February 25, 2006
The Fundamentalists' Guide to the Lost Weekend
The BBC has a good article on the problems between the Sunnis and the Shias, which I think is a prime example of people behaving badly all the way around, and for centuries at that. It’s just one more reason why I say that if you want world peace, abolish organized religion. The problem with having a god tell you how to behave is in the way you interpret that god, or in the god itself. If we need to worship someone, let’s worship someone fun, like Sammy Davis, Jr. He qualifies as he’s dead, he’s famous, and best of all, he was wasted half the time. To most of the religious fundamentalist in the world, no matter what religion, the words, "have another round," means a round of bullets. We'd be better off if they thought it meant cocktails.
February 19, 2006
The Fastest Gun in the West
I have a confession to make, one that will show how badly in need of therapy I am. I feel guilty for being the only blogger in the world who has not covered the Cheney shooting incident. And here it is, a week or more after the fact and I still haven’t really said much about it, except in the previous post where I stated the obvious, which is that I had not commented on it.
It’s not that I didn’t find the story entertaining. I vacillated between feeling sorry for the poor guy who got shot, marveling over the demise of the Bush administration’s marketing machine, and laughing over Cheney’s folly, which is sick in itself because his folly is that he shot someone. I’ve said it before: I’m not a very good person.
What bothers me about this, and what should bother everyone, is that Cheney enjoys watching innocent things suffer. And I’m not talking about Harry. We’ve learned a lot about his hunting habits in the past week. Recently, 500 birds were let loose for his hunting enjoyment, and Cheney shot 80. That’s like shooting fish in a barrel. And quail hunting, please, the damn things don’t fly. Just toss him a litter of kittens and let him shoot them.
While we’re on the subject of Cheney, as a friend pointed out to me, how can he be so against gays and yet have a close relationship with his daughter?
Cheney’s entire life is one well-strategized political move. He’s the stereotype of the heartless corporate icon, living, breathing, ruling our world, and frankly, slowly ruining this country. He doesn’t care. He has no intention of running for president. He’s a VP with a constituency of 1: W. He has nothing to lose, he can’t even drag W down, but that’s because W can do that just fine on his own, thank you.
Word from my friends who are tied into Washington is that right before W’s term is up, Cheney will resign for health reasons, and Bush will put in someone who can run for prez and continue their legacy of evil, corrupt, I mean, neoconic policy. Condi Rice, put your running shoes on – you know, the Ferragamos you bought on 5th Avenue when New Orleans was in chaos right after Katrina. In the meantime, stay away from Dick and guns.
It’s not that I didn’t find the story entertaining. I vacillated between feeling sorry for the poor guy who got shot, marveling over the demise of the Bush administration’s marketing machine, and laughing over Cheney’s folly, which is sick in itself because his folly is that he shot someone. I’ve said it before: I’m not a very good person.
What bothers me about this, and what should bother everyone, is that Cheney enjoys watching innocent things suffer. And I’m not talking about Harry. We’ve learned a lot about his hunting habits in the past week. Recently, 500 birds were let loose for his hunting enjoyment, and Cheney shot 80. That’s like shooting fish in a barrel. And quail hunting, please, the damn things don’t fly. Just toss him a litter of kittens and let him shoot them.
While we’re on the subject of Cheney, as a friend pointed out to me, how can he be so against gays and yet have a close relationship with his daughter?
Cheney’s entire life is one well-strategized political move. He’s the stereotype of the heartless corporate icon, living, breathing, ruling our world, and frankly, slowly ruining this country. He doesn’t care. He has no intention of running for president. He’s a VP with a constituency of 1: W. He has nothing to lose, he can’t even drag W down, but that’s because W can do that just fine on his own, thank you.
Word from my friends who are tied into Washington is that right before W’s term is up, Cheney will resign for health reasons, and Bush will put in someone who can run for prez and continue their legacy of evil, corrupt, I mean, neoconic policy. Condi Rice, put your running shoes on – you know, the Ferragamos you bought on 5th Avenue when New Orleans was in chaos right after Katrina. In the meantime, stay away from Dick and guns.
February 14, 2006
That's So Gay
Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis is probably wondering why I haven’t commented on Dick Cheney accidentally shooting one of his crones. If it makes you feel better, I did let out a bit of a hoot from my couch when I heard the news on CNN, and I’ve been meaning to blog about it, but the Day Job has had its steely claws firmly around my neck lately, and my more creative endeavors have fallen by the wayside. That said, I do want to take a moment to discuss my favorite class of people, gay men, and my least favorite class of people, Evangelical Christians.
Everyone and their mother are talking about “Brokeback Mountain.” Everyone has an opinion. Here’s what the latest scuttlebutt is all about, though: Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are straight actors playing gay men, right? There’s another film out called “End of the Spear,” and Chad Allen, a gay actor, is playing a straight missionary. No big deal, you would think. Well, geez, conservative Christians are pretty sure this marks the start of the apocalypse.
An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, produced the movie. Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family (or as I like to call them, “We forgot to take the pill”) gave “Spear” a rave review. Then some conservative along the way, probably suppressing the hots for Mr. Allen, Googled his name and realized he was gay. Word spread. Now, many Evangelicals felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message. Let me just be clear here, I have not seen the movie, but what? Was Chad Allen wearing pastel? How could his personal life possibly mute the movie’s message? Ellen DeGeneras did a movie a few years ago where she played a straight woman. It didn’t ruin the movie for me. The movie ruined the movie for me.
What’s crazy about this is that evangelicals want gays to more or less play straight, suppress their urges and, pardon the pun, act Right.
Of course, Jack and Ennis do that in “Brokeback Mountain,” and their wives are the ones who end up devastated because their husbands prefer bulls to cows. Okay, I’m trying to go with a cowboy theme there, but you know what I mean.
What the evangelicals need to realize is that “Brokeback” is a success, on more levels than just critical or monetary. Straight audiences are watching this movie, and that must irk the evangelicals to no end. It’s time they take out their lassos and go wrestle their own personal demons. They are entitled to their opinions, but I think less and less people will share those opinions, especially if what they are saying is that it’s not okay for a gay actor to play a straight and pious man, but it is okay for a gay man in real life to play a straight and pious man. Now wouldn’t’ that just make him a hypocrite?
Everyone and their mother are talking about “Brokeback Mountain.” Everyone has an opinion. Here’s what the latest scuttlebutt is all about, though: Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are straight actors playing gay men, right? There’s another film out called “End of the Spear,” and Chad Allen, a gay actor, is playing a straight missionary. No big deal, you would think. Well, geez, conservative Christians are pretty sure this marks the start of the apocalypse.
An evangelical film company, Every Tribe Entertainment, produced the movie. Marcus Yoars, a film critic for Focus on the Family (or as I like to call them, “We forgot to take the pill”) gave “Spear” a rave review. Then some conservative along the way, probably suppressing the hots for Mr. Allen, Googled his name and realized he was gay. Word spread. Now, many Evangelicals felt Chad Allen's presence in the film negated any positive message. Let me just be clear here, I have not seen the movie, but what? Was Chad Allen wearing pastel? How could his personal life possibly mute the movie’s message? Ellen DeGeneras did a movie a few years ago where she played a straight woman. It didn’t ruin the movie for me. The movie ruined the movie for me.
What’s crazy about this is that evangelicals want gays to more or less play straight, suppress their urges and, pardon the pun, act Right.
Of course, Jack and Ennis do that in “Brokeback Mountain,” and their wives are the ones who end up devastated because their husbands prefer bulls to cows. Okay, I’m trying to go with a cowboy theme there, but you know what I mean.
What the evangelicals need to realize is that “Brokeback” is a success, on more levels than just critical or monetary. Straight audiences are watching this movie, and that must irk the evangelicals to no end. It’s time they take out their lassos and go wrestle their own personal demons. They are entitled to their opinions, but I think less and less people will share those opinions, especially if what they are saying is that it’s not okay for a gay actor to play a straight and pious man, but it is okay for a gay man in real life to play a straight and pious man. Now wouldn’t’ that just make him a hypocrite?
February 11, 2006
User Error
My name is Binx and I'm a technical failure.
Poor La Blogda is experiencing some technical difficulties due to something very, very bad I did to this blog's basic functions.
I'm trying to clear it up with the good people at blogger support, but in the meantime, A View From a Broad can't post her debut.
Stay tuned to this blog for more malfunctions in the near future.
Poor La Blogda is experiencing some technical difficulties due to something very, very bad I did to this blog's basic functions.
I'm trying to clear it up with the good people at blogger support, but in the meantime, A View From a Broad can't post her debut.
Stay tuned to this blog for more malfunctions in the near future.
February 07, 2006
A View From a Broad
I'm happy to announce that LaBlogda is getting a new Team Member who will soon be posting rants against society's ills. This new blogger is a pal of mine from way back to my San Francisco days. Yes, that's right, she's one of those San Francisco liberals. Actually, she now lives outside SF, but you know what they say: you can take the girl out of the city but you can't take the city out of the girl. And that girl has plenty of city-slicking attitude, just what LaBlodga likes.
Her screen moniker will be A View From a Broad, so next time you are compelled to post a comment either A) calling me a whiny liberal (I get that a lot) or B) telling me how wonderful I am, make sure I wrote the post. It could very well be our new sassy yet sage blogger.
Her screen moniker will be A View From a Broad, so next time you are compelled to post a comment either A) calling me a whiny liberal (I get that a lot) or B) telling me how wonderful I am, make sure I wrote the post. It could very well be our new sassy yet sage blogger.
February 05, 2006
The No-Policy President
Paul Krugman in the NYT on Friday explains the crux of the problem with the W administration:
“There's a common theme underlying the botched reconstruction of Iraq, the botched response to Katrina (which Mr. Bush never mentioned), the botched drug program, and the nonexistent energy program. John DiIulio, the former White House head of faith-based policy, explained it more than three years ago. He told the reporter Ron Suskind how this administration operates: 'There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. ... I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues.'
"In other words, this administration is all politics and no policy. It knows how to attain power, but has no idea how to govern. That's why the administration was caught unaware when Katrina hit, and why it was totally unprepared for the predictable problems with its drug plan. It's why Mr. Bush announced an energy plan with no substance behind it. And it's why the state of the union — the thing itself, not the speech — is so grim."
Also from the NYT, more on W’s “intervention” to get us oil-addicted Americans free of the monkeys on our backs. Here’s how he plans to do it:
“The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget. A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.”
Okay, so maybe that’s not such a good plan. Question to W: Where is your marketing guru, Rove? Your comment that Americans are addicted to oil was so incredibly flawed, that is shows you are indeed running the show. Which means we are really screwed.
“There's a common theme underlying the botched reconstruction of Iraq, the botched response to Katrina (which Mr. Bush never mentioned), the botched drug program, and the nonexistent energy program. John DiIulio, the former White House head of faith-based policy, explained it more than three years ago. He told the reporter Ron Suskind how this administration operates: 'There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. ... I heard many, many staff discussions but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues.'
"In other words, this administration is all politics and no policy. It knows how to attain power, but has no idea how to govern. That's why the administration was caught unaware when Katrina hit, and why it was totally unprepared for the predictable problems with its drug plan. It's why Mr. Bush announced an energy plan with no substance behind it. And it's why the state of the union — the thing itself, not the speech — is so grim."
Also from the NYT, more on W’s “intervention” to get us oil-addicted Americans free of the monkeys on our backs. Here’s how he plans to do it:
“The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget. A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.”
Okay, so maybe that’s not such a good plan. Question to W: Where is your marketing guru, Rove? Your comment that Americans are addicted to oil was so incredibly flawed, that is shows you are indeed running the show. Which means we are really screwed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)