever!
Politics: My Favorite Sport
Politics just edges out hockey and basketball in my book of favorites. Yesterday, is a prime example. I watched all 100 hours (or so it seemed at times) of the Alito Hearing. I couldn't get enough of it. I laughed, thanks to Lindsey Graham for some much needed late afternoon levity. I cried, doesn't anyone drink a lot of water on that panel. I swear my eyes were floating a couple times.
In the end of all that wonderful theater, I came to a few conclusions:
The only person that likes Joe Biden's voice more than me... Joe Biden.
Alito did very well and if you actually watched, no way a reasonable person can call him extreme.
Alito answered questions. He really answered them, I guess since he lacked Roberts' charm he had to go another way.
My analysis of the situation is pretty level headed. I'm not an extremist, although I lean right, I'm not unaware of what political independents think. I listen, ask question and gather data from people all the time. I don't allow my own prejudices to color their answers.
So here it is: If the Dems make a big nasty show and attempt a filibuster, they will have wasted/blown another (in a long line) political opportunity. This is an election year, they could very well lose more seats if they continue convincing people that they are out of the mainstream. As they have been in the past half dozen or so elections.
If that happens, then we'll have liberal bloggers and pundits perplexing about why the voters are so stupid, why they vote against their own interests, and etc. I have the answer for you already so remember this post come November.
FIRST: VOTERS LIKE TO VOTE FOR PEOPLE THEY THINK ARE SANE.
SECOND: VOTERS DON'T VOTE FOR PEOPLE THAT THINK THEY ARE STUPID (that gives us bad High School flashbacks).
LAST: PEOPLE ARE SICK TO DEATH OF THE ABORTION DEBATE (it's just not the sole reason anyone votes anymore).
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Got my popcorn ready and I plan to spend the day watching the fireworks on C-SPAN.
I want to count how many times we hear that Alito will be replacing that all important 5th vote on Roe (O'Connor). I also wonder how many Senator are going to imply THE BIG LIE that Alito will be in a postion to send throngs of women into back alleys.
FYI: The Liberals think you are stupid. They think they can trick you into believing that Roe is on the line. They think you can't count to 5. Let me help you out:
9 Justices on SCOTUS
2 Definite Anti-Roe: Scalia and Thomas
1 Maybe (probably): Roberts
That equals 3 against
Meaning, of course, that current standings the SCOTUS is 6-3 in favor of abortion, not 5-4.
O'Connor was the important 5th vote on Casey because White was still on the Court. White was the 4th anti-Roe.
Do you remember who was brought in to keep the Court properly balanced (as the Dems keep telling us that Balance is important)?
Answer: Uber-fem and hardcore Roe advocate Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Voted in 96-3 by the Senate. Obviously, the Republican Senators found her to be totally in line with their pet issues.
Monday, January 9, 2006
I Totally Agree With Ara
This thread is about whether or not Democrats got money from Abramoff. Why is that important? Because somehow, if they did, Republicans think that it "spreads the blame," it absolves Republicans of the rampant criminality of their majority in Congress.
The Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal.
The Abramoff scandal IS a Republican scandal. I'm ashamed that so many of them got dirty this way. Abramoff is SCUM and everyone associated with his filth deserves what they get, except the Democrats. They shouldn't have to be Indian givers simply for being Indian takers. I would never ask them to stop doing business as usual. If they did, they wouldn't be Democrats and we need us some Democrats, y'all.
The Abramoff scandal IS a Republican scandal. Because Democrats accepting "dirty money" isn't a scandal, it's expected. The Republicans OTOH are supposed to be above doing dirty shit, they are supposed to take the moral high ground. They failed and I'm ashamed of all of them. I can't honestly be ashamed of Democrats for behaving like ...well... Democrats. Can I?
It Depends On What The Meaning Of Is Is...
You know what happens when you are fighting a bout of pneumonia? You think Howard Dean kicks ass. Is delirium a side-effect of pneumonia?
Let's go to the clip:
BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff...give that money to charity or give it back?
DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.
BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.
Shorter Dean: The Democrats only got money from Indian Tribes, not Abramoff.
Whatever dude. It's not like Howard hasn't been wrong before. Perhaps someone should explain THIS CHART OF ABRAMOFF MONEY RECEIPIENT NAMES to Howard.
Sunday, January 8, 2006
Howard Dean and Samuel Alito
Saturday, January 7, 2006
Christmas Eve - Draco and Aidan share a snack before dinner.
Is there anything more Polish than snacking on a pierogi?
Draco's first Christmas
Friday, January 6, 2006
Gun Ownership: A Human Right?
Some people believe that this should be the age of civilian disarmament, others believe that a gun should be issued with the birth certificate. I think that most of us fall somewhere in the middle. Most of the world thinks were are barbaric in our zealous belief in the Second Amendment.
Glenn Reynolds believes that the Right to Bear Arms should be a Human Right not just a constitutionally guaranteed American right. He makes his case well:
This has led some observers to suggest that genocide isn’t something that can be addressed by international conventions or tribunals. A recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed:
The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."
Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage.
Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. (Emphasis added).
The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, is that "a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide."
Armed citizens, they argue, are far less likely to be massacred than defenseless ones, and armed resistance to genocide is more likely to receive outside aid. It is probably no accident that the better-armed resistance to genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo drew international intervention, while the hapless Rwandans and Cambodians did not. When victims resist, what is merely cause for horror becomes cause for alarm, and those who are afraid of the conflict’s spread will support (as Europe did) intervention out of self-interest when they could not be bothered to intervene out of compassion.
It is no wonder that genocide is so often preceded by efforts to disarm the people.
Current events in Zimbabwe appear to be playing out in the fashion that Polsby and Kates warn against. If this is the case, then surely the human rights community could be expected to take on the subject of armed citizens, particularly as the right to arms is far closer to the individual rights that make up the "first generation" of internationally recognized human rights.
After all, the human rights community has long argued that all sorts of dramatic changes in international law are justified if they might make genocide unlikely and has been nothing less than flexible in discovering such "post-first-generation" human rights as "developmental rights," "environmental rights" and a "right to peace."
In fact, the human rights community has addressed the issue — but from the wrong side. They seem generally supportive of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s effort to put in place a global gun control regime "including a prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms."
In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the world.
It seems to me that the human rights community has things exactly backward. Given that the efforts of the international community to prevent and punish genocide over the past several decades have been, to put it politely, a dismal failure, perhaps it is time to try a new approach. International human rights law is supposed to be a "living" body of law that changes with the needs of the times in order to secure important goals — chief among which is the prevention of genocide. Given that the traditional approaches of conventions and tribunals have failed miserably, the human rights community should be prepared to endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed.
Go read the whole thing. Thoughts?
Thursday, January 5, 2006
How To Make A Phone Soliciter Hang Up
There are many ways to do it. I really hate being rude on the phone, I know that some poor schmuck is just doing his/her job. I always let them say their pitch and then I just say something completely off the wall. It's fun for me and it's good exercise for my brain. I've always been known as a quick wit, extremely quick some would say.
This morning I got a call from the RNC looking for cash. Right after Christmas is not a good time to convince me that my 50 bucks will stop the evil Democrats. Visa and Mastercard need that money much more than the RNC.
So, here's the pitch: "...You've always supported our efforts, and now we need your help to stop Hillary Clinton".
Response: Stop her?!?!?!?! I plan on campaigning for her if she runs in 2008. I'm gonna give her my money and my vote.
"...but, but, but why?"
Because I LIKE HER!
"[in a whimper]oh....have a nice day"
In this instance, I was being serious. I do like her and I do plan on voting for her. It will take one helluva good Republican candidate, and so far I haven't seen a hypothetical one that would, to sway me away from voting for Hillary as the first woman POTUS.
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
Bush Voters Have Better Mental Health
Here's the proof!
Not that I needed any statistical proof, my eyes work just fine...
Irresponsible Media (Jerry)
A little over 5 years ago, I remember going to sleep depressed. Exit polls were in and Al Gore had won the election. Only to wake up the next morning to find out that Bush had won. Then of course all the legal stuff, then the certification. It happened again 4 years later. Zogby said Kerry was going to win in a walk or something to that effect and it turned out not to be true.
Thats all just politics. It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If Gore or Kerry were in office, we'd still be just as good or bad off. It all depends on which way one leans.
The disgrace that happened last night, wasn't about politics. It was just about the media's desire to be first to the story.
For those who don't know, there was a mine explosion in Buckhannon, West Virginia. 13 people were trapped and feared dead. They'd been buried for 40 something hours and everything was pointing to a grim end. The people in West Virginia never gave up hope, clinging to the magical 77 hour mark. Thats how long miners in Pennsylvania were buried when they were found alive a few years back.
So I, like alot of people, was gripped by the coverage of the story. There was talk that they would know the fate of the miners late last night.
Then it happened. Word got out that 12 of 13 miners were found ALIVE. There was much rejoicing. I went to places like Drudge, Fox, CNN and read all the news of the found miners. I even watched the late local news after the Orange Bowl. Even they were reporting that the miners were alive.
I went to bed relieved that the miners were safe.
I woke up this morning ready to read the stories of the dramatic rescue and learn how the miners survived. Then I found this.
It turns out that they got the numbers flipped. 12 of 13 miners DIED.
That is so incredibly sad. My heart goes out to the families, who lost their loved ones TWICE in 2 days.
Choice only Matters When It Is About Abortion
What is it about do-gooders? I just can't stand them. People like Ralph Nader and Public Citizen swear they are acting to help people but often all they end up doing is taking away our options, our choices.
Getting a drug banned because it can possibly cause organ damage in some patients, isn't doing good for all. Patients are made aware of the risks by their doctors and drug companies/pharamcies provide further information when dispensing a drug. We should be allowed the choice to take the risk. Many drugs don't work for everyone. There is no perfect drug out there, almost all of them involve a risk. Should we ban them all?
Why does choice only matter when killing a fetus is involved?
Update: I mentioned people like Ralph Nader but I should clarify that I have seen no evidence that Nader himself was involved in this effort.
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
I've spent the New Year sick in bed. I'm hoping that isn't some kind of omen for the coming year. Anyway, I'm up now, I've taken down the tree and I've started putting my house back in order. My head is still a bit foggy but not enough to prevent that much needed trip to Kroger today and Target tomorrow. Plus, I have lots of neat little political things to talk about this week.
What do you have on the agenda this week?