Everybody is talking . . . about dear Sarah P and the fact that she recently went rogue and released her inner diva into the outer world. The fact is, I don't like her inner diva anymore in the outer world, than I liked her before she released her diva.
My question: why did it take her so long to release her inner diva? Why now, after months in the spotlight, is she suddenly trying to step away from the puppet strings of the Republican Party? What about in the first days as the spotlight first shined on her? Why now? Because she - in my opinion - is looking out only for herself (somewhat admirable, I must say, if not a little bit too late) and her political future. She is not looking toward November 2008, but rather November 2012 when she could (oh, shudder at the thought) attempt to run for President. Excuse me while I go barf. The only thing scarier than dear Sarah P as Vice President, is dear Sarah P as President. I think I'll need therapy (massive, massive amounts of therapy) if that ever happens.
Okay, back to what this post is about: dear Sarah Ps slow realization that her public image was doing her no good, no good at all. So, she steps to the forefront, grabs the proverbial reins, and attempts to wrest control of her life back from the all consuming GOP. She is called rogue and a diva for daring to even attempt to snip at the puppet strings so artfully (well, not really artfully, more travesty-like than anything) controlled by the GOP. Many women (no offense meant) are calling the term sexist. Yes, the term is sexist. The sad fact is, dear Sarah P, for whatever reason, allowed the GOP to present her as they did. She should have said no, this is not me, choose somebody else. She did not. She made the choice to allow them to present her as they (GOP) did. She made the choice to bow down to the pressure of her chosen political party. She made the choice to let the GOP, McCain advisers, McCain himself, or whoever, control what she said, when she said it, and all that jazz. The choice, my friends, was hers and hers alone. No one forced dear Sarah P to do anything. She alone made that choice, perhaps (though doubtful) for the greater good; but perhaps (much more likely) for her own political good.
In the end, her choices have made her a joke. Her choices have painted an ugly portrait of dear Sarah P. In the end, whatever terms (sexist or not) are used against her, whatever portrait the American public has of her, are all by her choice. If she had stood up for herself sooner, if she had said hey, thanks, but no thanks to the $150,000 wardrobe and make-over, than perhaps some respect might exist for her right now. If she had not put her political (future or otherwise) ahead of herself, than . . . well, I wouldn't be writing this blog.
Everybody is talking about dear Sarah P because she failed to stand up for herself in the first place. I'm just saying . . .
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Everybody is talking . . . about dear Sarah P and the fact that she recently went rogue and released her inner diva into the outer world. The fact is, I don't like her inner diva anymore in the outer world, than I liked her before she released her diva.
A psycholgist friend of mine once said, that for every bad news story, there should be five good news stories. So, in doing my part . . . here is a good news story. Yes, it is only one, but one is a good enough start.
Posted by Scott at 9:27 AM
So, I'm flipping channels last night and land on CNN and Larry King Live. He has a panel of four women - Janine Turner (Northern Exposure) among them - discussing Sarah Palin. Two of the women were for Sarah Palin and two against. The problem: both sides were not actually listening to each other. They would spout their rhetoric and then, while the other side was speaking, they would plan their response, without actually listening. It was just amazing to see the defense/attack of Sarah Palin and/or the Republican Party.
I love the rabidness of politics. I just wish the fervor/passion would be directed in a better manner. Forget about a rabid defense/attack against Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Your voice, your thoughts, and your energy are wasted. Direct that passion, that fervor, that rabid single mindedness toward something better: fixing the system that no longer works.
The current system of government in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair. How much better would our government be if the rabid defenders of either party actually put forth an equal, if not greater, amount of energy toward fixing the problem?
The current candidates are not going to fix the problem. The current candidates are part of the problem. Sarah Palin - love her or hate her - is part of the problem. The American People are part of the problem because we sit back and allow our government to stagnate and decay. We are responsible for who is currently in office, and who will be in office soon. We pick sides, when sides should not exist at all, and rabidly defend our position without looking at the bigger picture. We the people, to borrow a phrase, have failed as much as the government has failed.
It is time that we the people wake up and smell the coffee, roses, or huge piles of horse dung emanating from our nation's capitol. It is time that we the people stepped back from our rabid defense of either party, and focused on the actual ideal of fixing the broken, stagnating, decaying government that has inexorably driven our country into a recession. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, and their hope because we have a government that cannot cooperate with each other, even to save a failing economy.
So, hold onto your fevered beliefs, but direct them in a way that helps, rather than hurts this nation. Defend your politicians of choice, but not so rabidly that you lose sight of the greater picture: we are a country in crisis.
Just because you are Republican/Democrat does not mean you are honor-bound to vote Republican/Democrat. Sometimes, change comes from going against the flow, rather than with the flow. I see most political mind people as lemmings - those cute, adorable little creatures, that have no greater sense than to follow the leader over the cliff to certain death.
Wake up, dear little lemmings!!
Friday, October 24, 2008
Obviously, my I Want list is not working . . . yet. I still have hope.
So, I'm scanning the Internet (cnn.com - favorite news site), and what do I find, an interesting article with a ton of different pieces of information. The best, dear Sarah P talking about her $150,000 make-over. First, I'll admit, there is a double-standard in talking about her hair, make-up and wardrobe. Second - she still accepted a brand spanking new top of the line wardrobe.
According to dear Sarah P "most of the clothes are still in her campaign airplane . . . and the designer clothing she has worn, she said, will be returned, auctioned off or donated to charity" (http://www.cnn.com/). In fact, her "favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet" (http://www.cnn.com/).
First - thousands upon thousands of dollars of clothes are just sitting in an airplane? We are in the middle of an economic crisis where people are having a hard time putting gas in their cars and food on their table, let alone buying new clothes - and she has a frigging new wardrobe sitting on her airplane??? Go figure.
Second - the clothes will allegedly be donated to charity after the election. What charity? The RNC??? Like they need more money. I mean, if the clothes are going to be donated to charity, I'd like to think the money would go to a worthy organization . . . American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, a cancer organization, AIDS organization, etc.
Third - So, if dear Sarah P's favorite store is a thrift store, then why in the heck is she wearing the designer clothes? Why not present herself as a real person, and not some RNC puppet with the strings clearly showing? I'd be far more impressed - if that's even possible - with her had she presented herself to me, and not the image the RNC thought would draw in more votes. For the record - the clothes, the cars, the house, the jewelry - do not impress me. People - on their own, no adornments - impress me. I don't care what you wear, drive, or where you live. I care about you - as a person. It's that simple, and perhaps all politicians should get a clue!
Now, because it's so obvious, I must comment on her choice of stores. Out of the Closet??? Uh, is she sure it's not gay owned (you know her stance on gay marriage by now)???? I'm just saying . . .
- A day without politics.
- A day I don't have to hear about a McCain supporter allegedly being attacked by an Obama supporter.
- A day I don't have to hear about the fact that the RNC spent $150,000 to make-over dear Sarah P.
- A day without seeing an attack ad by either party.
- A day without all the media hoopla surrounding dear Sarah P - do you realize the sound of her voice makes my dogs bark?? Seriously. No kidding at all. My dogs don't like dear Sarah P. Not only are the boyz adorable, they also have good sense.
- A day without talk about the current economic crisis or plunging stocks. The country is in the current crisis, in part, because of the current Administration; though, the current Administration can only accept part of the blame.
- A day without hearing something about Miley Cyrus, Lindsey Lohan, Brittney Spears, or any other celebrity. WTF, people, do we not have lives of our own???
- A day without any reality television except Project Runway. I'm sorry, but reality tv is carefully edited tv to show the worst in people, rather than the best in people.
- A day where I can sleep past 4 AM. Note to my dogs: if you can read and access the Internet, please pay attention.
- A day so devoid of anything to blog about!!!!!!
There's my wish list. Now, see what you can do about the last one on the list. Because, so my warped logic dictates, if the last one happens, then all the others would have happened. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 9:14 AM
Thursday, October 23, 2008
What better thing for a gay man to write about than the Y.M.C.A?? C'mon, you know, you know the dance unless you've been living under a rock for far too long.
The YMCA of Middle Tennessee is "altering its membership plan to become friendlier to all, including same sex couples" (http://www.wkrn.com/). Whoo-hoo! According to the news story, "the family membership category will be changed to two plus, meaning two adults plus dependents that live in the same household would qualify for a membership together, including same sex couples" (http://www.wkrn.com/). Again, whoo-hoo.
Of course, this story is not without its detractors - Cornerstone Church Pastor Maury Davis. According to this allegedly enlightened Pastor, "the change goes against Christian principles".
Yeah, last time I checked, Christian principles were all about discriminating about your fellow human beings. I'm sure theres is some sort of commandment or something in the Bible that states "Thou shall discriminate against people because you feel you should discriminate against people". Okay, so not my best work. Still, you should get my point. I just love it when hypo-Christians take the Bible out of context to suit their own purposes.
The very fact that a Christian organization is willing to change its policies so they are not discriminatory, is admirable. The very fact that an allegedly Christian Pastor has a problem with the decision is just . . . SAD!
It is time to put discrimination of any sort to bed. There is no place for discrimination in today's world. Discrimination is an outdated, ignorant ideal, that needs to become a part of ancient history, and not modern/future history. The time is NOW to stand up against discrimination. I'm just saying . . .
p.s. I bet you can't get the words of the song out of your mind right now, can you??? Hate it!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
OMG, this election is turning me into a blogoholic. I used to be a nice, normal (well, not if you ask my sisters - but that's a whole other story, and a few trips to therapy on my part) person. I'd occasionally dip into the blogsphere, post something, and go about my normal life. I did not, did not, did not, post more than once a day. Heck, in the old days (i.e., before this cursed election ruined my life), I was lucky to post once a month, let alone once a day. Now, every time I go onto the Internet, something about this cursed (drat and double drat) election grabs my attention. My mind slips into blog mode and all hope for normalcy (at least until I get home and can pour myself a glass of wine) slips away from me. I become a blogmie (that's a zombie that blogs, just in case you're wondering).
What's happened now, you're wondering? Okay, even if you're not wondering, I'm going to tell you, so you might as well keep reading.
This happened, and then this, and then this (which I blogged about earlier this morning). OMG!!!!!!! It's a Palinlaplooza!!!!
First - dear Sarah P has no clue about what the Vice President actually does. Uh, shouldn't she have researched that before signing up for the job? Talk about no experience.
Second - $150,000 for hair and make-up????? Can't the woman afford to dress herself? Oh, that's right, she left the town of Wasilla, Alaska $27 million in debt after her term as mayor. Of course dear Sarah P cannot afford her own clothes. Again, I ask of you, do we really want this woman as Vice President of the United States. Suzi Orman would be a much better candidate. At least she knows how to manage money. I'm just saying . . .
Third - well, I blogged about that earlier, so go read that post.
Have a nice day!
Posted by Scott at 1:10 PM
Okay, another election post. I know, I'm tired of them too. Only 13 more days, and then, at least for almost another four years, I can blog about something else. One can hope!
The other day one of my co-workers said to the other: Well, I guess your vote will cancel out my vote. My partner - yes, there is such a thing as a gay Republican (p.s., don't tell the Republican party, they might get scared) - said the same thing to me at one time. In his defense, he doesn't always vote Republican. Anyhow, the point of this post is: every vote counts. If I vote for one party and my partner the other party, both of our votes count. Neither vote cancels out the other vote. That, dear readers, is a frakkin' common misconception. The President of the United States - unfortunately - is not elected by popular vote. If he/she was elected in that manner, than, yes, votes might have the ability to cancel each other out. Since the President is elected based on Electoral Votes, every single vote counts.
So, what I'm saying with this post is: get your butts out there and vote. Do not think, oh, Suzi's vote is going to cancel mine out, so why should I vote???? Your (massive generalization, in case anybody is keeping count) vote counts. I'm just saying . . .
Check this out! Apparently, dear Sarah P has altered some of the expense accounts during her Governorship of Alaska. It seems that dear Sarah P took her children on some trips she shouldn't have, but then altered the accounts to make it look like it was official business. According to the article . . . In the amended reports, Palin added phrases such as "First Family attending" and "First Family invited" to explain the girls' attendance. "The governor said, 'I want the purpose and the reason for this travel to be clear,' " said Linda Perez, state director of administrative services. Uh, wouldn't logic - I know, I'm talking about dear Sarah P and have stepped into oxy-moronic territory again - dictate that you fill out the forms correctly the first time, and not once you know the forms are about to become public record. Please, dear Sarah P, give the American people some credit!!!
Here's another of my favorites: The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. I mean, when is it official business for the State of Alaska to pay for the Governor and her daughters to watch a snowmobile race???? A 5 day stay for a 5 hour conference? I mean, really, dear Sarah P should have to pay back the State of Alaska for the extra 4 days she stayed in New York . . . at the State of Alaska's expense.
Do we really want this woman one step away from the Presidency of the United States? We have enough of a deficit right now without allowing dear Sarah P anywhere near a governmental expense form. I'm just saying . . .
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Okay, admit it, I got your attention with that title. Here's the story, and it's not about a man named Brady . . . a Church in FL bought some land, upon which stood an old drive in movie theater that used to show porn, lots, and lots, and lots of porn. The church discovered all this porn when they went into the building. So, what's a church to do with an overload of porn??? Why, have a massive bonfire of course!
Okay, can you sense just a little bit of snark in the above paragraph. Of course you do, that was my intent. The church in question, of course, thought the burning of the porn was symbolic in showing a fresh start for the Church and somehow erasing the past of the land. In my opinion, it was only an amazing show of both ignorance and censorship. Number 1 - last time I checked, burning film creates noxious chemicals. I sure as heck hope that all the children and adults present wore masks. Oh wait, I watched the video and none of them did so. Smart move, eh? Okay, now for the ignorance part, the pastor made the comment that burning the films was better than letting them get out in the world. That's the censorship part, just in case you're wondering. Who is he, to decide what should or should not get out in the world. Yes, I understand, he's a man of God and all that jazz. Being a man (or woman, for that matter) of God does not make that man/woman any more intelligent than anybody else. It also, at least in my humble opinion, does not give that man/woman the right to decide what should or should not get out in the world.
As I've mentioned before, and will again and again until ignorance no longer exists in this world (fat chance of that ever happening), I, and probably most humans, are capable of making decisions for themselves. I, we, don't need other people to make these decisions for me/us. If there is a television program I don't like, I switch the channel. If there is a book I don't want to read, or that I find offensive, I don't read the book. No matter what my personal feelings are about porn, if somebody wants to watch it in the privacy of their own home - more power to them. Forget the symbolism of burning the porn to create a fresh start. The burning of the porn was an act of censorship, of that particular church attempting to send a message about what they believe is right or wrong. For the love of (insert favorite Deity here), if we weren't meant to procreate, we wouldn't have been instructed to go forth, be fruitful (I handle that one really well, btw), and multiply. There is no dictate, at least none that I know, that says how we must go forth, be fruitful, and multiply. Those films probably had some pretty good suggestions. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 10:40 AM
Sarah Palin is at it again. Shouldn't her views be quite similar to that of John McCain, especially since she is his running mate? Yes, I thought so too. Recently, however, she opened her mouth and . . . well, we all know what happens when she opens her mouth. Nothing good. Explosive gas. Anyhow, she clearly stated that she goes against McCain's beliefs about same sex marriage, and the fact that there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting such marriages.
Sarah Palin is a throwback to an ignorant past America can no longer afford to embrace. It is time for our country to move forward, and not backward. It is time for the People in Power (PiPs), to embrace change, rather than continue to stagnate in the Pool of Outdated Beliefs. It is time to stop oppressing people on a daily basis. It is 2008, people, not 1908. We are an allegedly enlightened society. Discrimination is wrong. Applying Biblical passages out of context to suit your own ignorance, is wrong. Wake up and smell the Starbucks!
Now that I've ranted about that, let's explore the issue of marriage.
First off - marriage is based on religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether a judge marries a couple, a priest, a pastor, someone with an Internet minister license, or a justice of the peace. The concept of marriage is religious based. It's in the Bible, after all.
Second - the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly sets forth a separation between Church and State.
Third - so, if marriage is a religious based institution, and you enact laws to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, isn't that unconstitutional since there is clearly not a separation of Church and State in that instance? Hmmmm . . . In my opinion - YES! Since there is no way to remove the religious stigma from marriage, it does not seem legal (at least to me) for individual states or the country as a whole to enact legislation that prohibits marriage between same sex couples without violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Fourth - why in the hell hasn't someone challenged the legislation enacted???
Okay, that's about it for right now. With Sarah Palin around, and 13 days left until the election, I'm sure I'll have plenty to blog about in the coming days. She is just an absolute joy, isn't she? She provides so much fodder for my blog. Geesh!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Just a little note about comments for my blog. I moderate all comments. I do not do this to limit free speech or censor any one's thoughts. I do this to stop the crazy spammers in the world, and the people that insert links into their comments. I do not necessarily agree with the comments I allow on my site. I still allow them, for the most part, unless they are extremely derogatory, hateful, and all that jazz.
I made an exception with a comment I allowed earlier today: there's an embedded link in the comment. I will not make such an exception a second time. For anyone who is a part of blogger, your name appears in the comment and people can click on your name to review your profile and see whatever blogs you have through blogger. Please, whatever you do, do not insert a link to your blog within your comment. It will not get posted. Any comment with a link will not get posted. It's how I operate. It is my blog after all.
Posted by Scott at 7:26 AM
I just hate it when someone with greater brilliance then I have, beats me to the punch. I couldn't have said it better. In fact, I couldn't come close to saying it better. I bow to the greater brilliance of Garrison Keillor. In a recent article he wrote the following:
It was dishonest, cynical men who put forward a clueless young woman for national office, hoping to juice up the ticket, hoping she could skate through two months of chaperoned campaigning, but the truth emerges: The lady is talking freely about matters she has never thought about. The American people have an ear for B.S. They can tell when someone's mouth is moving and the clutch is not engaged. When she said, "One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day, American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars," people smelled gas.
Here is the full article. Have I mentioned I think this article is brilliant? If not, I do. If I did . . . well, get over it. I'm allowed to repeat myself. It is my blog after all. Read the full article. He really nails things down. I just love the visual of the above paragraph, especially the line "people smelled gas". Too damn funny.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The title of this blog is a headline on one of the news services this morning. Isn't the title an oxy-moron? I'm finding more and more of those lately, btw. I think the oxy-morons had a party with a little Viagra involved and are breeding like rabbits now. I'm just saying . . .
So, dear (add heavy dose of sarcasm/snark to that word) President Bush is going to give a pep talk to an anxious country about the mess he created. Oh wait, sorry, he didn't create, he just pushed it over the precipice into a bottomless pit. I mean, really, people, is anything he can say going to change the current economic crisis? No! Is anything he is going to say really going to calm the fears of the nation when unemployment continues to increase and the stock market continues to tumble? What words can he say to ease the fear of someone who lost $32,000 out of their 401K? What about 100,000 thousand? What about people who no longer have homes because the banks lent them money that the banks knew they could not pay back? What comfort can a - thankfully - departing President, who did more harm to this country (at least in my snarky opinion) than good), offer right now? What fears can he allay? How many times can he go on television and read the words off a tele-prompter before he realizes that nothing he says can actually turn this country around or ease the fears of people watching their retirement savings shrink into nothingness?
There is nothing he can say or do that will change what has already happened, and what is currently happening. The time for change was four years ago when he was mistakenly elected to office a 2nd time. Boy, didn't this country pay for that mistake? Yes, I know, he's not solely at fault for the current crisis or the problems in the country. He is a part of the problem, however, as is the current administration, and I'll go so far as to say the current House/Senate/Whatever. We need dramatic, positive change in this country where the Administration does not bow down to the whims of the rich and conservative. I'm just saying . . .
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The phrase "stupid is, as stupid does" popped into my mind just a little bit ago. I told you somebody, somewhere would do something stupid . . . Boy, was I right, and I didn't have to wait more than an hour or so.
You go to college, take all the required courses, make good grades, and reach graduation day. The routine of millions of people every year. Once you graduate, you have your diploma and go out into the real world to - hopefully - find a decent job based on your college degree. The degree is, after all, just a little bit more than a piece of paper. It is the magic key to allegedly higher paying jobs. What happens when the magic key is taken away? A recent graduate of Brigham Young University (that Mormon school) is about to find out.
Brigham Young University just sent a letter out to one of it's recent graduates (Aug 15, 2008 graduation date) and basically told him his degree is worth nothing because he is "not in good honor code standing to graduate because you had been excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the affiliated sponsor of BYU". Why was he excommunicated? Because this recent graduate created a Mormon Beefcake (yummy!) calendar. Let me tell you, those Mormon's are good-looking. So, there is a hold on this young man's graduation until he is "reinstated as a member of the Church in good standing".
So, this recent graduate's degree is not worth the paper it is printed on because he produced a beefcake calendar. WWJD???? I guess he'd pull a persons degree according to BYU.
Can you get any more idiotic than this? Yes, I'm sure you can, and I'm sure someone will, and I'm sure my fingers will be flying over the keyboard in response any moment now. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 8:23 AM
Since the election is - thankfully - almost over, I figure I'd better find some other things to write about. Oh, I know, somebody, sometime soon, is going to make an allegedly stupid comment and force me to respond on this blog. The holiday season is coming up. What was it last year? Oh, that's right, no Christmas trees because they might offend somebody. Scroll through the archives of this blog and you'll find an entry or two about that bit of stupidity from human society!
Today, I'm going to write about family portraits. Why? Well, because a friend of mine just had one done. He was all dressed up in a fancy suit, the wife in her pretty dress, and the two kids in equally pretty dresses (oh, the kids were both girls, just in case you were wondering). My question: why in the heck do we dress to the nines for family portraits? What's wrong with dressing casually, in everyday wear? Why does society insist that family portraits must look stuffy and uncomfortable? Trust me, I have a black and white family photo (this was before digital cameras and, I guess, before color film - I'll have to research that one a little more, I'm not that old) of my brother, sisters, and I taken when I was about two. I was a cute little devil. Not much has changed in the intervening years. My sisters have on their matching dresses and my brother and I are in our little suits with bow ties (yes, another ancient custom that is - thankfully - no longer in practice). I did look pretty sharp (and cute) with my bow tie. The thing is, I was also probably as uncomfortable as hell. Perhaps that's where my dislike for suits and ties originated. I'll have to ask a therapist about that.
What I'm really trying to say is, why do we take pictures of ourselves, that don't actually represent ourselves? Is that the real me (cute as can be) in the suit with the bow tie looking absolutely adorable? Of course not! I was two years old. I was probably more comfortable running around in a diaper . . . or naked, for that matter. I was two after all. Clothes aren't really that important to a two year old. I'm just saying . . .
So, at what point in our lives, do we decide that we need to dress all nice for a family portrait, if that dressing nice is not actually representative of the person having their portrait taken? I do not have an answer to that question. I guess it's just another one of those mysterious things that happen, kind of like the sock going missing in the dryer, or once a person reaches age 50, how gravity tends to affect certain parts of the human body.
Posted by Scott at 7:23 AM
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
For a change, this blog is not going to discuss politics. Instead, I'm going to discuss the lovely subject of relationships, or rather, the break up of relationships. Yes, I know, a very delicate subject.
Picture it: your best friend is dating someone, they seem to have a good relationship, you like the person your friend is dating, they move in together, and then - BAM (Emeril at his best) - they have broken-up. What in the heck is a gay man to do when two people he likes breaks up? I mean, I like them both. Okay, so I've known one longer than the other. I like them both. Oh, man, I've suddenly found myself between the proverbial rock and a hard (don't even let your nasty little minds go there) place. Let me tell you. It's a very tight squeeze . . . almost tighter than trying to fit into my jeans about a month or so ago. Too much ice cream over the summer. Oh, did I mention that one half of the couple started dating another man within a week???
Picture it - the sequel: your best friend is dating someone, they seem to have a good relationship, and then - BAM (the whole Emeril thing again) - they break-up. Your friend is devastated. A few weeks later you learn that another friend is now dating the ex-boyfriend of your friend. Whoa!!!
So what do you do in situations like this? Run screaming into the night and never look back. Okay, that's not really an option. Pretend you're a politician and lie like hell! Dang, and I was trying not to talk about politics. Pretend that you know nothing about nothing! Ooops, there I went back into the whole political thang!
In the first scenario, only a week and all that jazz, you just do the best you can do. I mean, how do you tell a friend that his ex-boyfriend is already seeing somebody else? This is not something you can bring up in casual conversation. "Hey, man, did you know your ex is banging the waiter in the back alley?" Trust me, that's not a good start to a conversation. In that instance, discretion is definitely the better part of valor. Say nothing and deal with the consequences later. Let someone else be the bearer of bad news. Run screaming into the night.
In the second scenario, it's a little more tricky since you're good friends with both parties involved. Again, run screaming into the night seems the best option, especially if the one friend doesn't know anything at this point, but has strong suspicions. Sometimes, however, you just have to bite the proverbial bullet and be the bearer of bad tidings. My simple advice in this area was that someone needs to tell the friend that his ex-boyfriend is already dating somebody else. Do not, whatever you do, mention the name of that somebody else. The crap is going to hit the fan soon enough and you, the bearer of bad news, do not necessarily need to get splattered by the crap quite so soon.
Now, while I'm talking about relationships. Here's something you shouldn't do when trying to keep people from finding out about your new relationship: do not go to the local gay bar two weekends in a row with your new boyfriend. I'm just saying . . . There's no such thing as a secret in the gay community. Telephone! Telegraph! Tell-a-gay-man! The gayvine knows no limits and is the source of all information, and misinformation within the community. Be discrete. Stay home with the new love of your life. That way, dear friends, your new boyfriend's ex-boyfriend won't have a clue . . . at least until the next time you appear in public with your new boyfriend, who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of your good friend. Whew!!
As all the above situations remind me, sometimes, life is a bitch! I hate it when friends break-up. I never know what to do, who I should invite to margarita night, who I shouldn't invite, and all the other fun - heavy on the sarcasm on that word, just in case you're wondering - social situations that crop up after a break-up. It would be nice if I could just only like one person in a relationship. That rarely happens, my friends. My advice to all my friends who are currently couples: please don't break up, because I'll have to disown both halves of the couple just to remain fair to all. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 11:28 AM
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
What world is Sarah Palin (Sarah P for short) living in? It's definitely not the real world. As everyone should know by now, unless they're still living under the proverbial rock, Sarah P's ethics were in question over the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. In effect, a bi-partisan committee (though McCain's campaign alleges the committee is partisan) found that "Palin's efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action" (cnn.com) - see full article here. The official response from Palin's camp is: Branchflower's conclusion that Palin had violated state ethics law was wrong, because no financial interest was involved. Palin told reporters over the weekend that she had been "cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."
Now my question: what world is Sarah P living in? Obviously, it is a world of delusion. The report clearly states she violated ethics; yet, her attorney states she did not. Sarah P thinks she did nothing wrong.
Sarah P needs to go back to her delusional world and let someone who actually knows the difference between right and wrong run for Vice President and, in the bigger picture, run the government. Oh wait, that totally eliminates everyone currently serving/running our government. Dang, hate it when that happens. Well, at least, someone less delusional than Sarah P should be the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Is that even possible? I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 8:27 AM
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The entries just keep coming! Check out this article from cnn.com. The word for the day is association. Barack Obama is continually being slammed by the Republican candidates for President and Vice President for his association with William Ayers, a 1960s radical; a terrorist. This article turns the table on Senator McCain and lists a few of his associates: Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd. Each of these men were racists, to such an extreme that one of them belonged to the Klu Klux Klan (definitely a terrorist organization) and all of them wholly supported the segregation and oppression of African Americans. Now, as the article points out, based on the logic of John McCain and Sarah Palin with Obama's association with Ayers, McCain is associated with . . . well, I painted the picture for you, and I'm sure you can see it clearly.
As I pointed out to my co-worker the other day, nobody truly knows their friends. You might have hung out with a great guy in high school, only to find out that he's a rapist. Your best friend might abuse her children. There might be a sex offender living in your neighborhood. By the (misguided) logic used by McCain and Palin, you (yes, a generalization that would make any English teacher . . . or school principal cringe) are guilty by . . . association. Since you knew the child abuser, rapist, or lived in the same neighborhood as the sex offender, you are - in the words of Sarah Palin - palling around with them. Don't you hate it when your words come back to bite you in the nether region????
In the end, as the article points out, the association argument is "weak and impotent" (where's Bob Dole when you need him - EDS commercial, people!).
Lastly, the best point of all of the article is: What I find to be more deplorable is to hear McCain advisers say they want to turn the page to anything but the issue number one -- the economy. (cnn.com - 10/08/2008)
Amen to that, my brother!!
Go here. The link is to a blog written by an 82 year old woman about Sarah Palin. I find it absolutely hysterical. Too dang funny. OMG!!!
This will be brief and to the point. At last night's debate, when Senator McCain was asked to prioritize three things (health care, economy, and something else - sorry, first cup of coffee hasn't hit yet), he made the statement that he would work on all three at the same time. Excuse me, is that the sound of ice forming in hell? This is the same man who could not multitask and focus on his campaign and the economic crisis at the same time. This is the same man who suspended his campaign to help the economy. BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the economy is still in the crapper.
As I was thinking about this entry this morning, I realized one simple thing: I was assuming that Senator McCain was incapable of multitasking, i.e., running his campaign and dealing with the economic crisis. After careful thought, I realize that there wasn't any multitasking involved at all. Senator McCain is not running his Presidential campaign, his co-workers, advisers, and speechwriters are running his campaign. They tell him where to go, hand him a speech, and prepare statements for him when he wants to attack Barack Obama. So really, there was no need to suspend his campaign since he wasn't really - at least in my opinion - doing much in the first place. Now, if he'd just quit whining about suspending his campaign, which, technically was never suspended, since all the little people were still working behind the scenes, I'd be a really happy camper.
Also, in case you watched the debate, go here to get the facts. Oh, and lastly, John McCain repeated some of the things Sarah Palin said about Barack Obama during the Vice Presidential debate. I guess it's fairly obvious now that originality does not exist with the Republican ticket. I'm just saying . . .
Monday, October 06, 2008
Here we go again . . . does she never learn?
Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (cnn.com)
Once again, poor, deluded Sarah Palin makes a - mostly - false comment. She is, in part, according to this article, referring to 1960s radical William Ayers, who happens to live in the same neighborhood as Barack Obama. This is not somebody that Obama pals around with, only someone who lives in the same neighborhood. A fact which Obama brought up earlier this year.
The actual facts that poor deluded Sarah Palin failed to relay in her speech are:
There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are. (cnn.com - factcheck)
I guess her false statements should be expected. Barack is making similar statements. What's a poor voter to do? Go to one of the many fact check sites and spend a little time researching the truth before making the final decision to vote. The fact is (at least in my opinion), there is not a politician alive who allegedly tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Politicians have a history of taking things out of context and presenting them as truth, hoping beyond hope that voters are going to take them at their word. Isn't that another one of those oxy-morons? What person in their right mind would believe what a politician tells them? Have we learned nothing from no new taxes? Or wait, what about the infamous - and nonexistent - WMDs???
I'm just saying . . .
Friday, October 03, 2008
Case in point - during last night's debate, Sarah Palin made the following statement "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."
What Sarah, obviously either at her own discretion or the insistence of the Republican Party, failed to mention was the following:
–23 were against proposed tax cuts.
— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."
– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.
– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."
The Fact Check Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.
Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.
The fact is, Sarah Palin told enough of the truth for her statement not to be an outright lie. She just failed to fill in pertinent details, obviously hoping the voting public was ignorant and would not bother checking facts. What, is she living beneath a rock?? Google is my friend. A good portion of the voting public knows how - and will - to check facts. Perhaps Sarah, and every other politician out there, might want to consider that option before they lie by omission.
Now, since I'm being fair here, let's pull out the following statement from Joe Biden - "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do forthe health care industry (is) deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."
Now for the facts, my friends.
In Congress, Sen. John McCain has frequently supported deregulation. Some aspects of that deregulation are now widely blamed for the problems on Wall Street.
In the current issue of a magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain discussed a change he wants to bring to the health care market: allowing people to buy plans across state lines. "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the lastdecade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," he wrote in the magazine called "Contingencies."
Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama have pointed to the first part of that quote to bolster their argument that McCain wants to see the health care industry undergo the same changes as the banking industry. But the reform McCain wants for health care — state deregulation — is only one of several types of deregulation that reshaped the banking industry. McCain has not proposed reshaping the health care industry in all the same ways as banks.
McCain and his opponents disagree over what impact state deregulation could have on the health care industry. McCain says the increased competition would benefit consumers; Obama says consumers would lose key protections, and insurance companies would be given more power.
Though a frequent fan of deregulation, McCain blames the current Wall street mess partly on federal regulatory agencies failing to do their jobs, and vows to "replace the outdated patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight" with a high-level, bipartisan oversight board.
Verdict:Misleading. McCain does want to overhaul state oversight of health care, but the deregulation he is calling for is not nearly as extensive as what was done to the banking system.
Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.
Again, Biden told a partial instead of a full truth. In effect, like Sarah Palin he lied. Enough with the lies, people. Try telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for a change.
Also, check out this - very interesting.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Whine, whine, and more whine . . . and the election continues! Is it November yet??? What's the latest whine from Republican country. Click here.
Basically, John McCain is down in the polls. His response, as can be found in the linked article is quite classic. According to the article, "Sen. John McCain jokingly said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."" (cnn.com). Sen. McCain went on to clarify (didn't read like a joke to me - I'm just saying . . .), "He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain told Fox News on Thursday. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings." (cnn.com)
For the record, Obama did not do nothing. He did make plenty of phone calls - as McCain reluctantly acknowledges.
Would you like some cheese with that whine, Senator McCain? I mean, really. The only thing the suspension of his campaign proved (to me, and quite a few people I talked with) is that the man who hopes to become the next President of the United States is unable to focus on two things at once. I can picture it now: there's a hurricane a coming and nature is calling. What's a man to do? He can't handle two things at once. Oh well, guess since he's distended he'll have to go void. Okay, so two totally different things, but I think you get my point. Senator McCain - like Barack Obama - should have kept his campaign going and called whoever he needed to call to get things moving toward the economic bailout. This is the age of technology after all - telephones, cell phones, instant messaging, emails, and all that jazz. What he did in person, he could have done in some other way. There was no need to suspend his campaign. He should have proven, to himself and the country, that he is capable of multi-tasking.
Now that his decision is biting him in the nether regions, all he can do is . . . whine, whine, and more whine!
Senator McCain made a choice that did not turn out as well as he expected. That happens to everybody at some point in their life. I have three words for you Senator McCain: Get Over It! I'm sorry, I know this is probably harsh; but he sounds like a spoiled brat who did not get his way. Life is not fair, Senator McCain. Bad things happen all the time. If you cannot accept responsibility for your choices as a Senator, how in the heck are you going to take responsibility for your choices as the - potential (hopefully not in the lifetimes of anybody I know) - next President of the United States. Well, uh, I really didn't press that red button!! BAM!