This is my president

These are some selected quotes from this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_balls

I love this man. I really, really do. He is dignified, graceful, loving, compassionate, diplomatic and so damn smart.


President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle capped their historic day with a speedy tour through 10 inaugural balls before retiring, at last, for their first night in the White House.

The Etta James classic "At Last" was the Obamas' song of the evening, crooned by Beyonce at the Neighborhood Ball, the first of 10 inaugural celebrations they attended into the early hours of Wednesday. The president pulled his wife close for a slow, dignified two-step to the song that marked the end of a long day of formal inaugural events and the two-year campaign that put them in the White House.

"First of all, how good looking is my wife?" Obama asked the crowd of celebrities and supporters.

At the Midwestern Ball, he joked that it was time to "dance with the one who brung me, who does everything that I do except backwards and in heels."

Obama cut loose in a faster groove a few minutes later, as Shakira, Mary J. Blige, Faith Hill and Mariah Carey sang along with Stevie Wonder to his "Signed, Sealed, Delivered." The song was played at nearly all of Obama's rallies throughout the campaign.

The Obamas were enthusiastic, splitting up to dance with Marine Sgt. Elidio Guillen of Madera, Calif. — who was shorter than dance partner Michelle — and Army Sgt. Margaret H. Herrera of San Antonio, Texas, who cried in the president's arms.

And though the mood was celebratory, the reality that the country remains at war hung over the festivities at the Commander in Chief ball and a separate Heroes Red White & Blue Ball.

"Please know that you are in our thoughts and prayers today, every day, forever," Obama told troops at the Commander in Chief ball. "Tonight, we celebrate. Tomorrow, the work begins. ... Together, I am confident we will write the next great chapter in America's story."

Sure Viacom; let me just pimp myself out for that cable bill.

This is from the Viacom website:

Statement from Viacom

NEW YORK, Dec. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The move by Time Warner Cable to force such channels as Nickelodeon, COMEDY CENTRAL and MTV off the air is another example of a cable company overreaching for profit at the expense of its viewers.

The renewal we are seeking is reasonable and modest relative to the profits TWC enjoys from our networks. We have asked for an increase of less than 25 cents per month, per subscriber, which adds up to less than a penny per day for all 19 of MTV Networks' channels.

We make this request because TWC has so greatly undervalued our channels for so long. Americans spend more than 20% of their TV viewing time watching our networks, yet our fees amount to less than 2.5% of what Time Warner generates from their average customer.

Throughout the country, we have negotiated equitable license agreement renewals, or are in the final stages of renewals, with virtually every cable and satellite carrier. Nevertheless, Time Warner Cable has dismissed our efforts at a fair compromise and has effectively chosen to deny its customers some of the most popular TV shows on the air.

As a result, we are sorry to say that for Time Warner Cable customers our networks will go dark as of 12:01 on January 1st, denying Time Warner customers shows like Dora the Explorer, SpongeBob SquarePants, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and The Hills.

Ultimately, however, if Nickelodeon, COMEDY CENTRAL, MTV and the rest of our programming is discontinued -- over less than a penny per day -- we believe viewers will see this behavior by their cable company as outrageous. Time Warner Cable subscribers who are being handed a January 1st $3 monthly increase in Raleigh, Orange County, Los Angeles, and New York City are simultaneously facing the removal of beloved shows across 19 channels.

We find it a shame that Time Warner Cable remains unreasonable at this time. We hope its leadership will have a change of heart and will seek to negotiate a fair renewal agreement.

Um, are you kidding me? They are pulling shows, that we customers are already paying for, until they get more money from the cable guys? And they think that telling us that will make us hate the cable company?? Um, no Viacom. We all pay a ridiculous price for our cable services, so when you cut the programming because you want more money (forcing our bill to go higher) we don't get mad at cable luvs...we get pissed at YOU.

"The channels that would be affected are: Comedy Central, CMT: Pure Country, Logo, Palladia, MTV, MTV 2, MTV Hits, MTV Jams, MTV Tr3s, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Nick 2, Nicktoons, Spike, The N, TV Land, VH1, VH1 Classic, and VH1 Soul. Viacom has staked much of its revenue-growth prospects on its ability to extract higher carriage rates out of its cable and satellite affiliates despite an ad slowdown and weak ratings."

"Viacom said the increases would cost an extra 23 cents a month per subscriber — which works out to $35.9 million more in total"..."Part of the disagreement is that most of the popular shows are rerun on Web sites where Viacom collects advertising revenue that it does not share with Time Warner." - AP News, Yahoo web

So, Viacom keeps money from it's online viewers and advertisers, and now wants cable to pay them more; which means we would pay them more. See, I have a problem with that, and a very simple solution. FUCK YOU. Out of all of the shows listed, the only ace Viacom has is Comedy Central (because of the Colbert Report and Daily Show). All of the MTV channels are ass, and VH1 isn't much better. Granted, I have no kids so I don't value Nick as much as I used to, but having seen some of the shows recently, all of those writers should have pencils jammed into their hands. I am not paying more for 1 channel, and Time-Warner shouldn't have to either.

Viacom, I can't believe that you thought this tactic would work. Cable doesn't WANT to raise our rates...you are trying to force them to do it. So yeah, I am mad. I find it unreasonable and greedy. You are dispicable. We can't even afford heat and housing, yet CEOs are getting big money. Leave our TV alone, assholes!

She would do it in a boat...

Jackie and Libby are watching television:


Libby: "I think there is a gratutious sex scene coming up here."


Jackie: "Bout time, this show needs some hot luvin"


L: "Dude, not in the back of a car!"


J: "It's trashy...i like it"


L: "Damn, she is pale! I think the door is open too. It's like fall; they are gonna be cold."


J: "Nah, I think its shut, he's hunched over. He is HOT."


L: "I know, he's tasty. No, see he is like almost kneeling but his head isn't touching the roof. I seriously think the door is open and his feet are dangling out."


J: "See there's the door and the-hand-streaking-down-the-fogged-up-window-shot. It's closed."


L: "Bullshit. They lie. His backseat would have to be freakishly high-roofed. Its uncomfortable to have sex in a car anyway. The ground is better than that."


J: "Nah, I like it. Just gimme some "oncha-oncha" (Jackie's bedspring impression)


Sarah enters: "You see Libby, sex with Jackie is like 'Green eggs and Ham.'"


L: "um...?"


S: "She will do it in a box, she will do it with some lox. She will have him in a train, she will go down on a plane."

(hysterical laughter) "Lox??"

S: "Yes. We are the shiksa mistresses. Give us your sexy Jews."

Prop. 8, Part 2: My Opinion

WOW. I don't even know where to start. I guess I will go in order.

Right away the third paragraph is horrible; to tell people what their rights are. Marrying animals, siblings or even wheels of cheese are absolutely NOT in any way the same as marrying a member of the same sex. It is moronic to even compare them, and just makes people sound ridiculous. Having "gay friends" doesn't mean anything either; it’s like a badge people wear to try and seem tolerant. So is “oh, I love them to death I do…” Obviously, not enough to give them the same right they enjoy.

Traditionally, marriages were arranged for financial gain or an increase in status. Men regularly had affairs, even to the point where the other woman could live in the same house as the man's family. Women used to be blamed if they didn't "produce" sons; they were beaten or killed for having affairs or questioning the fidelity of the man. Some of these attributes went on as late as the sixties. That is not a tradition I want to keep. Granted, today’s marriages (for the most part) are different. That means they aren’t “traditional” either; they have changed with society. Adultery is still not a punishable crime though, is it? It is a civil (legal) matter. So is marriage, and legally, all people are supposed to be created equal. If marriage is so sacred, why not stop a drunken couple in Vegas from desecrating it?

Stating that things were better when woman stayed at home to cook and clean and men did the work is so disgusting I could vomit. This man is a complete sexist, which taints anything he tries to say about the rights he thinks people should have. He claims to be tolerant in the first half, and blatantly displays that he isn't in the last half. He actually hurts the cause of people trying to fight this bill

Yes, taxes are bad. Blame the guy who’s been in charge for the last 8 years; he made it that way. Since men still make more than women, two "dudes" together should make a great financial couple.

The Merry Christmas thing was indeed stupid in my opinion. Say whatever you want; you are celebrating a season. However, don't get huffy when I say "Merry Yule" or Happy Kwanzaa."

The Bible was not written by God but men, who are fallible. When God tells me himself that is what he 'decrees,' I'll listen.

Using different words (garriage, as mentioned by one comment is horribly insulting and childish) isn’t the same. Here is my comparison: Separate but equal; having a black school and a white school apart from each other. Both get taught sure, but bear the stigma of hate, fear and intolerance. Neither of these are equal and by my own personal standards, moral. (Morality is not the same for everyone either, everyone has their own set whether we agree or not.)

This is about equality for all humans. The modern term ‘marriage’ signifies a consensual union. Not just between man and woman, but by people who want to spend their lives together with the person they love. The name means a lot, or this argument wouldn’t even occur. Homosexuals want the same rights to use that term; the word that means so much. It’s like saying they can’t use the word “love”, but have to say “really like;” it just isn’t the same.


I respect that I completely disagree with this person and I feel sorry for them, while at the same time feel ill. I believe that not all conservatives are extremists, even though I have yet to meet a conservative who believes the same about liberals. Liberals in my experience are more tolerant, more reasonable, more factual and for the most part less extreme. I say “factual” because we are often accused of taking science over faith, which can (but not always) be true; just as not all conservatives blindly follow every word of the Bible if they are not comfortable with it. I dislike this man, but I am not disregarding anyone’s beliefs, which this man proudly does.

I will now ask you to respect MY views, as I have done; but asking won’t make anyone do it. I’ll still get told that I am “prayed for” by people who pity me and told that I am “going to burn in hell” by those who disagree. I will not say anyone is going to hell; or wish them harm. I am simply presenting the other side of this controversial subject.

Prop. 8 view, Part 1

This was posted by someone I love, which only makes it harder to believe and more painful to read. My opinion and response will be the immediate next blog.


---"I didn't write this, but I completely agree. HAHA we'll see if any "executive orders" get handed down about this..."

Okay...a lot of people are blogging about Prop 8 (same sex marriage). The protesters call it discrimmination. Sorry, that's not it.

This all started during the AIDS scare and outbreak, when gay couples wanted access to sick and dying friends in the hospital. I'm all for this. Sign a contract. Make legal arrangments. Anyone can make a legal document to give another person an executor, trust, or partnership role in matters such as these. You don't have to be married. (By the way - I have personally watched people die of AIDS when I was a deputy sheriff working the jail hospital. So don't think I'm coming from some ill-informed, insensitive frame of reference.)

When this was pointed out, the gay rights movement changed the montra. Now it's "civil rights" and "discrimination". No, it's not. Any gay person can marry. They just have to marry the opposite sex.

People can't marry animals or several partners...or their siblings. Why? Because this causes problems in society which people once understood. It was common sense at one time. Now we have blurred morality...blurred sense...it's all about the entitlement attitudes of today's American left.I have gay friends. I respect those people. I want them to be happy. But I don't want them to hijack traditional marriage. What is wrong with Civil Unions? Or call it Gay unity or whatever. Most people have no problem with this. We're all God's children.The bottom line is that homosexual people are not entitled because of some perceived "right".

The idea of Gay marriage has been on the California ballot TWICE now. Both times Californians have rejected it. That's how democracy works. This is a democratic republic. You can't keep trying to force your ideology and agendas on the people through activist courts. Elections are how people in a free society govern their country.I am sick and tired of the arguements in favor of gay marriage. They point to the high divorce rates, single parent familes, etc. Pointing to flaws in the current system is not a route to radicalizing, hijacking and changing it to something else.It is my opinion that liberalism is the cause of these issues in the first place. To "fix" them with more liberalism is to throw gas on an already burning fire.

When did traditional marriage begin having problems? Was it around the same time, liberalism gained strength in America? Was it at the dawn of feminism in the 60's along with "free love" and liberalism...? That's right, it was. Liberalism promotes "if it feels good, do it." Everything goes, unless it's traditional. If it's traditional, somehow it's "ignorant" or not progressive or racist or sexist or discrimination or any number of buzz words the loud left can come up with to get their way.

Last year, we couldn't say "Merry Christmas". When I was a kid, moms stayed home with the children and raised their families while dad worked. In those days people could afford to buy a house and pay all the bills on one salary. Now, we have both parents working several jobs and we still can't pay all the taxes.And we're going to dig ourselves out of this hole by allowing two dudes to get married? We solve this by allowing kindergarten teachers to hand out "The Two Kings" and indoctrinate kids about how it's okay for two guys to be married? Now respect my opinion and my beliefs. Respect the election and democracy. Knock off the "discrimination" bullshit because it's not.

Marriage is for one man and one woman, so they can have a biological family, and continue the human race. That's how mother nature designed it. That's how it's supposed to be. Go get hitched in a ceremony among your friends, put together some legal documentation for your living Will and call it whatever you want. Leave marriage alone. (Let me just add...thats how GOD designed it to be!)

Our Phone Call from Barack Obama

On Saturday, November 1, Barack Obama held a conference call with over 20,000 of his grass roots campaign volunteers and organizers. I am proud to say that due to my Aunt Mary's outstanding work in the Auburn area chapter of the Obama campaign, two of my aunts, my mother, two sisters and myself participated in this call.

We huddled around a cell phone in a hotel room, straining to hear this great man congratulate and thank all of us for the support and tremendous help on his behalf. He asked us to continue on Monday, to get out the vote to everyone we could and help all who may need help getting to the polls. He said how proud he was of all of us; how humbled it made him. He swore that he would not disappoint us. A few of us cried.

This was a once-in-a-lifetime moment. He took time out from the last crucial period of his two-year long campaign to personally thank over 20,000 of the men and women who have believed in him so much that they took time away from their lives to support his vision of change in America. I have never been more proud of my country.

As promised, we all spent half of the day Monday walking door-to-door hanging fliers on voters' doors reminding them to get out and be heard on November 4th. I spent over an hour in line to cast my vote, and I have never been more sure that I cast it for the right person.

Scapegoat, thy name is Palin

I'd be very surprised if she didn't see this coming.


McCain camp trying to scapegoat Palin

Johttp://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081030/pl_politico/15073;_ylt=AkvFZcgBQT3VLReDtKbtSa8b.3QAh

McCain's campaign is looking for a scapegoat. It is looking for someone to blame if McCain loses on Tuesday.

And it has decided on Sarah Palin.

In recent days, a McCain "adviser" told Dana Bash of CNN: "She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone."

Imagine not taking advice from the geniuses at the McCain campaign. What could Palin be thinking?

Also, a "top McCain adviser" told Mike Allen of Politico that Palin is "a whack job."
Maybe she is. But who chose to put this "whack job" on the ticket? Wasn't it John McCain? And wasn't it his first presidential-level decision?

And if you are a 72-year-old presidential candidate, wouldn't you expect that your running mate's fitness for high office would come under a little extra scrutiny? And, therefore, wouldn't you make your selection with care? (To say nothing about caring about the future of the nation?)
McCain didn't seem to care that much. McCain admitted recently on national TV that he "didn't know her well at all" before he chose Palin.

But why not? Why didn't he get to know her better before he made his choice?
It's not like he was rushed. McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination in early March. He didn't announce his choice for a running mate until late August.

Wasn't that enough time for McCain to get to know Palin? Wasn't that enough time for his crackerjack "vetters" to investigate Palin's strengths and weaknesses, check through records and published accounts, talk to a few people, and learn that she was not only a diva but a whack job diva?

But McCain picked her anyway. He wanted to close the "enthusiasm gap" between himself and Barack Obama. He wanted to inject a little adrenaline into the Republican National Convention. He wanted to goose up the Republican base.

And so he chose Palin. Is she really a diva and a whack job? Could be. There are quite a few in politics. (And a few in journalism, too, though in journalism they are called "columnists.")

As proof that she is, McCain aides now say Palin is "going rogue" and straying from their script. Wow. What a condemnation. McCain sticks to the script. How well is he doing?
In truth, Palin's real problem is not her personality or whether she takes orders well. Her real problem is that neither she nor McCain can make a credible case that Palin is ready to assume the presidency should she need to.

And that undercuts McCain's entire campaign.

This was the deal McCain made with the devil. In exchange for energizing his base by picking Palin, he surrendered his chief selling point: that he was better prepared to run the nation in time of crisis, whether it be economic, an attack by terrorists or, as he has been talking about in recent days, fending off a nuclear war.

"The next president won't have time to get used to the office," McCain told a crowd in Miami on
Wednesday. "I've been tested, my friends, I've been tested."

But has Sarah Palin?

I don't believe running mates win or lose elections, though some believe they can be a drag on the ticket. Lee Atwater, who was George H.W. Bush's campaign manager in 1988, told me that Dan Quayle cost the ticket 2 to 3 percentage points. But Bush won the election by 7.8 percentage points.

So, in Atwater's opinion, Bush survived his bad choice by winning the election on his own.
McCain could do the same thing. But his campaign's bad decisions have not stopped with Sarah Palin. It has made a series of questionable calls, including making Joe the Plumber the embodiment of the campaign.

Are voters really expected to warmly embrace an (unlicensed) plumber who owes back taxes and complains about the possibility of making a quarter million dollars a year?
And did McCain's aides really believe so little in John McCain's own likability that they thought Joe the Plumber would be more likable?

Apparently so. Which is sad.

We in the press make too much of running mates and staff and talking points and all the rest of the hubbub that accompanies a campaign. In the end, it comes down to two candidates slugging it out.

Either McCain pulls off a victory in the last round or he doesn't; and if he doesn't, he has nobody to blame but himself.

Definition of Feminism

The word "feminist" has gotten a really bad reputation in the last decade. Traditionalist men have used the word to describe what they deem to be 'radical' women. AKA, women who fight them on their own grounds. Women who they feel threatened by. Hilary Clinton is such a woman, as is Margaret Thatcher and Gloria Steinem. Though some women are on more zealous in their political movements, this doesn't change the definition of feminism, which Merriam-Webster states as:


Feminist: Function: noun Date: 1895
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests


How is equality a bad thing? Women STILL get paid less than men, for doing the same jobs! What the hell makes us less worthy of an equal share of everything? These women and more are simply demanding to be treated as an equal, not an antiquated view of the cute little wife with the sexy gams, but no real smarts. A woman is capable of doing anything a man can do and more, because I'd love to see a man have a baby. Men are not superior, they are equal. It is not a bad thing for women to believe this and I think they all should, because they are worth it.

FOr more information on the history of feminism and women's movements, here is the link to the Britannica website.


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/724633/feminism#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=feminism%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia