Want to really make a impact on the future? I've put some thought into all the things we're doing to turn this big American boat around and headed back in the right direction. We are doing a lot of the right things. In some cases we're feeling our way slowly, making a few rookie mistakes, but overall our tugboats are changing the course the country has drifted onto.
It took us a long time to get here and we missed a lot of the slow nudges that got us where we are today so we can't expect to fix things overnight.
I started noodling on how we could keep the country on course long after you and I have passed on. What could we do to have a long-term, ongoing impact?
Here's a few things I came up with.
Raise our children to take over the media. We need news reporters, commentators, media outlet owners, producers, and worker bees.
Raise our children to be movie 'stars', producers, directors, buy up or start companies and be the most needed behind-the-scene workers.
Raise our children to be teachers, college professors, instructors and to be involved if they can't go into the field. We need more conservatives in the PTO / PTA's. Let 'em join the Unions, work their way up the ranks then turn them into feed and cloth the hungry organizations or some sort of organization that could have a positive impact on something other than wallets.
We already have plenty of kids who are headed into politics I'd imagine. Every child is taught that they could be the next President!
What we need is to take a page out of the lib playbook. They've infiltrated or flooded the outlets that capture our children's minds and every day they twist and shape the future.
I know we can't really train or force our children in the directions I mentioned above. We're not raising robots or mindless individuals who go where we point. In fact, if we steer them in one direction chances are they'll rebel and end up as 3-piece suit wearing bankers or corporation owners! Which is not a bad thing by any means.
However, we can talk to them while we're watching television and plant the seeds that it would be great to have more balanced reporters, movie stars who had strong values, teachers who understood the Constitution. We could talk about how great it would be to be a Robert Murdock who puts value on fair and balanced reporting. We could point out the conservative movie stars who were able to 'make it' like Kelsey Grammar or Jon Voight (although we do need to find some younger examples for upcoming kids I'd think!).
I wonder if our college conservatives are considering anything other than the normal career paths? I can't imagine how tough it would be as a college age kid to try and go into the Arts!
Anyone else have ideas for shaping our future?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
As Races End, Tea Party Plans for Next Phase
Tea-party leaders, cheering as some of their movement's most prominent figures won U.S. Senate seats in Kentucky and Florida, said Tuesday's elections were only the beginning of their quest to transform government.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591081953307288.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTopStories
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703778304575591081953307288.html?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet&mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTopStories
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Republicans, Tea Party, Americans for Prosperity, Pajamas Media...
Yowzer, this "alert" paints us all as bad, bad, people... Ya'll need to quit complaining about voter fraud, it's upsetting the left ... Hey, according to these guys, it never happens, we're making it up...
You do know this kind of stuff is used to stir up their base, right? We knew it was going to be a tough election, can't begin to imagine what's going to happen between now and 2012 election...
From Minority News (Black Radio Network):
POLITICAL TURMOIL
Editors Note: The following was released today by Estelle Rogers, Director of Advocacy, of Project Vote a national nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) that works to empower, educate, and mobilize low-income, minority, youth, and other marginalized and under-represented voters.
WASHINGTON - As the hotly contested November election nears, it should be no surprise that voter intimidation and suppression schemes are ramping up too. Even beyond the usual partisan pre-election hysteria, this year the Tea Party has made "voter fraud" a rallying cry. Never mind that it's been proven time and again that voter fraud is largely a myth; it excites the right-wing base...
http://www.blackradionetwork.com/page.php?storyID=17939
You do know this kind of stuff is used to stir up their base, right? We knew it was going to be a tough election, can't begin to imagine what's going to happen between now and 2012 election...
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Fired for wearing a USS George H W Bush shirt and hat
There's a much better story / video on World Net Daily, but for some reason the code isn't working on here, just keeps vanishing. So, here's a link: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=220049
I heard about this yesterday, or maybe the day before and didn't follow up to look at the details. Unfortunately, I am so used to this kind of story I just glanced and kept on going. But you know, if we don't pay attention to every story, if we don't speak up, if we don't keep fussing or commenting when things like this occur, then sooner or later it will become commonplace and people will just accept the new norm... so, I'm sharing and fussing.
Back in the 60's and 70's it was supposedly all about 'free speech', the rights of the individual... ah, how times haven't changed. Now they're mouthing the same words and thoughts, but the reality is glaring and many of those who might have been participated in the sham back then have wised up. It was and is really all about conformity, shutting down speech and expressions that don't promote a certain point of view. The intolerance of the unions, the left, the "I know better than you" crowd is, well, um, intolerable. I am fine if others want to speak their mind, but when they step over the line to stop me from speaking mine simply because they disagree, then they're nothing but dictators.
Think back to the 60's and 70's if you're old enough or have done some studying of that period of time. Everyone had to hate the war, wear the same type clothes, like the same kind of music, hate those money-grubbing capitalist pigs, hate the chemicals and pesticides, and so on. False words back then that captured the minds of the young, false words now that are doing the same thing... except those 60's and 70's "rebels" are now in positions of power and they're corrupting the minds of the young. Difference being they're now the rich fat-cats in many cases.
I'm so glad that we have a venue to speak our minds... and that many of us don't expect everyone to conform... that we truly believe in individual responsibility... that we've wised up...
Friday, October 22, 2010
Two stories to ponder...
Union Leads in Outside Spending
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is "now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections" and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates. Said the head of AFSCME's political operations: "We're the big dog. But we don't like to brag."
AND
Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that "hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority." Said Biden: "We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we'll keep control of the House. The only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has]."
---
Money. ONE group is funneling $87 plus million to Democrats while Biden blathers about anonymous donations backing Republicans. One is a fact, the other is more Biden smoke. I thought it was interesting to see both stories, somewhat counter to each other, in the same email update (Teagan Goddard's Political Wire).
The Dems are laying the groundwork for the thrashing they're going to try and give the Republicans if they wrest control of House and / or Senate from Dems. I'm sure Democratic operatives already have strategies in place across the country for the way they're going to attack Republicans, blame them, attempt to twist things to bamboozle the American public over the next two years.
Think about how the try to blame the MINORITY Republicans for every lost vote, how they cast them as the party of no, the ones who have stopped Obama's agenda. Barf. Ooops, I guess that wasn't exactly an elegant response.
They conveniently forget that they held Congress for the last two years of Bush's term and stopped the reforms of Freddie Mac / Fannie May that Bush wanted... and blame Bush for all the problems we're experiencing.
I can see the slime oozing as they speak sometimes.
If we thought the last two years were bad, wait until we have the ability to really do something. The plans are being laid and the media is being primed. We need to be prepared, too.
The Wall Street Journal reports that while most attention has been given to the large spending initiatives by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other pro-Republican groups, the public-sector union American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, is "now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections" and is spending $87.5 million to boost Democratic candidates. Said the head of AFSCME's political operations: "We're the big dog. But we don't like to brag."
AND
Biden Says Outside Funding Jeopardizes House Control
Vice President Biden told Bloomberg TV that Democrats will retain control of the U.S. Senate but he worries that "hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymous donations to campaign groups backing Republicans could cost his party its House majority." Said Biden: "We will keep control of the Senate for certain, and I believe we'll keep control of the House. The only caveat I'd put in terms of the House is how much impact [the outside funding has]."
---
Money. ONE group is funneling $87 plus million to Democrats while Biden blathers about anonymous donations backing Republicans. One is a fact, the other is more Biden smoke. I thought it was interesting to see both stories, somewhat counter to each other, in the same email update (Teagan Goddard's Political Wire).
The Dems are laying the groundwork for the thrashing they're going to try and give the Republicans if they wrest control of House and / or Senate from Dems. I'm sure Democratic operatives already have strategies in place across the country for the way they're going to attack Republicans, blame them, attempt to twist things to bamboozle the American public over the next two years.
Think about how the try to blame the MINORITY Republicans for every lost vote, how they cast them as the party of no, the ones who have stopped Obama's agenda. Barf. Ooops, I guess that wasn't exactly an elegant response.
They conveniently forget that they held Congress for the last two years of Bush's term and stopped the reforms of Freddie Mac / Fannie May that Bush wanted... and blame Bush for all the problems we're experiencing.
I can see the slime oozing as they speak sometimes.
If we thought the last two years were bad, wait until we have the ability to really do something. The plans are being laid and the media is being primed. We need to be prepared, too.
Mara Liasson may have safest job in the country...
NPR has placed themselves in an untenable situation.
After the debacle of Juan Williams absurd firing, any of their analysts or reporters who want to make money as contributors on Fox News should now have carte blanche. NPR can't fire Mara Liasson. If they do, they prove what everyone knows, not just the conservatives --- it's a lib media outlet.
Of course, they should also have to fire Mara Liasson based on their rationale for firing Juan. She expresses her opinions sitting right next to Juan every Sunday and at other times, too.
NPR would also have to fire Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and well, Vivian Schilling, NPR's CEO.
One of the reasons given for firing Williams in an internal NPR email by Schilling was "analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts."
Right after issuing that she spoke publicly about the situation making references to Williams psychiatrist, inferring he was seeing one regarding his views. Views I might add that are shared by most libs and conservatives and even many Muslim Americans. Schilling rambled on, giving her opinions about the situation and, in my opinion, she opened NPR up to a slam-dunk lawsuit from Williams. Slam-dunk as long as the case doesn't end up in front of a lib activist judge.
If NPR is serious about the reasons they gave for firing Williams, then they need to clean house. I've been listening to NPR for countless years. My drive back and forth to work used to take 45 or more minutes each way. I enjoyed NPR then and still have it on my radio dial and listen to some of the shows. I had to quit listening to some of the shows I used to enjoy simply because there was so much Bush bashing, trashing of conservatives, and now they go after the Tea Party and others.
Listen to NPR for any length of time and Schilling's assertion that views are expressed by those they interview, not their reporters and analysts is cow poop.
All day yesterday I saw examples on TV and via the Internet of their so-called balanced reporters and analysts bigoted comments in regards to conservatives. They are down-right nasty in some of the comments they've made on ABC, NBC, CNN and other outlets. Newsbusters has documented a list that is damning and they only touched on a few examples.
The hypocrisy of NPR is appalling.
The donation of over a million dollars by George Soros with all the stipulations he included is interesting, possibly sinister.
I'd like to see what would happen if George Bush, Karl Rove or some other conservative NPR and friends likes to trash made a donation with similar restrictions. What if they wanted NPR to hire 100 conservative reporters? Sponsor conservative programs? How many of you think that all of a sudden there's be a policy violation of some sort that kept them from accepting the money with strings?
NPR needs to 'fess up, get honest. Then they need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off tax-funded welfare. If they have programming that America wants to hear then they should be able to survive without living off the federal teat and begging for money.
Speaking of begging for money, this is their annual fund-raising week. I would bet that every lib out there is ponying up right now to ensure they have a big week just to make a point. I would also bet that phone lines are going to be tied up with people complaining about the firing of Juan Williams.
I need something to make me giggle... I think I'm going to call and make a nice donation to NPR this week with some strings... re-hire Juan Williams, fire Schilling.
-----
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dismisses Tea Parties as 'Cockamamie'
NPR's Nina Totenberg on Friday night was unsure as to whether the tea parties have "any legs are not" since "at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it." On Inside Washington she called the anti-tax and anti-spending rallies "a good stunt," before declaring Americans "pay relatively small taxes" and then lecturing those unappreciative protesters about how taxes provide, as if they want taxes totally eliminated, "a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." To which, Newsweek's Evan Thomas chimed in: "I'm all for paying more taxes."
Christine M. Flowers: Foul air at National Public Radio
By Christine M. Flowers
Philadelphia Daily News
AFEW months ago, Mississippi Public Radio temporarily dropped "Fresh Air," the program hosted by local legend Terry Gross. The reason given was the program's "gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature." Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/20101022_Christine_M__Flowers__Foul_air_at_National_Public_Radio.html#ixzz135NBwGBr
Terry Gross and Bill O'Reilly: Round Two
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Sept. 21, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: About a year ago, I appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, hosted by Terry Gross (search), to talk about my book, "Who's Looking Out for You," now out in paperback. The interview became very, very controversial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html
After the debacle of Juan Williams absurd firing, any of their analysts or reporters who want to make money as contributors on Fox News should now have carte blanche. NPR can't fire Mara Liasson. If they do, they prove what everyone knows, not just the conservatives --- it's a lib media outlet.
Of course, they should also have to fire Mara Liasson based on their rationale for firing Juan. She expresses her opinions sitting right next to Juan every Sunday and at other times, too.
NPR would also have to fire Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and well, Vivian Schilling, NPR's CEO.
One of the reasons given for firing Williams in an internal NPR email by Schilling was "analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts."
Right after issuing that she spoke publicly about the situation making references to Williams psychiatrist, inferring he was seeing one regarding his views. Views I might add that are shared by most libs and conservatives and even many Muslim Americans. Schilling rambled on, giving her opinions about the situation and, in my opinion, she opened NPR up to a slam-dunk lawsuit from Williams. Slam-dunk as long as the case doesn't end up in front of a lib activist judge.
If NPR is serious about the reasons they gave for firing Williams, then they need to clean house. I've been listening to NPR for countless years. My drive back and forth to work used to take 45 or more minutes each way. I enjoyed NPR then and still have it on my radio dial and listen to some of the shows. I had to quit listening to some of the shows I used to enjoy simply because there was so much Bush bashing, trashing of conservatives, and now they go after the Tea Party and others.
Listen to NPR for any length of time and Schilling's assertion that views are expressed by those they interview, not their reporters and analysts is cow poop.
All day yesterday I saw examples on TV and via the Internet of their so-called balanced reporters and analysts bigoted comments in regards to conservatives. They are down-right nasty in some of the comments they've made on ABC, NBC, CNN and other outlets. Newsbusters has documented a list that is damning and they only touched on a few examples.
The hypocrisy of NPR is appalling.
The donation of over a million dollars by George Soros with all the stipulations he included is interesting, possibly sinister.
I'd like to see what would happen if George Bush, Karl Rove or some other conservative NPR and friends likes to trash made a donation with similar restrictions. What if they wanted NPR to hire 100 conservative reporters? Sponsor conservative programs? How many of you think that all of a sudden there's be a policy violation of some sort that kept them from accepting the money with strings?
NPR needs to 'fess up, get honest. Then they need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off tax-funded welfare. If they have programming that America wants to hear then they should be able to survive without living off the federal teat and begging for money.
Speaking of begging for money, this is their annual fund-raising week. I would bet that every lib out there is ponying up right now to ensure they have a big week just to make a point. I would also bet that phone lines are going to be tied up with people complaining about the firing of Juan Williams.
I need something to make me giggle... I think I'm going to call and make a nice donation to NPR this week with some strings... re-hire Juan Williams, fire Schilling.
-----
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dismisses Tea Parties as 'Cockamamie'
NPR's Nina Totenberg on Friday night was unsure as to whether the tea parties have "any legs are not" since "at almost any given time any cockamamie proposition in America will have at least 25 percent of those polled supporting it." On Inside Washington she called the anti-tax and anti-spending rallies "a good stunt," before declaring Americans "pay relatively small taxes" and then lecturing those unappreciative protesters about how taxes provide, as if they want taxes totally eliminated, "a civilized kind of social compact where you don't have massive civil eruptions. That is what taxes are for." To which, Newsweek's Evan Thomas chimed in: "I'm all for paying more taxes."
Christine M. Flowers: Foul air at National Public Radio
By Christine M. Flowers
Philadelphia Daily News
AFEW months ago, Mississippi Public Radio temporarily dropped "Fresh Air," the program hosted by local legend Terry Gross. The reason given was the program's "gratuitous discussions on issues of an explicit sexual nature." Read more: http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/20101022_Christine_M__Flowers__Foul_air_at_National_Public_Radio.html#ixzz135NBwGBr
Terry Gross and Bill O'Reilly: Round Two
This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Sept. 21, 2004, that has been edited for clarity.
Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: About a year ago, I appeared on NPR's "Fresh Air" program, hosted by Terry Gross (search), to talk about my book, "Who's Looking Out for You," now out in paperback. The interview became very, very controversial. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133177,00.html
Monday, October 18, 2010
Friday, September 24, 2010
Love Chris Christie! Video with Meg Whitman, shutting up a heckler...
We hafta clone this guy somehow.
Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
In a fascinating interview on CNN, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) makes clear he's not a big fan of Andrew Cuomo (D).
Said Spitzer: "The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there and that is his reputation from years in Washington."
"When his father was governor, he was the tough guy. He has brass knuckles and he played hard ball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody's been willing to stand up to him. When it appeared he was going to win, it was inevitable. If it appears not to be inevitable, things may change."
"He has a lot of folks, he's really been on the wrong side of who may stand up and say, wait a minute, he may not want to pretend he plays that game. He does, and he's worse at it." Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
Said Spitzer: "The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there and that is his reputation from years in Washington."
"When his father was governor, he was the tough guy. He has brass knuckles and he played hard ball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody's been willing to stand up to him. When it appeared he was going to win, it was inevitable. If it appears not to be inevitable, things may change."
"He has a lot of folks, he's really been on the wrong side of who may stand up and say, wait a minute, he may not want to pretend he plays that game. He does, and he's worse at it." Spitzer Says Cuomo is "Dirtiest, Nastiest" Player
----
Seems to me there are a LOT of nasty, hard-hitting, rotten eggs in political office AND running for political office. It's amazing how much I've learned since starting to pay attention to those who shape our future. So glad for the Internet which gives us the ability to read all sides of issues (usually it's more than two sides, more like a circle of swirling opposing ideas!).
I know it takes someone with high regard for their own abilities to run for office. You also have to have super strong skin and the ability to think fast, talk smart. But some of these people are certifiable or psychopaths it seems. Not saying Cuomo is either, don't know much about him... Thought it was interesting that a fellow Dem, albeit one with questions attached to his reputation, would come out with the above.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Fantastic ad, please watch and share
Someone just zapped a link to this on Twitter... sorry, didn't catch who it was or I'd say thanks on here. This is a great ad, hope you'll help make it viral, spread it around.
Note: I haven't checked out Citizens for the Republic, but watched a few of their videos, saw their president talking with Cavuto on Fox News. Seems like a group I could get behind...
Note: I haven't checked out Citizens for the Republic, but watched a few of their videos, saw their president talking with Cavuto on Fox News. Seems like a group I could get behind...
Ms. Big Stuff Murkowski
Change the lyrics very slightly... and think Lisa Murkowski... or maybe even Barack Obama. Big Stuff. Who do you think you are?
Jean Knight, Mr. Big Stuff
(Oh yeah, ooh)
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now because you wear all those fancy clothes (oh yeah)
And have a big fine car, oh yes you do now
Do you think I can afford to give you my love (oh yeah)
You think you're higher than every star above
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now I know all the girls I've seen you with
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit
You made 'em cry, many poor girls cry
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
I'd rather give my love to a poor guy that has a love that's true (oh yeah)
Than to be fooled around and get hurt by you
Cause when I give my love, I want love in return (oh yeah)
Now I know this is a lesson Mr. Big Stuff you haven't learned
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna break my heart
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna make me cry
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Just who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
Jean Knight, Mr. Big Stuff
(Oh yeah, ooh)
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now because you wear all those fancy clothes (oh yeah)
And have a big fine car, oh yes you do now
Do you think I can afford to give you my love (oh yeah)
You think you're higher than every star above
Mr. Big Stuff
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Now I know all the girls I've seen you with
I know you broke their hearts one after another now, bit by bit
You made 'em cry, many poor girls cry
When they try to keep you happy, they just try to keep you satisfied
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
I'd rather give my love to a poor guy that has a love that's true (oh yeah)
Than to be fooled around and get hurt by you
Cause when I give my love, I want love in return (oh yeah)
Now I know this is a lesson Mr. Big Stuff you haven't learned
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna break my heart
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna make me cry
Mr. Big Stuff, tell me
Just who do you think you are
Mr. Big Stuff
You're never gonna get my love
Mr. Big Stuff
Morning laugh... and rant...
Murkowski Campaign Misspells its Candidate's Name
Given that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) hopes thousands of Alaskans will write her name onto their ballots, she can't be happy that her campaign pulled an ad after urging voters to go to "LisaMurkwski.com", the Washington Post notes.
Ironically, the ad aimed to inform voters how to correctly file a write-in ballot.
-----
Loved it that Republicans are punishing Murkowski. She is the poster child for "it's all about me, Me, ME". She is putting her own ego above that of not just the people of Alaska, but the Republican party as a whole, conservatives across the country and the overall future of our country.
Ya know, sometimes you just have to be willing to put your own hurt and anger aside and try to channel your better side. She probably could have used her loss and status to garner respect and a good job of some sort, maybe even come back in a few years to run for another seat successfully. The fact that she chose to hurt and lash out rather than do the right thing shows that she is not someone we want in office. The sense of entitlement that some of our political 'elite' have is shameful.
One note on the Murkowski name misspelling -- from what I've heard, it's doubly critical for her because if anyone misspells her name on the ballot, it's tossed. SO, if someone puts an "a" instead of the "o" or a "y" instead of the "i", the ballot is tossed. Let's hope that there are a lot of ballots tossed, or better yet, so few that they give her ego the beating it deserves.
If Joe Miller loses and the seat goes to a Democrat because of her ego, she will be a pariah forever. I hope Joe Miller trounces both his opponents.
Given that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) hopes thousands of Alaskans will write her name onto their ballots, she can't be happy that her campaign pulled an ad after urging voters to go to "LisaMurkwski.com", the Washington Post notes.
Ironically, the ad aimed to inform voters how to correctly file a write-in ballot.
-----
Loved it that Republicans are punishing Murkowski. She is the poster child for "it's all about me, Me, ME". She is putting her own ego above that of not just the people of Alaska, but the Republican party as a whole, conservatives across the country and the overall future of our country.
Ya know, sometimes you just have to be willing to put your own hurt and anger aside and try to channel your better side. She probably could have used her loss and status to garner respect and a good job of some sort, maybe even come back in a few years to run for another seat successfully. The fact that she chose to hurt and lash out rather than do the right thing shows that she is not someone we want in office. The sense of entitlement that some of our political 'elite' have is shameful.
One note on the Murkowski name misspelling -- from what I've heard, it's doubly critical for her because if anyone misspells her name on the ballot, it's tossed. SO, if someone puts an "a" instead of the "o" or a "y" instead of the "i", the ballot is tossed. Let's hope that there are a lot of ballots tossed, or better yet, so few that they give her ego the beating it deserves.
If Joe Miller loses and the seat goes to a Democrat because of her ego, she will be a pariah forever. I hope Joe Miller trounces both his opponents.
Friday, September 10, 2010
We may be dependent upon election "quirks" to stop Dems
I read a couple of articles over the past few days on election 'quirks' that might be to our benefit in November. We all know that the Dems are planning on ramming their agenda down our throats AFTER the Nov. 2nd election if they lose the majority, probably even if they don't. Come January hopefully they won't have the ability to cripple our country any further... as long as the Republicans stay smart and hang tough.
It's kind of crazy when you think about it. They've had the majority plus the Presidency for 18 months and could have passed anything they wanted. Instead they're going to wait until after the elections to do the worst of the worst in hopes that a few Dems won't be forced to vote and lose their election. If some of these all-of-a-sudden-sorta converted leaning-more-to-the-right Dems win, they'll become back-sliders the day after the election.
Anyway, there's a possibility that election laws may keep the Dems from having enough votes to slam stuff through regardless of their desire and attempts. Per the article below, and a similar one in the Wall Street Journal, they may not have as many votes as they'd like.
The article in the Wall Street (New Spat: Senator's Swearing-In Date, Sept. 10) highlights a dispute over what happens when someone is appointed. The Republicans officials are saying the state law indicates that Michael Bennet (D) steps down Nov. 2nd if his opponent, Ken Buck (R), wins.
This is interesting stuff and will be worth watching... Let's hope the courts interpret the law the way the Republicans see it for a change.
Quirks May Cut Senate Democrats' Majority in Lame-Duck Session
Quirks in state election laws may reduce Senate Democrats’ majority right after the November election, making the always-difficult task of legislating during a possible lame-duck session even tougher. The terms of Democrats Roland Burris of Illinois, Ted Kaufman of Delaware and West Virginia’s Carte Goodwin, all appointed to their seats, will expire with the Nov. 2 elections...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/election-law-quirks-may-cut-senate-democrats-majority-in-lame-duck-term.html
It's kind of crazy when you think about it. They've had the majority plus the Presidency for 18 months and could have passed anything they wanted. Instead they're going to wait until after the elections to do the worst of the worst in hopes that a few Dems won't be forced to vote and lose their election. If some of these all-of-a-sudden-sorta converted leaning-more-to-the-right Dems win, they'll become back-sliders the day after the election.
Anyway, there's a possibility that election laws may keep the Dems from having enough votes to slam stuff through regardless of their desire and attempts. Per the article below, and a similar one in the Wall Street Journal, they may not have as many votes as they'd like.
The article in the Wall Street (New Spat: Senator's Swearing-In Date, Sept. 10) highlights a dispute over what happens when someone is appointed. The Republicans officials are saying the state law indicates that Michael Bennet (D) steps down Nov. 2nd if his opponent, Ken Buck (R), wins.
This is interesting stuff and will be worth watching... Let's hope the courts interpret the law the way the Republicans see it for a change.
Quirks May Cut Senate Democrats' Majority in Lame-Duck Session
Quirks in state election laws may reduce Senate Democrats’ majority right after the November election, making the always-difficult task of legislating during a possible lame-duck session even tougher. The terms of Democrats Roland Burris of Illinois, Ted Kaufman of Delaware and West Virginia’s Carte Goodwin, all appointed to their seats, will expire with the Nov. 2 elections...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-08/election-law-quirks-may-cut-senate-democrats-majority-in-lame-duck-term.html
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Box office $'s down this summer...
I just read the article posted below on the dismal dollars pulled in from movies this summer. It caught my eye mostly because of John Cusack's rant over the weekend. I scanned the article, which was linked from Breitbart's Big Hollywood site. It has all kinds of reasons, bad movies, social media letting everyone know immediately that a movie was bad, higher ticket costs, etc.
I have a few reasons movies aren't bringing in the audiences that article author Paul Dergarabedian didn't list, probably didn't even think of when writing the article.
1. People like me whose movie attendance has declined as the rhetoric from Hollywood "starts" ratcheted up. We're putting our money where our principles are these days, paying attention and aren't going to support people who are contributing dollars and influence to those trying to destroy America. (see yesterday's blog)
2. People are hanging onto their money. Duh. If you have cable or a DVD player, you'll get to see the movie sooner or later if you care. Why spend $10, $15 or whatever on a ticket, plus the cost of overpriced (understandably) popcorn and sodas? At home you can spend time with your family, pause when you want to go to the bathroom and the popcorn is cheap. Have a few friends over and make it fun!
3. The messages in the movies aren't the kind that many parents want their children learning. I am personally so tired of the social engineering that's going on in movies... and television programs, in particular those cute little kids things they feed straight into the minds of our impressionable children.
4. We have better things to do. Been to a 9-12 meeting? a tea party rally? your local political party group meeting? watching Glenn Beck and thinking there are more important things afoot these days? paying more attention to the 'real world'? The elections this year are attracting much, much more interest than in the past. We're more involved, there's more at stake. Sure we all need a break from non-stop gloom, doom, working out butts off to save the country type activities, but we're more discerning now. Plus, I think many of us are spending more quality time with our families. Going to a movie is not a 'real' family activity -- you can't talk, interact, you can't comment when they push a Hollywood idea of the world at your kids...
I could come up with some more if I put my mind to it, but I am heading out the door in about ten minutes. After yesterday's article on Cusack and Dave Radio I had to comment... Have a fantastic day, register a new conservative voter and make it better than fantastic.
I have a few reasons movies aren't bringing in the audiences that article author Paul Dergarabedian didn't list, probably didn't even think of when writing the article.
1. People like me whose movie attendance has declined as the rhetoric from Hollywood "starts" ratcheted up. We're putting our money where our principles are these days, paying attention and aren't going to support people who are contributing dollars and influence to those trying to destroy America. (see yesterday's blog)
2. People are hanging onto their money. Duh. If you have cable or a DVD player, you'll get to see the movie sooner or later if you care. Why spend $10, $15 or whatever on a ticket, plus the cost of overpriced (understandably) popcorn and sodas? At home you can spend time with your family, pause when you want to go to the bathroom and the popcorn is cheap. Have a few friends over and make it fun!
3. The messages in the movies aren't the kind that many parents want their children learning. I am personally so tired of the social engineering that's going on in movies... and television programs, in particular those cute little kids things they feed straight into the minds of our impressionable children.
4. We have better things to do. Been to a 9-12 meeting? a tea party rally? your local political party group meeting? watching Glenn Beck and thinking there are more important things afoot these days? paying more attention to the 'real world'? The elections this year are attracting much, much more interest than in the past. We're more involved, there's more at stake. Sure we all need a break from non-stop gloom, doom, working out butts off to save the country type activities, but we're more discerning now. Plus, I think many of us are spending more quality time with our families. Going to a movie is not a 'real' family activity -- you can't talk, interact, you can't comment when they push a Hollywood idea of the world at your kids...
I could come up with some more if I put my mind to it, but I am heading out the door in about ten minutes. After yesterday's article on Cusack and Dave Radio I had to comment... Have a fantastic day, register a new conservative voter and make it better than fantastic
Summer 2010 box office: What went right, what went wrong (HWD)
By Paul Dergarabedian
The opening line of Charles Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" sums up the summer movie season of 2010 most accurately: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." and so it goes as we hit a revenue record of $4.35 billion, yet find ourselves with the lowest attendance since 1997.
http://hollywoodwiretap.com/?module=news&action=story&id=51536
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Cusak, Hate, Satanic Death wishes
John Cusack has gone of the deep end... the same deep end that many other libs have jumped into with open arms. He's called for a 'Satanic death cult center' at Fox News HQ, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich, GOP, etc. on Twitter over the weekend.
Every time I see a mean-natured twisted comment or rant, get attacked, read the stuff that comes out of so many liberal / progressive type's mouths these days I wonder what happened to the peace and love the left has claimed as their mantle from the 60's forward.
I got into it slightly over the weekend with a local radio personality who tweeted some maybe-not-quite-so-Cusack tweets about Glenn Beck, but hateful none the less. One of his fellow DJ's joined the conversation, making it two from Dave radio. I retweeted a tweet from someone who'd seen the same comments I saw which attracted the DJ's attention, rightfully so since the tweet had his name in it ;-)
I don't do hate. I can debate issues with people who don't attack individuals, who don't wish for satanic death cult centers, who don't spit venom. Once I see that kind of anger I'm done, no point. I blocked the radio DJs, took their radio station off my presets in the car... and now I will never be able to watch a movie with John Cusack in it again. That's a sacrifice of sorts as I have enjoyed some of his movies, usually put them on the "going to see list" when he's in one.
It used to be you could watch movies and not know a darn thing about the people in them aside from fluff. It was great to get lost in a movie and sorta believe the actor could be the person they portrayed. Once Hollywood and music-types started opening their mouth and spewing hate it became impossible for me to transcend reality and get into some of their movies.
It's impossible to see a hate-a-conservative type playing someone in the military or a political type... or even in some cases a business person... and feel they're credible, ignore their well-voiced comments in opposition to the type character they're playing.
Since some of you are going to fuss at me and say that Cusack has been a long-time Obama supporter, left winger type, I'll have to admit that I don't hear most of the stuff they have to say until it hits the current Cusack-level. When it reaches my non-Hollywood following attention level, it's gotta be pretty rabid.
I watched a good portion of Glenn Beck's Kennedy Center thing on Friday night. It was nothing but good stuff, positive talk. On the sidebar there was a running commentary by viewers. A whole bunch of lefties and haters were making very nasty, snide, ugly comments about Beck. Personal stuff, attacks on his motivation, his personality, etc. Nothing of substance. Ditto the comments by the radio DJs. Just hateful stuff, personal attacks. It was interesting, as always, to see the same talking points being typed by the haters.
At least Cusak was original in his hate-mongering.
What's so weird is these same people who are slapping at conservatives for being racist, evil, horrible people are doing so in such a stinkin', evil, horrible, nasty way. Kettle black scenario, except they're talking about a kettle that's pretty shiny for the most part (yes, there are some uglies on the right side, too). But the hypocrisy of saying evil things and thinking it's OK is mind boggling. If I said the exact same things some of them are saying about a progressive, a liberal, a Democrat, or one of their icons, I'd be forever under attack and vilified. They say that stuff and the lib left pats 'em on the back. Skewed world.
So, OK, no more Cusak movies. Darn, darn, darn. He's cute and funny... oh wait, no, he's really not funny, I just saw who he really is via his Twitter messages.
I'm in mini-mourning. Because of a couple of stupid radio DJs I gave up my Dave radio station this weekend and now I'm choosing to give up John Cusak movies. Pretty soon the only people who'll going to movies will be progressives. At least I have a number of good rock radio station alternatives!
I've been reading all the articles and comments as to why various people think it's becoming so vicious. I think it's probably a combination of most of the factors I read. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you'd like to share.
I think social media is a part of it. We're anonymous and can vent our deepest, darkest thoughts. It's immediate so people can have a few drinks and then shoot off their mouth, no second tries.
It's more than just social media though, it's more than the main-stream media, more than the availability of news, more than the war... Did 9-11 trigger something or release something in us that was already there? Was it a trigger or just part of a series of events that brought us to this clear divide?
If we survived the next few years and history isn't re-written as they're trying to re-write it now, it will be interesting for our kids to look back at all the triggers. Those in the future will have much more information available to them about this time in history. We'll be able to chronicle thoughts that went out via blogs, facebook, twitter, etc.
Every time I see a mean-natured twisted comment or rant, get attacked, read the stuff that comes out of so many liberal / progressive type's mouths these days I wonder what happened to the peace and love the left has claimed as their mantle from the 60's forward.
I got into it slightly over the weekend with a local radio personality who tweeted some maybe-not-quite-so-Cusack tweets about Glenn Beck, but hateful none the less. One of his fellow DJ's joined the conversation, making it two from Dave radio. I retweeted a tweet from someone who'd seen the same comments I saw which attracted the DJ's attention, rightfully so since the tweet had his name in it ;-)
I don't do hate. I can debate issues with people who don't attack individuals, who don't wish for satanic death cult centers, who don't spit venom. Once I see that kind of anger I'm done, no point. I blocked the radio DJs, took their radio station off my presets in the car... and now I will never be able to watch a movie with John Cusack in it again. That's a sacrifice of sorts as I have enjoyed some of his movies, usually put them on the "going to see list" when he's in one.
It used to be you could watch movies and not know a darn thing about the people in them aside from fluff. It was great to get lost in a movie and sorta believe the actor could be the person they portrayed. Once Hollywood and music-types started opening their mouth and spewing hate it became impossible for me to transcend reality and get into some of their movies.
It's impossible to see a hate-a-conservative type playing someone in the military or a political type... or even in some cases a business person... and feel they're credible, ignore their well-voiced comments in opposition to the type character they're playing.
Since some of you are going to fuss at me and say that Cusack has been a long-time Obama supporter, left winger type, I'll have to admit that I don't hear most of the stuff they have to say until it hits the current Cusack-level. When it reaches my non-Hollywood following attention level, it's gotta be pretty rabid.
I watched a good portion of Glenn Beck's Kennedy Center thing on Friday night. It was nothing but good stuff, positive talk. On the sidebar there was a running commentary by viewers. A whole bunch of lefties and haters were making very nasty, snide, ugly comments about Beck. Personal stuff, attacks on his motivation, his personality, etc. Nothing of substance. Ditto the comments by the radio DJs. Just hateful stuff, personal attacks. It was interesting, as always, to see the same talking points being typed by the haters.
At least Cusak was original in his hate-mongering.
What's so weird is these same people who are slapping at conservatives for being racist, evil, horrible people are doing so in such a stinkin', evil, horrible, nasty way. Kettle black scenario, except they're talking about a kettle that's pretty shiny for the most part (yes, there are some uglies on the right side, too). But the hypocrisy of saying evil things and thinking it's OK is mind boggling. If I said the exact same things some of them are saying about a progressive, a liberal, a Democrat, or one of their icons, I'd be forever under attack and vilified. They say that stuff and the lib left pats 'em on the back. Skewed world.
So, OK, no more Cusak movies. Darn, darn, darn. He's cute and funny... oh wait, no, he's really not funny, I just saw who he really is via his Twitter messages.
I'm in mini-mourning. Because of a couple of stupid radio DJs I gave up my Dave radio station this weekend and now I'm choosing to give up John Cusak movies. Pretty soon the only people who'll going to movies will be progressives. At least I have a number of good rock radio station alternatives!
I've been reading all the articles and comments as to why various people think it's becoming so vicious. I think it's probably a combination of most of the factors I read. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts if you'd like to share.
I think social media is a part of it. We're anonymous and can vent our deepest, darkest thoughts. It's immediate so people can have a few drinks and then shoot off their mouth, no second tries.
It's more than just social media though, it's more than the main-stream media, more than the availability of news, more than the war... Did 9-11 trigger something or release something in us that was already there? Was it a trigger or just part of a series of events that brought us to this clear divide?
If we survived the next few years and history isn't re-written as they're trying to re-write it now, it will be interesting for our kids to look back at all the triggers. Those in the future will have much more information available to them about this time in history. We'll be able to chronicle thoughts that went out via blogs, facebook, twitter, etc.
John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders
Actor John Cusack went on a caustic Twitter rampage Sunday evening, attacking former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Fox News.
“I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES ORDICK ARMEYAND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS,” Cusack tweeted.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces
Saturday, August 28, 2010
A Muslim College in America...
Muslim liberal arts college takes root in Berkeley
Zaytuna College hopes to address U.S. Muslim community's desire for leaders who understand Islam in a western context.
At a fundraiser in February for Zaytuna College, organizers seemed intent on preempting critical questions.
"Why a Muslim College in America?" the Anaheim event was headlined, as if anticipating the query from audience members.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs-zaytuna-20100828,0,741658.story
Why indeed.
Zaytuna College hopes to address U.S. Muslim community's desire for leaders who understand Islam in a western context.
At a fundraiser in February for Zaytuna College, organizers seemed intent on preempting critical questions.
"Why a Muslim College in America?" the Anaheim event was headlined, as if anticipating the query from audience members.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-beliefs-zaytuna-20100828,0,741658.story
Why indeed.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Sarah Palin in Atlanta with Karen Handel
Thought some of you might want to watch the video of Sarah's talk today. She was here in Atlanta to support Karen Handel who's running for Georgia Governor. I'm a huge fan of Karen's, known her for many years and think she'll make a fantastic governor. She's honest, ethical, a "real" person who is tough enough to stand up to Obama and all that Washington is throwing at us... Tomorrow is the run-off --- if you live in Georgia and you're registered to vote, go VOTE. If you're not registered, get your butt off the couch and do it... then start paying attention so you can make an informed choice in November.
Here are the links to Sarah's talk today (2 parts):
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490981532001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+1/49906865001/50317397001/490981532001
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490987384001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+2/49906865001/50317397001/490987384001
Here are the links to Sarah's talk today (2 parts):
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490981532001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+1/49906865001/50317397001/490981532001
http://www.11alive.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=490987384001#/News/Palin+Speech+Supporting+Handel+Part+2/49906865001/50317397001/490987384001
As Greta said, ouch, this ad hurts...
Greta (@gretawire) just tweeted this and she's right, it hurts... Great ad mainly 'cause it's right on the money (fund raising money ala Obama I suppose).
Watch and share! They done good
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Why do government employees need unions?
Someone on Twitter (sorry, flew by quickly) just re-tweeted a point made by @seanhackbarth... This isn't the exact quote, but the gist was, 'why do we government workers need unions, doesn't the government treat them fairly?".
Wow, what an excellent point!
If you take a look at all the stats regarding how much government employees are paid as compared to the private sector, factor in their benefits, it becomes even harder to understand why they need the unions these days... Well, I guess someone has to help them get those extraordinary perks, huh?
Think about the whole picture. You and I pay their salary. Thus, you and I are paying their union dues and keeping the union bosses hoeing in high cotton as my Grandmother used to say.
Soooo, we are paying people to cajole the government to take more of our hard earned dollars to give to government workers. Sweet --- for those who have government jobs!
I've shared before that I used to work for the government. I wasn't union thank goodness or I'd have quit long before I did. The day my previously non-government job was swallowed up in the government bureaucracy is the day I started realizing that my work-aholic tendencies would not work well in that environment. When you're called into the bosses office and told you're working too hard and to cool it 'cause you're making the rest of the employees look bad, it's time to get back into the private sector (unless your a slug).
I'm not a huge fan of the government work force, federal or state, with or without union protections. Where are you treated the worst when interacting with others for services? Think about going to renew or get your driver's license, dealing with the IRS, and other areas that require you to interact with government employees. In the private sector they have to treat you well or suffer the consequences of a business down the tubes sooner or later. Not so for the government. Bad service? Who's their competition?
It's time to get rid of the unions for government employees. Our tax dollars should not be used to work against the needs of the very citizens who pay those taxes. We need to do more than clean out Congress, we need a clean sweep all the way down. Make the government employees have to live up to the same standards as the private sector and end the crazy protections that have us paying salaries rather than getting rid of the chaff. We can start by getting rid of the union protection racket.
(It crossed my mind a number of times as I wrote the above that I might wake up one day to see union thugs with bats standing on my front lawn... I guess I'm going to be on every government list before it's all said and done.)
Wow, what an excellent point!
If you take a look at all the stats regarding how much government employees are paid as compared to the private sector, factor in their benefits, it becomes even harder to understand why they need the unions these days... Well, I guess someone has to help them get those extraordinary perks, huh?
Think about the whole picture. You and I pay their salary. Thus, you and I are paying their union dues and keeping the union bosses hoeing in high cotton as my Grandmother used to say.
Soooo, we are paying people to cajole the government to take more of our hard earned dollars to give to government workers. Sweet --- for those who have government jobs!
I've shared before that I used to work for the government. I wasn't union thank goodness or I'd have quit long before I did. The day my previously non-government job was swallowed up in the government bureaucracy is the day I started realizing that my work-aholic tendencies would not work well in that environment. When you're called into the bosses office and told you're working too hard and to cool it 'cause you're making the rest of the employees look bad, it's time to get back into the private sector (unless your a slug).
I'm not a huge fan of the government work force, federal or state, with or without union protections. Where are you treated the worst when interacting with others for services? Think about going to renew or get your driver's license, dealing with the IRS, and other areas that require you to interact with government employees. In the private sector they have to treat you well or suffer the consequences of a business down the tubes sooner or later. Not so for the government. Bad service? Who's their competition?
It's time to get rid of the unions for government employees. Our tax dollars should not be used to work against the needs of the very citizens who pay those taxes. We need to do more than clean out Congress, we need a clean sweep all the way down. Make the government employees have to live up to the same standards as the private sector and end the crazy protections that have us paying salaries rather than getting rid of the chaff. We can start by getting rid of the union protection racket.
(It crossed my mind a number of times as I wrote the above that I might wake up one day to see union thugs with bats standing on my front lawn... I guess I'm going to be on every government list before it's all said and done.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)