Okay, let's face it - most Republicans are not funny, a few are "awkwardly" funny, and a very small percentage are funny. Clint Eastwood falls into the not funny, awkwardly funny category. Who thought it was a good idea to do what he did last night? A 5 minute Dirty Harry riff or The Good The Bad and The Ugly riff, may have been OK, but I felt bad for him what with all the stammering and stuttering. All I could think was "get the man a script, please" and "Line!".
Let's face it - very few have come out of the Hollywood Conservative Closet. The few comedians who have outed themselves - Drew Carey, Dennis Miller and Patricia Heaton come to mind - would have done better (I would have called on Drew myself, for whatever that's worth).
If they wanted an actor with gravitas, Tom Selleck would have been a good pick.
Sadly, I think at Clint's age, the cross country flight, the pressure of a "surprise speaker" and speaking extemporaneously was just a bad combination. It left me feeling sad.
Keep your day jobs, Republicans, and let comedians handle comedy. Comedy is difficult.
If it wasn't meant to be comedy, then I am not sure what Clint's segment was supposed to be (what with the take on Harvey the rabbit with the empty chair for the President).
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The real war on women
Okay, too much Kool-Aid has been consumed in this country. I am so tired of the ignorant, including Jay Leno, claiming the Republicans are waging war on women. Taking a position on freedom of religion, and the fact that a woman can easily afford a $4.00 a month prescription from WalMart for birth control is not waging a war on women. Requiring an organization that performs abortions to seek private funding again is not waging a war on women.
What is a REAL war on women is as follows, and has been perpetrated by this administration and its party.
1) In November, 2009, a Government health panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose positions influence what is paid under Medicare, and thus trickles down to insurance companies, says women should not get mammogram screenings in their 40s, should only get mammograms once every other year between 50 and 75 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-cancer/t/new-mammogram-guidelines-raise-questions/#.UD9hfNZlTno ), then after that, well, who the hell cares - when you are a woman over 75 you are only a drain on the system, right? The same government panel also claims breast self-exams are worthless. I personally know several women who saved their own lives with breast self-exams and finding lumps, but hey, that just can't be true, can it? After all, the government panel says breast self-exams are worthless, and the government must be right. This task force's guidelines, released under the Obama administration (and in conjunction or as a prelude to Obamacare, it seems), will result in higher death rates down the road, if followed. Fortunately, not many doctors are following it. And, if women have to pay out of pocket for regular mammograms (far more expensive than $48.00 a year for BCP), many will forego the needed exams. To me, this equals a war on women.
2) In March 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, again, that pesky government task force, under the Obama administration, released new cervical cancer screening guidelines, again reducing the amount of screening women will ultimately get. You can read the guidelines here http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm but in a nutshell, screening is to take place every 3-5 years for women between 21 and 65 (women are sexually active outside that age range) , and, more importantly, in the "throw grandma under the bus" theme, "The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than age 65 years . . . ." Because, once again, older women are only a drain on the country, so let 'em die of cervical cancer for lack of adequate screening. Again, PAP and HPV tests cost way more than $48.00 a year prescriptions for birth control pills at WalMart, so let's pay for the BCPs and not the screening that can save women's lives, right Mr. President and the Democratic Party? More war on women thanks to those who claim the Republicans are waging a war on women because, they don't want to pay for BCPs for recreational sex or pay for abortions.
People, open your eyes and educate yourself. Don't listen to party rhetoric. I know that people like Jay Leno (who claimed the Republican party was waging a war on women earlier this week when he was interviewing Dennis Miller) won't read this, but I hope a few people will and learn what a real war on women entails. A war on women allows women to die from lack of adequate screening - it does not result from asking women to take responsibility for their own recreation and pay less than $50.00 a year for birth control, or if they decide to take the life of the child they conceived, to pay for that choice as well. Women can choose, but choices have consequences and costs, and those costs should not be borne by American taxpayers who had no hand in the woman's choice to have sex, become pregnant and terminate the pregnancy.
What is a REAL war on women is as follows, and has been perpetrated by this administration and its party.
1) In November, 2009, a Government health panel, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose positions influence what is paid under Medicare, and thus trickles down to insurance companies, says women should not get mammogram screenings in their 40s, should only get mammograms once every other year between 50 and 75 ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33973665/ns/health-cancer/t/new-mammogram-guidelines-raise-questions/#.UD9hfNZlTno ), then after that, well, who the hell cares - when you are a woman over 75 you are only a drain on the system, right? The same government panel also claims breast self-exams are worthless. I personally know several women who saved their own lives with breast self-exams and finding lumps, but hey, that just can't be true, can it? After all, the government panel says breast self-exams are worthless, and the government must be right. This task force's guidelines, released under the Obama administration (and in conjunction or as a prelude to Obamacare, it seems), will result in higher death rates down the road, if followed. Fortunately, not many doctors are following it. And, if women have to pay out of pocket for regular mammograms (far more expensive than $48.00 a year for BCP), many will forego the needed exams. To me, this equals a war on women.
2) In March 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, again, that pesky government task force, under the Obama administration, released new cervical cancer screening guidelines, again reducing the amount of screening women will ultimately get. You can read the guidelines here http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscerv.htm but in a nutshell, screening is to take place every 3-5 years for women between 21 and 65 (women are sexually active outside that age range) , and, more importantly, in the "throw grandma under the bus" theme, "The USPSTF recommends against screening for cervical cancer in women older than age 65 years . . . ." Because, once again, older women are only a drain on the country, so let 'em die of cervical cancer for lack of adequate screening. Again, PAP and HPV tests cost way more than $48.00 a year prescriptions for birth control pills at WalMart, so let's pay for the BCPs and not the screening that can save women's lives, right Mr. President and the Democratic Party? More war on women thanks to those who claim the Republicans are waging a war on women because, they don't want to pay for BCPs for recreational sex or pay for abortions.
People, open your eyes and educate yourself. Don't listen to party rhetoric. I know that people like Jay Leno (who claimed the Republican party was waging a war on women earlier this week when he was interviewing Dennis Miller) won't read this, but I hope a few people will and learn what a real war on women entails. A war on women allows women to die from lack of adequate screening - it does not result from asking women to take responsibility for their own recreation and pay less than $50.00 a year for birth control, or if they decide to take the life of the child they conceived, to pay for that choice as well. Women can choose, but choices have consequences and costs, and those costs should not be borne by American taxpayers who had no hand in the woman's choice to have sex, become pregnant and terminate the pregnancy.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Chris Matthews is appalling
The verdict is in. There can be no denial at this point. After Mr. Matthews' appalling behaior on MSNBC's Morning Joe this morning (see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwNbLYoRzuQ ) not only has he confirmed that he is a failure as a journalist (who is supposed to be unbiased, and have integrity), but he is a failure as a human being as well.
No one one that show could stomach what Mr. Tingly Leg was doing in ranting and screaming at Reince Priebus - Just listen to Mika, Joe and Tom. At one point Tom Brokaw even shakes his head in disbelief. Chris so loves the sound of his own voice he wouldn't let it subside for anyone - not the hosts of the show, not the guest he was berating, not even for Tom Brokaw.
So, my question for NBC is, in light of the need for parity in political exposure, will NBC be giving airtime to Mr. Matthews to rant insanely against a Democrat as well? After all, shouldn't Mr. Matthews be an equal opportunity political abuser? Or is his bias just accepted by the network?
If NBC and MSNBC have any desire to be taken seriously as journalistic sources, kindly fire this man for his unbalanced and biased behavior immediately.
No one one that show could stomach what Mr. Tingly Leg was doing in ranting and screaming at Reince Priebus - Just listen to Mika, Joe and Tom. At one point Tom Brokaw even shakes his head in disbelief. Chris so loves the sound of his own voice he wouldn't let it subside for anyone - not the hosts of the show, not the guest he was berating, not even for Tom Brokaw.
So, my question for NBC is, in light of the need for parity in political exposure, will NBC be giving airtime to Mr. Matthews to rant insanely against a Democrat as well? After all, shouldn't Mr. Matthews be an equal opportunity political abuser? Or is his bias just accepted by the network?
If NBC and MSNBC have any desire to be taken seriously as journalistic sources, kindly fire this man for his unbalanced and biased behavior immediately.
Chris Murphy's shameful Congressional attendance record
Well, Linda McMahon's campaign ads have been pounding him for it, and while he originally pooh-poohed it, now Chris Murphy cannot deny his shameful attendance record. Hearst's Connecticut newspapers analyzed Murphy's attendance and found that he missed 185 of 237 hearings overall in the 2007-2008 legislative session.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php
Now, Murphy's people make the following contentions:
1) Murphy made 129 of the 132 votes during the 110 Congress. My reply to that, is, if he didn't attend the hearings to educate himself on the issues on which he had to vote, how did he know how to vote? Oh, that's right, you don't have to educate yourself when you vote in lockstep with your political party. I vote for people who are smart, who educate themselves, who show up for work; not mindless sheep who do what a political party tells them.
2) Murphy (through a spokesperson) then complains that during the time Murphy missed those meetings, McMahon was off running her business and not saving the country. What would Murphy have had McMahon do in 2007-2008, when she was a private citizen running a company? Would Murphy have had her serve as an unpaid surrogate for him and do his job for him (if so, he should have told her, and informed voters that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties)? The specific (idiotic to my mind) quote is "'While Chris was fighting for consumers in Congress, McMahon was fiddling while our economy burned, orchestrating pay-per-view events featuring inferno matches and necrophilia,' Marter said." http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php#ixzz24kes0ni6 It should have read "While Chris missed over 75% of meetings/hearings, McMahon was busy running a business that employed many people. As she was not an elected official, she had no duty to perform Murphy's job functions which he was neglecting."
I'm not a fan of WWE, but at least it appears Linda showed up for work; the same can't be said for Murphy.
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php
Now, Murphy's people make the following contentions:
1) Murphy made 129 of the 132 votes during the 110 Congress. My reply to that, is, if he didn't attend the hearings to educate himself on the issues on which he had to vote, how did he know how to vote? Oh, that's right, you don't have to educate yourself when you vote in lockstep with your political party. I vote for people who are smart, who educate themselves, who show up for work; not mindless sheep who do what a political party tells them.
2) Murphy (through a spokesperson) then complains that during the time Murphy missed those meetings, McMahon was off running her business and not saving the country. What would Murphy have had McMahon do in 2007-2008, when she was a private citizen running a company? Would Murphy have had her serve as an unpaid surrogate for him and do his job for him (if so, he should have told her, and informed voters that he was incapable of fulfilling his duties)? The specific (idiotic to my mind) quote is "'While Chris was fighting for consumers in Congress, McMahon was fiddling while our economy burned, orchestrating pay-per-view events featuring inferno matches and necrophilia,' Marter said." http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Murphy-AWOL-for-three-fourths-of-hearings-3808475.php#ixzz24kes0ni6 It should have read "While Chris missed over 75% of meetings/hearings, McMahon was busy running a business that employed many people. As she was not an elected official, she had no duty to perform Murphy's job functions which he was neglecting."
I'm not a fan of WWE, but at least it appears Linda showed up for work; the same can't be said for Murphy.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Go Anderson!
For too long I have been listening to the inane ramblings of D. Wasserman-Schultz. She is, in my eyes, someone who can not be believed. Anderson Cooper went after her misquoting of the L.A. Times in a campaign fundraising email (fear mongering once again), and didn't back off. Despite his reading to her (over her constant interruptions - she seems to love the sound of her own voice) the exact quote from the LA Times, she doubled down on her misrepresentation and it is all here: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/08/24/ac-dnc-chairwoman-keeping-them-honest.cnn
It's so rare to see the media so doggedly try to get the truth out of a politician/campaign spokesperson, that I applaud Anderson for being so determined to get the truth out there. Great job Anderson! And Debbie, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent Americans, no matter how hard you lie.
It's so rare to see the media so doggedly try to get the truth out of a politician/campaign spokesperson, that I applaud Anderson for being so determined to get the truth out there. Great job Anderson! And Debbie, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of intelligent Americans, no matter how hard you lie.
Monday, August 20, 2012
Idiots abound
The political season is in full swing, and apparently it causes foot in mouth disease at a minimum, and idiocy to show itself.
While VP Joe Biden and the White House have doubled down on the "put y'all back in chains" comment (and, did you catch the inflection and tone used? There is no question when you hear how old Joe said it, the race baiting meaning was clear. Former VA Governor Wilder noted it and called Biden on it http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-Va-Gov-Wilder-slams-Biden-for-chains-remark-3791544.php ), Todd Akin, who won Missouri's GOP Senate primary earlier this month and will square off against incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill November's Senate race at least apologized and "took back" his comments referring to "legitimate rape". Seriously, what type of person would put those two words together as a phrase? Why do men always say incredibly bone-headed things when it comes to women and our bodies (although, kudos to Sandra Fluke for showing that not only men are boneheads - women can be equally boneheaded - no, I don't want to pay for your partying costs, Ms. Fluke, since you won't pay for my recreational travel costs. . . .)?
Words to the wise, Mr. Akin: until you grow a uterus or are raped yourself, kindly do not speak of rape and its effect on the female body. Thank you.
While VP Joe Biden and the White House have doubled down on the "put y'all back in chains" comment (and, did you catch the inflection and tone used? There is no question when you hear how old Joe said it, the race baiting meaning was clear. Former VA Governor Wilder noted it and called Biden on it http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-Va-Gov-Wilder-slams-Biden-for-chains-remark-3791544.php ), Todd Akin, who won Missouri's GOP Senate primary earlier this month and will square off against incumbent Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill November's Senate race at least apologized and "took back" his comments referring to "legitimate rape". Seriously, what type of person would put those two words together as a phrase? Why do men always say incredibly bone-headed things when it comes to women and our bodies (although, kudos to Sandra Fluke for showing that not only men are boneheads - women can be equally boneheaded - no, I don't want to pay for your partying costs, Ms. Fluke, since you won't pay for my recreational travel costs. . . .)?
Words to the wise, Mr. Akin: until you grow a uterus or are raped yourself, kindly do not speak of rape and its effect on the female body. Thank you.
Friday, August 17, 2012
This and That
Today's post will combine a number of issues.
First off, congratulations to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. It's great that at least one member of the Executive Branch of government understands that the Executive Branch ENFORCES the laws; it does not issue new laws by fiat, thereby avoiding the legislative process. I particularly enjoy the fact that Governor Brewer issued her own Executive Order indicating that the State of Arizona was not to comply with President Obama's Executive Fiat - um Order (it's so hard not to call them fiats, because this President obviously has nothing but contempt for Congress - if it doesn't do as he commands, then he issues his fiats to suit his personal wants). Our laws should be enforced. If you don't like the law, Mr. President, you do not abuse the office of the President by issuing Executive Orders willy nilly - you do what every other American citizen does and petition the Congress for change in the laws.
Secondly, President Obama has refused to face the White House Press Corps for over two months. Why? Is he too busy meeting with all his Richie Rich friends raising money for his campaign? Or is he too busy running for Entertainer-in-Chief, what with his appearances on Entertainment Tonight and interviews with People magazine? If you want the title of Entertainer-in-Chief, Mr. President, please do feel free to drop out of the Presidential campaign and see if you have any better luck than Conan O'Brien did in dethroning Jay Leno from the Tonight Show. Otherwise, get the heck back to work - we have in the range of 20 million American citizens unemployed or under-employed (and while we know you think your wife should be paid for being First Lady - although that sounds a bit bizarre on certain levels - putting her on the payroll does not solve the unemployment problem of the American people, and she gets reimbursed by the taxpayers paying for her use of Air Force One to go on her, what 20+ vacations in 3.5 years? All those vacations really show that you and your family are in touch with the average American). We pay you, Mr. President, to work in the White House, not to go on approximately 200 fundraisers (if not more) in the past 15 months or so.
I don't care about Mitt Romney's taxes. He makes a hell of a lot more money than I do, and at an effective rate of 13%, he still pays a hell of a lot more in taxes (and charitable contributions) than I do. Harry Reid needs to apologize for slandering Governor Romney and refusing to provide proof of his slanderous comments. Contrary to Harry's claims and the President's, in the United States of America, one is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, Harry and the President must prove their ridiculous claims that Governor Romney hasn't paid taxes; the Governor has nothing to prove. I would expect a supposed Constitutional scholar to understand this basic premise of American jurisprudence, but since President Obama refuses to release his college and graduate school applications and transcripts, I guess we'll never have proof that he attended the institutions he claims to have attended or that he had decent grades, or that he graduated or that he is, as he claims to be, a Constitutional scholar. Finally, if Governor Romney hadn't paid his taxes, don't you think the Internal Revenue Service would be prosecuting him for tax evasion by now?
Logic and common sense are wonderful things. Too bad so many in government are so lacking in both.
First off, congratulations to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. It's great that at least one member of the Executive Branch of government understands that the Executive Branch ENFORCES the laws; it does not issue new laws by fiat, thereby avoiding the legislative process. I particularly enjoy the fact that Governor Brewer issued her own Executive Order indicating that the State of Arizona was not to comply with President Obama's Executive Fiat - um Order (it's so hard not to call them fiats, because this President obviously has nothing but contempt for Congress - if it doesn't do as he commands, then he issues his fiats to suit his personal wants). Our laws should be enforced. If you don't like the law, Mr. President, you do not abuse the office of the President by issuing Executive Orders willy nilly - you do what every other American citizen does and petition the Congress for change in the laws.
Secondly, President Obama has refused to face the White House Press Corps for over two months. Why? Is he too busy meeting with all his Richie Rich friends raising money for his campaign? Or is he too busy running for Entertainer-in-Chief, what with his appearances on Entertainment Tonight and interviews with People magazine? If you want the title of Entertainer-in-Chief, Mr. President, please do feel free to drop out of the Presidential campaign and see if you have any better luck than Conan O'Brien did in dethroning Jay Leno from the Tonight Show. Otherwise, get the heck back to work - we have in the range of 20 million American citizens unemployed or under-employed (and while we know you think your wife should be paid for being First Lady - although that sounds a bit bizarre on certain levels - putting her on the payroll does not solve the unemployment problem of the American people, and she gets reimbursed by the taxpayers paying for her use of Air Force One to go on her, what 20+ vacations in 3.5 years? All those vacations really show that you and your family are in touch with the average American). We pay you, Mr. President, to work in the White House, not to go on approximately 200 fundraisers (if not more) in the past 15 months or so.
I don't care about Mitt Romney's taxes. He makes a hell of a lot more money than I do, and at an effective rate of 13%, he still pays a hell of a lot more in taxes (and charitable contributions) than I do. Harry Reid needs to apologize for slandering Governor Romney and refusing to provide proof of his slanderous comments. Contrary to Harry's claims and the President's, in the United States of America, one is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, Harry and the President must prove their ridiculous claims that Governor Romney hasn't paid taxes; the Governor has nothing to prove. I would expect a supposed Constitutional scholar to understand this basic premise of American jurisprudence, but since President Obama refuses to release his college and graduate school applications and transcripts, I guess we'll never have proof that he attended the institutions he claims to have attended or that he had decent grades, or that he graduated or that he is, as he claims to be, a Constitutional scholar. Finally, if Governor Romney hadn't paid his taxes, don't you think the Internal Revenue Service would be prosecuting him for tax evasion by now?
Logic and common sense are wonderful things. Too bad so many in government are so lacking in both.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
Let's waste more taxpayer dollars, shall we Mr. President?
As if closing down Connecticut beaches, and restricting the movements of the citizens of Connecticut weren't enough so that the Prez could raise more money from the 1% (at two fundraisers in CT yesterday - one at a mere $500 a pop - but that was a cattle call - and one at $35,800 per person - more intimate - only 50 invited guests), the Prez was responsible for the scrambling of two F15 fighter jets because two small planes had the audacity to fly over Long Island and the other over New Haven Connecticut. Heavens to Betsy! Especially in light of the fact that the Prez was in Stamford, CT (41 miles away from New Haven) and Westport CT (about 35 miles away from New Haven), and far enough from Long Island. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13160528-f-15-fighter-jets-intercept-two-small-planes-in-obama-airspace?lite
So, is the Democratic National Committee paying for the F15s, the loss of revenue to Connecticut parks and businesses, etc.? If not, why not? This was not Presidential business - this was PRIVATE FUNDRAISING, and we the taxpayers should not be footing the bill.
Also, it was suggested yesterday that Connecticut Governor Malloy would be attending the $35,800 per person fundraiser in Westport. Who paid for that ticket?
So, is the Democratic National Committee paying for the F15s, the loss of revenue to Connecticut parks and businesses, etc.? If not, why not? This was not Presidential business - this was PRIVATE FUNDRAISING, and we the taxpayers should not be footing the bill.
Also, it was suggested yesterday that Connecticut Governor Malloy would be attending the $35,800 per person fundraiser in Westport. Who paid for that ticket?
Monday, August 6, 2012
So much for caring for the 99%
Okay, so the POTUS claims he cares for, and feels the pain of the middle class (although he is a millionaire). If that's the case, why isn't he meeting with the middle class to discuss their problems with them? Why is he attending a fundraiser (as of June 12, 2012, the POTUS had held 160 fundraisers http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obama-fundraiser-in-chief/2012/06/12/gJQAVAQ8XV_blog.html) at the estate of filmmaker Harvey Weinstein in tony and uber-rich Westport, Connecticut? http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/Obama-to-Westport-Stamford-for-August-fundraisers-3723753.php To top it off, this shindig costs each person $35,800 to attend. Not a function the 99% can afford. Apparently, it's a tit-for-tat deal as Weinstein wrangled an invite to State Dinner earlier this year. See above link. It must be tough.
Additionally, with temperatures approaching 90 degrees Fahrenheit, President Obama's visit will cause a state beach and park and a town of Westport beach to be closed all day. http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Beaches-Close-for-Obama-Visit-Reports-165135156.html How's that for feeling the pain of the 99%? The POTUS seems to feel that we can all forego creature comforts so he can cavort with the Richie Riches who can pony up $35,800 per person. Nice - very nice.
Still think the guy cares about the 99%? I think he cares more about his fundraising, myself.
More details here re co-sponsors and closures (I'm sure the closures are all for the benefit of the people of Connecticut and the US). http://woodbury-middlebury.patch.com/articles/obama-celebrities-to-attend-campaign-fundraiser-in-westport-ct
Additionally, with temperatures approaching 90 degrees Fahrenheit, President Obama's visit will cause a state beach and park and a town of Westport beach to be closed all day. http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Beaches-Close-for-Obama-Visit-Reports-165135156.html How's that for feeling the pain of the 99%? The POTUS seems to feel that we can all forego creature comforts so he can cavort with the Richie Riches who can pony up $35,800 per person. Nice - very nice.
Still think the guy cares about the 99%? I think he cares more about his fundraising, myself.
More details here re co-sponsors and closures (I'm sure the closures are all for the benefit of the people of Connecticut and the US). http://woodbury-middlebury.patch.com/articles/obama-celebrities-to-attend-campaign-fundraiser-in-westport-ct
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)