He had to show I.D. to buy soda.
He was a young man who had been working strenuously all day. He walked into a Wal-Mart to purchase a case of soda and a new wallet. When he reached the register, the woman looked him up and down and saw his dark skin, black hair, and silently judged him as he turned to speak to his friend, in Spanish. She instantly searched through the wallet the man wanted to purchase and then, being satisfied that nothing was being stashed away, turned her eyes to the soda. "I'm going to need to see some I.D." The man was skeptical, but obliged without hassle. Far more ruffled, was a woman in line behind this man and his friend. She couldn't believe what she was seeing. When she reached the counter, she asked "Since when do you have to show I.D to buy a case of soda?"
"Oh...I thought it was beer. I had to check."
"Odd...considering you don't sell alcohol here." A contentious look and tense silence followed. As the woman left, she made sure to track down a supervisor and relate what had happened. He was uninterested and why did it matter. As the woman left the store, she saw the young man being taken away simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. His crime? Although he was in the process of following all the rules and doing everything required of him, he was, nonetheless, still in the country illegally.
This true story came back to me after I watched the beautiful and poignant film, The Visitor. The movie stars the impeccable Richard Jenkins (who earned a well-deserved Oscar nomination for this role) and showcases outstanding performances by Haaz Sleiman, Danai Gurira, and Hiam Abbass. Jenkins is Walter Vale, a college professor (I was pleasantly surprised to recognize Wagner College as the location for which the school scenes took place) and a widower, who is searching in vain for a way to fill the void in his life. He transcends the stereotype of the bitter and jaded teacher who can't get over his personal tragedy. Rather, we meet Walter as he is in limbo; still grieving but trying to move on, bored with the monotony of his life, and searching for his niche, his inspiration. He is just getting by. A paper that he co-authored, sends Walter to New York City and his apartment there. As fate would have it, he meets Tarek and Zainab, a musician and an artist, trying to make their way in the big city. They are a smart, kind, and optimistic couple. Tarek, the son of a journalist and from Syria, plays the djembe and offers to teach Walter how to unleash his inner percussionist. What follows is the subsequent release of new found purpose and connections in Walter's life, and the crashing realization that reality can be cruel and unforgiving for Tarek and his journey. The film is wonderfully executed in a very simple and astute manner that only makes it's conclusion all the more powerful in the end. Jenkins proves that you can reach your audience without any pomp or flash or computer effects (I'm talking to you, Pitt!). He quietly responds to every situation in front of him with a calm and rational demeanor. This build up allows for a heart breaking final sequence that is powerful and musical all at once. I highly recommend this film.
One of the central plot points of The Visitor is how the American system deals with the detention centers in which they keep immigrants (most illegal, some not) while they await a trial many will never see or deportation which can come suddenly and without warning. This is a flawed system. Convicted murderers receive more rights than these people, many who have committed no crimes and were simply contributing positively to our society. A study done by the University of California's Berkeley Institute of Industrial Relations (in 2002...if anyone can find a more recent study, please lead me in that direction) found that immigrants in the United States (legal and not) "provide more to the nation's economy than they use, adding about $10 billion each year to the U.S. gross product and paying at least $133 billion in taxes." Yet we treat these people, these human beings, as if they are a threat or as if they are far from worthy of this country. There is a sense of entitlement in the arguments poised by Americans who want every illegal immigrant found and thrown out, never to be allowed back. "I only care about MY family and MY fellow citizens. I am under no obligation to help these lawbreakers." Never mind that many of them get stuck in the quagmire that is the process of becoming a true United States citizens. Never mind that many of them come here seeking asylum. Sure there are aliens that do commit crimes. There are also millions of US citizens that commit crimes and walk the streets freely. Sure there are workers that send funds outside of America, to their families. There are American companies who cut jobs here for Americans and ship those jobs overseas. We can solve this issue without resorting to treating people inhumanly.
Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you [Luke 14:13]
Is the symbolism of The Statue of Liberty so easily forgotten and lost?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me:
I life my lamp beside the golden door.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Pretty Women
I stumbled upon this item of "worth" (I use the term very lightly) as I was visiting a website I read quite often and ironically enough, the link was e-mailed to me by a sincere fan.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't understand why women don't like him. Now, of course I'm not saying that if you are a woman that automatically makes you a Rush hater. I'm not like Rush, lumping everyone who falls under a category (in one way, shape, or form), as all being exactly the same as the most extreme person in the group. There are many women out there who are big fans of Limbaugh and I do not mean to discredit them here. Rush is referring to a poll that was recently released, which found that there was a 31 point gap between his positive viewership with men and his negative viewership with women. His response? What could be the problem? After all he is just "a harmless little fuzzball" and "the sweetest, nicest, most generous, compassionate, confident, cocky, I-know-what-I-want-and-I-know-what's-right-and-I'm-going-to-say-what-I-think kinda guy" Well, at least two of those adjectives are correct, so he's not a total liar. We can always give credit where credit is due.
Where to even begin. For starters, you have to understand that his confusion concerning this issue absolutely proves that his many, many, many, sexist quotes are founded in a sincere belief. He doesn't see anything wrong with making these comments. This, of course, leads to his bafflement concerning women's perception of him. Let's see how he handled this issue, shall we?
Rush decides to hold a Female Summit and is very clear about his ground rules. Only female callers will be accepted. Transsexuals need not apply. He only wants to speak with women who have issues with what he says and how he presents himself OR women who know other women who dislike him. He also expresses an interest in receiving constructive criticism on ways that he can better himself. Heck, he might even say he's sorry if you call him out on something just down right mean. Certainly someone will rise to the challenge.
No such luck for Dee. It wasn't just a true honor for her to be talking to El Rushbo, it was a "true, true honor". Double the pleasure, double the fun. She brings up a conservative friend of hers (who happens to be a schoolteacher) that really has no tolerance of Rush's show. Apparently, Rush tends to come off as "pompous". The woman being charged has only listened to the show once, and any idiot knows that to really understand Rush and get what he does so you can fully appreciate the majesty that is his golden microphone, you have to listen for at least six weeks. Really. So since she seems to have failed that litmus test, Rush's response is: "See, now, this is something about which I can do nothing...Here's a woman who's listened to me one time, she thinks I'm pompous. She's a schoolteacher, she's willing to profess her own ignorance by saying I'm pompous after having listened to one day, and she's out teaching kids? This woman is a menace to society." Dee is put on the spot when Rush asks her if she thinks he is pompous and Dee instantly says no but then tries to make a *gasp* point about how Rush talks about women. "Give me an example" Rush says three times. Does Dee say "Well there was that one time that you said 'Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream' and that other time when you said 'Let me leave you with a thought that honestly summarizes my sentiments: I love the women's movement, especially when I am walking behind it'?" No. Instead she says "Oh, well-" as Rush rambles on about referring to women as babes. He ends the discussion with "but as for this pompous stuff, that criticism, irrelevant, that woman's never listened, I'm not pompous, I'm not changing that." Lesson One? You can't judge a person's position and character by only listening to them for one day. You need to allow at least six weeks before you can make any honest assessment. Soo, according to that standard, I do believe President Obama has one more week of being in office before Rush should be able to assert a solid opinion on the President and his policies. Just a theory.
Deborah doesn't fare much better. She and Rush fail to discuss the difference between a catcall and a compliment and how the term "babe" can really come across as demeaning. Rather then decide that maybe he should cut down on the "babe" usage (feel free to interpret that any way you want) Rush blames the women; "I would say they need to lighten up, for crying out loud! Why do I have to change who I am? Why can't they just lighten up? Infobabe! Why can't they laugh? What is the problem with being light and lovable and just smiling now and then? Why must everything be said through gritted teeth and anger?" Lesson Two? Terms like "babe" and "anchorette" are just fine when referring to a female. Women fail to see how awesome labels like those are and come on, no one is exempt. Sarah Palin being a housewife and a babe was "icing on the cake" and she wouldn't remind any man of his ex-wife because she was not shrill. But, hey you! Bill Maher! "Fight attendant?" I don't think so.
Poor Rita tried to explain to Rush that sometimes he talks down to people. Rush didn't take kindly to that either, saying he just means to inspire his listeners and that he has the utmost respect for their intelligence (which he displays by posting links to his sources on his website, knowing that most people will just see the link and assume "well then his point must be true" rather then follow the link and see that more often then not, the information provided actually disproves El Rushbo and that he just pulled out some words that sounded good and then went bananas....I will report on my favorite incident of this, concerning Todd Palin, oh so soon). However, in a glimmer of hope, Rush does say this: "I will try to be more conscious of talking down, because I really don't want to" followed by "I have nothing but love, admiration, and respect for all the people of this country." Except for Liberals of course, We're all suffering from a mental derangement. Oh, and remember when Rush said this? "She comes to me when she wants to be fed. And after I feed her--guess what--she's off to wherever she wants to be in the house, until the next time she gets hungry. She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat has taught me more about women, than anything in my whole life"
Thank God for Kaisha. She reminded us of the infamous word coined by Rush: "feminazi" Apparently, it has made it's way into a textbook in Kaisha's Gender Studies class and she's not happy about it. Neither is Rush. "What can I do to counter the rot that is in the textbook?" The "rot" he is referring to is this: "I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern day holocaust: abortion" One idea he poses, is a bit of a revolt against the Liberal Collegiate System. We should just "let these women get out of school and grow up." And seriously, "These books, to say that we conservatives demean women? It's exact opposite of the truth". Hold on a second, Rush. Remind us what a feminazi is again? "A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. Nothing matters but me, says the feminazi: this is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness." Right. Lesson Three: Rush doesn't say anything negative about women. Liberals just tell you that what he is saying is negative but it's just not true. Save yourself! Don't seek out an education! Remember what happened to "The Man Who Knew Too Much"?
Denise ends up being beside herself that she's actually talking to Rush. She gushes and fawns and helps Rush reach the conclusion that the problem with women's perception of him must be....peer pressure. "It sounds like a lot of women simply fall to peer pressure to not like me, and it's easier to just go along with the crowd than it is to stand up and be an individual." Denise didn't get to chat long because her compliments were one too many, but Rush was sure that if they had let her go on, she would have made her point. He can definitely tell one thing about her: "This woman likes a lot of foreplay."
The grand finale is named Janet and she has three ideas for Rush: 1.) Make women believe he cares more about them than their own husbands do, 2.) Project an air of vulnerability, and 3.) Stop saying that abortion is the sacrament to Liberalism. Not terrible ideas, but Rush fails to see the benefit. She's trying to emasculate him! Don't you see Janet? He can't lie. He's incapable. How could he change the very heart that defines his character? Hey! Remember when Rush said this during the election? "Okay, we got a poll out there, ladies and gentlemen, we always have a new poll to report. Get this one. This is an ABC News poll: "Unmarried women -- often dubbed the 'Sex and the City' vote -- overwhelmingly support Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in key battleground states, according to a recent poll. Single, divorced, separated, and widowed women voters in 14 battleground states favor the presumptive Democratic nominee over his Republican rival by 61 to 29 percent, according to a Democratic poll commissioned for Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund , an advocacy group for unmarried women voters." Now, as a healthy, red-blooded American male, I have a question. I never heard of this Sex and the City vote. This is my first time hearing the term. But if single, divorced, separated, and widowed women -- in other words, women without men -- support Obama over McCain 61-29%, does this prove that when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid? I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here. So women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically. Married women are obviously smarter. Married women are obviously more conservative. Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south. I can analyze this any way I want to. Screw the Drive-Bys, their stupid polls."
So what results can we come up with, after this, our first Female Summit with Rush Limbaugh and how should women react? Well, women could get angry. After all, Rush did say, "Women love validation. They love vindication. They love revenge". Or we could nod our heads and admit that he makes a point. He was pretty spot on when he said that "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along". Why can't we accept that he just wants to bring us back to the good old days? I just can't decide. Rush? What have we ultimately learned?
"Our preliminary report -- and there will be a much more detailed report before our next Female Summit -- it appears that women who have hated me have been led to me by other men and then have changed their opinion, which means something I have always known, that women do want to please their men."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Rush Limbaugh doesn't understand why women don't like him. Now, of course I'm not saying that if you are a woman that automatically makes you a Rush hater. I'm not like Rush, lumping everyone who falls under a category (in one way, shape, or form), as all being exactly the same as the most extreme person in the group. There are many women out there who are big fans of Limbaugh and I do not mean to discredit them here. Rush is referring to a poll that was recently released, which found that there was a 31 point gap between his positive viewership with men and his negative viewership with women. His response? What could be the problem? After all he is just "a harmless little fuzzball" and "the sweetest, nicest, most generous, compassionate, confident, cocky, I-know-what-I-want-and-I-know-what's-right-and-I'm-going-to-say-what-I-think kinda guy" Well, at least two of those adjectives are correct, so he's not a total liar. We can always give credit where credit is due.
Where to even begin. For starters, you have to understand that his confusion concerning this issue absolutely proves that his many, many, many, sexist quotes are founded in a sincere belief. He doesn't see anything wrong with making these comments. This, of course, leads to his bafflement concerning women's perception of him. Let's see how he handled this issue, shall we?
Rush decides to hold a Female Summit and is very clear about his ground rules. Only female callers will be accepted. Transsexuals need not apply. He only wants to speak with women who have issues with what he says and how he presents himself OR women who know other women who dislike him. He also expresses an interest in receiving constructive criticism on ways that he can better himself. Heck, he might even say he's sorry if you call him out on something just down right mean. Certainly someone will rise to the challenge.
No such luck for Dee. It wasn't just a true honor for her to be talking to El Rushbo, it was a "true, true honor". Double the pleasure, double the fun. She brings up a conservative friend of hers (who happens to be a schoolteacher) that really has no tolerance of Rush's show. Apparently, Rush tends to come off as "pompous". The woman being charged has only listened to the show once, and any idiot knows that to really understand Rush and get what he does so you can fully appreciate the majesty that is his golden microphone, you have to listen for at least six weeks. Really. So since she seems to have failed that litmus test, Rush's response is: "See, now, this is something about which I can do nothing...Here's a woman who's listened to me one time, she thinks I'm pompous. She's a schoolteacher, she's willing to profess her own ignorance by saying I'm pompous after having listened to one day, and she's out teaching kids? This woman is a menace to society." Dee is put on the spot when Rush asks her if she thinks he is pompous and Dee instantly says no but then tries to make a *gasp* point about how Rush talks about women. "Give me an example" Rush says three times. Does Dee say "Well there was that one time that you said 'Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream' and that other time when you said 'Let me leave you with a thought that honestly summarizes my sentiments: I love the women's movement, especially when I am walking behind it'?" No. Instead she says "Oh, well-" as Rush rambles on about referring to women as babes. He ends the discussion with "but as for this pompous stuff, that criticism, irrelevant, that woman's never listened, I'm not pompous, I'm not changing that." Lesson One? You can't judge a person's position and character by only listening to them for one day. You need to allow at least six weeks before you can make any honest assessment. Soo, according to that standard, I do believe President Obama has one more week of being in office before Rush should be able to assert a solid opinion on the President and his policies. Just a theory.
Deborah doesn't fare much better. She and Rush fail to discuss the difference between a catcall and a compliment and how the term "babe" can really come across as demeaning. Rather then decide that maybe he should cut down on the "babe" usage (feel free to interpret that any way you want) Rush blames the women; "I would say they need to lighten up, for crying out loud! Why do I have to change who I am? Why can't they just lighten up? Infobabe! Why can't they laugh? What is the problem with being light and lovable and just smiling now and then? Why must everything be said through gritted teeth and anger?" Lesson Two? Terms like "babe" and "anchorette" are just fine when referring to a female. Women fail to see how awesome labels like those are and come on, no one is exempt. Sarah Palin being a housewife and a babe was "icing on the cake" and she wouldn't remind any man of his ex-wife because she was not shrill. But, hey you! Bill Maher! "Fight attendant?" I don't think so.
Poor Rita tried to explain to Rush that sometimes he talks down to people. Rush didn't take kindly to that either, saying he just means to inspire his listeners and that he has the utmost respect for their intelligence (which he displays by posting links to his sources on his website, knowing that most people will just see the link and assume "well then his point must be true" rather then follow the link and see that more often then not, the information provided actually disproves El Rushbo and that he just pulled out some words that sounded good and then went bananas....I will report on my favorite incident of this, concerning Todd Palin, oh so soon). However, in a glimmer of hope, Rush does say this: "I will try to be more conscious of talking down, because I really don't want to" followed by "I have nothing but love, admiration, and respect for all the people of this country." Except for Liberals of course, We're all suffering from a mental derangement. Oh, and remember when Rush said this? "She comes to me when she wants to be fed. And after I feed her--guess what--she's off to wherever she wants to be in the house, until the next time she gets hungry. She's smart enough to know she can't feed herself. She's actually a very smart cat. She gets loved. She gets adoration. She gets petted. She gets fed. And she doesn't have to do anything for it, which is why I say this cat has taught me more about women, than anything in my whole life"
Thank God for Kaisha. She reminded us of the infamous word coined by Rush: "feminazi" Apparently, it has made it's way into a textbook in Kaisha's Gender Studies class and she's not happy about it. Neither is Rush. "What can I do to counter the rot that is in the textbook?" The "rot" he is referring to is this: "I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. The term describes any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern day holocaust: abortion" One idea he poses, is a bit of a revolt against the Liberal Collegiate System. We should just "let these women get out of school and grow up." And seriously, "These books, to say that we conservatives demean women? It's exact opposite of the truth". Hold on a second, Rush. Remind us what a feminazi is again? "A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. Nothing matters but me, says the feminazi: this is an unviable tissue mass. Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness." Right. Lesson Three: Rush doesn't say anything negative about women. Liberals just tell you that what he is saying is negative but it's just not true. Save yourself! Don't seek out an education! Remember what happened to "The Man Who Knew Too Much"?
Denise ends up being beside herself that she's actually talking to Rush. She gushes and fawns and helps Rush reach the conclusion that the problem with women's perception of him must be....peer pressure. "It sounds like a lot of women simply fall to peer pressure to not like me, and it's easier to just go along with the crowd than it is to stand up and be an individual." Denise didn't get to chat long because her compliments were one too many, but Rush was sure that if they had let her go on, she would have made her point. He can definitely tell one thing about her: "This woman likes a lot of foreplay."
The grand finale is named Janet and she has three ideas for Rush: 1.) Make women believe he cares more about them than their own husbands do, 2.) Project an air of vulnerability, and 3.) Stop saying that abortion is the sacrament to Liberalism. Not terrible ideas, but Rush fails to see the benefit. She's trying to emasculate him! Don't you see Janet? He can't lie. He's incapable. How could he change the very heart that defines his character? Hey! Remember when Rush said this during the election? "Okay, we got a poll out there, ladies and gentlemen, we always have a new poll to report. Get this one. This is an ABC News poll: "Unmarried women -- often dubbed the 'Sex and the City' vote -- overwhelmingly support Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., over Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in key battleground states, according to a recent poll. Single, divorced, separated, and widowed women voters in 14 battleground states favor the presumptive Democratic nominee over his Republican rival by 61 to 29 percent, according to a Democratic poll commissioned for Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund , an advocacy group for unmarried women voters." Now, as a healthy, red-blooded American male, I have a question. I never heard of this Sex and the City vote. This is my first time hearing the term. But if single, divorced, separated, and widowed women -- in other words, women without men -- support Obama over McCain 61-29%, does this prove that when men are around, women get smarter and that when men leave, women get stupid? I mean, we could look at this data any way you want, folks, is what I'm trying to say here. So women who get divorced get dumber 'cause there's no smart guy around to keep 'em in line politically. Married women are obviously smarter. Married women are obviously more conservative. Single, divorced, widowed, separated women, no man around, the brain goes south. I can analyze this any way I want to. Screw the Drive-Bys, their stupid polls."
So what results can we come up with, after this, our first Female Summit with Rush Limbaugh and how should women react? Well, women could get angry. After all, Rush did say, "Women love validation. They love vindication. They love revenge". Or we could nod our heads and admit that he makes a point. He was pretty spot on when he said that "Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along". Why can't we accept that he just wants to bring us back to the good old days? I just can't decide. Rush? What have we ultimately learned?
"Our preliminary report -- and there will be a much more detailed report before our next Female Summit -- it appears that women who have hated me have been led to me by other men and then have changed their opinion, which means something I have always known, that women do want to please their men."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Guns A'blazin.
When Fox News says that President Obama is "Reagen-esque", you know something has to be working.
What didn't work was Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, delivering the Republican rebuttal to Obama's impressively clear and concise speech. Wasn't it refreshing to be able to listen to our President and actually understand what he was talking about? How long has it been since the general American public has anticipated, nay, been excited about the President addressing Congress? Prior to President Obama entering the hall, I almost wanted them to dim the lights, bring on the noise AND the funk, turn on the strobe, and replace "Hail to the Chief" with the theme from "Remember the Titans" (which the Democrats already used effectively when Obama accepted the Democrat Nomination at Invesco Field). No, wait...how about our new anthem..."Jai Ho". It would have made for a better eventual segue from the President to, *sigh* Jindal. In fact, I probably would not have started laughing immediately if the Gov had started with "Many congratulations to "Slumdog Millionaire" rather then "Happy Mardi Gras!" which was a little attempt at seeming hip and aware.
What if the Republicans had hired Hugh Jackman? Rather then their address being half spoken/half sung (and not in a suave Rex Harrison manner), Jackman would have gone all out with clever props and costumes to re-enact the stories Jindal so painfully droned on with. It was a very obvious set up for a possible 2012 run for the Presidency. He compared his unique "only in America" story directly to Obama's. He is probably thanking his lucky stars that he won't have to run against his own party, for surely they would use his background to claim that he couldn't possibly be really born in the United States and also that he, by default, must be a Hindu, and will therefore make it his personal mission to turn the entire country into a Hindu nation. I can only imagine the tag lines (again this is if Jindal was a Democrat running against the GOP): "Hitler actually reincarnated?", "Piyush...more like Piyuck", "Kiss your Big Macs good bye, America!" Luckily for him, Jindal won't have to face such childishness because Democrats rarely sink into that type of irrationality.
What made this required speech so disappointing is that Gov Jindal is a very smart and well educated man. He is supposed to be the new star of the GOP and the one who will revive the party after Bush and Co. did everything in their power to destroy the brand. I expected far more from him. In fact, I was actually looking forward to what he had to say since there has been so much political buzz surrounding his name as of late. Alas, the speech lacked relevance and didn't say anything that we have not already heard from the Republican machine of "no". Seriously, we couldn't watch American Idol because of this? Oh, I digress.
Well while I'm digressing, I feel the need to be honest and say that I rarely write from an un-biased standpoint. Yes, I am registered a Democrat but originally I was going to file myself under the label of Independent. I only decieded to join the Blue Party because I knew it would irk my father who would have named one of my siblings Rush, had my mother allowed it. However, if I had been able to vote in the 2000 election, I would have voted for W (I would have happily voted for McCain). In 2004 I did vote for Kerry but it was more of a vote against W rather then a vote for Kerry. This past election I was a very proud supporter of Obama and yes, I teared up on Election night.
I think the Academy got it absolutely right when it gave the Best Picture Oscar to "Crash" over "Brokeback Mountain". Jennifer Hudson should have lots of Grammy awards but not an Oscar. Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet should be able to pick out their favorite seats at the Kodak Theatre and have the seats reserved for them always. Renee Zelwegger should never be invited (although I will say she was the perfect Bridget Jones). "Wicked" is a fantastic book and a terrible musical. Jeremy Piven is undeserving of David Mamet. Kate DiCamillo and Mo Willems are the best out there when it comes to children's literature. Non-fiction can't always be trusted so fiction is always better. "Twilight"...I don't get it. 30 Rock is the best show on TV and I hope Norman/Nick makes it to the Top 12 on American Idol because I think he is hilarious. I am also not a big fan of oreo cookies but I love Thin Mints. I hope this gives you a general idea of where my thoughts will stem from.
This is the art of the possible. We'll dive into politics, movies, television, film, books, people who are making the world a better place, people who are not, and the general theme of inventiveness and creativity.
Let's end with something we can all agree on: this is the end of the first post.
What didn't work was Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, delivering the Republican rebuttal to Obama's impressively clear and concise speech. Wasn't it refreshing to be able to listen to our President and actually understand what he was talking about? How long has it been since the general American public has anticipated, nay, been excited about the President addressing Congress? Prior to President Obama entering the hall, I almost wanted them to dim the lights, bring on the noise AND the funk, turn on the strobe, and replace "Hail to the Chief" with the theme from "Remember the Titans" (which the Democrats already used effectively when Obama accepted the Democrat Nomination at Invesco Field). No, wait...how about our new anthem..."Jai Ho". It would have made for a better eventual segue from the President to, *sigh* Jindal. In fact, I probably would not have started laughing immediately if the Gov had started with "Many congratulations to "Slumdog Millionaire" rather then "Happy Mardi Gras!" which was a little attempt at seeming hip and aware.
What if the Republicans had hired Hugh Jackman? Rather then their address being half spoken/half sung (and not in a suave Rex Harrison manner), Jackman would have gone all out with clever props and costumes to re-enact the stories Jindal so painfully droned on with. It was a very obvious set up for a possible 2012 run for the Presidency. He compared his unique "only in America" story directly to Obama's. He is probably thanking his lucky stars that he won't have to run against his own party, for surely they would use his background to claim that he couldn't possibly be really born in the United States and also that he, by default, must be a Hindu, and will therefore make it his personal mission to turn the entire country into a Hindu nation. I can only imagine the tag lines (again this is if Jindal was a Democrat running against the GOP): "Hitler actually reincarnated?", "Piyush...more like Piyuck", "Kiss your Big Macs good bye, America!" Luckily for him, Jindal won't have to face such childishness because Democrats rarely sink into that type of irrationality.
What made this required speech so disappointing is that Gov Jindal is a very smart and well educated man. He is supposed to be the new star of the GOP and the one who will revive the party after Bush and Co. did everything in their power to destroy the brand. I expected far more from him. In fact, I was actually looking forward to what he had to say since there has been so much political buzz surrounding his name as of late. Alas, the speech lacked relevance and didn't say anything that we have not already heard from the Republican machine of "no". Seriously, we couldn't watch American Idol because of this? Oh, I digress.
Well while I'm digressing, I feel the need to be honest and say that I rarely write from an un-biased standpoint. Yes, I am registered a Democrat but originally I was going to file myself under the label of Independent. I only decieded to join the Blue Party because I knew it would irk my father who would have named one of my siblings Rush, had my mother allowed it. However, if I had been able to vote in the 2000 election, I would have voted for W (I would have happily voted for McCain). In 2004 I did vote for Kerry but it was more of a vote against W rather then a vote for Kerry. This past election I was a very proud supporter of Obama and yes, I teared up on Election night.
I think the Academy got it absolutely right when it gave the Best Picture Oscar to "Crash" over "Brokeback Mountain". Jennifer Hudson should have lots of Grammy awards but not an Oscar. Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet should be able to pick out their favorite seats at the Kodak Theatre and have the seats reserved for them always. Renee Zelwegger should never be invited (although I will say she was the perfect Bridget Jones). "Wicked" is a fantastic book and a terrible musical. Jeremy Piven is undeserving of David Mamet. Kate DiCamillo and Mo Willems are the best out there when it comes to children's literature. Non-fiction can't always be trusted so fiction is always better. "Twilight"...I don't get it. 30 Rock is the best show on TV and I hope Norman/Nick makes it to the Top 12 on American Idol because I think he is hilarious. I am also not a big fan of oreo cookies but I love Thin Mints. I hope this gives you a general idea of where my thoughts will stem from.
This is the art of the possible. We'll dive into politics, movies, television, film, books, people who are making the world a better place, people who are not, and the general theme of inventiveness and creativity.
Let's end with something we can all agree on: this is the end of the first post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
