Tuesday, October 20, 2009

US Sponsors Plan to Restrict Free Speech

Goodness knows what I have, but that's why I'm not posting. See you on Wednesday, hopefully.

Meanwhile, I HIGHLY recommend that you read US Sponsors Plan to Restrict Free Speech. This affects us all.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

The Strange Attacks Upon FOX

I am not a big fan of the FOX network. I prefer CNN news which, overall, seems to be more unbiased than the others. Yes, you do have the liberal wackos, but there are enough far right nut jobs to counterbalance them. Overall, most of what CNN produces appears to be middle of the road, which is fine by me.

But FOX Network seems to be in the crosshairs of the Obama administration. And while FOX tends to be more conservative-leaning, it is hardly the right wing conspiracy that Obama's group wishes to label it as.

Among attempts to demonize FOX, the Obama administration's has an entire page dedicated to fact-checking Glenn Beck on a number of issues.

Additionally, Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Officer, made the improbable declaration "I mean the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. When they want to treat us like they treat everyone else — but let's not pretend they are a news network the way CNN is." She has also stated "We're going to treat Fox News the way we would treat an opponent."

Does Dunn not realize that there are other news stations out there?

With irresponsible comments like this, can we really trust Obama's administration to make rational decisions in other areas?

Oddly enough, I don't recall a Bush administration site dedicated to arguing family values with Howard Stern. And as kooky as the Clintonistas got at times, I never saw an official site trumpeting "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"

It is beneath the dignity of the executive branch to dally with such issues: Let the news organizations battle it out between themselves instead of wading into the dogfight.

President Obama, don't you have more pressing matters to attend to?

(Additional recommended reading: What Would Mao Do?)

Monday, October 12, 2009

Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth

I would love to keep this post up, but my attorney has advised me to remove it (at least for now). Thank you again for all your support in this matter.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to Obama

Way to go, Norway. You just awarded Obama with another incentive to continue to send money and troops overseas, despite his promises to the American people that he would bring change.

So far the difference between Obama and Bush is... very little. Oh he's pretty, all right: He looks good on camera and he's a wonderful orator. But Obama is all talk with very little substance. Even his liberal supporters are beginning to grumble. Loudly. Turn to the recent episode of Saturday Night Live to see a not-funny depiction of where they think he's going wrong.

Meanwhile, troops die in Afghanistan, still suffer in Iraq, and our monies continue to be funneled overseas to whatever particular cause the President thinks will make him look good. This isn't restricted to Obama, of course. He's only one in a line of weak-kneed Presidents who put everyone but their own citizens first.

We have entered into a Depression, we have more homeless than ever, and the best the government seems to be able to do is extend unemployment benefits for a little while longer. Since the Depression cannot lift for some time, all this will do is prolong the inevitable.

What the American public needs is real change.

Enough with the lauditory awards. Enough with the talk. Enough with throwing money at banks and institutions with vague promises that it will help the economy and increase jobs.

Obama will only deserve the Nobel Peace Prize when he brings peace to America.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Lindsay Lohan's Fashion Disaster

The diva we love to hate has just released her clothing line to a chorus of boos and cackles of laughter. She just doesn't "have it", according to all the fashionistas and critics who have unanimously weighed in against her.

Joining the dogpile are ("“a bad joke of a fashion show"), the New York Times (who compared this disaster to a fry cook attempting to cook at a high class restaurant), and the LA Times (who pointed out that Lohan was teary at the end, and certainly had a reason to be). Of course the clamor is endless, with everyone pointing and laughing.

But, although I despise Lohan due to her horrific personal choices, I must say that her fashion line looks no less disastrous to me than anything you can find in the pages of Vogue. I admit her choice to plaster sequined hearts onto her models' heads is quite silly, but so is much that we find on runways and on the backs of starlets everywhere.

My biggest concern about her fashion line is that it appears to be designed for real bodies, and looks a little out of place on the emaciated corpse-like bodies of her models.

The colors are horrific, the style is definately a throw-back to the 80s, but hello? Has anyone out there ever heard of Betsey Johnson, Maven of Tackiness?

To see Lohan's notorious line, go here.