bloggerdude2005

Republicans claim they hate "big government", but:

-There is much more per capita federal money going to "red states"- Republican states. This includes money for all sorts of projects, including homeland security. Blue states like New York, which arguably face greater threats from terrorism, receive less per capita federal spending.

-Although Republicans deny this, the military is itself one huge government "project". I am not referring here simply on the funding for soldiers. This also includes overbloated spending on military projects and international military engagements (like Iraq). Republicans bemoan the inefficiency of the "government" but somehow back off entriely when they discuss the military. Why? Simply because somethingis meant to serve a useful purpose is not a reason to give it a blank check. The DMV, as much as we hate it, also serves a useful purpose. Just because so many Americans go gaga over the military is no reason to not treat it like any other government bureaucracy.

-The numerous federal drug and other laws that are increasingly incarcerating innocent Americans. Ever since Nixon's campaign against drugs, the federal bureaucracy has grown ever larger each year. America now is in the top 5 nations in the world in terms of incarceration rates. Before you go on saying, Well they deserve to be in jail, consider the fact that a large number of federal prisoners are not hardened "career" criminals, and those who have had run-ins with the law are now sentenced under multiple federal laws that the federal government says is ok (even though they subject these individuals to double jeopardy).

Socially, Republicans generally take a stand against abortion and claim to promote "life" and Christian values:

-But they have no problem executing adults.

-They have no problem sending kids (in my book an 18 year old is still a kid) off to fight in wars

-Republicans are trying to dismantle health care without any real proposals of their own. They have not once mentioned the fact that thousands of Americans die each year for lack of health care. How is that "Christian"?

-Republicans attack social programs for the poor and needy, on the basis that these are handouts (but have no problem giving billion dollar "handouts" to companies and the military).

-Republicans continue to promote this idea that all problems can be solved if the federal government is simply cut down to size and taxes are cut.

I am ok with a smaller and more efficient government, and lower taxes in general, but:

1. What are those cuts going to be? It seems most Republicans have a "not in my backyard" mentality.

2. What ideas- original ideas- do Republicans offer? Cutting taxes does not build and repair our infrastructure, it does not offer people in need a real solution to real problems.

She's just 33 (heck, she is younger than me, and I always thought Limbaugh was much older than me- I used to listen to him when I was in my early teens). She's quite attractive- the blonde, svelte type that can be seen hobnobbing around political circles.

But she's a good 25 years younger than Limbaugh, who even after his weight loss is still overweight.

I won't say there can't possibly be love here. But doesn't she sort of look like one's trophy wife, the kind of "wife" a Hugh Heffner or Larry King would have?

(Could you ever imagine the reverse: an attractive younger male being married to a much older but successful woman?).

And, where do they find these women lol? Is there a "Bride Club for Older Men"?

Finally: Do you really think she'd e marrying him if he were just a middle management type?

I know a few of you will say "Maybe it is TRUE LOVE" but lets get real, he does have tone of money and fame.

Naysayers and critics will always find something wrong even with the best acts. Then again, most of them would rather praise the soul-less, truly unfunny gutter act Sarah Silverman than the sweet but sharp tongued near-octagenerian Betty White. Wasn't Betty great hosting SNL?

I'd like to know why you support Sarah Palin, and whether you would vote for her if she ran for higher office (e.g. the Presidency). Specifically, what qualities does she have that other candidates do not have? You may reason by comparison (e.g. She is better than Obama...) but I would like not just a comparison of Palin to other politicians, but why specifically you feel Palin herself is qualified. By this I mean, don't just say "because she is better than Obama"; rather, why is she just better, period, in your point of view.

Please, no Palin or Obama bashers. I just want answers to this question, not a political diatribe or polemic, from either side.

In one Bud ad, a plane crashes near a deserted island. The passengers are apparently oblivious about their impending death or their dire situation, or the likely death of other passengers (the plane is literally in pieces, so a person with common sense would realize there have likely been fatalities).

Then there was another ad about a man whose wife had "performed a spine operation and removed his spine".

In yet another Bud ad, a group of villagers, after learning a bridge had collapsed, decided to form a human bridge with their own bodies, over which a Bud truck full of beer would drive...yes literally drive over the people.

There was an "inspired" Doritos ad where a guy faked his own death, and as a last wish desired to be buried in a coffin of Doritos. Apparently he did this to get the free Doritos that he would eat inside the coffin while watching the game. Forget the fact that his family was devastated over what they thought was their loved one's death. The guy got nacho corn chips and a day off from work, right?

So this year's tally:

Offended:

Victims of plane crashes/terrorism

Quadriplegics and those with spinal injuries

Those who have lost loved ones (hey it's a joke, right?)

People who believe in physics and common sense.

I am all for a good joke. But good jokes are witty, smart. I realize that these ads play to the lowest common denominator- the guys who call short people midgets and people with handicaps "tards", but one would think that the multimillion dollar companies that put out this garbage would have enough sense to rise slightly above the station of the riff raff they cater to. Perhaps that is wishful thinking.

And you wonder why the world hates us.

It just seemed like both were really mean spirited. Avril even gave a thumbs down to a guy that all the other judges gave a thumbs up to (he was a preacher- perhaps Avril's "devil" hoodie might have given away her bias). And Katy- sparkling blue eyes aside- wasn't a deep pool of goodness either.

According to "Game Change", Sarah Palin, in 2008 the Governor of Alaska, the state's highest elected official, did not know the answers to some basic civics and government questions, including:

-The causes of the World Wars.

-The reason for a North and South Korea.

-The cause of 9/11.

-The nature of the problem in Iraq, and the lack of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

One could argue that a person is not required to know such things. But these are things that an educated 10th grade student should know, let alone one who aspires to higher office. When I was in 9th grade I knew these things (except for 9/11, which happened a decade later). But there are certain basic things that any educated person should know as par for the course- it's a basic, fundamental expectation that is not generally questioned. Certainly, I would not expect Palin to know a very obscure historical fact or an obscure law. But basic things such as global issues, world events and 20th century history- these are not beyond the ken of someone who is educated, and certainly should be known by those who hold higher office or aspire to it.

The problem is not just that Palin has no knowledge of certain basic facts. It is that she did not even have the intellectual curiosity to inform herself of these things or at least to inquire about them. That is even more disturbing because it represents a repetition of the GW Bush era, an era of complete ignorance about true historical and political facts and a naive reliance on the "gut" and false, unexamined assumptions- and the Bible. GW Bush, too, felt that 9/11 was caused by Saddam, regardless of what the facts said, and we see the results of that ignorant assumption.

Sarah Palin is a devout believer in the historical "fact" of Genesis. She feels that politics should take a back seat to religious concerns, and would likely view the Middle East problems through that lens. Her followers mostly view the problems between Israel and its neighbors in Biblical terms, and would make geopolitical decisions based not on strategic importance but upon Biblico-historical conjecture.

Would anyone out there truly disagree that a person with such a narrow understanding of historical and political events must be, at least on some level, disturbing? Would you disagree with the fact that even if certain facts can be learned, the failure to even inquire into them before one had already attained political office, and while aspiring to even higher office, represents a broad-scale ignorance that cannot simply be rectified by "reading more"?

I would like to know from registered Republicans here if they would vote for Sarah Palin for President.

If Haiti's woes today are caused by the so-called "Pact with the Devil", then surely we only have God to blame. It's not the Devil who is causing Haiti's suffering: it is a wrathful, vengeful God- at least if we believe what Pat Robertson has to say.

But does this make any sense? Putting aside the obvious fact that there really is no God- or Devil- why would a God, if it existed to begin with, cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their lives because some two hundred years ago, a group of poor slaves and indigenous people (or what was left of them after the Columbian invasion) decided to free themselves of the yoke of colonial oppression? Wouldn't God, who is apparently otherwise a good entity according to theory and dogma, approve of people seeking freedom? If people free themselves of oppression, which is itself a sin- wouldn't God be willing to cut people a break, even if in the process they make an informal, otherwise non legally binding agreement that appears to slight God? If, for example, I am held against my will by a group of terrorists who tell me that unless I denounce my God I will be summarily executed, would not God forgive me if in the process I saved myself? In life we all make choices and tradeoffs, sometimes commiting sins in order to prevent greater ones. We sometimes lie if lying would prevent suffering. And so, can we truly blame the poor Haitians for that so-called "pact" so many years ago, if the result of it was that they became free?

For God to punish Haitians today would make very little sense for an otherwise perfect Being. Morally, it makes no sense, as God would not morally hold to blame people who did not themselves make the pact, and secondly for the reason I stated above: God should be happier that the Haitians were one of the first imprisoned and tortured people to be freed.Thirdly, what purpose is served in making so many people suffer now? Pure vengefulness? In my own experiences, only one who is insecure, narcissistic, and vain would be so angered by something otherwise so minor by comparison (a personal slight?) and that took place so long ago- at least in the span of human history- and which has no connection to people today. God would have to be a 12-year old with a huge ego but no capacty to deal with any criticism to desire to punish the poor Haitians today. God would have to be l'enfant terrible.

Fourthly, there is no greater purpose served here, even if we can always say God works in myserious ways (which, apparently, Pat Robertson is miraculosusly able to discover every time disaster happens, as after 9/11). Would Haitians, the ones who survived, but are mangled, crippled, or otherwise psychologically damaged for life, and most of whom were already dirt poor even before this disaster, suddenly wake up and realize the error of their ancestors' ways, and seek to undo the pact today? Would that make the Haitians better human beings? Is God really just about forcing people to pay lip service to him, as opposed to doing good in practice? Are atheists who do God's work without acknowledging or adhering to the Western God not better than supposedly God fearing, but evil "Christians" like Pat Robertson?

I have always been perplexed by just why the so-called "wunderkind" Jeff Zucker ever attained the position of NBC CEO. In his time at NBC, his only "accomplishments" have been pushing for more NBC shows on cable, paying the Friends stars over a million per episode to stay on for a couple more seasons, and pumping millions into the second-worst fiasco in TV history: the Olympics. I say second-worst because by now we all know what the worst fiasco in TV history must be: the very (dumb) decision to 1. Move Conan to 11:30 pm while shifting Leno into prime-time programming at 10 pm and 2. "Undoing" the entire move less than a year later, after nearly bankrupting the network and pushing away both viewers and advertisers, while in the process embarassing all parties involved. Unfortunately, undoing the *****-headed move is about as easy to accomplish as unringing a tolled bell: here we not only have Leno, who otherwise was profitable for NBC at 11:35, taking a PR and ratings hit, but Conan, who was a possible star performer for NBC given (as Conan said) enough time, is now all but sacrificed. The *****-headedness of this all lies in the fact that the way NBC had the set-up before the move, it was actually still profitable in late night. Of course, that is no longer so.

But undoing it all by shifting back the clock is possibly even dumber. Sure, we can all blame Leno for being willing to accept taking back the 11:35 time slot, or Conan for not being more pliable and being too vocal in his public disagrement with NBC execs. before anything was ironed out behhind closed doors. But, ultimately, the blame here lies neither with Conan, nor with Leno, It lies with the CEO who created this entire stinking mess, Jeff Zucker.

The possibly one good thing about all of this is that the shareholders of NBC will (hopefully) finally realize that Jeff Zucker is a man who was propelled to dizzying heights for almost no reason at all. He exemplifies the modern executive: young, supposedly "innovative", but pretty much a complete moron with no common sense about what his business needs and what really works. Think of Zucker as a latter-day Enron exec, brash, young, willing to try new- and bad- ideas, and totally incompetent. We can only hope that as Comcast takes over NBC with its majority shares from GE it will have enough of its own sense to dump probably the worst CEO in TV programming history.

What are your thoughts? Agree? Disagree?

I am not asking what GPA is good for getting into law school. I am asking what GPA is competitive for a law student?

Conan is utterly insufferable, sophomoric, and plainly not funny. Jay Leno had consistently beaten David Letterman in his old 11:30 slot when the "geniuses" at NBC- the same ones who are now bankrupting the network with bad programming decisions- decided that Jay should be replaced by Conan. I said this before: the move was stupid, and time has proven me correct. It might be damage control here, but without Jay the network will be left with a very unfunny Conan at the helm of an otherwise star performer for NBC. Dump Conan and bring back Jay?

The "jokes" and random sketches/gags almost invariably seem to deal with gore and random gross-out "comedy". Most of these seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the show's plot. They are irrelevant and gratuitous depicitions of violence in the form of "comedy" (if you find people being decapitated and cross-sectioned "funny"). It seems even more disturbing because this show probably has a large young audience. In addition, the "pop culture" references, ostensibly the only redeeming "quality" of this show, are most likely lost upon viewers who were born too late to even understand them. Pretty much, this show is random, gross-out tripe that tries to show off how "smart" it is by pointing out hackneyed pop culture references. Why is this show still on?

John Cusack isn't a bad actor, but boy does this one look like a dud.

This is one of those movies where the protagonist is getting chased by natural disasters. In one scene Cusack and his fam are in a car driving as fast as possible away from an "earthquake" that has caused the earth to swell, and just by turning in the right direction in the nick of time, Cusack is able to "escape" the fiend. WTF?

Has Hollywood really really run out of ideas? It's either all "comic" book based movies, talking animals, or inane horror/action flicks designed for people who haven't enough patience to sit still for more than five seconds. I realize the American public generally hates to sit down and actually watch a "thinkin' persun's" movie, but couldn't Hollywood just try to aim for a demographic just slightly above a 2nd grade education? Just slightly, not much.

If you did not grow up in the 1980s, as I did, you are probably still familiar with the work of director John Hughes. He single-handedly defined 1980s pop culture and teen angst with movies like Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club, and Ferris Buehler's Day Off, while giving us heart-warming comedies like Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, as well as the timeless National Lampoon's and Home Alone comedies. Chances are, if you think of any great, timeless movie of the younger generation from the 1980s and early 1990s, it was directed by John Hughes. What are your own thoughts on the passing of this giant?

Did she really need them? Don't you think they look nasty? She seems top-heavy now. She looked proportioned when she was natural.

I would like to do a sort of non-scientific analysis of the votes here. So please tell me two things: who you preferred/voted for: Adam or Kris, and your home state. Thanks!

We all know that when it comes to gay issues, the religious right is heavily mobilized. This is what happened in California with the proposition on gay marriage. Do you think maybe, just maybe, a movement was afoot to prevent Adam from winning because he is (supposedly) gay? Consider this: all public opinion polls had Adam winning. Yet the phone votes were the exact opposite.