Unfortunately, I've seen T-Banks' show on Channel 9 waaaaay too many times. I only stopped today because Carrie from King of Queens is on, and man do I love that show...seriously.
Today's episode of Tyra was about "So What!" and by that I mean taking the attitude that, "I'm beautiful...I'm amazing...I'm great...and if you don't think so, well, SO WHAT?!?!?!?"
She has a group of girls parading through Beverly Hills, marching on her studio, to announce "So What!" Some women have gained a lot of weight, some have been in an accident, one girl said, "I finished 5th trying to make it onto American Idol, but SO WHAT! I'm still great!" Tyra Banks, really making girls feel just like her, normal. Because afterall, I'm sure if Tyra put on an extra 20-25 lbs should we just say, "So what? I'm still great..." Meanwhile, she couldn't be wearing a tighter shirt while flashing her enormous (albeit, near perfect) breasts.
Wow, this is amazing. There's a girl who can't sing, singing a song that goes, "I looooove singing...whether anybody thinks I'm gooood or not..." WAIT, and BACK TO THE "SO WHAT!" girls in Beverly Hills. Quick cutaway...They're chanting "SO WHAT! SO WHAT! SO WHAT!" Marching up and down the streets..."SO WHAT! SO WHAT! SO WHAT!" Wait, now they're speaking to a girl who is trying to lose weight...
"I DON'T EAT CARBS, BUT TODAY, TODAY I"M GOING TO EAT CARBS!!! AND YOU KNOW WHAT I HAVE TO SAY? SOOOO WHAT! SO WHAT!!!!!"
"You go, girl. Eat those carbs! So what!"
Tyra has just announced she is going to have a chili burger tonight, and, get this, she's going to have THE BUN! "SO WHAT?!?!?
Moving on, here's more Tyra commentary.
"How many people have a love hate relationship with their scale?"
"WHEEEEEEEEEEW HOOOOOOOO!" shouts the audience.
"Well, we have two girls here who are worried about their weight..." NO SHIT?!? Really? You were able to comb Los Angeles and find two girls who are worried about their weight? That's amazing.
Okay, so one girl who saw Tyra on the cover of People magazine was moved by the fact that Tyra declared that she's not perfect afterall. She has come to the studio today because she wants Tyra to BLOW UP HER SCALE! "WHEEEEEEEEEEEEE HOOOOOOOOOOO!"
"I DO NOT LET MY SCALE RUIN MY SELF-ESTEEM," declares the girl.
"OKAY, LADIES! WE'RE GOING TO DO IT! WE'RE GOING TO BLOW UP THAT SCALE!!!"
"WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
HERE COMES THE COUNTDOWN!
"FIVE!"
"FOUR!"
"THREE!"
"TWO!"
"ONE!"
KABOOM! No MORE SCALE!!!
Apparently the producers were able to locate 7 firecrackers from Chinatown, and really send that thing into orbit.
This show is incredible.
No, no, please do not goto commercial. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE. NO!
And here I sit, in the same place where I've blasted the cable news. Well, if this is the other option, fuck it, give me bad news 24/7.
If this show has ratings I feel really bad for the kind of people we're developing in this world. Say what you want about Oprah, who I sorta love, the women came from nothing, clearly not based on her looks, etc. Tyra, sorry, not buying this crap.
Of course I'd sleep with her. Don't be ridiculous.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
New Plan
United States falls back on old plans. Believing that they won their last war against an inanimate object, The Cold War this way, they figure they can win their latest, The War on Terror, the same way.
DP
Is this really what the White House is saying? Pass a bill, immediately, so we can reject it, and start over. What world am I living in?
Moving on to David "Our Lord" Petraeus, this guy is apparently the second coming, and whatever he suggests is the word of God! So one has to wonder, why did it take so long to get to David Petraeus? If this guy is such a genius, then why in the end, when things are bad, did they go out and find themselves an independent thinker, with a great knowledge of history, to run this war? Maybe it's because early on in the campaign he wasn't wearing the rose colored glasses the rest of them were? Just ridiculous.
Whatever this guy says is just perfect. Now that he has carte blanche to nod the President's head anyway he sees fit, he's perfect. He asks for more troops, he gets approval from the President. He asks for money, approved. And the only reason any of this is happening is because the Bush people realize this thing is lost, so they'll turn to anyone who can help them, and that's Petraeus. Petraeus never wold have flown in the beginning because this thing had to be sold as something that would happen quickly, with few casualties, and few troops. But now all that is out the door, and every right wing pundit has been proven incorrect. So bring in a guy with his own brain, and pray that he can pull this off.
Such a joke. They finally bring in someone who could have been succesful because they have failed so completely on their own. But neither Petraeus, or anyone else will ever be succesful in Iraq...
“The president calls on the Senate to quickly pass this legislation so the president can veto it and then work with the congressional leadership on a clean bill that funds our troops while respecting the judgment of our military commanders and helping ensure the safety of the American people,” said spokeswoman Dana Perino.This is the Congressional leadership. I'm not sure Bush understands how this whole thing works, but the leadership of a few years ago is no longer.
Moving on to David "Our Lord" Petraeus, this guy is apparently the second coming, and whatever he suggests is the word of God! So one has to wonder, why did it take so long to get to David Petraeus? If this guy is such a genius, then why in the end, when things are bad, did they go out and find themselves an independent thinker, with a great knowledge of history, to run this war? Maybe it's because early on in the campaign he wasn't wearing the rose colored glasses the rest of them were? Just ridiculous.
Whatever this guy says is just perfect. Now that he has carte blanche to nod the President's head anyway he sees fit, he's perfect. He asks for more troops, he gets approval from the President. He asks for money, approved. And the only reason any of this is happening is because the Bush people realize this thing is lost, so they'll turn to anyone who can help them, and that's Petraeus. Petraeus never wold have flown in the beginning because this thing had to be sold as something that would happen quickly, with few casualties, and few troops. But now all that is out the door, and every right wing pundit has been proven incorrect. So bring in a guy with his own brain, and pray that he can pull this off.
Such a joke. They finally bring in someone who could have been succesful because they have failed so completely on their own. But neither Petraeus, or anyone else will ever be succesful in Iraq...
That Dick
Why did Dick Cheney step up to the mic on Tuesday to take on Harry Reid? Maybe because he wanted that night's top story to be about him, and not our government using Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Oh Newt
Last night's PBS Frontline on Global Warming was really great stuff. Must See TV that NBC won't soon be running.
The highlights for me were the comments from Newt "Tell it Like it is These Days" Gingrich, who has rediscovered a new religion: honesty...well, almost, but it's a start.
I cannot pick apart the entire piece, but let me point out a few gems from man who has gone through, what I like to call, a Newtation.
He was asked:
Why do you think we have had three administrations who have not been able to deal with this issue on the federal level?
Newt:
Put another way, the left insists on being responsible for problems we've created, and the right insists on ignoring them, and having someone else fix them. They INSIST ON AVOIDANCE!
Wait, but to paraphrase Newt, if you can find a way for the right to not have to sacrifice, and possibly even make a profit on it, they will be happy to do it. Bingo.
He was then asked:
Newt:
First, there's Newt making sure he doesn't upset the Oil and Gas folks because he'll need their cash for any campaigns, or any policy group which employs him. He calls the debate an "intellectual" one. Because after all, Conservatives, when it comes to the environment, have always delved very deep into the intellectual portion of it all.
Second, he speaks about the people on the "right" and the people on the "left." The people on his right, they're against "taxation...regulation...bigger government..." whatever. They're against it. Of course, government has expanded, but whatever. Then the people on the left are for "taxation...litigation...regulation..." Lets me explain the difference.
The people on the left aren't FOR this, or that, or the other thing in any particular way. What they're for is what can work. What's not working is no regulation, where business buys exemptions and exceptions to every rule. So in order to reign that in, they're for things like "litigation...regulation...and taxation" which is the only way to pay for what has gone wrong. But as a philosophy, the left isn't married to any of these things. They are married to solutions.
Then we have the right, who are married to these things, and try their best to attach these things to another encompassing philosophy they try to call "liberty." They want to act as if all these things curtail their lifestyles. Which, from their perspective, might be true. After all, supporting this belief supplies them the money to fund their campaigns, businesses, and think tanks. The difference is, if their beliefs do not result in solving the problems, or fixing what is wrong, that doesn't matter! They believe it! And that's enough for them. They are married to an idea of low taxes equals success for everyone, even when there is no proof this theory works for everyone. It works for them because it furthers their selfish goals, which in there lies the difference between the two sides.
The left is amenable, and believes that today, the actions they're taking today provide for a better future tomorrow, based on whatever available science or proof currently exists. The right, believes is in whatever it is they believe, regardless of what proof is offered to counter their beliefs. Proof against is just more reason to dig in their heels.
Finally, there is Newt's comments on the "average American..." This is really funny since Newt and his folks only pretend to represent them, and in this debate represent people who are anything but average. They've been representing the companies who benefit from zero regulation, and the workers who make mad cash pushing this agenda within Congress. Only a few Republicans have been extremely vocal in support of fixing Global Warming, and the majority of them have been active in undermining it, without any real proof that doing so is warranted in any way.
In the end, Global Warming will start to be fixed, and in all likelihood, a bit too late. This will be come common sense in 50 years, that fixing it is necessary. When it does, the regulations and laws governing the environment will be obvious and necessary. What will be forgotten is the movement against it by the conservatives who are trying to benefit today, one way or another. At this time they will have moved on to a whole new world of things to be against, and will surely be wrong 50 years past then.
Conservatives haven't been known to fix things; they've just become accustomed to accepting them, having these things become obvious and second nature, and then moving on. No different than say civil rights, worker's rights, or other environmental laws and regulations etc.
Democrats do the work, and society reaps the benefits. That's the world.
The highlights for me were the comments from Newt "Tell it Like it is These Days" Gingrich, who has rediscovered a new religion: honesty...well, almost, but it's a start.
I cannot pick apart the entire piece, but let me point out a few gems from man who has gone through, what I like to call, a Newtation.
He was asked:
Why do you think we have had three administrations who have not been able to deal with this issue on the federal level?
Newt:
Because the left insists on paying, and the right insists on avoidance, and you've had no real leadership that says there's a positive, economically rational, science-and-technology way to solve this that makes your life better, not worse, and gives you more options, not fewer. ...This is correct! The LEFT does insist on paying, and the right does insist on AVOIDANCE! I could not have said it better myself.
Put another way, the left insists on being responsible for problems we've created, and the right insists on ignoring them, and having someone else fix them. They INSIST ON AVOIDANCE!
Wait, but to paraphrase Newt, if you can find a way for the right to not have to sacrifice, and possibly even make a profit on it, they will be happy to do it. Bingo.
He was then asked:
Is it because there are institutional impediments? I'm talking the oil and gas lobbies.
Newt:
No, I think it's intellectual. I think that we're right at a tipping point where you could begin to imagine the development of an entirely new generation of systems; where you had a combination of a carbon cap with a trading system; you had prizes for the invention of major breakthroughs; you had incentives for investing in the new breakthroughs and accelerating their use and their development. And you could imagine a world 15 years from now that is dramatically greener than the world we're currently in.There is just so much here.
But what you have is: People on the right know they're against regulation, and they're against taxation, and they're against bigger government, so they don't want to think about it because the only answers they ever see are things they hate. People on the left know the environment's important, but their answers are all regulation, taxation and litigation. So you're caught in this gridlock.
The average American, in fact, wants a healthy environment, but they also want a healthy economy. And the average American would like their political leadership to figure out a solution which is economically rational, environmentally favorable, and which leads to the creation of a better future using better science and technology to give them more choices and a higher quality of living.
First, there's Newt making sure he doesn't upset the Oil and Gas folks because he'll need their cash for any campaigns, or any policy group which employs him. He calls the debate an "intellectual" one. Because after all, Conservatives, when it comes to the environment, have always delved very deep into the intellectual portion of it all.
Second, he speaks about the people on the "right" and the people on the "left." The people on his right, they're against "taxation...regulation...bigger government..." whatever. They're against it. Of course, government has expanded, but whatever. Then the people on the left are for "taxation...litigation...regulation..." Lets me explain the difference.
The people on the left aren't FOR this, or that, or the other thing in any particular way. What they're for is what can work. What's not working is no regulation, where business buys exemptions and exceptions to every rule. So in order to reign that in, they're for things like "litigation...regulation...and taxation" which is the only way to pay for what has gone wrong. But as a philosophy, the left isn't married to any of these things. They are married to solutions.
Then we have the right, who are married to these things, and try their best to attach these things to another encompassing philosophy they try to call "liberty." They want to act as if all these things curtail their lifestyles. Which, from their perspective, might be true. After all, supporting this belief supplies them the money to fund their campaigns, businesses, and think tanks. The difference is, if their beliefs do not result in solving the problems, or fixing what is wrong, that doesn't matter! They believe it! And that's enough for them. They are married to an idea of low taxes equals success for everyone, even when there is no proof this theory works for everyone. It works for them because it furthers their selfish goals, which in there lies the difference between the two sides.
The left is amenable, and believes that today, the actions they're taking today provide for a better future tomorrow, based on whatever available science or proof currently exists. The right, believes is in whatever it is they believe, regardless of what proof is offered to counter their beliefs. Proof against is just more reason to dig in their heels.
Finally, there is Newt's comments on the "average American..." This is really funny since Newt and his folks only pretend to represent them, and in this debate represent people who are anything but average. They've been representing the companies who benefit from zero regulation, and the workers who make mad cash pushing this agenda within Congress. Only a few Republicans have been extremely vocal in support of fixing Global Warming, and the majority of them have been active in undermining it, without any real proof that doing so is warranted in any way.
In the end, Global Warming will start to be fixed, and in all likelihood, a bit too late. This will be come common sense in 50 years, that fixing it is necessary. When it does, the regulations and laws governing the environment will be obvious and necessary. What will be forgotten is the movement against it by the conservatives who are trying to benefit today, one way or another. At this time they will have moved on to a whole new world of things to be against, and will surely be wrong 50 years past then.
Conservatives haven't been known to fix things; they've just become accustomed to accepting them, having these things become obvious and second nature, and then moving on. No different than say civil rights, worker's rights, or other environmental laws and regulations etc.
Democrats do the work, and society reaps the benefits. That's the world.
Yes, I have a Question
If you dissenters are worried that this investigation is a waste of time, then why, if you know it's going to go forward, are you trying to slow it down even more?
It's all so WEIRD!!!!
The House Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 32-6, just authorized a subpoena for Monica Goodling's testimony and an offer of immunity.Oh, and I'm confused as to why Rep. Sensenbrenner is worried about Goodling getting off the hook when he is voting with the people who think there is no hook in the first place.
As former U.S. Attorney for New Mexico David Iglesias pointed out yesterday, Goodling should prove to be a very valuable witness to investigators. Since Goodling acted as the liaison to the White House at the Justice Department, communications from Karl Rove or other White House officials are likely to have gone through her. As Iglesias put it, she has "the keys to the kingdom."
The Republican dissenters, we understand, were Reps. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Chris Cannon (R-UT), Randy Forbes (R-VA), Steve King (R-IA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), and Louie Gohmert (R-TX). Rep. Cannon claimed that the investigation was harming the Justice Department's ability to conduct business, and Rep. Forbes called the committee's investigation the "hearings to nowhere," saying that the investigation was interfering with the committee's legislative work. Rep. Sensenbrenner wondered whether it was wise to grant Goodling immunity, because doing so would let her off the hook.
It's all so WEIRD!!!!
The Border
Looks like Republicans may have found one more reason to build that wall between the US and Mexico...
Mexico City lawmakers voted to legalize abortion Tuesday, a decision likely to influence policies and health practices across Mexico and other parts of heavily Roman Catholic Latin America.Mexico, the Progressive Nation...
The proposal, approved 46-19, with one abstention, will take effect with the expected signing by the city's leftist mayor. Abortion opponents have already vowed to appeal the law to the Supreme Court, a move likely to extend the bitter and emotional debate in this predominantly Catholic nation.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sad
So tragic when someone like David Halberstam gets killed in a car accident.
He's one less person who probably would've told the real story about what's going on in the world today. We need more of them.
He's one less person who probably would've told the real story about what's going on in the world today. We need more of them.
Prisco
Rather than make my own brand new drat, amidst all of the news, I'd rather criticize someone else's, and make my picks accordingly. I'm more or less going to Rudy Giuliani this, in other words, I'm going to criticize it while adding no specifics, but only broad, non-specific reasons of what to do.
Today, it's Pete Prisco of CBS Sportsline:
2007 NFL Mock Draft
1. Oakland Raiders
JaMarcus Russell, QB, LSU -- Does anybody really know what this team will do? But the best guess is they take the big-armed passer.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: No. No one really does, including you. This will not be pick.
2. Detroit Lions
Joe Thomas, T, Wisconsin -- They will play him on the right side for a few years until Jeff Backus is done.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Riiight. Because they're line is so talented and dynamic they can afford to take a player where they already have someone who is talented at the same position. Not.
3. Cleveland Browns
Brady Quinn, QB, Notre Dame -- They have to get their quarterback of the future.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: And if they take this guy, they still will.
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Calvin Johnson, WR, Georgia Tech -- They can't believe he's still there. He will be an immediate game-breaker.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Yes, they cannot believe it because it actually won't happen. He will be an immediate game-breaker, for someone else.
5. Arizona Cardinals
Adrian Peterson, RB, Oklahoma -- Laugh all you want. He's too good to pass up.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: See reason #2, Joe Thomas.
6. Washington Redskins
Jamaal Anderson, DE, Arkansas -- He is a better fit than Gaines Adams. He's more of a power player.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: He's more of a power player, sure, so why doesn't everyone consider him better than Gaines? Personally, I think he is better, and this guy may actually be right.
7. Minnesota Vikings
LaRon Landry, S, LSU -- He is a difference-maker who will improve their defense at a spot they need help.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Safety doesn't make this team a contender. Need something different.
8. Atlanta Falcons
Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson -- They need to replace Patrick Kerney, so this makes sense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Can't see it. Have no reason. Think Okoye.
9. Miami Dolphins
Levi Brown, T, Penn State -- They have to get somebody they can plug in at left tackle for years to come. This kid plays with a nasty streak.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Can't predict what a new coach will do, but it's hard to believe it'll be the second best offensive lineman, a player who was not THAT dominant in college. They'll plug someone in next year or later in the draft.
10. Houston Texans
Leon Hall, CB, Michigan -- They get a shutdown corner to help improve their pass defense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: He's the Bernard Kerik of this draft...Looks good on paper, until you start to study his actual play. B-B-Bust.
11. San Francisco 49ers
Amobi Okoye, DT, Louisville -- Bryant Young is getting up in years and this kid has loads of potential.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Nope. He'll be gone. Team can't take a rider on potential right now. Need sure thing.
12. Buffalo Bills
Patrick Willis, LB, Mississippi -- He will be an immediate starter at middle linebacker. They have to improve their run defense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Correct. Will start immediately...but not for them. If available, and prepare yourself for an actual opinion, it's Olsen from Miami, FL.
13. St. Louis Rams
Alan Branch, DT, Michigan -- If they don't get better against the run, it won't matter how good they are on offense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Never known as a run-stopper. Known as a pass rusher who is huge. Won't happen. They have taken DTs early and I don't think any are still on the team.
14. Carolina Panthers
Reggie Nelson, S, Florida -- They will consider a linebacker here, maybe Lawrence Timmons, but they need safety help in the worst way.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Not in the worst way enough to take this guy.
15. Pittsburgh Steelers
Adam Carriker, DE/DT, Nebraska -- He's the right guy for a team that will play some 3-4 and some 4-3.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Could actually happen.
Today, it's Pete Prisco of CBS Sportsline:
2007 NFL Mock Draft
1. Oakland Raiders
JaMarcus Russell, QB, LSU -- Does anybody really know what this team will do? But the best guess is they take the big-armed passer.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: No. No one really does, including you. This will not be pick.
2. Detroit Lions
Joe Thomas, T, Wisconsin -- They will play him on the right side for a few years until Jeff Backus is done.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Riiight. Because they're line is so talented and dynamic they can afford to take a player where they already have someone who is talented at the same position. Not.
3. Cleveland Browns
Brady Quinn, QB, Notre Dame -- They have to get their quarterback of the future.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: And if they take this guy, they still will.
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Calvin Johnson, WR, Georgia Tech -- They can't believe he's still there. He will be an immediate game-breaker.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Yes, they cannot believe it because it actually won't happen. He will be an immediate game-breaker, for someone else.
5. Arizona Cardinals
Adrian Peterson, RB, Oklahoma -- Laugh all you want. He's too good to pass up.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: See reason #2, Joe Thomas.
6. Washington Redskins
Jamaal Anderson, DE, Arkansas -- He is a better fit than Gaines Adams. He's more of a power player.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: He's more of a power player, sure, so why doesn't everyone consider him better than Gaines? Personally, I think he is better, and this guy may actually be right.
7. Minnesota Vikings
LaRon Landry, S, LSU -- He is a difference-maker who will improve their defense at a spot they need help.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Safety doesn't make this team a contender. Need something different.
8. Atlanta Falcons
Gaines Adams, DE, Clemson -- They need to replace Patrick Kerney, so this makes sense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Can't see it. Have no reason. Think Okoye.
9. Miami Dolphins
Levi Brown, T, Penn State -- They have to get somebody they can plug in at left tackle for years to come. This kid plays with a nasty streak.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Can't predict what a new coach will do, but it's hard to believe it'll be the second best offensive lineman, a player who was not THAT dominant in college. They'll plug someone in next year or later in the draft.
10. Houston Texans
Leon Hall, CB, Michigan -- They get a shutdown corner to help improve their pass defense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: He's the Bernard Kerik of this draft...Looks good on paper, until you start to study his actual play. B-B-Bust.
11. San Francisco 49ers
Amobi Okoye, DT, Louisville -- Bryant Young is getting up in years and this kid has loads of potential.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Nope. He'll be gone. Team can't take a rider on potential right now. Need sure thing.
12. Buffalo Bills
Patrick Willis, LB, Mississippi -- He will be an immediate starter at middle linebacker. They have to improve their run defense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Correct. Will start immediately...but not for them. If available, and prepare yourself for an actual opinion, it's Olsen from Miami, FL.
13. St. Louis Rams
Alan Branch, DT, Michigan -- If they don't get better against the run, it won't matter how good they are on offense.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Never known as a run-stopper. Known as a pass rusher who is huge. Won't happen. They have taken DTs early and I don't think any are still on the team.
14. Carolina Panthers
Reggie Nelson, S, Florida -- They will consider a linebacker here, maybe Lawrence Timmons, but they need safety help in the worst way.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Not in the worst way enough to take this guy.
15. Pittsburgh Steelers
Adam Carriker, DE/DT, Nebraska -- He's the right guy for a team that will play some 3-4 and some 4-3.
Weinish Giuliani Thought: Could actually happen.
Awesomeness continued...
It just never ends.
When you hear a Bush Corp. lie just assume rightly that there's just so much more lying beneath the surface:
When you hear a Bush Corp. lie just assume rightly that there's just so much more lying beneath the surface:
WASHINGTON -- An Army Ranger who was with Pat Tillman when he died by friendly fire said Tuesday he was told by a higher-up to conceal that information from Tillman's family.Why does our military hate America?
"I was ordered not to tell them," U.S. Army Specialist Bryan O'Neal told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
He said he was given the order by then-Lt. Col. Jeff Bailey, the battalion commander who oversaw Tillman's platoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
