Sunday, December 28, 2008
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
F CNN
I have been steaming all day since watching The Situation Room on CNN with Wolf Blitzer as the host. He completely pissed me off. I'm getting so sick of these piece of crap jerkoffs performing their sensationalist reporting to secure ratings. Blitzer has been walking a very fine line for a while. But today, he stepped over that line in his reporting. Please, read this one post, if you read any of them.
The main story that you heard all day long on the news was about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He is being charged with several infractions - one of them: trying to sell a seat into the Senate. What pissed me off was that during the reporting of this story, Wolf Blitzer, along with many other reporters sensationalized the story by reporting this story somewhat like this:
"...a scandal today in which Rod Blagojevich was trying to sell President-Elect Barack Obama's Senate seat".
Blagojevich had a short list of candidates that he thought he could sell the seat to. One of these was Jesse Jackson Jr.. And while the investigator specifically said that this investigation does NOT include Obama or Jackson Jr., Blizter had the following video clips:
Each time they referred to the Senate seat, it was said with Obama's name included in some way, as if he were somehow involved. And what really pissed me off about The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer was when he had a video clip on one of his massive screens behind him. The caption under the video said "Corruption Case"...and of course the video was NOT of Blagojevich. It was a video of Barack Obama. The video clip that he had on his show with Jesse Jackson Jr. had a caption under it which read: Senator Seat Scandal.
Blitzer could have spent time on his show reporting this news correctly. He could have been saying that Obama and Jackson weren't being investigated - that in fact, the investigator specifically said that these two were NOT under investigation. Instead, Blitzer tried to tie them to Blagojevich as much as he could. He could have also talked about the other things that Blagojevich was under suspicion to have done. But here's what he talked about instead: Blagojevich's and his wife's use of profanity!
Seriously, I would have prefered to have heard about the shakedown of...wow, I don't even remember what the charge was...because Blitzer, Rick Sanchez and others talked about Blagojevich and his wife swearing instead!
When I was in college, I used to say that the "f-word" should be spelled with a PH and end in a Q. You know, Quack, Quick...they both have a "ck" sound. So, in complying with the Terms of Use of Blogger.com, and still expressing myself: Rick Sanchez, Wolf Blitzer: GO PHUQ YOURSELVES!
You make me sick. Seriously. I was literally feeling sick to my stomach while you reported this story all day long because of your phuqing bullchit. You can suck my @ss. You call into question the integrity of these two men while at the same time compromising your own.
And while you could be providing more information on the story, you instead spend time reporting on the "cursing" of Blagojevich's wife. How she's a "Foul-Mouthed First Lady", her cursing, swearing and blah blah blah. Oh, what was that about the actual story? I'm sorry, I didn't hear it because you two (along with others) were too busy talking about the swearing.
I sure hope you weren't too offended by all that _foul_ language. Now, just run on back to Mayberry and snuggle up with Aunt Bea.. prudes...I actually had a different P-word there to begin with.
That's all I'm writing for now. I just can't even deal with this. Honestly, I'm so pissed off with my options for news outlets. I get CNN or nothing. I really want to be able to hear what's going on in the world...but I can't stand all this god damned sensationalism by the news anchors.
The main story that you heard all day long on the news was about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He is being charged with several infractions - one of them: trying to sell a seat into the Senate. What pissed me off was that during the reporting of this story, Wolf Blitzer, along with many other reporters sensationalized the story by reporting this story somewhat like this:
"...a scandal today in which Rod Blagojevich was trying to sell President-Elect Barack Obama's Senate seat".
Blagojevich had a short list of candidates that he thought he could sell the seat to. One of these was Jesse Jackson Jr.. And while the investigator specifically said that this investigation does NOT include Obama or Jackson Jr., Blizter had the following video clips:
Each time they referred to the Senate seat, it was said with Obama's name included in some way, as if he were somehow involved. And what really pissed me off about The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer was when he had a video clip on one of his massive screens behind him. The caption under the video said "Corruption Case"...and of course the video was NOT of Blagojevich. It was a video of Barack Obama. The video clip that he had on his show with Jesse Jackson Jr. had a caption under it which read: Senator Seat Scandal.
Blitzer could have spent time on his show reporting this news correctly. He could have been saying that Obama and Jackson weren't being investigated - that in fact, the investigator specifically said that these two were NOT under investigation. Instead, Blitzer tried to tie them to Blagojevich as much as he could. He could have also talked about the other things that Blagojevich was under suspicion to have done. But here's what he talked about instead: Blagojevich's and his wife's use of profanity!
Seriously, I would have prefered to have heard about the shakedown of...wow, I don't even remember what the charge was...because Blitzer, Rick Sanchez and others talked about Blagojevich and his wife swearing instead!
When I was in college, I used to say that the "f-word" should be spelled with a PH and end in a Q. You know, Quack, Quick...they both have a "ck" sound. So, in complying with the Terms of Use of Blogger.com, and still expressing myself: Rick Sanchez, Wolf Blitzer: GO PHUQ YOURSELVES!
You make me sick. Seriously. I was literally feeling sick to my stomach while you reported this story all day long because of your phuqing bullchit. You can suck my @ss. You call into question the integrity of these two men while at the same time compromising your own.
And while you could be providing more information on the story, you instead spend time reporting on the "cursing" of Blagojevich's wife. How she's a "Foul-Mouthed First Lady", her cursing, swearing and blah blah blah. Oh, what was that about the actual story? I'm sorry, I didn't hear it because you two (along with others) were too busy talking about the swearing.
I sure hope you weren't too offended by all that _foul_ language. Now, just run on back to Mayberry and snuggle up with Aunt Bea.. prudes...I actually had a different P-word there to begin with.
That's all I'm writing for now. I just can't even deal with this. Honestly, I'm so pissed off with my options for news outlets. I get CNN or nothing. I really want to be able to hear what's going on in the world...but I can't stand all this god damned sensationalism by the news anchors.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
"Multi-Media" Rant
I have some complaints today...again. Most of the items on my list today though may seem relatively small compared to my earlier posts. But combined, they really add up to a large sum. And furthermore, it makes me feel as though I'm piecing together a conspiracy theory against the entire civilian public by the media and government. I think the easiest way to start this is to begin with a single small detail and expand outwards...my own little "Ripple of Evil", if you're familiar with the show "Root of All Evil" from Comedy Central with Lewis Black as the host.
I was watching several different news/entertainment news shows today, as usual. While watching Showbiz Tonight (airing in the daytime), I saw a brief news item about people, some of which I guess you could consider "anti-fans" of celebrities, splashing water on different public figures - like Tom Cruise. But, it made me think of paparazzi as well, that taunt celebrities. It bothers the crap out of me that they do this. When the celebrities seem to not be acting up enough for the paparazzis' job to be worthwhile, meaning that there is nothing "scandalous" going on, they try to piss them off enough to attack - verbally or physically.
It's like watching a fish in an aquarium if it's just sitting at the bottom. You try to position yourself to where you know the fish sees you through the glass. If it still doesn't move around, you tap on the glass. Once you've scared it, or pissed it off, enough to swim away in haste, you feel as though your job is done and leave it alone.
These paparazzi go to take pictures of celebrities to publish. But if the celebrity they've photographed isn't currently in the public eye, they try to create controversy to make them the focus of the media. A prime, current example that I can think of, other than all the water-throwing incidents is Brad Garett, from Everybody Loves Raymond. He was recently on a date. When leaving the restaurant, a group of photographers chased him. Let's face it, regardless of his acting skills, he's not currently a major public figure. So, one of the guys taunted Brad, calling him a "fag"...inciting him to physically attack. BAM! Brad is now a piece of news!
I've always thought that once a person becomes a celebrity, they've basically sold their personal lives to the public - that everything they do is fair game. But these paparazzi have taken this concept far past what anyone could possibly consider to be ethical.
Here comes a confession: I've never been a fan of Britney Spears. There, I said it publicly! Okay, not all that shocking...here's the real confession: I feel sorry for her after seeing everything the media has done to make her life hell. I really, really don't believe she was as mentally unstable as she has exhibited in the last couple of years...not until after the media had their way with her. Honestly, I think it's sad. But she's not the only one. How many celebrities every year are hounded like this....for the satisfaction of the few who read the tabloids for these "scandals".
Now, the tabloids and paparazzi are not the only ones to blame here. There are news anchors from every outlet who exploit celebrities on a daily basis. And worse, they exploit everyone that they report on or interview.
For the second day in a row, I'm going to use Rick Sanchez as an example...and my target - and it's not just because I dislike him so much.
I'd like to talk about the day there were divers searching a pond for remains of Caylee Anthony. There was supposedly a plastic bag found at the bottom of the pond. I knew immediately, and I was right, that Rick Sanchez would blow this completely out of proportion, prematurely - and that the rest of his time on the air would be a waste of time. I grant you the given information: someone who leaked this information had said there was, found in the plastic bag - a bunch of toys, a symbol of a shamrock (Caylee's favorite), and some small bones. This is not what I'm disputing.
The police report coming out at almost exactly the same time, was that the bag contained "nothing of evidential value". Well, that may not be verbatim, but it's as close as I can remember. My complaint is Rick immediately disputing the police statement, saying that the police didn't know what they were talking about and that it seemed like a pretty condemning piece of evidence.
The fact is, there were no toys, no shamrock symbol and no bones. The report was false. But the fact that Rick Sanchez is so quick to grandstand and sensationalize the report is the point to focus on. The fact is, right now, there is very little damning evidence at all in this case. And while I, like most people who have heard anything about the case, think she's guilty as hell, I cannot stand up and accuse her outright of the crime. But Sanchez apparently doesn't feel the restraint necessary. He's more than willing to destroy Casey Anthony's reputation with or without the evidence.
But, let's get caught up to today's issues. What Sanchez did today was downright cowardly and unfair. A blogger, expressing his opinions against Rick Sanchez, was mentioned on the CNN Newsroom by Rick. And while I don't think Rick is a Republican, he definitely showed that same pompous arrogance that I saw so many times from that party during the elections as he completely blew off this blogger's point of view as being unintelligent. Has anyone else noticed this attitude? If someone doesn't agree, he and they, just pass the person off as being "stupid" or that they "just don't understand". Condescending jerks, all of them!
And again today, Sanchez spent so much time focusing on this complete non-story of the graves of slaves to be moved in Georgia. Today, he brought it up saying that there were "so many more layers of the story appearing". What a load of crap. I'll repeat what I said yesterday:
Cemeteries are moved all the time. The only reason the media, especially Rick Sanchez, are focusing on this story is because of the graves being that of slaves. The NAACP is making it all about race and Sanchez is following right along in step. Here are some other facts that he doesn't focus so much on: the cemetery is in the middle of a landfill and it is completely inaccessible.
I am so sick of racism. I told one of my closest friends in college to get lost when he became increasingly racist over time. I want racism to go away. But the media and the NAACP just won't let it. Not every issue has roots in race!
Another media figure that completely bugged the crap out of me today was Jane Velez-Mitchell. It's annoying enough when she has her little bits, or tosses, from other hosts, when she says at the end of her bit "and that's my issue". My god...she sure has a lot of issues...that's not good.
Today, she was asking people to call in about the Victoria Secret fashion show, asking if people thought it was sexist or not. Asking people that question is leading. Let me ask you this: "Do you think this question she asked is stupid? or not?"
Here's the deal, lady: People who are interested in lingerie want to see this show. If you're not interested in lingerie, DON'T WATCH THE SHOW! It's that easy! Some women might want to buy lingerie to wear, and some men might want to buy lingerie for their significant others.
My god, what a prude! Seriously, why would you have such a problem with this? Do you really think that modelling is such a step back in feminism? Give me a break.
So, here's a question to you, if you happen to read the blogs, Jane Velez-Mitchell: Are you a prude, a feminist, or are you just trying to sensationalize this story to create controversy? Are you that desperate for a story? Do you really need to validate your job to your bosses that much as to suggest that the rest of the world is too loose?
Okay, so that's more than one question. But, I believe they're quite valid. Why does the rest of our society have to second-guess themselves just so she'll have a story?
I was watching several different news/entertainment news shows today, as usual. While watching Showbiz Tonight (airing in the daytime), I saw a brief news item about people, some of which I guess you could consider "anti-fans" of celebrities, splashing water on different public figures - like Tom Cruise. But, it made me think of paparazzi as well, that taunt celebrities. It bothers the crap out of me that they do this. When the celebrities seem to not be acting up enough for the paparazzis' job to be worthwhile, meaning that there is nothing "scandalous" going on, they try to piss them off enough to attack - verbally or physically.
It's like watching a fish in an aquarium if it's just sitting at the bottom. You try to position yourself to where you know the fish sees you through the glass. If it still doesn't move around, you tap on the glass. Once you've scared it, or pissed it off, enough to swim away in haste, you feel as though your job is done and leave it alone.
These paparazzi go to take pictures of celebrities to publish. But if the celebrity they've photographed isn't currently in the public eye, they try to create controversy to make them the focus of the media. A prime, current example that I can think of, other than all the water-throwing incidents is Brad Garett, from Everybody Loves Raymond. He was recently on a date. When leaving the restaurant, a group of photographers chased him. Let's face it, regardless of his acting skills, he's not currently a major public figure. So, one of the guys taunted Brad, calling him a "fag"...inciting him to physically attack. BAM! Brad is now a piece of news!
I've always thought that once a person becomes a celebrity, they've basically sold their personal lives to the public - that everything they do is fair game. But these paparazzi have taken this concept far past what anyone could possibly consider to be ethical.
Here comes a confession: I've never been a fan of Britney Spears. There, I said it publicly! Okay, not all that shocking...here's the real confession: I feel sorry for her after seeing everything the media has done to make her life hell. I really, really don't believe she was as mentally unstable as she has exhibited in the last couple of years...not until after the media had their way with her. Honestly, I think it's sad. But she's not the only one. How many celebrities every year are hounded like this....for the satisfaction of the few who read the tabloids for these "scandals".
Now, the tabloids and paparazzi are not the only ones to blame here. There are news anchors from every outlet who exploit celebrities on a daily basis. And worse, they exploit everyone that they report on or interview.
For the second day in a row, I'm going to use Rick Sanchez as an example...and my target - and it's not just because I dislike him so much.
I'd like to talk about the day there were divers searching a pond for remains of Caylee Anthony. There was supposedly a plastic bag found at the bottom of the pond. I knew immediately, and I was right, that Rick Sanchez would blow this completely out of proportion, prematurely - and that the rest of his time on the air would be a waste of time. I grant you the given information: someone who leaked this information had said there was, found in the plastic bag - a bunch of toys, a symbol of a shamrock (Caylee's favorite), and some small bones. This is not what I'm disputing.
The police report coming out at almost exactly the same time, was that the bag contained "nothing of evidential value". Well, that may not be verbatim, but it's as close as I can remember. My complaint is Rick immediately disputing the police statement, saying that the police didn't know what they were talking about and that it seemed like a pretty condemning piece of evidence.
The fact is, there were no toys, no shamrock symbol and no bones. The report was false. But the fact that Rick Sanchez is so quick to grandstand and sensationalize the report is the point to focus on. The fact is, right now, there is very little damning evidence at all in this case. And while I, like most people who have heard anything about the case, think she's guilty as hell, I cannot stand up and accuse her outright of the crime. But Sanchez apparently doesn't feel the restraint necessary. He's more than willing to destroy Casey Anthony's reputation with or without the evidence.
But, let's get caught up to today's issues. What Sanchez did today was downright cowardly and unfair. A blogger, expressing his opinions against Rick Sanchez, was mentioned on the CNN Newsroom by Rick. And while I don't think Rick is a Republican, he definitely showed that same pompous arrogance that I saw so many times from that party during the elections as he completely blew off this blogger's point of view as being unintelligent. Has anyone else noticed this attitude? If someone doesn't agree, he and they, just pass the person off as being "stupid" or that they "just don't understand". Condescending jerks, all of them!
And again today, Sanchez spent so much time focusing on this complete non-story of the graves of slaves to be moved in Georgia. Today, he brought it up saying that there were "so many more layers of the story appearing". What a load of crap. I'll repeat what I said yesterday:
Cemeteries are moved all the time. The only reason the media, especially Rick Sanchez, are focusing on this story is because of the graves being that of slaves. The NAACP is making it all about race and Sanchez is following right along in step. Here are some other facts that he doesn't focus so much on: the cemetery is in the middle of a landfill and it is completely inaccessible.
I am so sick of racism. I told one of my closest friends in college to get lost when he became increasingly racist over time. I want racism to go away. But the media and the NAACP just won't let it. Not every issue has roots in race!
Another media figure that completely bugged the crap out of me today was Jane Velez-Mitchell. It's annoying enough when she has her little bits, or tosses, from other hosts, when she says at the end of her bit "and that's my issue". My god...she sure has a lot of issues...that's not good.
Today, she was asking people to call in about the Victoria Secret fashion show, asking if people thought it was sexist or not. Asking people that question is leading. Let me ask you this: "Do you think this question she asked is stupid? or not?"
Here's the deal, lady: People who are interested in lingerie want to see this show. If you're not interested in lingerie, DON'T WATCH THE SHOW! It's that easy! Some women might want to buy lingerie to wear, and some men might want to buy lingerie for their significant others.
My god, what a prude! Seriously, why would you have such a problem with this? Do you really think that modelling is such a step back in feminism? Give me a break.
So, here's a question to you, if you happen to read the blogs, Jane Velez-Mitchell: Are you a prude, a feminist, or are you just trying to sensationalize this story to create controversy? Are you that desperate for a story? Do you really need to validate your job to your bosses that much as to suggest that the rest of the world is too loose?
Okay, so that's more than one question. But, I believe they're quite valid. Why does the rest of our society have to second-guess themselves just so she'll have a story?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Obama Cabinet & Media-Sponsored Racism
Here it is, the end of the day. That means it's time to start complaining almost endlessly again. I thought I'd try something new tonight though. Instead of putting several different posts up, I thought it best if I try to sum everything up into a single post for a single day. We'll have to see how well that works out. Okay, let's get started:
I've been listening to news anchors and various interviewees that they seem to have made deals with, as if they've said "I'll let you on my show to help sell your book if you back up my idiotic idea". One of my biggest complaints about what they've been saying today is the nomination of Bill Richardson to the post of Secretary of Commerce. I'm not even sure how many of this moronic anchors I've heard ask, or say "Isn't this nomination like a consolation prize to him for not getting Secretary of State" or "Bill Richardson's nomination to this post was an afterthought by President-Elect Obama because he realized that he didn't have any Latinos picked". Give me a break!
I am so sick of these jack offs trying to create controversy where there is none. It's unbelievable! I personally agree that Hilary Clinton would have been more well suited to Health and Human Services and Bill Richardson to Secretary of State and someone else for Secretary of Commerce. But, if anyone thinks Obama is just picking people at random for these positions or that he somehow felt compelled to nominate Richardson for Commerce because he'd forgotten or that he felt somehow required to appoint a Latino really needs to smack themselves for not thinking.
But, instead of simply reporting who Obama is choosing, so many in the media need to create controversy; to sensationalize everything. I will never understand where in our history reporting the news took such a turn. You know, the main source of where I see racism in our society today, and for nearly as long as I can remember, is from our media. Here's another example of what I mean from the news today:
There was a story about a cemetery getting moved. This is not anything new; cemeteries get moved all the time. But because this one has the graves of black slaves from long ago, it's a massively racist and offensive thing. I HATE racism. I wish it would go away...but our damn media won't let it! Every time our society takes a step forward, the media drudges up some controversy to stir up emotions between races. Seriously, can't we all just get a bong? er...get along.
Well, whichever.
But, back to the cabinet nominations: I want to also say how annoyed I am by all of this crap with people saying "Obama was running on a platform of change, but look how he's nominating people from the Clinton days! That's not change!" I think I know where they picked up that second sentence.
Come on Barack, you should know better. Go down and pick up some day workers, or people from the unemployment line to work for minimum wage. Or even better, get a cabinet full of Sarah Palins.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of having people in my government who has no idea what they're doing. I certainly have not enjoyed the last 8 years. I'm also sick of people in the government who don't know how to act with leaders and officials of other countries. Again, look to the last 8 years.
I know that to a certain extent, you must have people in the government with experience. It's the leadership at the top that provides the "change" that was promised. While not all of the players have changed, it's the man at the top who approves the moves. To suggest that every single person in appointed must have never been in government before is just ridiculous. It's quite obvious that these people are simply looking for any reason to complain... they are comprised of two groups -- Media and Republicans. Please, wise up.
Now, a completely unrelated topic, but one that really pisses me off -- A loser hockey player, Sean Avery, (again, LOSER) was referring to his very talented ex, Elisha Cuthbert when he said this: "I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds." It was a best, a very crude comment. I hope she sues him. And again, this story wouldn't have been a story if the media would drop it. But, they have to repeat it...and repeat it...and repeat it.
The media knows no shame. They run stories like this over and over again only causing more trouble. Instead of reporting informational stories, they run smears. And, they do it all under the guise of spreading knowledge and shield themselves with the First Amendment. I think that the First Amendment should have been chisled into stone..and I think the media personalities should be pelted repeatedly with this stone when they keep spreading smear stories like this.
I've been listening to news anchors and various interviewees that they seem to have made deals with, as if they've said "I'll let you on my show to help sell your book if you back up my idiotic idea". One of my biggest complaints about what they've been saying today is the nomination of Bill Richardson to the post of Secretary of Commerce. I'm not even sure how many of this moronic anchors I've heard ask, or say "Isn't this nomination like a consolation prize to him for not getting Secretary of State" or "Bill Richardson's nomination to this post was an afterthought by President-Elect Obama because he realized that he didn't have any Latinos picked". Give me a break!
I am so sick of these jack offs trying to create controversy where there is none. It's unbelievable! I personally agree that Hilary Clinton would have been more well suited to Health and Human Services and Bill Richardson to Secretary of State and someone else for Secretary of Commerce. But, if anyone thinks Obama is just picking people at random for these positions or that he somehow felt compelled to nominate Richardson for Commerce because he'd forgotten or that he felt somehow required to appoint a Latino really needs to smack themselves for not thinking.
But, instead of simply reporting who Obama is choosing, so many in the media need to create controversy; to sensationalize everything. I will never understand where in our history reporting the news took such a turn. You know, the main source of where I see racism in our society today, and for nearly as long as I can remember, is from our media. Here's another example of what I mean from the news today:
There was a story about a cemetery getting moved. This is not anything new; cemeteries get moved all the time. But because this one has the graves of black slaves from long ago, it's a massively racist and offensive thing. I HATE racism. I wish it would go away...but our damn media won't let it! Every time our society takes a step forward, the media drudges up some controversy to stir up emotions between races. Seriously, can't we all just get a bong? er...get along.
Well, whichever.
But, back to the cabinet nominations: I want to also say how annoyed I am by all of this crap with people saying "Obama was running on a platform of change, but look how he's nominating people from the Clinton days! That's not change!" I think I know where they picked up that second sentence.
Come on Barack, you should know better. Go down and pick up some day workers, or people from the unemployment line to work for minimum wage. Or even better, get a cabinet full of Sarah Palins.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm sick of having people in my government who has no idea what they're doing. I certainly have not enjoyed the last 8 years. I'm also sick of people in the government who don't know how to act with leaders and officials of other countries. Again, look to the last 8 years.
I know that to a certain extent, you must have people in the government with experience. It's the leadership at the top that provides the "change" that was promised. While not all of the players have changed, it's the man at the top who approves the moves. To suggest that every single person in appointed must have never been in government before is just ridiculous. It's quite obvious that these people are simply looking for any reason to complain... they are comprised of two groups -- Media and Republicans. Please, wise up.
Now, a completely unrelated topic, but one that really pisses me off -- A loser hockey player, Sean Avery, (again, LOSER) was referring to his very talented ex, Elisha Cuthbert when he said this: "I just want to comment on how it's become like a common thing in the NHL for guys to fall in love with my sloppy seconds." It was a best, a very crude comment. I hope she sues him. And again, this story wouldn't have been a story if the media would drop it. But, they have to repeat it...and repeat it...and repeat it.
The media knows no shame. They run stories like this over and over again only causing more trouble. Instead of reporting informational stories, they run smears. And, they do it all under the guise of spreading knowledge and shield themselves with the First Amendment. I think that the First Amendment should have been chisled into stone..and I think the media personalities should be pelted repeatedly with this stone when they keep spreading smear stories like this.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Anchors Rant
I've noticed something that kind of bothers me about myself; a lot more Rants than Raves. And though I dislike the fact that I've started to complain more about the things I hate than compliment the things I strongly like...I'm going to bitch again about something tonight.
I'm currently living outside of the city limits. And as such, I'm limited to satellite television rather than cable. This drastically restricts the access to news channels based on the amount of money spent on programming. Admittedly, I lean more often lean toward liberal positions over conservative. But, I have to try to put that on the scales against the $12 more per month that I'd have to pay to get MSNBC. Right now, I get only some local new stations, KTLA and CNN. Oh yeah, that and FOX NEWS! (I'll have to complain about FOX News and their connection to satellite television soon).
Anyways, since the only 24/7 news stations I get are HNN, which runs like 10 minutes of news over and over again all day long, and CNN which claims to be moderate but isn't -- I have to take CNN or nothing. Yes, I know, I shouldn't be watching news all day...but I do.
This is where I finally come to the meat of my rant, the daytime news anchors that I hate. Let's start with the one I hate less (well, of the ones I'm complaining about today). Rick Sanchez. He's so damn pompous it makes my head nearly explode. I can't really explain it more than this, it's just a vibe he gives off. He so often tends to put a sensationalized spin on stories as if each one is a performance that he's hoping will win him the Peabody award. That's all I'm going to complain about with him today because I'd like to spend the bulk of my time on the guy who really pisses me off: Tony Harris.
Tony Harris has disgusted me for the longest time. At first, I was rather indifferent. Then one day, he was interviewing a woman who just had her house burn down with all of her possessions. Everything she'd ever owned was gone. In her arms, she held her 3 year-old son. The boy was obviously traumatized by the loss as well. He was scared, confused and tired. The boy started to suck his thumb, not anything out of the ordinary. It was most likely a habit but could have also been a way of coping with the events of the day.
How did Tony Harris react to this? He yelled at the boy! "Get that thumb out of your mouth!" Not once, but three different times. Do you suppose he yells at someone for crying because a loved one died? Not likely, but he definitely yelled at a traumatized boy who was too young to stick up for himself.
From that day on, every time I see him, I notice so many things that piss me off and annoy the crap out of me. While I'm sure some of these feelings are an overshadowing of the incident with the boy, I think some things would piss off the pope.
Like most news anchors and media personalities, he interrupts his guests. However, when Harris does it, he's loud and annoying about it. It's as if he's only interrupting them to put on a show. Unlike Rick Sanchez, who interrupts to look knowledgable, Harris interrupts to try to look cool. It's kind of like a man having a middle-age crisis who buys a convertable and tries to pick up college chicks. He interrupts only for show.
What is the problem with these dumbass news anchors? Listen, if I wanted to hear opinions on news, I would listen to news programs that focus on such. If you're a news anchor, you're supposed to read me the news as if I were blind, not try to sway me with your point of view. I watch daytime news for a reason - to hear current events - NOT to be entertained. Being a news anchor is kind of like being in minor league baseball. Just do your job - and keep your opinions to yourself!
I'm currently living outside of the city limits. And as such, I'm limited to satellite television rather than cable. This drastically restricts the access to news channels based on the amount of money spent on programming. Admittedly, I lean more often lean toward liberal positions over conservative. But, I have to try to put that on the scales against the $12 more per month that I'd have to pay to get MSNBC. Right now, I get only some local new stations, KTLA and CNN. Oh yeah, that and FOX NEWS! (I'll have to complain about FOX News and their connection to satellite television soon).
Anyways, since the only 24/7 news stations I get are HNN, which runs like 10 minutes of news over and over again all day long, and CNN which claims to be moderate but isn't -- I have to take CNN or nothing. Yes, I know, I shouldn't be watching news all day...but I do.
This is where I finally come to the meat of my rant, the daytime news anchors that I hate. Let's start with the one I hate less (well, of the ones I'm complaining about today). Rick Sanchez. He's so damn pompous it makes my head nearly explode. I can't really explain it more than this, it's just a vibe he gives off. He so often tends to put a sensationalized spin on stories as if each one is a performance that he's hoping will win him the Peabody award. That's all I'm going to complain about with him today because I'd like to spend the bulk of my time on the guy who really pisses me off: Tony Harris.
Tony Harris has disgusted me for the longest time. At first, I was rather indifferent. Then one day, he was interviewing a woman who just had her house burn down with all of her possessions. Everything she'd ever owned was gone. In her arms, she held her 3 year-old son. The boy was obviously traumatized by the loss as well. He was scared, confused and tired. The boy started to suck his thumb, not anything out of the ordinary. It was most likely a habit but could have also been a way of coping with the events of the day.
How did Tony Harris react to this? He yelled at the boy! "Get that thumb out of your mouth!" Not once, but three different times. Do you suppose he yells at someone for crying because a loved one died? Not likely, but he definitely yelled at a traumatized boy who was too young to stick up for himself.
From that day on, every time I see him, I notice so many things that piss me off and annoy the crap out of me. While I'm sure some of these feelings are an overshadowing of the incident with the boy, I think some things would piss off the pope.
Like most news anchors and media personalities, he interrupts his guests. However, when Harris does it, he's loud and annoying about it. It's as if he's only interrupting them to put on a show. Unlike Rick Sanchez, who interrupts to look knowledgable, Harris interrupts to try to look cool. It's kind of like a man having a middle-age crisis who buys a convertable and tries to pick up college chicks. He interrupts only for show.
What is the problem with these dumbass news anchors? Listen, if I wanted to hear opinions on news, I would listen to news programs that focus on such. If you're a news anchor, you're supposed to read me the news as if I were blind, not try to sway me with your point of view. I watch daytime news for a reason - to hear current events - NOT to be entertained. Being a news anchor is kind of like being in minor league baseball. Just do your job - and keep your opinions to yourself!
Monday, December 1, 2008
DownloadHelper Rave
I'm a big fan of Mozilla FireFox. I think it's so much better than Internet Explorer for a few reasons. It's faster, it's safer and it's free. It's basically identical in most regards as far as functionality, so those 3 points are what tips the scale.
I downloaded a plug-in or Add-on for it called DownloadHelper. This actually might even be available and usable for Internet Explorer. I wish I could say for sure, but I've never really downloaded any add-ons for IE.
I've been stuck using dial-up internet recently and it's killing me. I like to watch videos online. MySpace, YouTube and even some porn downloads. :) But being on dial-up, I feel like I've wasted a large portion of my life to watch a single video. In order to watch them with dial-up, you have to get the download started, then pause the video until it downloads the entire thing. If you don't pause it, you run into a buffer under run.
With DownloadHelper, however, I can download the entire video...even from YouTube... and save it on my computer in the same amount of time it would be to watch it. If I don't like the video, I can later delete it. If I do like it, I can keep it on my computer forever. Now I can finally be sure that I can keep those treasured videos that I find of my favorite band that have been posted on the internet. So, whoever it was that programmed DownloadHelper...Thank You!
I downloaded a plug-in or Add-on for it called DownloadHelper. This actually might even be available and usable for Internet Explorer. I wish I could say for sure, but I've never really downloaded any add-ons for IE.
I've been stuck using dial-up internet recently and it's killing me. I like to watch videos online. MySpace, YouTube and even some porn downloads. :) But being on dial-up, I feel like I've wasted a large portion of my life to watch a single video. In order to watch them with dial-up, you have to get the download started, then pause the video until it downloads the entire thing. If you don't pause it, you run into a buffer under run.
With DownloadHelper, however, I can download the entire video...even from YouTube... and save it on my computer in the same amount of time it would be to watch it. If I don't like the video, I can later delete it. If I do like it, I can keep it on my computer forever. Now I can finally be sure that I can keep those treasured videos that I find of my favorite band that have been posted on the internet. So, whoever it was that programmed DownloadHelper...Thank You!
Flipin' Lou Dobbs Rant
Not too long ago, I wrote about how much Lou Dobbs has been pissing me off; how he's been flip-flopping on every issue. Once upon a time, he had a set group of opinions. All of this changed when John McCain became the presumptive Republican nominee. At that point, Lou went on the attack, hitting Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama every chance he got.
It didn't seem to matter that Lou had once held an opposite opinion. He simply changed his point of view to match that of McCain. Now that the election is over, and his boy, McCain has lost, he's once again backtracking on every issue to his original positions. Here's an example:
The economy - Dobbs had been saying for some time, as the rest of the country had, that our economy was in real trouble. The inflation rate was on the rise, wages had become stagnant, our industries were crashing as jobs moved overseas, and the infamous mortgage meltdown had begun. Lou asked, as the rest of the nation did, "Where is the governmental oversight? We have a real problem here!"This position he held changed immediately upon Mike Huckabee losing his chance at the Republican nomination and McCain securing enough delegates.
John McCain's chief economic adviser, Phil Gramm, stated in public that we were in a "Metal Recession" and that we had simply become a "country of whiners" - meaning, of course, that our economy was not really having problems, but that we were just complaining. McCain himself even spoke these words; though I'd only seen that clip like twice after McCain became the nominee - such a pet of the media.
Lou Dobbs wasted no time in falling in line with McCain. When the national media picked up on news of the mortgage meltdown and Henry Paulson came out of the woodwork seeking support for a $700 billion "bailout" for the lenders, Lou countered saying that there really wasn't a problem with our economy -- instead that Paulson, Ben Bernanke and the Bush administration were just "talking down the economy". By this, he meant that there was no problem with the national economy, but that these three sources were just using some scare tactics. Anything short of this criticism would have been to agree with Barack Obama and the Democratic party...thereby disagreeing with, and making, John McCain and the Republicans appear as they truly are -- out of touch with the ordinary people and ignorant on economic issues.
Today, 12/1/08, the official report has been released stating that we are in fact in a Recession. In fact, the U.S. has been in a recession since at least 12/07. But now that the election is over, Dobbs no longer has to support the idiotic positions of McCain. Lou has come out and stated that we're in a recession. Of course, he acts as though he's always said we were in a recession - that he never doubted it.
Frankly, I'm disgusted. It pisses me off that he is always so f'ing presumptuous. Lou, if you're reading this...You're a LIAR! You flip your opinions around to always appear as though you're all-knowledgeable, while never acknowledging that you've been wrong. Even worse, you lie about your motivations for your opinions. All in all, you're a scumbag!
Now if you want to see something pathetically representative of what I'm talking about, take a look at some clips of Lou Dobbs speaking about Barack Obama from the time of the general election. Then, check out the news today. He's fully supportive of Obama now. Hell, he's even calling for the national media to cut President-Elect Obama some slack.
In this, I'm fully behind Dobbs. Give Obama a chance and stop attacking him long before his job even begins calling his job a failure, as if the next 4-8 years have already passed. But, this definitely doesn't make up for all your lies and attacks of the last few months, Lou. You're still scum.
It didn't seem to matter that Lou had once held an opposite opinion. He simply changed his point of view to match that of McCain. Now that the election is over, and his boy, McCain has lost, he's once again backtracking on every issue to his original positions. Here's an example:
The economy - Dobbs had been saying for some time, as the rest of the country had, that our economy was in real trouble. The inflation rate was on the rise, wages had become stagnant, our industries were crashing as jobs moved overseas, and the infamous mortgage meltdown had begun. Lou asked, as the rest of the nation did, "Where is the governmental oversight? We have a real problem here!"This position he held changed immediately upon Mike Huckabee losing his chance at the Republican nomination and McCain securing enough delegates.
John McCain's chief economic adviser, Phil Gramm, stated in public that we were in a "Metal Recession" and that we had simply become a "country of whiners" - meaning, of course, that our economy was not really having problems, but that we were just complaining. McCain himself even spoke these words; though I'd only seen that clip like twice after McCain became the nominee - such a pet of the media.
Lou Dobbs wasted no time in falling in line with McCain. When the national media picked up on news of the mortgage meltdown and Henry Paulson came out of the woodwork seeking support for a $700 billion "bailout" for the lenders, Lou countered saying that there really wasn't a problem with our economy -- instead that Paulson, Ben Bernanke and the Bush administration were just "talking down the economy". By this, he meant that there was no problem with the national economy, but that these three sources were just using some scare tactics. Anything short of this criticism would have been to agree with Barack Obama and the Democratic party...thereby disagreeing with, and making, John McCain and the Republicans appear as they truly are -- out of touch with the ordinary people and ignorant on economic issues.
Today, 12/1/08, the official report has been released stating that we are in fact in a Recession. In fact, the U.S. has been in a recession since at least 12/07. But now that the election is over, Dobbs no longer has to support the idiotic positions of McCain. Lou has come out and stated that we're in a recession. Of course, he acts as though he's always said we were in a recession - that he never doubted it.
Frankly, I'm disgusted. It pisses me off that he is always so f'ing presumptuous. Lou, if you're reading this...You're a LIAR! You flip your opinions around to always appear as though you're all-knowledgeable, while never acknowledging that you've been wrong. Even worse, you lie about your motivations for your opinions. All in all, you're a scumbag!
Now if you want to see something pathetically representative of what I'm talking about, take a look at some clips of Lou Dobbs speaking about Barack Obama from the time of the general election. Then, check out the news today. He's fully supportive of Obama now. Hell, he's even calling for the national media to cut President-Elect Obama some slack.
In this, I'm fully behind Dobbs. Give Obama a chance and stop attacking him long before his job even begins calling his job a failure, as if the next 4-8 years have already passed. But, this definitely doesn't make up for all your lies and attacks of the last few months, Lou. You're still scum.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
3-D Movies
I watched Journey to the Center of the Earth last night in 3-D for the first time. Don't worry, I'm not going to tell you what happened. But, I will give you a warning and a very interesting thing to look forward to. In return, I'm hoping that someone can explain what happened to me because I'm really not sure I understand what was going on.
I remember when I was about 11 years old, I made my first pair of 3-D glasses. I'm hoping this makes me sound really intelligent. But if you've ever seen a pair of them before, I've already failed. All they are is a frame which holds two different colored lenses over your eyes. When I made a pair of them years ago, I used blue cellophane on one side and red on the other.
The movie came with 4 pairs of glasses. I found it interesting that they used green cellophane on one side and pink on the other. So, either the technology has changed over the years as far as the production of the movies, the colors don't really matter that much, or the colors used are closely enough related to the ones I'd used in the past. I'm really not sure. Anyone know?
But my main question really is on a different matter. When I'd used the glasses in the past to watch certain movies - and it only works with certain movies because they have to be produced in a particular manner. Again, I'm not going to act like I'm very well-informed on this. But, I'll share what information I do have as well as I know it. The scenes are filmed simultaneously from two different angles, one regularly and one at a 45-degree angle. Then, when produced, the films are superimposed.
When I watched the movies earlier in my life; one was a Jaws movie...the other was a Nightmare on Elm Street movie...you didn't have to wear the glasses all the way through. So, when the movie was over, I didn't have the same problems. It hurt my eyes. I had double-vision at times. At times I felt almost nauseous.
When I removed the glasses, I still felt like I was wearing them. Everything still seemed discolored and I still had the sensation of double-vision. The really cool thing was when I closed one eye at a time. The eye that had the green lens over it had a pink hue to my vision. And the eye that had the pink lens had a green hued appearance.
Obviously, the lenses didn't physically change my eyes. However, the perception had changed. My brain was trying to compensate for the lens, I believe.
It was like driving my bike without a windshield. After about an hour at speeds over 65 mph, my neck muscles attempt to compensate for the wind. When I'm stopped, if I turn my head to the side, then relax my neck muscles, my head naturally drifts back to the center.
Another example is standing in a doorway with your hands down at your sides. Then lift your arms up slightly and push on the door frame outwards for about 30 seconds. After that time, step out of the doorway and just relax your arms at your sides. Your arms will naturally drift upwards.
In both of those examples, the muscles are trying to compensate for the outside resistance. I assume my brain is attempting to do the same thing by changing my perception because of the change in the stimuli. But, I'm only guessing.
I remember when I was about 11 years old, I made my first pair of 3-D glasses. I'm hoping this makes me sound really intelligent. But if you've ever seen a pair of them before, I've already failed. All they are is a frame which holds two different colored lenses over your eyes. When I made a pair of them years ago, I used blue cellophane on one side and red on the other.
The movie came with 4 pairs of glasses. I found it interesting that they used green cellophane on one side and pink on the other. So, either the technology has changed over the years as far as the production of the movies, the colors don't really matter that much, or the colors used are closely enough related to the ones I'd used in the past. I'm really not sure. Anyone know?
But my main question really is on a different matter. When I'd used the glasses in the past to watch certain movies - and it only works with certain movies because they have to be produced in a particular manner. Again, I'm not going to act like I'm very well-informed on this. But, I'll share what information I do have as well as I know it. The scenes are filmed simultaneously from two different angles, one regularly and one at a 45-degree angle. Then, when produced, the films are superimposed.
When I watched the movies earlier in my life; one was a Jaws movie...the other was a Nightmare on Elm Street movie...you didn't have to wear the glasses all the way through. So, when the movie was over, I didn't have the same problems. It hurt my eyes. I had double-vision at times. At times I felt almost nauseous.
When I removed the glasses, I still felt like I was wearing them. Everything still seemed discolored and I still had the sensation of double-vision. The really cool thing was when I closed one eye at a time. The eye that had the green lens over it had a pink hue to my vision. And the eye that had the pink lens had a green hued appearance.
Obviously, the lenses didn't physically change my eyes. However, the perception had changed. My brain was trying to compensate for the lens, I believe.
It was like driving my bike without a windshield. After about an hour at speeds over 65 mph, my neck muscles attempt to compensate for the wind. When I'm stopped, if I turn my head to the side, then relax my neck muscles, my head naturally drifts back to the center.
Another example is standing in a doorway with your hands down at your sides. Then lift your arms up slightly and push on the door frame outwards for about 30 seconds. After that time, step out of the doorway and just relax your arms at your sides. Your arms will naturally drift upwards.
In both of those examples, the muscles are trying to compensate for the outside resistance. I assume my brain is attempting to do the same thing by changing my perception because of the change in the stimuli. But, I'm only guessing.
Profane Rant
Like many other users, I've never read the Terms of Use. I think in 15+ years of installing computer software and/or using internet sites, I've read the Terms of Use or the End User Lease Agreement once. I figured that at that time, I could read it and get it out of the way for the rest of my life. I have long held the belief that all of them will be about the same.
Today however, I was thinking about my use of profanity and how I'll post a word that will violate the Terms of Use on this blog at some point. I'll make every effort and conscious decision not to swear. But as I've stated on here already, I'm not always aware of the content of my posting. In all honesty, I didn't even realize that I had signed up for an account on here until the day after when I received an email saying that I had.
Anyways, I spent a lot of time today thinking about swearing, cursing or profanity - whatever you'd like to call it. It's really a topic that angers me. I swear a lot. Granted, there have been times in my life that I swore a lot more often than I do now - but I do still curse many, many times per day. Every time I do, I'm offended; obviously not by what I've said, or I wouldn't have said it. I'm offended by the fact that I'm constantly being censored by society.
Swear words are simply words - a combination of letters - nothing more. It is merely the context behind any word that gives it meaning. I cannot underscore this concept enough. It is so lame to imply that one group of letters is more offensive than another group of letters. The only words I can truly say are profane are ones that offend someone on an existential level.
You really need to think outside of the box on this. What is it that makes a word profane? It is some sort of authority group that tells you the word should not be used. Think about it. Does an entire group of people instantaneously agree, without interacting, that a word is really an offensive slur? Not a chance.
That brings you to the next question you have to ask about what makes a word profane: "Says who?" At some point, an authority figure stepped forward and said "This word is offensive and cannot be used". To that person, I say "F you".
I am not so vain as to suggest that I am more intelligent than they are. But, I will say that I am not vain enough to suggest to everyone in the world that I am so much more intelligent than they are that I should make moral decisions about the words they speak.
And that concept right there is why I'm angered; why I'm offended by profanity. It is not the "profanity" that offends me, but the control placed upon me by someone who has likely been dead for 200 years. Don't think that's true? Well, there's a good chance it is.
The values and even definitions of words are being changed all the time. Try looking up a word in the dictionary - any word - pick a word at random. Do you see only one definition? Can't you think of any words that were okay to say in history but aren't anymore...or words that were offensive before but are commonly spoken now?
So, who is it that imposes these bans on words and why? I don't know about you, but I've about had it with people telling me how to live, how to speak and how to think - all based on their moral interpretations. And in my honest opinion, it all stems from the church. Who more so, in all of recorded time, has told people how to live?
Today however, I was thinking about my use of profanity and how I'll post a word that will violate the Terms of Use on this blog at some point. I'll make every effort and conscious decision not to swear. But as I've stated on here already, I'm not always aware of the content of my posting. In all honesty, I didn't even realize that I had signed up for an account on here until the day after when I received an email saying that I had.
Anyways, I spent a lot of time today thinking about swearing, cursing or profanity - whatever you'd like to call it. It's really a topic that angers me. I swear a lot. Granted, there have been times in my life that I swore a lot more often than I do now - but I do still curse many, many times per day. Every time I do, I'm offended; obviously not by what I've said, or I wouldn't have said it. I'm offended by the fact that I'm constantly being censored by society.
Swear words are simply words - a combination of letters - nothing more. It is merely the context behind any word that gives it meaning. I cannot underscore this concept enough. It is so lame to imply that one group of letters is more offensive than another group of letters. The only words I can truly say are profane are ones that offend someone on an existential level.
You really need to think outside of the box on this. What is it that makes a word profane? It is some sort of authority group that tells you the word should not be used. Think about it. Does an entire group of people instantaneously agree, without interacting, that a word is really an offensive slur? Not a chance.
That brings you to the next question you have to ask about what makes a word profane: "Says who?" At some point, an authority figure stepped forward and said "This word is offensive and cannot be used". To that person, I say "F you".
I am not so vain as to suggest that I am more intelligent than they are. But, I will say that I am not vain enough to suggest to everyone in the world that I am so much more intelligent than they are that I should make moral decisions about the words they speak.
And that concept right there is why I'm angered; why I'm offended by profanity. It is not the "profanity" that offends me, but the control placed upon me by someone who has likely been dead for 200 years. Don't think that's true? Well, there's a good chance it is.
The values and even definitions of words are being changed all the time. Try looking up a word in the dictionary - any word - pick a word at random. Do you see only one definition? Can't you think of any words that were okay to say in history but aren't anymore...or words that were offensive before but are commonly spoken now?
So, who is it that imposes these bans on words and why? I don't know about you, but I've about had it with people telling me how to live, how to speak and how to think - all based on their moral interpretations. And in my honest opinion, it all stems from the church. Who more so, in all of recorded time, has told people how to live?
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Blame Game
I believed the world would be heading in a new direction starting November 5th after the election. I thought for at least the next 2 years, our country would be able to put the partisan politics aside and focus on fixing the multitude of problems we face...and let's face it, we've never had such a multitude of problems as we do now. But, I'm not seeing any steps in this direction.
What I have been seeing from the Republicans and the right-wing media is, if it were possible, an increase in the attacks on President-Elect Obama. Not so much the character assassination attempts that had been made during the general election, but more of an attempt to blame Obama. Has anyone else noticed this? Don't get me wrong, there have been personal attacks as well. But, I won't be talking about them in this rant.
He's being blamed for the economic problems; some referring to this time period as the "Obama Recession". To hear them tell the tale, he's fully responsible for every misstep made by the Bush administration over the last 8 years.
A recent report was released stating how over the next 20 years, the U.S., along with several other countries, will lose wealth and economic power in relation to the rest of the world. And though the country is still under the Bush administration for the next two months, CNN is blaming Obama for this shift of power. To my understanding, the report reflects the transfer of wealth to the middle eastern countries because of the energy policy we've lived under during the Bush years. This is the irony of the blame-shifting.
During the Primary and General election, the accusations against Obama were that he did not have enough experience - and furthermore, not enough time making legislation. However, in blaming Obama for this amazingly harmful energy policy, he is in essence being blamed for all the laws that were passed even before he was in the Illinois state legislation, let alone the U.S. Senate - thereby accusing him of having too much experience. Well done Republicans!
I wish it all stopped there but, that's not the case. With just 2 short months left before the inauguration, Obama has bankrupted the country, turned third world countries into world powers against us, allowed Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and accomplish their goal of wiping Israel off the map.
So, Republicans and Conservative, right-wing Media, Thank you for bringing all of these mistakes to light. I would hate to be able to hope that something great could come of the world when we are so obviously doomed by this man with such ill intentions.
In all honesty, it's really sad that they attacks are going on every single day by people who have the power to be helpful. It's sad that President-Elect Obama can't get assistance from you. It's sad that the rest of us have to wade around in this ugly world that you're fighting to keep that way. After all, helping would be to admit that you, and even worse -your party- are wrong. It's sad that rather than helping, you must keep attacking in hopes you'll be able to steal back the White House in 4 years for your party. But keep this in mind, you'll not have my vote for your candidate. I'm registering as a Democrat so that I'll never be on one of your contact lists.
What I have been seeing from the Republicans and the right-wing media is, if it were possible, an increase in the attacks on President-Elect Obama. Not so much the character assassination attempts that had been made during the general election, but more of an attempt to blame Obama. Has anyone else noticed this? Don't get me wrong, there have been personal attacks as well. But, I won't be talking about them in this rant.
He's being blamed for the economic problems; some referring to this time period as the "Obama Recession". To hear them tell the tale, he's fully responsible for every misstep made by the Bush administration over the last 8 years.
A recent report was released stating how over the next 20 years, the U.S., along with several other countries, will lose wealth and economic power in relation to the rest of the world. And though the country is still under the Bush administration for the next two months, CNN is blaming Obama for this shift of power. To my understanding, the report reflects the transfer of wealth to the middle eastern countries because of the energy policy we've lived under during the Bush years. This is the irony of the blame-shifting.
During the Primary and General election, the accusations against Obama were that he did not have enough experience - and furthermore, not enough time making legislation. However, in blaming Obama for this amazingly harmful energy policy, he is in essence being blamed for all the laws that were passed even before he was in the Illinois state legislation, let alone the U.S. Senate - thereby accusing him of having too much experience. Well done Republicans!
I wish it all stopped there but, that's not the case. With just 2 short months left before the inauguration, Obama has bankrupted the country, turned third world countries into world powers against us, allowed Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and accomplish their goal of wiping Israel off the map.
So, Republicans and Conservative, right-wing Media, Thank you for bringing all of these mistakes to light. I would hate to be able to hope that something great could come of the world when we are so obviously doomed by this man with such ill intentions.
In all honesty, it's really sad that they attacks are going on every single day by people who have the power to be helpful. It's sad that President-Elect Obama can't get assistance from you. It's sad that the rest of us have to wade around in this ugly world that you're fighting to keep that way. After all, helping would be to admit that you, and even worse -your party- are wrong. It's sad that rather than helping, you must keep attacking in hopes you'll be able to steal back the White House in 4 years for your party. But keep this in mind, you'll not have my vote for your candidate. I'm registering as a Democrat so that I'll never be on one of your contact lists.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Name Your God and Bleed the Freak
I've been sitting here night after night trying to figure out the target of my next rant. Don't get me wrong, I have more than enough frustration and aggression to go around. But, it just seems as though some topics are so much more worthy to receive the lash. And here's the real kicker -- I *might* have 1 reader. Is it worth the trouble on my part? I do so love to give my opinions to those who wish to receive them. But at what exact point of speaking only to one's self does it become irrelevant.
Perhaps it would be better for me to just hang out at someone elses' page and just throw in some rough and rude comments where I feel them adequate. Who knows. Perhaps someday, I'll figure a reason to write here again. If for no other reason than to empty the plaguing thoughts from my head. If I'm lucky, someone will take my words at more than just their face value. Perhaps they'll even respond ...or dare I dream...initiate the next topic.
I'll be around, should you find this page and want to actually share your opinions.
Perhaps it would be better for me to just hang out at someone elses' page and just throw in some rough and rude comments where I feel them adequate. Who knows. Perhaps someday, I'll figure a reason to write here again. If for no other reason than to empty the plaguing thoughts from my head. If I'm lucky, someone will take my words at more than just their face value. Perhaps they'll even respond ...or dare I dream...initiate the next topic.
I'll be around, should you find this page and want to actually share your opinions.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
CNN & HNN
I don't know if anyone will agree with me on this or not but, I really have to say it. I have lost almost all respect for CNN and I've never really had much for HNN.
HNN has taken a small step up in that they no longer have Glen Beck on the air there. Although, I've read that it's because he signed a deal with Fox. But rather than add a decent show, they're rebroadcasting Lou Dobbs' show from the sister-station, CNN. I can't say enough how much of a dick he's turned out to be. I guess I can't really say it's a step up. It's more of a lateral move.
I used to agree with a lot, if not most, of Dobbs' positions. He changed all of his opinions as soon as McCain was the presumptive nominee. From that point on, McCain really didn't get any criticism from Lou and everything turned into an attack on the Democrats. All the while, he was presenting himself as "Mr. Independant", an "Independant Populist". The truth of course is that he's a Republican - quite conservative. A major tell is all of his attacks on the "Liberal Media". If he were truely an independant populist, he'd just be talking about the "other media".
HNN also has Nancy Grace. What a joke! I honestly don't understand how in the hell she keeps a job. Don't get me wrong, about this point, please. I think this news story is a tradgedy - the missing child, Caylee Anthony. But it's been like 6 months and Nancy's just now starting to talk about a second news story. It's the same information rehashed every single night. And what's worse, HNN re-airs the show a couple of times. ARGH, KILL ME!
Now, CNN has added "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News". I can hardly believe that they put this on their station. I personally don't have a problem with political humor. And I don't have a problem with a black comedian making jokes about whites. But it's hard to retain a reputation as "The Most Trusted Name in News" when you've got a black comedian on your station making racist jokes. There is a time and place for his jokes. I believe someday, we'll be a post-racial society. We're not there just yet and this won't help matters at this point.
Generally speaking, I've noticed that CNN is falling. It won't be long before they're taken only as serious as Fox News. And really, how seriously can they be taken with Bill O' the Clown, Geraldo and Glen Beck? I believe though that Lou Dobbs will be leaving before too long - probably to Fox also. He's pissing off far too many viewers, I believe. Not just because of what I've mentioned. But, he's already had calls for his job over his anti-immigrant railings. Not to mention how much time he's been missing from his own show there so that he can work on his new radio show.
I think nearly every anchor on CNN is acting in the same manner, sadly. Campbell Brown isn't - and Anderson Cooper isn't too bad. But, are they enough to save the whole station from morphing into Fox News II?
HNN has taken a small step up in that they no longer have Glen Beck on the air there. Although, I've read that it's because he signed a deal with Fox. But rather than add a decent show, they're rebroadcasting Lou Dobbs' show from the sister-station, CNN. I can't say enough how much of a dick he's turned out to be. I guess I can't really say it's a step up. It's more of a lateral move.
I used to agree with a lot, if not most, of Dobbs' positions. He changed all of his opinions as soon as McCain was the presumptive nominee. From that point on, McCain really didn't get any criticism from Lou and everything turned into an attack on the Democrats. All the while, he was presenting himself as "Mr. Independant", an "Independant Populist". The truth of course is that he's a Republican - quite conservative. A major tell is all of his attacks on the "Liberal Media". If he were truely an independant populist, he'd just be talking about the "other media".
HNN also has Nancy Grace. What a joke! I honestly don't understand how in the hell she keeps a job. Don't get me wrong, about this point, please. I think this news story is a tradgedy - the missing child, Caylee Anthony. But it's been like 6 months and Nancy's just now starting to talk about a second news story. It's the same information rehashed every single night. And what's worse, HNN re-airs the show a couple of times. ARGH, KILL ME!
Now, CNN has added "D.L. Hughley Breaks the News". I can hardly believe that they put this on their station. I personally don't have a problem with political humor. And I don't have a problem with a black comedian making jokes about whites. But it's hard to retain a reputation as "The Most Trusted Name in News" when you've got a black comedian on your station making racist jokes. There is a time and place for his jokes. I believe someday, we'll be a post-racial society. We're not there just yet and this won't help matters at this point.
Generally speaking, I've noticed that CNN is falling. It won't be long before they're taken only as serious as Fox News. And really, how seriously can they be taken with Bill O' the Clown, Geraldo and Glen Beck? I believe though that Lou Dobbs will be leaving before too long - probably to Fox also. He's pissing off far too many viewers, I believe. Not just because of what I've mentioned. But, he's already had calls for his job over his anti-immigrant railings. Not to mention how much time he's been missing from his own show there so that he can work on his new radio show.
I think nearly every anchor on CNN is acting in the same manner, sadly. Campbell Brown isn't - and Anderson Cooper isn't too bad. But, are they enough to save the whole station from morphing into Fox News II?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
