Well, the scuttlebutt on the web turned out to be true for once! Sarah Palin did indeed have a cameo (2 actually) on the October 18, 2008 episode of Saturday Night Live. Her first appearance was in the cold open (meaning the very first sketch of the show). Check it out:
And here is the other clip, the Weekend Update portion of SNL. What could be funnier than rappin' eskimos, moose hunting, Palin head bobbing during the rap, Todd showing up, and the wackiest moment at 1:49 - "all the mavericks in da house put yo hands up" and then cut to Palin dancing in her seat...with her hands up!!!
Or even better: "I say 'Obama', you say 'Ayers'! I built me a bridge, it ain't goin' nowhere!"
Priceless. Whatever your political affiliations, from the staunchest liberal who makes Karl Marx look Republican, to the most free-market solutions and lowercase 'l' libertarian person I know (me!!), this stuff is funny. Now go vote! Or watch the vids again.
Flickr
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
SNL Tonight?
The scuttlebutt on the web says VP candidate Sarah Palin will be on Saturday Night Live tonight. This might be fun to watch, but it could backfire and hurt her image. Or not.
But I bet it WILL be funny.
But I bet it WILL be funny.
Hey Look! A Frog
(watch the video before reading)
I found this on YouTube while searching for something else - YouTube is like that. You search for something, watch the vid, and in the Related Videos section there is always something else interesting and worth checking out.
In this case, I saw the video's title was "Frog Crying Like Kitten". Which was so weird-sounding that I had to check it out. Things are kinda boring at first - a little girl is looking for the frog in a flower bed, while Mom (I assume) is filming. There are some nice flowers (no spectacular landscaping, but pretty decent). A white rail is in the foreground. How suburbian of them.
So anyway, the girl is frog-hunting, and Mom is recording, when all of the sudden, around 0:10 -- A HUGE GIGANTOR BLACK SNAKE APPEARS ON THE WHITE RAILING!!!!
And no one seems to care. The cameramom doesn't even react at all. If I am recording a video next to a white railing, and suddenly A HUGE GIGANTOR BLACK SNAKE APPEARS ON THE WHITE RAILING - I would at least react by saying, "Wow, look at that!" Another even more likely reaction would be me yelling out "SNAKE!!! SNAKE!!! BLACK DEATH!!!! SNAKE!!!" while the camera (if it was still in my hands) recording my cowardly retreat.
But these people - they acted like it was nothing. Ahh, snake, no big deal. Keep filming.If it bites you, hon, just tough it out like little girls are supposed to. (Please no comments on sexist language - I am trying to be sarcastic)
What would YOU do??
I found this on YouTube while searching for something else - YouTube is like that. You search for something, watch the vid, and in the Related Videos section there is always something else interesting and worth checking out.
In this case, I saw the video's title was "Frog Crying Like Kitten". Which was so weird-sounding that I had to check it out. Things are kinda boring at first - a little girl is looking for the frog in a flower bed, while Mom (I assume) is filming. There are some nice flowers (no spectacular landscaping, but pretty decent). A white rail is in the foreground. How suburbian of them.
So anyway, the girl is frog-hunting, and Mom is recording, when all of the sudden, around 0:10 -- A HUGE GIGANTOR BLACK SNAKE APPEARS ON THE WHITE RAILING!!!!
And no one seems to care. The cameramom doesn't even react at all. If I am recording a video next to a white railing, and suddenly A HUGE GIGANTOR BLACK SNAKE APPEARS ON THE WHITE RAILING - I would at least react by saying, "Wow, look at that!" Another even more likely reaction would be me yelling out "SNAKE!!! SNAKE!!! BLACK DEATH!!!! SNAKE!!!" while the camera (if it was still in my hands) recording my cowardly retreat.
But these people - they acted like it was nothing. Ahh, snake, no big deal. Keep filming.If it bites you, hon, just tough it out like little girls are supposed to. (Please no comments on sexist language - I am trying to be sarcastic)
What would YOU do??
Friday, October 17, 2008
Choose Wisely
For those of you who are weird, why don't you take this poll?
Make sure to leave a comment here for which one you choose. Thanks.
Make sure to leave a comment here for which one you choose. Thanks.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Off Politics For A Bit
For those of us with a hidden desire to destroy the planet (and who doesn't feel that way from time to time?) here is a site with a real-time update of the status of our fair planet.
And should the desire to wreak total destruction to our helpless planet come over you, hop over to this site for some how-to ideas.
Happy Planetary Destruction!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Caps mean I'm yelling really loud
ARGH!!! SHOW ME WHERE THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS IN THE CONSTITUTION!!! IT'S NOT!!!! A BUNCH OF INTERPRETATIONIST JUDGES "FOUND" IT SOMEHOW.
SHOW ME WHERE THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
YOU CAN'T!!!!! IT IS NOT A POWER GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - EITHER EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, OR JUDICIAL. AND WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT POWERS THAT AREN'T GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
(waiting patiently while the nerds among you google the constitution)
As I see it, all other powers not given to the Fed are reserved for the states. That means that a strict interpretation of the US Constitution says that STATES get to decide about abortion. The Founders meant for the States to be individual laboratories of democracy. The ones that do something that works really well, well, they can be copied by other states if they choose to do so.
The Constitution isn't hard to read. It isn't legalese like we have today. It's straightforward, and simple to figure out. It seems like most Americans don't even know what this most AWESOME, INCREDIBLE document really says. People died so we would have it. I think that if more peeps sat down and just read our Constitution, there would be a great outcry against the tyranny of socialist liberal thought. Against interpretationist judges who "legislate from the bench". When a judge "interprets" what the Constitution says and changes what it means, that judge is circumventing the checks and balances imposed on the judiciary branch. Well, you'd have to read the Constitution to know how the judicial branch works, and how it is kept in check by the other branches.
GO AND READ YOUR CONSTITUTION, FELLOW AMERICANS!!!
The uninformed electorate will be America's downfall. Or at least, it will contribute to it. If we continue down a path of socializing our economy, even while the great socialist experiments of the 20th century turn to capitalism, albeit slowly - what does that say about us?
Socialism doesn't work. When you start taking wealth from the "wealthy" and give it to the "needy", it imposes several negative pressures on the economy.
1) The upper income level peeps have less money to invest, whether in new businesses, expanding a business, investing in stocks, or bonds (which help fund our deficit spending, ha ha). So that has a negative impact on increasing opportunities for workers - fewer new businesses or less expansion of existing businessess = less jobs. Bad.
2) The recipients of the income redistribution then have an incentive not to get a job. Not to better themselves, not to become a contributing sector of our society. Bad.
3) Not only that, but welfare (sorry, I mean "spreading the wealth") means a sizeable sector of our labor market is de facto-ly (is that a word?? It is now) taken out of comission. Instead of contributing to society (by working), they are a drain on the economy.
4) The wealth taken from the upper class is given to the lower class. They, in turn, spend it on goods and services. So in that vein, yes, there are some positive aspects to wealth transfer. BUT: the negatives outweigh the positives. Money circulates in our economy. As the upper class spends their wealth by investing in businesses (like starting a new one or expanding an old one), the money they spend falls into the hands of various entities: labor (meaning employees), suppliers (for the business), and others. This money then, in turn, flows from the labor market back to other businesses, as employees buy things for consumption. Also, the suppliers for businesses also get money, which they in turn keep circulating by paying salaries, purchasing raw materials which they turn into supplies for other businesses, etc. When money circulates from entity to entity (and I'm simplifying things here quite a bit, but you get the idea) to entity, it has a multiplier effect - think of the money as energy in a system. The energy is passed around, and as it flows, it lets entities do things to enable them to make their own energy, which is passed on to other entities, and so forth. Money multiplies in our economy, in other words.
When you disrupt that flow by artificially diverting some of that energy from upper income people to lower incomes, you do two things. First, there is less investment in businesses. That means fewer jobs are created (one of the things that flowing "energy" helps to create). Fewer jobs means less energy in the labor sector, which means consumption in that group falls, which hurts businesses that sell to that group. As those businesses decline, they either reduce wages (aka the "cost" of labor) or reduce jobs - either way, that's not good. Although injecting wealth into the lower class does mean they will consume more goods and services, the multiplier effect is severly reduced as the upper class has less money to inject into the production side of the economy. That's bad.
I would write some more, but my eyes are tired and i want to think about something not involving politics for a few hours.
I didn't proofread this or even spellcheck it, so any goofs are my own.
SHOW ME WHERE THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONALLY-MANDATED RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
YOU CAN'T!!!!! IT IS NOT A POWER GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - EITHER EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, OR JUDICIAL. AND WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT POWERS THAT AREN'T GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
(waiting patiently while the nerds among you google the constitution)
As I see it, all other powers not given to the Fed are reserved for the states. That means that a strict interpretation of the US Constitution says that STATES get to decide about abortion. The Founders meant for the States to be individual laboratories of democracy. The ones that do something that works really well, well, they can be copied by other states if they choose to do so.
The Constitution isn't hard to read. It isn't legalese like we have today. It's straightforward, and simple to figure out. It seems like most Americans don't even know what this most AWESOME, INCREDIBLE document really says. People died so we would have it. I think that if more peeps sat down and just read our Constitution, there would be a great outcry against the tyranny of socialist liberal thought. Against interpretationist judges who "legislate from the bench". When a judge "interprets" what the Constitution says and changes what it means, that judge is circumventing the checks and balances imposed on the judiciary branch. Well, you'd have to read the Constitution to know how the judicial branch works, and how it is kept in check by the other branches.
GO AND READ YOUR CONSTITUTION, FELLOW AMERICANS!!!
The uninformed electorate will be America's downfall. Or at least, it will contribute to it. If we continue down a path of socializing our economy, even while the great socialist experiments of the 20th century turn to capitalism, albeit slowly - what does that say about us?
Socialism doesn't work. When you start taking wealth from the "wealthy" and give it to the "needy", it imposes several negative pressures on the economy.
1) The upper income level peeps have less money to invest, whether in new businesses, expanding a business, investing in stocks, or bonds (which help fund our deficit spending, ha ha). So that has a negative impact on increasing opportunities for workers - fewer new businesses or less expansion of existing businessess = less jobs. Bad.
2) The recipients of the income redistribution then have an incentive not to get a job. Not to better themselves, not to become a contributing sector of our society. Bad.
3) Not only that, but welfare (sorry, I mean "spreading the wealth") means a sizeable sector of our labor market is de facto-ly (is that a word?? It is now) taken out of comission. Instead of contributing to society (by working), they are a drain on the economy.
4) The wealth taken from the upper class is given to the lower class. They, in turn, spend it on goods and services. So in that vein, yes, there are some positive aspects to wealth transfer. BUT: the negatives outweigh the positives. Money circulates in our economy. As the upper class spends their wealth by investing in businesses (like starting a new one or expanding an old one), the money they spend falls into the hands of various entities: labor (meaning employees), suppliers (for the business), and others. This money then, in turn, flows from the labor market back to other businesses, as employees buy things for consumption. Also, the suppliers for businesses also get money, which they in turn keep circulating by paying salaries, purchasing raw materials which they turn into supplies for other businesses, etc. When money circulates from entity to entity (and I'm simplifying things here quite a bit, but you get the idea) to entity, it has a multiplier effect - think of the money as energy in a system. The energy is passed around, and as it flows, it lets entities do things to enable them to make their own energy, which is passed on to other entities, and so forth. Money multiplies in our economy, in other words.
When you disrupt that flow by artificially diverting some of that energy from upper income people to lower incomes, you do two things. First, there is less investment in businesses. That means fewer jobs are created (one of the things that flowing "energy" helps to create). Fewer jobs means less energy in the labor sector, which means consumption in that group falls, which hurts businesses that sell to that group. As those businesses decline, they either reduce wages (aka the "cost" of labor) or reduce jobs - either way, that's not good. Although injecting wealth into the lower class does mean they will consume more goods and services, the multiplier effect is severly reduced as the upper class has less money to inject into the production side of the economy. That's bad.
I would write some more, but my eyes are tired and i want to think about something not involving politics for a few hours.
I didn't proofread this or even spellcheck it, so any goofs are my own.
The Debate
8:08 McCain seems tired or a little off his game. Not a good presentation
8:10 Obama brought up Joe The Plumber: Gives McCain a major opening to explain how "spreading the wealth" means SOCIALISM - economically, socialism just doesn't work!!
8:12 C'mon John - fight back!! Nail Obama's butt on the tax issue. Never raise taxes on the cusp of a recession - and God forbid you raise capital gains taxes in a slumping economy!! Does anyone remember President Hoover (well, neither do I, but I read about him) implemented a very Obama-like tax plan during what SHOULD have been a recession in the American (and then global) economy. Instead, the dunderhead (along with some other dunderhead moves by other peeps) raised taxes on the people WHO MAKE NEW JOBS!!! It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to get this. The upper level income peeps are the ones who create opportunities: new businesses, meaning new jobs, meaning opportunity for more people. Geez, wonky lib economy types are so infuriating sometimes! Dang, they've moved to another question.
8:18 YAY John!!! Nail Obama on the earmark issue. Fight him!
8:20 Uhhh, Obama seems to think he's runngn against George Bush.
8:20 WOO HOO JOHN!!!! You ain't Bush!!!! Keep on this, McCain. You're doing well on this topic. Keep Obama on the defensive.
8:23 Obama is a little flustered when he's on the defensive. He loses some of his "Messiah" sheen.
8:25 Will Obama repudiate Lewis' remarks at the behest of McCain or not?
LIE - 100% of McCain's ads are negative???? LIAR. Filthy stinking liberal liar - and the media just lets it float by. ARGHH!!
8:30 McCain is calling Obama on some of his lies. Good. Don't seem to whiny, John - it's not your style. Attack - be the warrior, not the whiner.
8:31 And McCain noticed that Obama did not repudiate Lewis. Hmmm
8:32 Obama is weaseling out of it. Dang.
8:34 Uh uh uh ya if uh uh umm uh ...Obama is losing track. McCain has flustered him with the thing about the T-shirts that said "Palin Is A C***" at Obama's rallies. And Obama turns it back to the economy - and McCain returns to the character issue. Way to keep your memes out there, McCain!!
8:36 Ayers, finally!! Okay, Obama says Ayers blew up things when Obama was 8. What the (insert bad word here) does that have to do with Obama associating with Ayers or not? Did Obama associate with Ayers when he was 8? Of course not!!! Hitler did some bad things when I was not even born. So if I associate with Hitler now (admittedly hard, since Hitler is dead....or is he?), it's okay because Hitler did all these things when I wasn't even born. How disingenuous, Obama. Intellectually dishonest. You are known by the company you keep. It DOES reflect your judgement, your thoughts, your beliefs.
Okay, can't keep up with the debate, with blogging, and with tweeting. Signing off for now.
And watch the videos on the three previous posts. Worth it
8:10 Obama brought up Joe The Plumber: Gives McCain a major opening to explain how "spreading the wealth" means SOCIALISM - economically, socialism just doesn't work!!
8:12 C'mon John - fight back!! Nail Obama's butt on the tax issue. Never raise taxes on the cusp of a recession - and God forbid you raise capital gains taxes in a slumping economy!! Does anyone remember President Hoover (well, neither do I, but I read about him) implemented a very Obama-like tax plan during what SHOULD have been a recession in the American (and then global) economy. Instead, the dunderhead (along with some other dunderhead moves by other peeps) raised taxes on the people WHO MAKE NEW JOBS!!! It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to get this. The upper level income peeps are the ones who create opportunities: new businesses, meaning new jobs, meaning opportunity for more people. Geez, wonky lib economy types are so infuriating sometimes! Dang, they've moved to another question.
8:18 YAY John!!! Nail Obama on the earmark issue. Fight him!
8:20 Uhhh, Obama seems to think he's runngn against George Bush.
8:20 WOO HOO JOHN!!!! You ain't Bush!!!! Keep on this, McCain. You're doing well on this topic. Keep Obama on the defensive.
8:23 Obama is a little flustered when he's on the defensive. He loses some of his "Messiah" sheen.
8:25 Will Obama repudiate Lewis' remarks at the behest of McCain or not?
LIE - 100% of McCain's ads are negative???? LIAR. Filthy stinking liberal liar - and the media just lets it float by. ARGHH!!
8:30 McCain is calling Obama on some of his lies. Good. Don't seem to whiny, John - it's not your style. Attack - be the warrior, not the whiner.
8:31 And McCain noticed that Obama did not repudiate Lewis. Hmmm
8:32 Obama is weaseling out of it. Dang.
8:34 Uh uh uh ya if uh uh umm uh ...Obama is losing track. McCain has flustered him with the thing about the T-shirts that said "Palin Is A C***" at Obama's rallies. And Obama turns it back to the economy - and McCain returns to the character issue. Way to keep your memes out there, McCain!!
8:36 Ayers, finally!! Okay, Obama says Ayers blew up things when Obama was 8. What the (insert bad word here) does that have to do with Obama associating with Ayers or not? Did Obama associate with Ayers when he was 8? Of course not!!! Hitler did some bad things when I was not even born. So if I associate with Hitler now (admittedly hard, since Hitler is dead....or is he?), it's okay because Hitler did all these things when I wasn't even born. How disingenuous, Obama. Intellectually dishonest. You are known by the company you keep. It DOES reflect your judgement, your thoughts, your beliefs.
Okay, can't keep up with the debate, with blogging, and with tweeting. Signing off for now.
And watch the videos on the three previous posts. Worth it
Awesome
Awesome. Truly awesome. Check this vid out:
(and make sure to watch the whole thing - no clicking forward through it)
This guy is SPOT ON all the way. I wish he was for pres.
(and make sure to watch the whole thing - no clicking forward through it)
This guy is SPOT ON all the way. I wish he was for pres.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Go Hank!!
You gotta love Hank Williams - I'm not exactly a country fan other than Johnny Cash, but I like this one.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Spider???
Hmmm. Found this on the web (no pun intended)
You Were a Spider |
 You tend to be the master weaver of fate - both for yourself and those you know. A creative force, you tend to work from divine inspiration. |
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Double Agent
Hah, my evil plan is being fulfilled. Everything is proceeding as I have forseen!
A few weeks back, I went online to that Moveon website (I won't even dignify them with a link - take that, you fascist liberals!!) to order my own free Obama button. Why would I do this, you ask?
Two reasons: First, the button itself commemorates a historical event in our nation's history (thus the term 'historical'). For the first time, a black man is running for president. (Confers with Jesse Jackson for a bit). I'm sorry, this is the first time a black man won the Democrat primary and became the official Dem nominee. Don't forget Alan Keyes (a black Republican - that sends shivers down Al Sharpton's spine every time he thinks about Keyes, I bet). But Obama is the first viable black Pres. candidate. So if nothing else, the button has historical value, and perhaps someday, it will be a collectible worth millions! (Sorry, my capitalism is showing)
2nd reason: The buttons are free, so that means Moveon had to pony up the money. I'm sure someone donated money to cover the button thing, but by getting a button for myself, I am causing Moveon to have slightly less money than they would otherwise have - money which could have gone for other things. But not now!! Hah hah hah - they think I am a loyal Dem stooge who can't think for myself and has to get my worldview and marching orders from the "mainstream" media. But in reality I am a conservative plant in the MoveOn plan to elect Obama.
Fellows conservatives and libertarians: I call on you all to get your free button today!! Let's send a million requests to Moveon.org (yeah, I guess I needed to put the link somewhere in this post) for free buttons and make them run out! That's your mission. Now go do it!
A few weeks back, I went online to that Moveon website (I won't even dignify them with a link - take that, you fascist liberals!!) to order my own free Obama button. Why would I do this, you ask?
Two reasons: First, the button itself commemorates a historical event in our nation's history (thus the term 'historical'). For the first time, a black man is running for president. (Confers with Jesse Jackson for a bit). I'm sorry, this is the first time a black man won the Democrat primary and became the official Dem nominee. Don't forget Alan Keyes (a black Republican - that sends shivers down Al Sharpton's spine every time he thinks about Keyes, I bet). But Obama is the first viable black Pres. candidate. So if nothing else, the button has historical value, and perhaps someday, it will be a collectible worth millions! (Sorry, my capitalism is showing)
2nd reason: The buttons are free, so that means Moveon had to pony up the money. I'm sure someone donated money to cover the button thing, but by getting a button for myself, I am causing Moveon to have slightly less money than they would otherwise have - money which could have gone for other things. But not now!! Hah hah hah - they think I am a loyal Dem stooge who can't think for myself and has to get my worldview and marching orders from the "mainstream" media. But in reality I am a conservative plant in the MoveOn plan to elect Obama.
Fellows conservatives and libertarians: I call on you all to get your free button today!! Let's send a million requests to Moveon.org (yeah, I guess I needed to put the link somewhere in this post) for free buttons and make them run out! That's your mission. Now go do it!
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Hachikō
I was all ready to start working on a politically themed post tonight - and while searching Youtube for politically charged video to embed, I came across a clip I decided to embed at the end of this post. Before you watch it, however, just take a moment to read this:
(from the How Stuff Works website)
Here's the video - the author took clips from the movie Hachiko Monogatari (Japan, 1987) and added a song.
I'm not in a political mood anymore tonight. I'll work on it this weekend. I kinda got into it with Robert at the last Tuesday Bible study. It's just that I was hearing the tired old leftist dogma from him, the worldview that the liberally-dominated news media wants everyone to believe in, that corporations are evil, government is our only savior (or is that Savior?), all suffering in the world is that fault of the greedy, heartless corporations and banker types, and the Democrats are the only real hope we have. Robert was explaining to the group how the mortgage crisis is PRIMARILY the fault of the evil banks who mislead the people getting the loans - the greed of the banks led them to make these loans they knew wouldn't be repaid.
I'm sorry, but that is a true WTF moment. (Trying to keep it PG, or maybe even G if I try really hard, but I can get passionate about these things sometimes, especially when I see people espousing ideas that are just plain, flat out WRONG!!!) Okay, let's play What If: what if I'm a bank? I make loans and people pay them back, with interest. That's how I make money. If I make loans that aren't going to be repaid, I lose money. So why would I want to make loans to people I knew couldn't afford them??
Contrary to Robert's position, the preponderance of evidence shows that, beginning with Carter, and especially with the Clinton administration, government began putting pressure on banks to make loans to disadvantaged people, so more Americans would be able to afford a house. A noble goal. Absolutley, no question about that. The means taken to achieve this goal...that's another story. Attorney General Janet Reno (in the Clinton administration) actually threatened banks with legal action if they did not make a certain percentage of their home loans to people who couldn't really afford to buy a house. I'm too damn tired to search the internet for citations tonight - we'll try again this weekend.
The other point is that despite how the current Congressional leadership (and I use the term lightly) is trying to point the finger of blame on (can you guess??) President Bush, it was Bush who attempted 12 times in his two terms as president to get Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac regulated - and each time, the Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Dodd and especially Barney Frank - dare I mention Obama) shot the attempts down. Go to Youtube and search for Barney Frank and Fannie Mae Hearings. You'll find several clips of Frank saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with those two institutions - on several different occasions. He flat out lied - and that is something only the Evil Conservatives do, right?
Bollux! The government is directly responsible for the mortgage crisis we're in. Robert made the case that is was the greedy banks who were at fault. Has greed been a problem in our country? Damn straight. Are some corporations out for the Almighty Dollar and don't care a rat's behind how they get it? Sure there are! My problem with Robert's view is that they tend to think capitalism (which is based on the desire for profit, if you simplify it way way down) is evil - even if they don't come out and say it, that idea is at the foundation for much of modern liberal thought. And alot of Americans accept it simply because the news media have shifted to the left -I'm not talking about opinion, like talk radio or various pundits who have TV shows that are obviously opinionated. I am referring to news reporters - people who tout themselves as journalists, reporting the news objectively. Watch MSNBC sometime and tell me if they have an objective point of view. CNN? Oh please. They've made great strides recently, such as giving Lou Dobbs a show. But his show isn't touted as objective reporting - he's editorializing. Americans who tune in to the nightly news, however, watch it expecting to receive information without bias. With the news media acting the way it has during this campaign, I think Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave.
Anyway, alot of Americans accept the worldview given to them but the so-called objective news media. When you try to counter that way of thinking, sometimes they get very defensive. I knew Robert had reached that point Tuesday night when, in response to some point I had made about the true cause of the mortgage crisis, he exclaimed, "Bulls**t!" I knew I'd hit a nerve then, ha ha. Robert is one of the nicest, gentle spirits I know. But I was questioning his worldview on this issue, and he responded with an exclamation of disbelief (putting it mildly).
Later on, we reaffirmed that it's okay to disagree (even though I was right, ha ha). Things calmed down afer that. In fact, Robert and I do agree on several points, just not the cause of the financial meltdown we're experiencing.
My point is that people need to wake up and do some fact-finding of their own, not simply accepting what the media chooses to say.
Dang, I said I wasn't going to go political tonight. So much for empty promises. Perhaps I should become a politician? ha ha
(from the How Stuff Works website)
Hachiko and Eisaburo
The yellow-coated Akita named Hachiko was born in November 1923 in the province that is the namesake of his breed. A few months after his birth, little "Hachi" (as he came to be called) was brought to the home of Professor Eisaburo Uyeno (or Ueno) in Tokyo. The two became fast friends. Each morning, Hachiko accompanied his master to the Shibuya train station. Uyeno taught at the Imperial University, and Hachiko made it his habit to see his master off. Each evening, Hachiko returned to the train station, and when Uyeno got off the train, he found his dog awaiting his arrival, tail wagging happily at the sight of his owner and friend.
The pair continued their daily routine until May 1925, when Uyeno didn't return on the usual train one evening. The professor had suffered a stroke at the university that day. He died and never returned to the train station where his friend was waiting.
Hachiko was given away after his master's death, but he routinely escaped, showing up again and again at his old home. After time, Hachi apparently realized that Professor Uyeno no longer lived at the house. So he went to look for his master at the train station where he had accompanied him so many times before. Each day, Hachiko waited for Uyeno to return. And each day he didn't see his friend among the commuters at the station.
The permanent fixture at the train station that was Hachiko attracted the attention of other commuters. Many of the people who frequented the Shibuya train station had seen Hachi and Professor Uyeno together each day. Realizing that Hachiko waited in vigil for his dead master, their hearts were touched. They brought Hachiko treats and food to nourish him during his wait.
News of Hachiko's remarkable loyalty eventually made its way outside of Tokyo, and he became something of an iconic figure in Japan. A statue of Hachiko forged by sculptor Ando Teru was erected at the train station in 1934, where Hachiko had been awaiting his master's return each day for nearly 10 years. During that time, he had come down with mange, fended off numerous street mongrels and contracted heartworms. Despite all of the hardships he encountered, he continued to wait.
On March 8, 1935, Hachiko laid down to die in the spot where he had spent a decade waiting each day for Uyeno to come home [source: The Tribune]. His bones were buried next to his master's grave.
Hachiko's death was mourned by his nation. As Japan entered World War II, and all metals became precious, however, sentimentality gave way to practicality. The statue of Hachiko was removed from its pedestal and melted for use as arms in April 1944.
After the war, a group of Tokyo residents commissioned Ando Takeshi, the son of the original statue's sculptor, to create a replacement. It was erected in 1948, and it sits at the train station today.
Travel writer Cheri Sicard wrote of a man she encountered at this statue at Shibuya station. "During my last visit with 'Hachi,' I encountered an old man who had also come to pay his respects. He told me in broken English, 'I knew him. I used to bring him treats' … With that he approached the statue, gave it a friendly pat, wiped a tear from his eye and slowly walked away" [source: Sicard].
Here's the video - the author took clips from the movie Hachiko Monogatari (Japan, 1987) and added a song.
I'm not in a political mood anymore tonight. I'll work on it this weekend. I kinda got into it with Robert at the last Tuesday Bible study. It's just that I was hearing the tired old leftist dogma from him, the worldview that the liberally-dominated news media wants everyone to believe in, that corporations are evil, government is our only savior (or is that Savior?), all suffering in the world is that fault of the greedy, heartless corporations and banker types, and the Democrats are the only real hope we have. Robert was explaining to the group how the mortgage crisis is PRIMARILY the fault of the evil banks who mislead the people getting the loans - the greed of the banks led them to make these loans they knew wouldn't be repaid.
I'm sorry, but that is a true WTF moment. (Trying to keep it PG, or maybe even G if I try really hard, but I can get passionate about these things sometimes, especially when I see people espousing ideas that are just plain, flat out WRONG!!!) Okay, let's play What If: what if I'm a bank? I make loans and people pay them back, with interest. That's how I make money. If I make loans that aren't going to be repaid, I lose money. So why would I want to make loans to people I knew couldn't afford them??
Contrary to Robert's position, the preponderance of evidence shows that, beginning with Carter, and especially with the Clinton administration, government began putting pressure on banks to make loans to disadvantaged people, so more Americans would be able to afford a house. A noble goal. Absolutley, no question about that. The means taken to achieve this goal...that's another story. Attorney General Janet Reno (in the Clinton administration) actually threatened banks with legal action if they did not make a certain percentage of their home loans to people who couldn't really afford to buy a house. I'm too damn tired to search the internet for citations tonight - we'll try again this weekend.
The other point is that despite how the current Congressional leadership (and I use the term lightly) is trying to point the finger of blame on (can you guess??) President Bush, it was Bush who attempted 12 times in his two terms as president to get Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac regulated - and each time, the Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Dodd and especially Barney Frank - dare I mention Obama) shot the attempts down. Go to Youtube and search for Barney Frank and Fannie Mae Hearings. You'll find several clips of Frank saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with those two institutions - on several different occasions. He flat out lied - and that is something only the Evil Conservatives do, right?
Bollux! The government is directly responsible for the mortgage crisis we're in. Robert made the case that is was the greedy banks who were at fault. Has greed been a problem in our country? Damn straight. Are some corporations out for the Almighty Dollar and don't care a rat's behind how they get it? Sure there are! My problem with Robert's view is that they tend to think capitalism (which is based on the desire for profit, if you simplify it way way down) is evil - even if they don't come out and say it, that idea is at the foundation for much of modern liberal thought. And alot of Americans accept it simply because the news media have shifted to the left -I'm not talking about opinion, like talk radio or various pundits who have TV shows that are obviously opinionated. I am referring to news reporters - people who tout themselves as journalists, reporting the news objectively. Watch MSNBC sometime and tell me if they have an objective point of view. CNN? Oh please. They've made great strides recently, such as giving Lou Dobbs a show. But his show isn't touted as objective reporting - he's editorializing. Americans who tune in to the nightly news, however, watch it expecting to receive information without bias. With the news media acting the way it has during this campaign, I think Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave.
Anyway, alot of Americans accept the worldview given to them but the so-called objective news media. When you try to counter that way of thinking, sometimes they get very defensive. I knew Robert had reached that point Tuesday night when, in response to some point I had made about the true cause of the mortgage crisis, he exclaimed, "Bulls**t!" I knew I'd hit a nerve then, ha ha. Robert is one of the nicest, gentle spirits I know. But I was questioning his worldview on this issue, and he responded with an exclamation of disbelief (putting it mildly).
Later on, we reaffirmed that it's okay to disagree (even though I was right, ha ha). Things calmed down afer that. In fact, Robert and I do agree on several points, just not the cause of the financial meltdown we're experiencing.
My point is that people need to wake up and do some fact-finding of their own, not simply accepting what the media chooses to say.
Dang, I said I wasn't going to go political tonight. So much for empty promises. Perhaps I should become a politician? ha ha
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Revelation!!!
Sorry - if you're looking for a commentary on Revelations, you've come to the wrong place. Not to say I wouldn't post a commentary on Revelations, but this post ain't it.
Rather, I was sitting here watching "The O'Reilley Factor" on FOX News. That's kinda strange, since I really don't care for Bill O'Reilley (oh, really?) - I tend to agree with his positions on issues, but he comes across as kinda...overbearing? Is that the word I'm looking for?
Anyhoo, so Dennis Miller is being interviewed by Bill. And I have to admit that in my mind, I was applying the stereotype of the vapid, wise-cracking Hollywood liberal to Miller at first. And then Miller blew me away: something about President Bush came up in the conversation, and Miller made the comment that (paraphrasing) he knows that most people think Bush is a screwup, but Miller admitted his support for Bush, especially because in the intervening 2500+ days since the September 11 attacks, we haven't had another terrorist attack on America. And he's got a point.
My point here is that while most of the Hollywood elitist sect looks down on Bush, on Republicans, on conservatives, on conservatism itself - not all of them do!
So before I climb all the way up on my soapbox, let me toss a funny vid your way. It lampoons Sarah Palin, but I admit, it made me laugh.
Rather, I was sitting here watching "The O'Reilley Factor" on FOX News. That's kinda strange, since I really don't care for Bill O'Reilley (oh, really?) - I tend to agree with his positions on issues, but he comes across as kinda...overbearing? Is that the word I'm looking for?
Anyhoo, so Dennis Miller is being interviewed by Bill. And I have to admit that in my mind, I was applying the stereotype of the vapid, wise-cracking Hollywood liberal to Miller at first. And then Miller blew me away: something about President Bush came up in the conversation, and Miller made the comment that (paraphrasing) he knows that most people think Bush is a screwup, but Miller admitted his support for Bush, especially because in the intervening 2500+ days since the September 11 attacks, we haven't had another terrorist attack on America. And he's got a point.
My point here is that while most of the Hollywood elitist sect looks down on Bush, on Republicans, on conservatives, on conservatism itself - not all of them do!
So before I climb all the way up on my soapbox, let me toss a funny vid your way. It lampoons Sarah Palin, but I admit, it made me laugh.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Seven On Tuesday
What, it's already Tuesday again??? Here we go!
1) Is it wrong to secretly hope that maybe we'll watch the debate tonight at Bible study instead of Bible study? Ouch, I think that was God thumping me on the ear.
2)The wind has shifted a bit - kinda cool now, I think.
3) Thinking of ten things is hard.
4)Tina isn't much help at this either.
5)Looking for the monster - it just got very quiet here, and you know that's when the monster pops out in the horror movies.
6)Speaking of horror movies, I hope tonight's debate doesn't turn into a horror movie.
7) Sorry, that's all you get. I can't think of anything else to say.
1) Is it wrong to secretly hope that maybe we'll watch the debate tonight at Bible study instead of Bible study? Ouch, I think that was God thumping me on the ear.
2)The wind has shifted a bit - kinda cool now, I think.
3) Thinking of ten things is hard.
4)Tina isn't much help at this either.
5)Looking for the monster - it just got very quiet here, and you know that's when the monster pops out in the horror movies.
6)Speaking of horror movies, I hope tonight's debate doesn't turn into a horror movie.
7) Sorry, that's all you get. I can't think of anything else to say.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Tired
Okay, it is far too hard to keep up with these guys - I keep missing stuff. So the liveblogging is over. I'll try to post my debate analysis soon.
BIDEN IS A TOTAL LIAR - concerning him saying Obama said in 2006 that there was a looming crisis in the sub-prime market. The Dems were all about "Nothing is wrong with Fannie an Freddie". They voted down several attempts by the Bush administration to fix it.
Biden - do some research before you open your gaffe-filled mouth.
Biden - do some research before you open your gaffe-filled mouth.
Debate Time!!
Waiting for the start of the VP debate. I may liveblog it, or not, depending on how it goes.
Palin 2012!!!
Palin 2012!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
